Tag Archives: first-amendment

Eminem Panics Crowd with Gunshot Sound Effects, Isn’t Sorry

Last year, viewers  slammed Eminem's performance . They called him a hack and a has been. Hey, everone's a critic, right? Now, however, he's being criticized for something much more serious — for setting off gunshot noises at his concert. The crowd visibly ducked in fear. And he's getting dragged for making thousands of people think that they were about to die in a hail of bullets. The Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival, most often known as Bonnaroo, isa  four-day music festival that takes place each summer in Manchester, Tennessee. If you live in Tennessee or any of the surrounding states, this is the festival that your friends who are willing to brave musicals attend each year. Unfortunately, some concert-goers received a serious fright. During his song, “Kill You,” pyrotechnics produced a chillingly realistic gunshot noise. So much so that, as you can see in the video that we included, the crowd was ducking in fear. The video quickly circulated on Twitter, inciting outrage. “Less than a year after Vegas and  @ Eminem  thinks it’s a good idea to blast gun shot sfx onstage at a music festival? Bad call on this headliner  @ bonnaroo . What happened to Radiate Positivity?” The  Las Vegas shooting  that claimed dozens of lives and wounded hundreds took place at the beginning of last October. Many of the victims had attended a Jason Aldean concert. For concert-goers to hear very realistic gunshot noises … it seems very natural for so many of them to instinctively fear for their lives. That doesn't sound like a good time. Eminem is no stranger to controversy. His team responded that these were not actual “gunshot” noises, but pyrotechnic concussion effects featuring a sonic boom. That seems like splitting hairs, but whatever. As always, his diehard fans were eager to jump to his defense. One person took to Twitter to refer to a previous performance of “Kill You.” “You can hear the same sound at the end you idiots. Watch some Eminem performance before going to one.” That's a little harsh. “So you grew up listening to Eminem but you didn’t expect gun shot sounds on his set.” Well, some would argue that it's a different experience when mass shootings are so common. “The gunshot actually makes the performance 10 times better.” We'll take that person's word for it. Some have argued that legislation should curtail this sort of element within a performance. There would be legal precedent. A famous First Amendment exception to free speech is using that speech to do harm, such as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Many would say that Eminem setting off such realistic sounding gunshots is the equivalent, and could provoke the crowd to trample each other in fear. After all, actual mass shootings occur multiple times per week, thanks to the widespread and virtually unchecked availability of tools designed for killing. Gunshots in music online or in other media (such as films) is different, as it comes with a visual context and is not usually consumed in massive, dense crowds of people who are standing shoulder-to-shoulder. Are gunshot effects in concerts a threat to concert-goers? Were Eminem's diehard defenders right to criticize fans for freaking out at the sounds of gunshots, since they were expected by many as part of the show? Or were concert-goers right to react instinctively — better safe than sorry — and were critics right to condemn the use of the sounds? Maybe the problem has nothing to do with the audience, the critics, or even Eminem. Maybe living every single day with the knowledge that we could die in a hail of bullets while going to a theater or using mass transit or attending school or a house of worship is the culprit. Perhaps fixing our nation's gun culture and gun epidemic will help to repair some of the other fractures and conflicts in our society. And people won't have any reason to fear attending a concert.

Excerpt from:
Eminem Panics Crowd with Gunshot Sound Effects, Isn’t Sorry

Petty Patrol: 8 Of The Most Outrageous & Ridiculous NFL Fines Of All Time

See more here:

Source: colin Kaepernick / Getty So the NFL has officially made it crystal clear that they don’t stand in solidarity with people who are protesting the epidemic of Black folks being murdered by law enforcement on a daily basis.   The organization has decided to fine any player who doesn’t stand during the National Anthem. Players will be allowed to stay in the locker room during the national anthem, but their teams will be fined by the league if they go onto the field and kneel. If the NFL thing was about the flag & anthem, you’d be outraged when Trump doesn’t hold a hand over his heart & botches the words. If it was about troops, you’d be as pissed about Niger as about Benghazi. It’s not principle. It’s about control of brown bodies. Stop the bullshit. — Jeffrey Wright (@jfreewright) May 23, 2018 Does that mean team owners were lying about not hiring Colin Kaepernick for “other reasons unrelated to his protest?” Colin Kaepernick kneeling should have led to a real conversation about police brutality. Instead it led to a bunch of faux patriots dictating who does and doesn't support the military. And the NFL owners bought right into it. — Jake Dawson (@jdny2) May 23, 2018 But even before his kneeling days, Kaep wasn’t afraid to take a stand for the greater good.   Back in 2014, he was fined $10,000 for rocking Pink Beats Headphones in honor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The NFL has an exclusive partnership with Bose headphones, so they weren’t having any of the Beats’ madness.   Hit the flip for more of the most bizarre fines given in NFL history.

Petty Patrol: 8 Of The Most Outrageous & Ridiculous NFL Fines Of All Time

You Mad Donnie? Court Rules That Trump Can’t Block People On Twitter

Continued here:

Source: Icon Sportswire / Getty Donald Trump thought he could get away with blocking people on Twitter. But knock knock Donnie. You’re the president. The same rules don’t apply to you as everyone else.   A federal judge in Manhattan, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, ruled that blocking users from viewing Trump’s Twitter account is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment. “While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the President’s personal First Amendment rights, he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him,” Buchwald said.   The court decided that all people should have access to the president’s tweets. …probably because, I don’t know, HE’S THE PRESIDENT. A PUBLIC SERVANT.   The whole case was brought about by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. They represented seven people who were blocked by Trump. Lawyers argued that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is a “public forum” under the First Amendment, and Trump — along with his White House social media director Dan Scavino and then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer — were violating the plaintiffs’ right to petition their government for redress or grievances. So, yea. Sorry, Trump. You can’t be blocking people for coming at you. You’re the president. Act like it.

You Mad Donnie? Court Rules That Trump Can’t Block People On Twitter

Hate Crime? Five Black Men Attack 2 White Men Over Confederate Flag Truck Decal [Video]

Fight Breaks Out Over Confederate Flag On Truck One thing is for sure, some people are EXTRA passionate about keeping their Confederate flags . One group of men outside a Salt Lake City hotel decided they were going to force two white men to either move their car or remove a Confederate flag magnet off of their car — to the point where things got physical. Now, one of the victims is pushing to have the beating labeled a hate crime . Via NYDN : Investigators have yet to find the six or seven unidentified African-American men seen beating up two white men outside the Red Lion Hotel in a YouTube video, Salt Lake City Police Det. Cody Lougy told the Daily News Thursday night. Prosecutors will decide whether they follow one victim’s wishes and charge the suspects with hate crimes in the Sunday morning assault, Lougy noted. But the three-by four-inch decal touched off an argument that turned physical, he said. The group can be heard in the video telling one of the white men to move his truck and saying that one of them is “mad he has a f—— Confederate flag on the back of his s—.” A man with a Halloween mask on top of his head knocks one of the white men down with one punch before the group gangs up on the other one and beats him up in the footage. Neither man was hospitalized after the attack, according to Lougy. The victims say that had roles been reversed, they would definitely be charged with a hate crime. So they want the same treatment for this instance: The pair of men from Wyoming had come to town for the Garth Brooks concert Saturday night, one of the victims, Kelly Leeper, told the Deseret News. They went to the show with one of their friends who is black, and the First Amendment gives him the right to display Confederate imagery even though it can be controversial to do so, he said. Leeper wants the authorities to charge the suspects with hate crimes and he’ll “be damned if I ever come to Salt Lake again without bringing my gun,” he told KTSU-TV. “If the situation was reversed, and if there was a large group of white males who confronted two black gentlemen who, hypothetically, had a sticker on their vehicle that said, ‘Black lives matter,’ it would be dubbed a hate crime in a heartbeat,” Leeper said in the Deseret News. “So where’s the double standard there?” Hmmmm…do you agree? They definitely didn’t need to attack the men, especially if neither of them said anything to the group to begin with. But should this be treated as a race-based attack?

Excerpt from:
Hate Crime? Five Black Men Attack 2 White Men Over Confederate Flag Truck Decal [Video]

Where Is PETA?!? Texas Woman Pleads Guilty To Brutally Killing Then Having Sex With Cats And Dogs On Film

Texas Woman Pleads Guilty To Producing Animal Snuff Movies An ain’t isht Texas couple is facing years in prison for producing animal snuff flicks. Via Houston Chronicle : One of the first persons in the nation to face federal charges under the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 pleaded guilty in Houston on Tuesday and may become a government informant on sex trafficking crimes. Ashley Nicole Richards, 24, admitted to four counts of creating animal crush videos and one film distribution charge. Animal crush is a sexual fetish in which small mammals such as puppies and kittens are tortured, maimed or killed for the sexual gratification of observers. Videos of such acts, sometimes described as rituals or sacrifices, have been marketed for sale and broadcast online. In the films, a scantily clad Richards, sometimes masked, can be seen stabbing animals – including a puppy, a kitten and a chicken – as well as chopping off their limbs and urinating on them while making sexual comments to the camera. In one of the videos seized by authorities, Richards punctured a cat’s eye with a shoe heel. A kitten was killed in a crush series in which she starred and that was filmed, prosecutors allege, by Justice. In 2013, U.S. District Judge Sim Lake dismissed the five counts of video creation and distribution against Richards and Justice, citing the films as protected free speech under the First Amendment. But last year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the charges, noting that the First Amendment allows limited restrictions on some speech, including obscenity, and that the federal law passed constitutional muster because of the “secondary effects” of the videos. Richards faces a federal sentence of up to seven years. Bury these sickos under the jail!!!

Read more here:
Where Is PETA?!? Texas Woman Pleads Guilty To Brutally Killing Then Having Sex With Cats And Dogs On Film

There’s An Unsexy Truth About Your Friendships And Your Sex Life

When boys and girls both start having sex, their friends see it in two very different ways.

Excerpt from:
There’s An Unsexy Truth About Your Friendships And Your Sex Life

This H.S. Journalism Teacher Tried To Teach Her Students About Free Speech And Got Benched

California H.S. teacher Jennifer Kim encouraged her journalism students to fight for their First Amendment rights using the school newspaper and that advice had serious consequences.

Continue reading here:
This H.S. Journalism Teacher Tried To Teach Her Students About Free Speech And Got Benched

Iggy Azalea Quits Instagram

Iggy Azalea Quits Instagram Looks like all this Aussie has left is Facebook. After quitting Twitter a few weeks back over getting teased over her dented rented cakes , she’s now out of the Instagram game after getting dragged over demanding more privacy. She posted the below snap to IG with an essay about how much she wants to just be regular and left alone: After fans and followers barraged her with claims that it’s all part of the celebrity package and that she should basically go cry on her money. She responded to one commenter with the following: I don’t care about being relevant. I just want to live my life and deserve for whatever I do in the privacy of my own property not to be on a blog. That’s just human decency and if it’s hard for you to understand then you have a warped sense of reality. I’m not here for yall, don’t want or need you to talk about me and would be wildly happy if being irrelevant meant being able to check the mail in the morning without seeing a photographer hiding out in a car across the street. Peace! Welp, when she said “Peace!” she clearly meant it. Here is what her account looked like early in the morning: This chick doesn’t seem to be quite tough enough for the spotlight. Welp…should we all just give her her wish and make her irrelevant? She said she’d be wildly happy about it.

See original here:
Iggy Azalea Quits Instagram

Why This Man’s Facebook Photos May Send Him To Prison For A Murder He Didn’t Commit

Man With Clean Criminal Record Jailed For Murder Over Facebook Posts A Las Vegas man was taken into custody and carted back to his hometown of San Diego in July 2014. He had no idea why he was being picked up until authorities let him know he was being taken in for a string of murders in the state of California. Even though he was positive that he had never killed anyone — and ironically, the DA in charge of his arrest was certain of this too — his perceived association with gang members who may have had landed him behind bars. Via Voice of San Diego : District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is using an obscure criminal statute, Penal Code section 182.5, for what appears to be the first time ever in California to prosecute a group of 15 San Diego men, including Harvey. The DA has admitted that some of the men had nothing to do with the underlying crimes at the heart of the case – a series of shootings by Lincoln Park gang members in 2013. Rather, they’re charged with conspiracy for belonging to the same gang as the shooters. For that, they could go to prison for life. It’s guilt by association, basically, and if federal law is any guide, it’s perfectly constitutional. The law says a person who “willfully promotes, furthers, assists, or benefits” from a gang crime can be charged with conspiracy. The benefit Harvey received out of the shootings, according to the DA, is street cred. If someone in the gang commits a crime, the reasoning goes, the whole gang gets a boost to its reputation. “They’re saying I benefited because my stature, my respect, went up. I didn’t even know I had any stature. I don’t understand how someone can benefit from something they don’t even know exists,” said Harvey. “It’s not a quantifiable thing, there’s no measure for stature. They’re the ones quantifying it.” You may recall a local rapper was arrested under the same code last month, for his own perceived affiliation with the same gang — except his “crime” was name-dropping gang members and landmarks that associate him. But Harvey’s association with the gang comes from “evidence” compiled mainly from Facebook: Harvey’s case has none of those sexy First Amendment issues. Much of the evidence being presented against him isn’t rap lyrics but Facebook posts that prosecutors say link him unmistakably to the Lincoln Park gang. But he, like Duncan, has no criminal record and is facing up to life in prison if convicted. Harvey insists he’s no gang member – just a victim of living in a gang-heavy neighborhood, and thus, falling into the state’s gang database by virtue of having been seen in gang territory and socializing with other gang members, i.e., his friends and neighbors. First they justify killing us, now they find creative shortcuts to justify putting us all in jail for crimes we didn’t commit. SMH. Dustin Michelson / Voice Of San Diego

See the article here:
Why This Man’s Facebook Photos May Send Him To Prison For A Murder He Didn’t Commit

Fair Or Foul?? Study Shows Most Americans Believe Businesses Have The Right To Deny Gay Couples For Religious Reasons

Poll Shows Most Americans Business Have A Right To Deny Gays Via The Grio reports: While finding that Americans narrowly favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, a new Associated Press-GfK poll also shows most believe wedding-related businesses should be allowed to deny service to same-sex couples for religious reasons. Roughly half the country also thinks local officials and judges with religious objections ought to be exempt from any requirement that they issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, according to the poll. That view of the same-sex marriage issue echoes that of the Mormon church. Last week, the church called on state legislatures to pass new laws that protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination but also to protect the rights of those who assert their religious beliefs. David Kenney, a self-employed Catholic from Novi, Michigan, said he’s fine with same-sex marriage being legal. He’s among the 57 percent of Americans who said wedding-related businesses — such as florists — should be allowed to refuse service if they have an objection rooted in their religion. “Why make an issue out of one florist when there are probably thousands of florists?” asked Kenney, 59. “The gay community wants people to understand their position, but at the same time, they don’t want to understand other people’s religious convictions. It’s a two-way street.” Kenney isn’t alone. About a quarter of those who favor legal same-sex marriage also favor religious exemptions for those who issue marriage licenses, the poll finds, and a third say wedding-related businesses should be allowed to refuse service. Geri Rice, who lives near San Francisco and works in law firm management, strongly favors gay marriage. She’s torn about whether a public official with religious objections should be exempt from issuing a license but says she believes that business owners should be allowed to tell somebody no thanks. “I don’t like it,” Rice said, “but I think they have the right.” Whether a business can refuse service to someone is a matter of federal, state and local law. National gay-rights groups called the idea of trying to carve out religious exemptions in anti-discrimination statues, such as those proposed by leaders of the Mormon church, deeply flawed. James Esseks, who directs the LGBT project of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom “does not give any of us the right to harm others, and that’s what it sounds like the proposal from the Mormon church would do.” The poll found that 44 percent of Americans favor and 39 percent oppose legal same-sex marriage in their own states, while 15 percent expressed no opinion. But the country is evenly divided, 48 percent to 48 percent, on which way the Supreme Court should rule when it decides the issue for the entire nation this spring. Discuss…

Excerpt from:
Fair Or Foul?? Study Shows Most Americans Believe Businesses Have The Right To Deny Gay Couples For Religious Reasons