• 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!

Hank Williams Jr., 1st Amendment Rights?

Hank Williams Jr.'s 1st Amendment Rights were they violated or infringed upon?


  • Total voters
    59
The violent ones.

When has a violent decision ever proven more useful for you than a logical one?




Thompkins simply realized that their POLITICAL stance had affected their BOTTOM LINE, and that the only way to fix it was to sell the company. They tried to make a political statement and it blew up in their faces.

That does not contradict my point.
 
private entities are not relevant for first amendment rights
TD has nailed the reason this has nothing to do with the first amendment which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Just as any US citizen, Hank Jr. has the right to shoot off his mouth. And just as any US citizen he has to accept the social and business consequences for his actions and words. The first amendment simply protects Hank Jr. from the government censuring Hank Jr.'s speech, not from private corporations or individuals deciding not to give him a platform to share his thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Real Football is played on Saturdays.

ESPN is owned by Disney....that says it all.

Can you spell FRUITCAKES ?

HEEEELO:2wave:
 
When has a violent decision ever proven more useful for you than a logical one?

March 1990, in the parking lot at the high school I attended, while waiting for my ride home to arrive. A young man by the name of Keigan, who had been a constant thorn in my side for about three years approached me and started in with a number of insults regarding my birthmark. He chose the wrong day to do so, as I'd already had a terrible day. Without even really thinking about it I balled up my right fist and applied it to his nose with significant force. Suddenly, for the first time in a very long time, it was the insulter who was crying instead of me. He was having to pick his physical form up off the ground and wipe his bloodied nose instead of me having to pick my emotional form up after each encounter with him. I never had another problem with him.
 
March 1990, in the parking lot at the high school I attended, while waiting for my ride home to arrive. A young man by the name of Keigan, who had been a constant thorn in my side for about three years approached me and started in with a number of insults regarding my birthmark. He chose the wrong day to do so, as I'd already had a terrible day. Without even really thinking about it I balled up my right fist and applied it to his nose with significant force. Suddenly, for the first time in a very long time, it was the insulter who was crying instead of me. He was having to pick his physical form up off the ground and wipe his bloodied nose instead of me having to pick my emotional form up after each encounter with him. I never had another problem with him.

Fair enough. But I don't know if that wasn't also a logical decision. Sometimes you have to lash out at a bully in order to stop the bullying.
 
I'm sure someone has pointed this out already: It's not a first amendment issue. He is free to say whatever he likes. And ESPN is free to keep his services or choose not to.
 
March 1990, in the parking lot at the high school I attended, while waiting for my ride home to arrive. A young man by the name of Keigan, who had been a constant thorn in my side for about three years approached me and started in with a number of insults regarding my birthmark. He chose the wrong day to do so, as I'd already had a terrible day. Without even really thinking about it I balled up my right fist and applied it to his nose with significant force. Suddenly, for the first time in a very long time, it was the insulter who was crying instead of me. He was having to pick his physical form up off the ground and wipe his bloodied nose instead of me having to pick my emotional form up after each encounter with him. I never had another problem with him.

Sounds sort of familiar. Back in the early 80s, I was taking some advanced summer classes at high school and a guy on the football team, Mike, was taking summer school math classes. During breaks, everyone ended up in the weight room because there was really nothing else to do. One day, for reasons I never did figure out, Mike decided he wanted to pick on me. He had a good 100 pounds on me, he just started slapping me and punching me in the tight confines of the weight room. I just backed out into the hall. I'd been taking martial arts classes for years and the second I had room to do more than block, I put him on the floor. Didn't hurt him any, except for his pride, but it happened just as the assistant dean came around a corner and we both spent the next half-hour running laps. No clue why any of it happened but we became really good friends after that.
 
Fair enough. But I don't know if that wasn't also a logical decision. Sometimes you have to lash out at a bully in order to stop the bullying.

You said "LASH OUT AT THE BULLY"...
Are you encouraging on starting a fight with a superior stronger person.?
 
One statement on a lousy fox show can end his money train. He has to be one pissed off dude right about now.
 
Fair enough. But I don't know if that wasn't also a logical decision. Sometimes you have to lash out at a bully in order to stop the bullying.

He wasn't a bully. He was just an ***hole. He'd lost a student council homeroom representative election to me back in 8th grade, and he didn't want to let it go. It wasn't a logical decision because if he'd bothered to report the incident I'd have been suspended AND arrested (school board policy).
 
There's a difference. The Dixie Chicks were WRONG both in what they said and in the fact that as women they shouldn't have been commenting on politics to begin with. Hank Jr was absolutely CORRECT in what he said.

You can call Obama inept at his job but it is totally wrong calling him Hitler. Perhaps you should talk to a Holocaust survivor and open your brain a little.

But perhaps the easily use of Hitler to describe someone is that we have become a nation of ******s. We think a little disruption in our lives is equal to the pain many suffered under Hitler. It is pathetic how soft our flabby butts have became.
 
Granted, they apparently have a policy of political neutrality in general. So they might have done the same for a Bush/Hitler comparison.
Apparently they have/ have had a lot of lefties (including Olbermann) in their radio show though, not sure if that counts.

I haven't seen Olbermann on ESPN since he left to go be a talking head on MSNBC.
 
Maybe they're too sensitive about anyone negative being compared favorably to Das Fuhrer.

Yet they were surprisingly silent about the negative press Hitler got when people compared Bush to him. Must be the Liberal Media's fault.
 
I'm too lazy to read the thread. Yes, I hate people like me too.

That said, Hank Williams Jr. has the right to make an ass of himself on national television, and he exercised that right. Others have a right to distance their association from someone who makes an ass of himself on national television, and have exercised that right.

No rights have been violated, all rights have been exercised... do the mashed potatoes come with gravy? 'Cause if they do, I might change my poll vote. :D
 
Predictable knee-jerk reaction on the part of ESPN. Typical in a society where political correctness now supercedes common sense and rational thinking. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Predictable knee-jerk reaction on the part of Foxx. Typical in a society where political correctness now supercedes common sense and rational thinking. :shrug:

What knee-jerk move did fox do?
 
What knee-jerk move did fox do?
Sorry, fixed it. :lol: This is what inevitably happens when attempting to respond to multiple posts simultaneously. The ol' natural data processor isn't what it used to be. :think:
 
Sorry, fixed it. :lol: This is what inevitably happens when attempting to respond to multiple posts simultaneously. The ol' natural data processor isn't what it used to be. :think:

Ooooh ok I get it now.
I dont think it was knee jerk though
over the top? probably IMO
excessive? probably IMO

but its their right

what do you think wasnt common sense and rational about what they did.
 
Ooooh ok I get it now.
I dont think it was knee jerk though
over the top? probably IMO
excessive? probably IMO

but its their right

what do you think wasnt common sense and rational about what they did.
Do you think that people sometimes say things that they don't truly believe or say things before they really think about the implications? Especially those who've donated a large portion of their brains to George Dickel over the past 40 years? :shrug:
 
Do you think that people sometimes say things that they don't truly believe or say things before they really think about the implications? Especially those who've donated a large portion of their brains to George Dickel over the past 40 years? :shrug:

of course, absolutely!

but that doesnt mean there isnt repercussions for what one says or that sometimes what one says cant be taken back.

And not that it matters but in my opinion he planned and wanted to say that, (not all of it but talk about the golf game) if you watch the video its not like a segway led into it, he kind of randomly brought it.

and what does george dickle have to do with it?
 
Hank Williams Jr.'s 1st Amendment Rights were they violated or infringed upon?

no. what part of "Congress shall make no law" do you not understand?
 
Back
Top Bottom