No matter how objective we think the Constitution is every citizen must remember that you are still dealing with human beings interpreting it. There have been in our history cases held up by one Supreme Court later to be reversed by another.

The fact that our current Supreme Court is siding with the religious is an indicator. One can only hope that these judges care more about free speech than they do about their own agendas. But considering what they have ruled on, I wouldnt put it past them to side with PC crybabies.

When I talk about PC crybabies, I dont mean all people who want to get along and do so without censoring others. I am talking about fundy theists Christian/Muslim/Jew as well as liberal theists and liberal atheists.

It is not a bad idea to want to show people you are not the stereotype they think you are. It is also within human nature to want to improve relations with others. But the worst way the citizens of any label can do it is via government force.

There are 6 billion people on this planet, let alone this country. We all have people we like and people we dont like. We all feel the need to bitch about something at some point. We all feel the need to poke fun at things too.

I think the key is for people to understand that just because you dont like, or even hate some person, or some idea or some claim, that others who may share it are not clones of that person.

It is also immature to act out in  violence when someone offends you. While understandable there are much more productive things to do than physically harm someone. Quite often when one does, it does not have the disired affect of change.

I dont think censoring people has that affect either. I think it simply makes them quiter BUT WORSE, because it is not out in the open where you can see it.

In any case like I said before, most people dont seem to understand that THEY may not be the cop, prosicutor or Judge deciding what is or is not "offensive".

Since I value my right to "bitch" then I must do the same for those who may not like me. Because without that, it can be taken away from, not only me, but anyone.

That is why common law exists. We can and do have the ability to refrain from violence when we hear things we dont like. And we can use our own voices insted of violence or censorship laws to counter that which we want to challenge.

I've always found the idea that words can be good or bad a bit silly anyways, but I really don't have much of a problem with this law - besides, who would turn people in?

I just saw on CNN a two pannel disscussion of the use of the word. Both partisipants were African Americans. One insisted on never using the word, while the other said what I said that "it depends on context" and that you cant legislate usage for or against a word.

I have been blasted for supporting the Washington Redskins while other atheists sport the rebel flag. I dont think anyone should ever forget hatefull actions or words in human history, but part of human history is change.

I think alot of these controversial words or symbols are often adapted by the cuture originally aimed at as a way to take the sting out of it.

Again, there is a huge difference between someone who really hates Mexicans, and calls them wetbacks and Carlos Mancia who uses the same term as one of enderment. Same word, two different contexts and meanings.

And again, combating real hate should not involve using government for thought police. The bottem line is people are going to like you, or they wont. It is a far better place when we can air out and even offend each other, than one where all of us have padlocks on our lips.

You cant change human nature. You can control your own actions. You cant control other peoples thoughts by force. You can agree that physically harming someone, for whatever reason, is unnacceptable.

Freedom of speech has helped us grow, sometimes that growth is painfull. But it is because we dont opress offensive things that we can expose them and get beyond them.

No one should force you to say "nigger", nor should you be forced to support the Redskins or have a rebel flag on your wall. But to say anyone who does partisipate in usage of these things is automatically via guilt by association must be a hatefull bigot, is absurd.

Again, this has nothing to do with the good intent of getting along. |This cuts to the core of what type of goverment we as a society want to live under.

I dont want my goverment telling me what words I can or cannot say. I dont want my goverment telling me who I have to like. The only obligation I have is one of human nature. Since I dont want to be physically harmed, I dont physically harm others and that is one of empathy. At the same time I also know that my thoughts are mine and others have different thoughts.

You cannot legislate morality and you cannot forcably re-arrange the neurons in someone else's brain. You can control yourself and your own actions when you hear things you may find offensive. 

Right, the First Amendment makes it impossible for government to punish you for merely saying "offensive" things. And what people both theists and atheists with a censorship attitude forget is that what one person may find offensive another may not.

Why put that kind of power into the hands of a Judge, prosicutor or politician or law inforcement? These people in these seats of power may not agree with YOU, the individual be you theist or atheist. It is a bad idea to give someone you may dissagree with use of goverment force to silence you.

That is why WE have common law against physical harm. I cant  beat up my neighbor. You cant kill your spouse. And we cant ask others to assault or kill someone because of what they believe. The laws are already in place.

Weither you are Ellen Johnson, Ann Coulter, Brian Sapient, Pat Robertson, we all have the right to like or dislike or even hate someone and express those emotions. What none of us can do is act out in physical violence or call for violence on another individual, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

You cant beat up your neighbor for the same reason you cant beat up your wife for the same reason you cant beat up a Muslim for the same reason you cant beat up a child. People dont like being physically harmed. It doesnt take rocket science to state the obvious.

People also like to be able to express themselves and people will never agree on all issues all the time.

The First Amendment and common law puts the responsibility on  the individudual, not the government. It allows us the individuality without fear of being dragged of the street because someone says something we dont like. Our common law also makes us personaly responsible for how we react when we hear things we dont like.

That is a far better set up then expecting government to shelter you from reality. It also provides you the oportunity to challenge the set norms to foster positive change.