Spoilers The Flash - Season 6
- Thread starter Christopher
- Start date
Wallace is the king.
Kings are shitty pieces.
Its actually Wallace's job to represent the women and protect the women, but try saying that without coming off as an ass.
I understand that argument which IMO is why we need to make it law against filming people like this. Forget about this Karen example and imagine if someone filmed someone cheating on their wife or someone doing something that would embarrass them if everyone they knew saw it. Maybe someone is gay and haven't come out of the closet to their family you outed them by taking a picture of two guys holding hands or something. People should have privacy to at least not be filmed in ways they don't want unless they give their permission. We already seen this somewhat where you can't have guys take pictures of women's private area's like in upskirt pics. They should extend that to all people. Unless maybe your capturing a major crime. Police brutality video's being one and those exceptions should be written into the law. I also think it should may be copy tweets of other people, especially ones erased against that persons wishes. If you make a tweet someone shouldn't be reading it on Facebook or YouTube for example.
Jason
Jason
That is a very slippery slope.
NO. No, no, no.
Before all this shit got recorded white people simply did not believe it happened to black people. If that man had not recorded what Amy Cooper did it would've been her word against his, and how often do you think it's gone the black man's way?
It's unfortunate, but here we are, a black man needs video evidence to prove he didn't assault or threaten a woman--who was in the very act of committing a crime--a false report, in an attempt to weaponize the police for her benefit.
Life isn't that fucking hard: don't be a douche bag and 99% of the time you're gonna be just fine. Twitter won't come for ya.
That's why I would want it spelled out what can and can't be filmed. Someone committing a crime would be one thing. Plus maybe before someone is posted someone should be able to look at it before to make sure someones privacy isn't being invaded. A review board of some kind. Internet could use some good oversight.
Jason
Police brutality and crimes would still be able to be filmed. Just things that aren't illegal or if their is some debate then you have a review board to judge if it should be allowed. Lots of things on the internet shouldn't have people passing judgment on them.
Jason
People passing judge on others has been around a long time.
It's time you know: life isn't fair. It doesn't come with a fucking review board.
Like I said: don't be a douche. That means, maybe not cheating on your spouse. And that means, hey create an environment where it's ok to have a gay son or daughter so they don't have to hide in a closet.
Edited to add: Here's another great example of why taping in public shouldn't be outlawed.
Clearly the black woman was being treated poorly because of her race. Without the receipts, who's going to believe her? In Tennessee.
Last edited:
The problem with this, is that a lot of this stuff isn't easily defined, so you can't just assume everyone is going to have the same definition of it as you do.
Even if you try to put together a group to decide impartially, there are still going to be prejudices that make there way onto. Not to mention the fact that's the kind of power that is inevitibly going to abused, it might start out innocent enough, but before you know they'll end up controling everything we're allowed to see.
I know but that is why you would have several people making the choice. I checks and balance approach to make sure it doesn't always come down to one person. I thinks very important to start doing things to protect people's right when it comes to the power these tech companies have over us. One if things people use with free speech is the company has the right because free speech is about government control. The thing is these companies are now bigger than our government. They have more influence and power and thus when they make rules with it's customers it's more than some small mom and pop store kicking out a unruly customer. It has impact on society as a whole and even on a global scale. That's why things like free speech, privacy and all the things that are important to a free society our protected at all cost. If they want to fix the system so people can block certain youtube videos or tweeters that would be fine plus a grading scale so people know if something is going to be R rated or Pg rated or political or non-political that would be fine but to deny access unless were talking major league stuff like someone is plotting a crime then society should fall on the side of people's rights.
Jason
Who chooses the people sitting on the board, Jason? Think about it before you answer.
Maybe from the FCC or something from Congress. Make a mandate that a Democrat and Republican have to have at least two members on the board and the 5th one would go to the party of whoever is in control of Congress that year. Though a effort should made to make sure everyone is impartial so find moderate types within both parties.
Jason
Jason
Oh, hell no, the absolute last thing you want to do is give anyone in the government that kind of control over what we see/hear, that is an absolute guarantee of a Big Brother situation. No matter how careful you try to be, giving anyone that kind of control over what we see/hear will end up with them censoring, and blocking anything they don't like, and if we give that kind of power to the government we can pretty much say goodbye to ever seeing anything that paints them in a bad light.
No matter how you try to present it, that is just way to much control for one group to have over everyone else.
No matter how you try to present it, that is just way to much control for one group to have over everyone else.
So now you’ve politicized it. Well done. And not only that, it’s based on a popularity contest. Double well done. Because it’s one thing Americans like to see are things that make them intensely uncomfortable.
Well maybe requiring both parties is to far. The desire for a moderate approach though would still be a good idea. Basically it just comes down to some kind of oversight to protect people's rights. To that though we have to accept that these companies are not just regular companies due to how society has changed with the invention of the internet. Some of our past laws have not kept up with the changes.
Jason
Jason
Actually, there is--it's the same principle. And it arguably violates your civil rights--to an extent. Do you think actors should be blackballed if they vote for a conservative?
Civil rights laws tend to disagree.
Well, I think we aren't too far off then. They show may have had the right to do so, but that doesn't make it right, and the logic behind it is very dangerous and will lead to stifling of free speech.
The religion or race of the maker is not relevant. Try showing Blazing Saddles in a college, and they will try to ban it. Mel Brooks also made a LOT of racial jokes as well. Watch the first few minutes of Blazing Saddles. Actually, don't--I can tell you have seen it and know exactly why it's funny. Hollywood is using presentism to change history and it's not good.
From a football player in the middle of a game, yes. Sawyer didn't do anything like that.
In your job where it isn't appropriate? Yes. Sawyer didn't do anything like that.
No--what I see is the difference. HERE is where your argument makes more sense. I see a distinction between what the appropriate action is. If Kaepernick held a rally on his own time, that's one thing. But when you're on the clock, you need to do your job, not make a statement. That's why it is appropriate for an employer to discipline him. He embarrassed the league and angered millions of fans. His gesture overwhelmed his statement.
The only thing Sawyer and Kaepernick have in common is that they embarrassed their employers. The level of discipline is different because Kaepernick did it while employed.
You're completely misreading everything, and making it about race when it isn't. And get real. Kaepernick was a failed QB trying to use race to stay in a league that he simply isn't good enough to play in. That's why he publicly announced he would end his protest when his contract was up. I'm not saying he didn't have a right to express himself--but do it on your own time, not your employer's.
You're right that some forms of speech have consequences. I think no NFL team wanting such a toxic element on their roster is a reasonable consequence to what Kaepernick does. He's not Tom Brady. If Tom Brady kneeled, he'd still have a job because he's talented. But Kaepernick is toxic and not serious about playing football. If he was, he would have shown up when he was offered a workout in front of a bunch of NFL teams.
Sawyer did not act while employed. That's not racial. That's fact. If Candace Patton made similar jokes years ago, she shouldn't be fired either. Completely different examples.
The NFL is bowing to pressure. They were not wrong at all. It's football, not a political rally. And again, the man is not good enough to play in the NFL.
It's a little different. She did what she did off the clock, but it was current and made national news. It's not like she did it 8 years ago. Plus, honestly, I think it was a lot worse than what Sawyer did.
There are right to privacy laws.
I'm glad Cooper was filmed. It would have been terrible if the man faced charges for things he didn't do. But that goes in the other direction too. It would be naive to think that there aren't false claims of racism too. See Jussie Smollett or Tawana Brawley.
Privacy laws are very important, but so is justice. I don't think Amy Cooper's right to privacy was violated though. She was in a public place and recorded in a confrontation outside and in public. That's different than say, cheating on your spouse, in a hotel, where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
There are already laws dealing with that. I don't believe Amy Cooper was wronged in her case.
There are apparently four states that have laws on the books stating (with some restrictions depending upon the state) that an employee cannot be fired for lawful conduct outside of the office/working hours. California is one of them (along with Colorado, New York, and North Dakota), though the Flash is filmed in Vancouver and morals clauses have been ruled enforceable in California (particularly for actors).
What it will take though is someone to sue and that case eventually making it up to the Supreme Court which I think is what will eventually happen. At some point their is going to be something that clearly defines what privacy means when it comes to the internet and how it can also impact your real life. Unless the system doesn't fully fall apart before then. Not so sure it won't.
Jason
I'm not clear on how it could become an issue for the Supreme Court under current law. State laws, however, could always do something about the issue (if they wanted to follow the example of California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota).
Here is a summary I found online of the state laws as of 2010:
The issue of employees' rights to engage in certain off-duty activities and in the competing authority of their employers to prohibit them from doing so has received significant attention from lawmakers and other policymakers. In total, 29 states and the District of Columbia have statutes that protect employees' from adverse employment actions based on their off-duty activities. These statutes provide three different levels of protection 1) use of tobacco only; 2) use of lawful products; and 3) any and all lawful activities.
•18 jurisdictions have enacted "tobacco only" statutes. These include: Connecticut, District of Columbia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
•8 states protect the use of lawful products. These are Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
•4 states offer statutory protection for employees who engage in lawful activities. These are California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota.
https://www.ncsl.org/documents/employ/off-dutyconductdiscrimination.pdf
I think it might come down to not being able to fire people for things that are not illegal unless it's because of job performance. Granted you can still fire someone but then your open to a lawsuit at which point a impartial judge would determine if you crossed the line. Which makes sense to me.
Jason
Jason