>>>>>>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=C1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The courts don't have the common decency or enough balls to do what is right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I predict some well deserved fatalities on the Westboro side shortly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>FWIW, while I detest Westboro's behavior, I think the court ruled correctly in this case. It's not free speech unless we protect the right to say things we hate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry Tamar, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Their message is hate. If their message were aimed at Jews instead of Homosexuals, would it still be detestable but acceptable? It would not. Nor should it be. Nor would the courts allow it. Spreading hate is spreading hate, even if the target is homosexuals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's not "acceptable" at all. But it is legal. That's the issue (the right to free speech), not whether the speech is hateful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course it's acceptable. The court said so. If it weren't acceptable, it wouldn't be legal. When society sees something as unacceptable, it creates laws around it. Society sees purse snatching as unacceptable, so it makes it illegal. Society sees prostitution as unacceptable, so it makes it illegal. If this is legal, then society has said it is acceptable. Not all speech is free. There are lots of things one cannot say, and why? Society has deemed those things unacceptable, and hence, illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are lots of things that are not acceptable (that is, socially acceptable) that are perfectly legal. We have levels of acceptability. Some things are so unacceptable that we make them illegal. Others aren't that bad, but doing them can make you a pariah. (Think scratching your butt in public.) Others may be unacceptable only at some times and in some places. (For example, talking on your cell is fine on the sidewalk, but unacceptable in a movie.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>There is a difference between what is unacceptable to society, and what is unacceptable to you or to me. If talking on a cell phone in the theatre were unacceptable to society as a whole, it would be stopped. Unfortunately, there are many to whom it is perfectly acceptable. That's why there is no law barring it.
>>>
>>>But will you agree that there are many things that are unacceptable to society, but legal? I thought the butt-scratching example was a pretty good one.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Unless it's done by a 'so called' comedian on stage, or in a movie or on TV. Again, if these things are so unacceptable as to make someone a pariah, then how come people get paid good money to do them in public while the watchers seem to think it's about the funniest thing ever?
>
>Comedy is often about doing things that are socially unacceptable.
>

Exactly. Often we laugh because these are things we can't normally laugh at. Sam Kinison, one of my favorites, practically specialized in blasphemy. It isn't necessary -- Robin Williams has had a great career, one of the best, without being all that raunchy -- but it can be alluring.

Then there are those comics who are raunchy without being funny. I give you Andrew Dice Clay and Martin Lawrence. Aren't comics supposed to be funny?