Recent comments in /f/nottheonion

mormagils t1_jckj620 wrote

Reply to Residents’ Right to Be Rude Upheld by Massachusetts Supreme Court by JackFunk

As much as it sucks, it's a good ruling. Civility codes are notoriously hard to enforce, and often are misused if the content is perceived to be rude. Ultimately stuff like this just gives bad faith actors weapons to wield against their political opponents, and that's not a good thing in local political situations because the sample size often results in partisan misuse.

114

gooseberryfalls t1_jckj43p wrote

Reply to Residents’ Right to Be Rude Upheld by Massachusetts Supreme Court by JackFunk

Article 19 in the Massachusetts Constitution, ratified in 1780. By laying out the right to request “redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer,” the justices noted, they aimed to protect the colonists’ freedom to rail against King George III,

​

Its good that we are regularly reminded of why the laws we have today were put in place. It reminds us there are fundamental truths that we should hold dear

14

david-z-for-mayor t1_jcki64u wrote

Reply to San Francisco Cop Gets Revenge on Man Who Insulted His Mom: 'He's in The Clink' by Best_Outcome_5960

There are definitely problems with policing in the United States. Cops are supposed to “serve and protect” the people but focus too much on serving and protecting the government which serves and protects the status quo. Police only get a few months of training (3 months in South Dakota) and too much of that is focused on control and not enough focused on deescalation. The drug policies cops enforce are based on punishment and not treatment. The Supreme Court doctrine of qualified immunity protects bad cops and Congress doesn’t override the court. Police internal review is a sham because people have a natural tendency to protect their own people. We definitely need to reform police training and goals. We also need to reform government.

3

not-rasta-8913 t1_jckhk95 wrote

Reply to comment by Bunsmar in Residents’ Right to Be Rude Upheld by Massachusetts Supreme Court by JackFunk

A lot of people don't realize this. If we lose the right to be rude or offensive it becomes a very slippery slope. Especially if some idiot puts it into law. Then all one would have to say "I find that offensive" to get someone in trouble. Emphasis on "say" because what someone finds offensive is totally subjective and they could be lying and we'd have no proof.

117

EmptyCalories t1_jckfsby wrote

Reply to comment by imnotreel in San Francisco Cop Gets Revenge on Man Who Insulted His Mom: 'He's in The Clink' by Best_Outcome_5960

>Sgt. Adam Plantinga said he saw a man peeing in public about a year ago and told him to knock it off, and the man responded with some “choice words” about the officer’s mother and cursed at him, according to the officer’s tweet.
>
>“Saw him today and ran a wanted check. Behold, a felony warrant. So now he’s in the clink …” the tweet added.
>
>"Say what you want about me, but you malign my mother and it's on. Kathleen Fay Plantinga is a light in this world."

A little of column A and a little of column B.

17

Bunsmar t1_jck8wm6 wrote

Reply to Residents’ Right to Be Rude Upheld by Massachusetts Supreme Court by JackFunk

This is a very good thing, and if it helps, think of it as "the right to be thought of as rude". Like "the freedom to be offensive" sounds a little off-putting until you realize that it means that you are free to exist as you are even if some neighbor finds your politics or sexual orientation "offensive"

308