note to editor - local paper
 

I thought this was pretty interesting, in our local paper today : the Henry County Times..


A reader wrote a very in-depth and I thought intelligent response to one of the regular columnist..you can probably pretty much get the gist of what the columnist had said by reading the reader's comments..thought everything she said was well put, thought I would share :

=============================

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

-Larry takes his lumps (again) -

Dear Editor,

I write to respectfully disagree with just about everything Larry Stanford wrote in his column ("We've got to stop playing it safe") last week.
Where shall I begin? Let's start with free speech. Stanford expresses his displeasure at the Georgia Supreme Court for striking down a law banning "obscene and indecent" telephone conversation between consenting individuals; a law that is obviously unconstitutional (and frankly, would have been laughed out of most state courts decades ago).

You may not like lewd and lascivious phone calls, but just as you are free to not participate, those who want to are and should be. Dirty talk may not be jive with your person values (or even your church's values), but you have no right to demand, that others in this great free nation must behave or believe the same way you do.

Let's turn the tables: Just as Stanford finds the dirty phone calls hes not a party to offensive and indecent, I find the display of the Confederate Stars and Bars offensive and indecent. (If you hadn't already guessed, I am not a native daughter, though I sure do like it here in my new home!) To me, the flag is insensitive,callous, and combative, not only to black or Jewish Americans, but all those who mish to move beyong the racism and hatred I believe that flag represents. I greatly dislike being bombarded with this image, but I understand that to many people, the flag has quite a different connotation. Thought I would never display such a symbol on my car or clothing, I believe stronly that anyone who wants to, should. If it bothers me, that's my problem, not theirs.

But what irked me even more than Stanford's careless dismissal of the first amendment, was his assertion that what we need is for Christians to ride up on white horses and save the country from "the law." I didn't know whether to laugh, or cry! Our country is a country of law, and I can't imagine many people would wish it otherwise. Does Stanford really want his church to rule our nation? I know I don't. And furthur, I find it sincerely regrettable that Stanford chose to perpetuate the false, disruptive, and utterly misleading notion that only Christians have proper morals.

My mother is Jewish. She grew up in Nashville in the 1950's. Her Jewish grandfather, a native Southerner (and life-long Republican) who saved hundreds of European refugees from Hitler by providing them jobs in his factory, was the first white member of the NAACP. At a time when no other religious or political leaders would deign to have a black man enter their homes, he hosted NAACP meetings, marched on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and encouraged his peers to get involved in the cause.

It seems to me that Mr. Stanford might call my great-grandfather's forward-thinking solicitousness "good Christian" behavior - clearly, this would be a misnomer. Yes, "good Christian" is an idiom here in the South, but I ask you to step back and see how dangerous that language (and the thinking behind it) is.This simple saying perpetuates the notion that Christians hold some sort of monopoly on kindness. Why don't we just call it kindness? Why must good behavior be attributed to one particular religion? There was kindness before Christianity, and there is kindness outside of Christianity every day.

Now, I'm not here to say that Jews are better than Christians (my father, as it happens, is a Lutheran minister), but what I do wish to express is that Christians are not better than non-Christians. Indeed, being a Christian does not make you a good person, nor does it make you qualified to tell other people what to do. Loving your neighbor, living an honest life, giving to others - these are the things that make you a good person. Even if you make the occasional dirty phone call.

Sincerely,
Julia Dahl
McDonough, GA.

And man that was a lot to type! My local paper needs to get a website so I can copy and paste next time instead!

Chris

I know Her!

You do, how weird..how old is she?

Chris

Yes Lux, gotta love the South! ha

Chris

I'm confused
 

To my understanding from what I've seen on the local news about it, it would be pertaining to ANY phone conversation that involved "dirty talk"

Chris

of course the law was struck down it was so obnoxious...but it was getting a lot of press..another idea from the Georgia Republican Legislature to keep it going.

Chris

Here's some excerpts about the law I found online from the Atlanta Journal Constitution :

"The Georgia Supreme Court today ruled unconstitutional a state law that makes it a crime to carry on obscene and indecent conversations over the telephone.

"In a unanimous ruling, the court threw out two misdemeanor convictions against Anthony McKenzie, a 17-year-old from Cumming who made a series of collect phone calls in 2003 from the Forsyth County jail to a 14-year-old girl he had recently met over the Internet."

"The state law, passed by the General Assembly almost 40 years ago, imposes a ban on obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy and indecent comments, suggestions and proposals made during telephone conversations.

In striking down the statute, the state Supreme Court called the law "an overbroad infringement on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech." The law fails to use the least restrictive means of curtailing such a right, the court said. "

""Instead of applying only to obscene speech, it applies to speech that is merely indecent," Justice Robert Benham wrote for the court. "Instead of making illegal such speech only when directed at minors, it makes such speech illegal when heard by adults."

The law can be applied to speech that is unwelcome to the person on the other end of the phone line and can also be applied "to speech welcomed by the listener and spoken with intent to amuse," Benham wrote. "

"The state has the right to regulate offensive speech as it relates to minors," McFarland said. "The problem with this statute is that it covers adults as well. It applies to a husband and wife. I don't see what business the government to regulate speech between consenting adults."

------------------------

So this had been a state law for many years..and the Republicans in the GA capitol are fuming that it has been struck down

Chris

So how exactly do they enforce this law without illegally wiretapping? Or is there a loophole that allows them to do that too to make sure you're not talking too dirty?

Sheesh. And I thought Louisiana was awful about stupid legislation. The highway close to my home is now the Korean War Veterans Memorial Highway thanks to the LA legislature. :lol: I'm sure there've been other absurd moments but I can't think of any right now.

Maybe they mean to ban it for people on Cell phones, in Grocery lines, in front of Strandinthewind. :p

She is 17 or 18

Wow I thought that was an excellent article...But geesh that law is ridiculous.

Great letter. I do admire people like her who take the time to go in against such bullsh*t, because most of the time I just can't be bothered :o. You'll never convince people like that columnist anyway. But I guess that's not the only point of such a letter.

I think it's always been one of those laws in GA where they certainly don't enforce by watching or listening in on you...but if it comes up they can charge you with it...as they did with that 17 yr old...they tried to charge him with that and that is when it was brought to attention and struck down..

Basically if someone calls the cops and says "so and so was talking dirty to me" and taped it or something, they could charge the person..

It's just like the laws in GA that ban sodomy and oral sex...

Chris