ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

Folk can be offended, no question.  The First Amendment does not prohibit that; it just prohibits state censorship based upon the publication causing, or being perceived as causing, offense.   

 steeler wrote: 
They may have the right to say the things they say but they could say "clouds are fluffy" and still piss me off if the intent is to offend. It's like the idiots who burn flags. I don't care about them burning flags—yawn— but the intent is to offend. That is what makes it offensive.  I'm all for flag-burning as a means of making a statement, but once it migrates into the land of "this'll get their goat!" then lock 'em up. Okay that's subjective too but hey.

 musik_knut wrote: 

Yes, that is often true.

 meower wrote: 

I'm just watching the Daily Show (it's on one of our digital stations)- so Jon Stewart.

Alright, alright, who brought up hitler??

 musik_knut wrote: 
I'm pretty sure Obama's family didn't make quite as much profit from Hitler as the Bush family did. Without the money his grandfather made from war profiteering with the enemy neither Bush would have been elected.

   So at least there is a genuine connection with Bush. With Obama, not so much.

    If any of the slaggers had working brains they'd be comparing Obama to Stalin, HItlers worst enemy and a slur that at least makes a tiny, eensy weensy bit of sense, at least ideologically speaking.

 Although I voted for Obama, I'm 99% certain if I would have voted for McCain or stayed home it wouldn't have made any difference. I voted for Obama more from the terrifying thought of Sarah Palin being one old guys  heart attack away from being President than my preference for the GIant Douche over the Turd Sandwich.

 steeler wrote: 

I would agree.

 musik_knut wrote: 

My point is that what is considered to be offensive often is subjective, which is why our freedom of speech protection under the First Amendment is construed so broadly.   

 steeler wrote: 

Too many Muslims are offended at the mere mention of Mohammed if uttered by a non-believer. And too many entities are engaged in self-restraint or the wholesale avoidance of their free speech for fear they offend hypersensitive Muslims. It seems anything in print is called out by some Muslims.

 islander wrote: 

Think about the Danish newspaper publishing those cartoons that members of the Islamic community found offensive.   

 Proclivities wrote: 

A commercial printer will print almost anything for a fee. Many a sign that attacked Mr. Bush in the most vile, vulgar and pernicious manner, looked to be professionally done.

 islander wrote: 

Indeed. Offended when anyone is compared to Hitler, more so, a US President as the comparison.

 musik_knut wrote: 
So if you were offended by the Bush/Hitler images, then you should also be offended by the Obama/Hitler images right? Else you would also be practicing hypocrisy.

I am actually offended by both, but also think that they are well covered by free speech. Blatant hyperbole and offensiveness are the shock tools to get people to acknowledge your message when the content can't stand on its own.  No one ever promised that you (the larger you/we/all of us)  wouldn't be offended.

 EleventhMan wrote: 
what about 'em?
 

 oldviolin wrote: 
and the potatoes...don't forget them!  

 oldviolin wrote: 

When we outlaw myopia, only the trees will have eyes...

 musik_knut wrote: 
I think the word you're searching for is "us."

 musik_knut wrote: 
I agree with your points.  I took issue with Durbin's assertions back then as well, and there certainly are "zanies" on both sides.  I am all for free speech, and it is the right of those (or any) protestors to voice or depict their dissatisfaction.  What I find offensive is that some "commercial" or "professional" entity would produce such an offensive graphic: that wasn't just some hand-made sign produced by a disgruntled individual.

Who among you objected to those side by side photos of Hitler and Bush? Free speech can be offensive to our senses but it cannot be stifled. Those who would protest unfavorable depictions of Mr. Obama and remained silent when the same was done to Mr. Bush or any with whom they disagree, practice hypocrisy at its highest and most transparent level. And who made a greater vulgar use of a holocaust comparison than did Sen. Durbin, D-IL, who compared US Guards at Gitmo to guards at Auschwitz and Buchenwald? Both sides have zanies among them and both have those who express raw hatreds, too.