• 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
Those are the same idiots that think raising taxes on the wealthy is class warfare while they go to work all day for $10 an hour and then come home to their trailer. (yeah I know it's a terrible run on sentence but I am leaving it!)
 
You have the right to say pretty much anything you want. You dont have the right to avoid consequences.
 
VanceMack said:
You have the right to say pretty much anything you want. You dont have the right to avoid consequences.
Click to expand...

THis is my thinking too and exactly right. No freedoms were taken away, he can say the exact same thing tomorrow too, and the next day, his freedom of speech is still present.
 
Is ESPN the government? If not, then this is obviously not a first amendment issue.
 
Beware....Big Brother has eyes and years everywere.

"Are You Ready For Some....SOCIALISM"!!!......."An everyday STRUGGLE"!!!

Come on sing along....
 
dixiesolutions said:
Beware....Big Brother has eyes and years everywere.

"Are You Ready For Some....SOCIALISM"!!!......."An everyday STRUGGLE"!!!

Come on sing along....
Click to expand...

Big Brother?
Socialism?

uhm conspiracy threads are lower on the page ;)
 
Centrist77 said:
I read on here and some other places that people think that Hanks/1st amendment rights were violated or infringed upon in some what.

DO you think this is true?

I do not and cannot see how the correlation is made?

ESPN pulls Monday Night Football intro - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN
Click to expand...

It's not a legal issue, his rights weren't violated. But the double-standard is staggering. It's impossible to even count the number of people comparing Bush to Hitler. Yet you can't even use Hitler in a comparison to a situation involving Obama without inciting some huge controversy. I can't honestly imagine this happening if it were Bush instead.
 
Dav said:
It's not a legal issue, his rights weren't violated. But the double-standard is staggering. It's impossible to even count the number of people comparing Bush to Hitler. Yet you can't even use Hitler in a comparison to a situation involving Obama without inciting some huge controversy. I can't honestly imagine this happening if it were Bush instead.
Click to expand...

Double standard?
Id say its also impossible to count the number of people comparing Obama to hitler :shrug:

it seems like the thing to do among the over dramatic, bias and intellectually weak? (call a political person they dont like hitler)

I seem to recall people doing both and be criticized for it unless you have some stats that prove otherwise. Some have also been fired

It only seems different because this is NOW and that was then:shrug:
 
StillBallin75 said:
espn is a private entity, they can do whatever the hell they damn well please (not that the rest of us have to be okay with the way they conduct business).
Click to expand...

agreed, im not saying I agree with the move but no freedoms were violated thats for sure
 
Centrist77 said:
Double standard?
Id say its also impossible to count the number of people comparing Obama to hitler :shrug:

it seems like the thing to do among the over dramatic, bias and intellectually weak? (call a political person they dont like hitler)

I seem to recall people doing both and be criticized for it unless you have some stats that prove otherwise. Some have also been fired

It only seems different because this is NOW and that was then:shrug:
Click to expand...

Google results for Bush Hitler: 34,600,000
Google results for Obama Hitler: 4,720,000 (And most of the first page are links to Hank Williams Jr.'s statement.)

Now, obviously this doesn't conclusively prove anything. But it should give you pause for thought.
 
Dav said:
Google results for Bush Hitler: 34,600,000
Google results for Obama Hitler: 4,720,000 (And most of the first page are links to Hank Williams Jr.'s statement.)

Now, obviously this doesn't conclusively prove anything. But it should give you pause for thought.
Click to expand...

Bush Haters use the internet more? Bush has been around longer for people to criticize? :shrug:
 
Dav said:
Google results for Bush Hitler: 34,600,000
Google results for Obama Hitler: 4,720,000 (And most of the first page are links to Hank Williams Jr.'s statement.)

Now, obviously this doesn't conclusively prove anything. But it should give you pause for thought.
Click to expand...

No that gives me no pause because BUSH took office when? 2001? 10 years ago and obama 2009, 2 years ago.

:shrug:

sorry my friend I see no "double standard"
its only a matter of NOW and THEN
 
Centrist77 said:
I read on here and some other places that people think that Hanks/1st amendment rights were violated or infringed upon in some what.

DO you think this is true?

I do not and cannot see how the correlation is made?

ESPN pulls Monday Night Football intro - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN
Click to expand...

ESPN is not a government agency or regulated by the government nor did the government call ESPN telling them to fire him. So no his rights were not violated. The Bill of rights is a restriction on what the government and government entities can and can't do.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
Bush Haters use the internet more? Bush has been around longer for people to criticize? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not that much longer. The ratio of Bush results to Obama results are more than 7 to 1.

You're probably right about Bush haters using the Internet more, but I highly doubt that's the sole reason for such a huge difference.

You also have to account for there being continuously more people on the Internet; at least, there's more people online now than there were in 2003. That should actually increase the results for Obama, even if other things work against it.
 
Last edited:
No his rights were not violated for all the reasons given above
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Agreed. And I now know he is a nut job.
Click to expand...

Well its off topic but when I saw it did seem quite nutty. Almost like he was on something lol
The only proof you need that his rant was to say the least "off" is that even the fox members werent willing to jump in with him. LOL
 
Dav said:
It's not a legal issue, his rights weren't violated. But the double-standard is staggering. It's impossible to even count the number of people comparing Bush to Hitler. Yet you can't even use Hitler in a comparison to a situation involving Obama without inciting some huge controversy. I can't honestly imagine this happening if it were Bush instead.
Click to expand...

For there to be a double standard, ESPN would have had to continue to air people who compared Bush to Hitler.
 
Redress said:
For there to be a double standard, ESPN would have had to continue to air people who compared Bush to Hitler.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Love Hank or hate him - up to you - all of his rowdy friends have settled down anyway (or, was that David Allen Coe?).

He's a professional spokesperson for a product. If his product drops him because they think he no longer represents them favorably, it's not a first amendment issue. It's a free-market issue. He may have legal recourse, he may not - but it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

I do think, though, that political "hate" language is accepted by the left when it comes from the left and condemned by the left, in any form, when it comes from the right. Unfortunately, the right is picking up the same bad habit - less convincingly.
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
Love Hank or hate him - up to you - all of his rowdy friends have settled down anyway (or, was that David Allen Coe?).

He's a professional spokesperson for a product. If his product drops him because they think he no longer represents them favorably, it's not a first amendment issue. It's a free-market issue. He may have legal recourse, he may not - but it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

I do think, though, that political "hate" language is accepted by the left when it comes from the left and condemned by the left, in any form, when it comes from the right. Unfortunately, the right is picking up the same bad habit - less convincingly.
Click to expand...

picking up? this seems to imply its something new lo
remind me what happened to the dixie chicks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom