• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Obama' wears straightjacket, crowd goes insane

Rocketman said:
Company orders 'diversity training' for hundreds of employees

It’s hard to decide which is scarier: a grinning “Barack Obama” wearing a straightjacket or the reaction to his appearance at one company’s annual Halloween costume party.

An employee of Jennie Stuart Medical Center in Hopkinsville, Ky., must have thought he had the costume contest all sewn up when he sauntered into the party wearing an Obama mask and a straightjacket.


Photo: WZTV-TV
And he probably couldn’t believe his luck when he and his two pals actually won the third-place trophy for their Halloween skit “VIP Security,” according to local TV station WZTV.

However, soon after their shining moment, a snafu erupted over their Obama schtick.

“I think it is very, very offensive,” C.E. Timberlake, a local pastor, told the TV station. “And really, that shouldn’t have happened.”

Company officials weren’t impressed either after a photograph of the costumed trio began circulating around the office.


Read more at ‘Obama’ wears straightjacket, crowd goes insane


Is this the first President in our history that is off limits when it comes to jokes and ridicule?
Click to expand...

HILARIOUS!

Orders "diversity training"?
Orders?

I think the tool or tools that ordered "diversity training" needs to undergo some type of treatment to undo the brainwashing they've received.

Obama is not above ridicule. At least not yet!
 
CRUE CAB said:
Freedom of expession is officially dead.
Click to expand...

It is not dead.

Are you saying at every workplace you have the ability to express yourself to the extent you want?
 
CRUE CAB said:
No, this business owner thought "hey, I better show that we dont condone mocking THIS president". May get in the way of some Obama bucks coming out of Obamacare to the facility.
Click to expand...

Oh my god I didn't know we had a mind reader on the forums.
 
year2late said:
It is not dead.

Are you saying at every workplace you have the ability to express yourself to the extent you want?
Click to expand...
When said workplace says its ok to have a costume party? They should clearly understand that not everone is going to like every other costume.
Being this is the United States of the Offended. I am not surprised at all that an obama costume is going to get someone in deep trouble.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Freedom of expession is officially dead.
Click to expand...

Darn. I was planning on expressing myself around lunch time today but I guess that's out now.
 
CRUE CAB said:
See, you are now saved from embarrassing your self.
Click to expand...

Well, you may have a point there actually. My mode of expression was going to be through interpretive dance.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Well, you may have a point there actually. My expression was going to be in interpretive dance.
Click to expand...
Unless you are a native American, it probably would have come off looking like Elaine from Seinfeld.
So, its a win win.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Unless you are a native American, it probably would have come off looking like Elaine from Seinfeld.
So, its a win win.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of something more along these lines.

 
Cardinal said:
"Politically Correct" was a term used by socialists to criticize communists in the early 20th century. It did not refer to freedom of speech, but to where loyalty to the party overrode personal judgment and morality. :prof
Click to expand...

Thanks for the history lesson... though the usage of the term has morphed. :)
 
CRUE CAB said:
When said workplace says its ok to have a costume party? They should clearly understand that not everone is going to like every other costume.
Being this is the United States of the Offended. I am not surprised at all that an obama costume is going to get someone in deep trouble.
Click to expand...

The fact is the company (and many others) have rules that state no political costumes. Why is it that hard to realize?
 
TheNextEra said:
The fact is the company (and many others) have rules that state no political costumes. Why is it that hard to realize?
Click to expand...
Was that the rule before this years party? I dont see it anywhere. Or is it just plain improper to make fun of Obama?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Was that the rule before this years party? I dont see it anywhere. Or is it just plain improper to make fun of Obama?
Click to expand...

The company I worked for had that when Bush was president. Like I said, it's not out of the ordinary.
 
apdst said:
Freedom of speech means that you can express an opinion without fear of repercussions. I wouldn't expect a Libbo to appreciate the concept of free speech.
Click to expand...

Umm, no it doesn't. It means you can express an opinion without fear of reprecussions from the government.

No such "freedom of speech" protection from repercussions exists within the civilian population. If a business owner says or does something I find offensive...for example, if he put up a "The Tea Baggers are Racists, vote them out!" sign in his store window..."freedom of speech" doesn't keep me from being able to start a boycott campaign against his store.

You would be ok if your boss forbade you from putting your Obama/Biden sign in your front yard?
Click to expand...

In some states, if it can be reasonably tied back to your job in a detrimental way in some fashion, yes. However, that's not a good analogy to this situation, because this is a case of pictures being passed around AT THE OFFICE and I believe a costume wore at an office costume party.
 
I think sensitivity training over something like this is idiotic, but it's the business owner's perogative.
 
TheNextEra said:
The company I worked for had that when Bush was president. Like I said, it's not out of the ordinary.
Click to expand...

Iam better there was no policy before the party. But he made alittle fun of the messiah, all bets are off.
 
TheNextEra said:
The fact is the company (and many others) have rules that state no political costumes. Why is it that hard to realize?
Click to expand...

while the article does not specify it, that the 'offending' costume placed in the contest, suggests to me that there was no explicit corporate objection to political incorrect attire at the time of the costume party/contest
 
CRUE CAB said:
May want to read that thing called the constitution.
Click to expand...

Actually, YOU MIGHT WANT TO, since the First Amendment says absolutely nothing about a private company's right to enforce standards.
 
Zyphlin said:
Umm, no it doesn't. It means you can express an opinion without fear of reprecussions from the government.

No such "freedom of speech" protection from repercussions exists within the civilian population. If a business owner says or does something I find offensive...for example, if he put up a "The Tea Baggers are Racists, vote them out!" sign in his store window..."freedom of speech" doesn't keep me from being able to start a boycott campaign against his store.



In some states, if it can be reasonably tied back to your job in a detrimental way in some fashion, yes. However, that's not a good analogy to this situation, because this is a case of pictures being passed around AT THE OFFICE and I believe a costume wore at an office costume party.
Click to expand...

So, are you saying that free speech really isnt an inalienable right; more of a privilage?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
So, are you saying that free speech really isnt an inalienable right; more of a privilage?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying "free speech" doesn't mean "free from reprucussion".

Every man has the inalienable freedom to free speech. NO ONE has the inalienable right to freedom of speech free from reprucussion.

Through the social contract of our constitution sets out to prevent THE GOVERNMENT from restricting ones speech. It establishes no such restrictions upon INDIVIDUALS, in part because to do so would be restricting speech.

Dressing as obama in a straight jacket is this using his freedom of "speech" in the understanding of it meaning "expression".

Similarly, the BUSINESS OWNER taking action against his EMPLOYEE is also engaging in his freedom of expression.

Neither are the government, and neither are infringing upon the other persons rights, and both are exercising their own rights.

Seriously, don't try that grade school civics **** with me thinking I'm someone that doesn't understand the difference. I damn well know the difference, and you questioning that isn't going to magically make me live in a world of make believe where the inalienable right to free speech is one that is free from reprucussion and is able to restrict other private citizens own right to free speech and expression.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, I'm saying "free speech" doesn't mean "free from reprucussion".

Every man has the inalienable freedom to free speech. NO ONE has the inalienable right to freedom of speech free from reprucussion.

Through the social contract of our constitution sets out to prevent THE GOVERNMENT from restricting ones speech. It establishes no such restrictions upon INDIVIDUALS, in part because to do so would be restricting speech.

Dressing as obama in a straight jacket is this using his freedom of "speech" in the understanding of it meaning "expression".

Similarly, the BUSINESS OWNER taking action against his EMPLOYEE is also engaging in his freedom of expression.

Neither are the government, and neither are infringing upon the other persons rights, and both are exercising their own rights.

Seriously, don't try that grade school civics **** with me thinking I'm someone that doesn't understand the difference. I damn well know the difference, and you questioning that isn't going to magically make me live in a world of make believe where the inalienable right to free speech is one that is free from reprucussion and is able to restrict other private citizens own right to free speech and expression.
Click to expand...

If soeech is subject to repercussion, then it's not free.
 
apdst said:
If speech is subject to repercussion, then it's not free.
Click to expand...

The limitations of freedom of speech are well documented by SCOTUS:

First Amendment and the Meaning of "Free Speech"

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It ensures against governmental intrusions on the essential personal freedoms - freedom of religion: freedom of the press; free expression; freedom of association; and, freedom of assembly. Regarding free expression, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech”. The Courts have interpreted the language to mean that no arm of the government, federal or state, can abridge the free speech right. In this context, MSU is an arm of state government.


What does the right of free expression encompass? The government may not: a) prohibit one’s own expression; b) prevent one from receiving another’s expression; c) compel one to express certain views; d) foster adherence to an ideological viewpoint; or, e) compel one to subsidize speech to which one objects. It is the right to express one’s beliefs, without any form of governmental interference, that is at the heart of “free speech.”
Click to expand...

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
Click to expand...


By the business world:

Where Free Speech Goes to Die: The Workplace - Businessweek

In America you can say pretty much whatever you want, wherever you want to say it. Unless, that is, you’re at work. Simply put, there is no First Amendment right to “free speech” in the workplace—potentially perilous for many employees in a polarized political year with a tight presidential race.

Employers have the right to take action against any employee who engages in political speech that company leaders find offensive. With a few narrow exceptions the Constitution and the federal laws derived from it only protect a person’s right to expression from government interference, not from the restrictions a private employer may impose, lawyers say.
Click to expand...
 
Kobie said:
Actually, YOU MIGHT WANT TO, since the First Amendment says absolutely nothing about a private company's right to enforce standards.
Click to expand...

And seems private company didnt have any rules as to what was off limits before the fuss from the NAACP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom