John, where ever you got your education, I want to go there. Dan V
At 03:24 PM 4/17/2007 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said something that elicited my response: >I wrote that. I appologize if it offended anyone. I'm on drug therapy and >alone a lot. i'm sure I had a point or something that went with it, but my >appology stands. I wasn't trying to offend anyone, except maybe a few religous >hypocrits that aren't on the list. > >john > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: quad-list@eskimo.com >Sent: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:55 PM >Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] freedom of speech > >At 07:20 PM 4/15/2007 -0700, Dan T said something that elicited my response: > >>I think the excess eggs should be served at communion. Like the caviar of >>Christ or something. Maybe add a caudacill from Mary >>false and malicious statement or report about someone > >Well as Catholics we are suppose to believe that the Host IS the BODY and >BLOOD >of Christ - kind of gruesome when you think about it. So doesn't it follow >that this would be an appropriate use of these soon to be trashed cells? > >Anyway, the correct definition of Libel is: "A false publication, as in >writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation." Or: >"a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a >living person". You left out the last clause. In any event, it doesn't damage >anyones reputation. > >What about hate talk? It certainly isn't that. The following are a few >examples of hate talk: > >'We ought to send those niggers back to Africa where they came from'. >'All cripples should be shot as all they do is leech off the system.' >'Those God damn Jews killed Jesus and I say they should pay for it'. > >See the difference? You may not like what was posted to this list and that is >your prerogative so just delete it. And toughen up your skin a little - it's a >rough world out there ;) > >Dan V > >>Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Dan T, >> >>If you can find them, where are they? Are they really Hate talk? Are they >>really slander (actually the correct word is libel)? If so, please give me >>the legal definition of the two (you can use a free on-line dictionary) and >>how they relate. I am also a Catholic but I was not offended by anything I >>read on this topic. >> >>Dan V >> >>At 08:34 PM 4/13/2007 -0700, Dan T said something that elicited my response: >> >>>Dan, I can find those items you questioned below and they are particularly >>>offensive to me as a Catholic. Dan T. >>> >>>Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>What in the Hell are you people talking about! Hate talk? By who? Slander? >>>By who? Remember boys and girls just because someone doesn't agree with you, >>>you can't start calling them names. If you can't stand the heat, get out of >>>the kitchen. In other words, grow up. >>> >>>Dan V >>Jim Lubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>You can't use "freedom of speech" to justify hate speech. It was completely >>uncalled for, as were most of his other rants. >>Angie, I think you were the one that brought up the freedom of speech issue >>but with that freedom comes responsibility. No one has the right to slander >>others or their beliefs. A point or opinion can be expressed civilly. Dan >>T. > > > > > > >---------- >AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from >AOL at <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437>AOL.com.
