Halloween costumes -- where is the taste line drawn?

NewJeffCT said:

and, if the powers that be at enworld wanted to boot you off the website, they could do that, too. And, in a public forum, you could be in legal trouble if you engaged in certain types of speech.

Click to expand...

That would be censorship. A very bad thing, don't you agree?

And maybe I could sue. If this guy could sue for a contract he signed with another non-gubermental entity and won, why not for free speech?

Zombie_Babies said:

Well then maybe someone can enlighten us? Or, maybe, they're so nebulous that the effectively don't exist.

Click to expand...

Nebulous rules exist and are enforced every day.

One I have personally have to live with because of what I do is to "...avoid the appearance of impropriety."

If I don't, I could lose my job. FWIW, the governor of Texas has a similar clause, as do judges and a bunch of other jobs. I tried to buy lunch for some border guards. They couldn't accept my offer without losing their jobs.

You'll see similar clauses in pro sports contracts, too.

Not quite that simple. There are also rules in place that dictate what the vultures can and cannot do. Why? Because some people in the public eye still do have a (reasonable) expectation of some level of privacy.

Click to expand...

True, but the boundaries that cover public figures are so broad and porous that most people wouldn't want to deal with them. There are situations where you or I might be able to prevent our picture being used without permissionand public figures simply would not be able to do so. The injunction hearing would last as long as it took for a judge to swing a gavel and say "dismissed".

Offensive to who?

Click to expand...

It was a Nazi uniform, you do the math.

Let's say you're right - that he can't get away with doing dumb stuff like 99.99% of the population. What makes wearing a costume to a costume party on Halloween dumb? That's the context that nobody has bothered to address.

Click to expand...

Please, with the strawmen!

Wearing a costume to a costume party is not offensive, its expected. Wearing a NAZI costume anywhere but as part of a theatrical or cinematic production is a social landmine waiting to explode. Wearing such a costume as a public figure is holding a sledgehammer over the trigger.

See also Homicidal Squirrel's amusing flow chart.

Oooooor ... he could say f-you to the morons that think he did something terrible because he quite plainly didn't. It's a shame he chose not to.

Click to expand...

You do know he got raked over the coals in private, don't you? His family chewed his ass off. He almost lost his admission to Sandhurst over this.

There's a meme out there, "You had one job...", followed by pictures of failures of that job. Had this happened today, Harry's costume gaffe might well be in the gallery.

You all do realize that certain folks are only taking part in this discussion out of their own amusement over everyone else's reactions right?

Dannyalcatraz said:

Wearing a costume to a costume party is not offensive, its expected. Wearing a NAZI costume anywhere but as part of a theatrical or cinematic production is a social landmine waiting to explode. Wearing such a costume as a public figure is holding a sledgehammer over the trigger.

Click to expand...

This could be offensive to residents of San Juan de la Vega.

goldomark said:

Indeed, cause I do have a right to express myself and have nothing happen to me, as opposed to what Umbran said. ;-)

Click to expand...

Before you quote rights, make sure you understand them fully.

The US "Right to free speech" is a right to not have *government* impinge upon your right to speak. Morrus and the mods, not being government, are not covered. EN World is a private enterprise, and within it, the proprietor can legally restrict speech. This is well-established in legal precedent - many folks have tried lawsuits on this basis, and lost. You'd probably not even get into a court with such an argument today.

Note, especially that you agreed to the terms of service when you created your account. Having entered into that agreement, you lose a lot of your right to gripe about the rules. Don't like it? Post elsewhere.

goldomark said:

That would be censorship. A very bad thing, don't you agree?

Click to expand...

Censorship by a government is usually a bad thing. Within the confines of a private arena, not so much. I sure as heck think it is okay for me to have the right to eject someone from my home if they, say, start verbally abusing my wife. It is technically censorship, but I fail to see how it is "very bad" for me to do so.

trappedslider said:

You all do realize that certain folks are only taking part in this discussion out of their own amusement over everyone else's reactions right?

Click to expand...

Maybe, but as long as we're civilly and rationally discussing the issue, he's free to amuse himself all he wants, as far as I'm concerned.

Remus Lupin said:

Maybe, but as long as we're civilly and rationally discussing the issue, he's free to amuse himself all he wants, as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

I did put an "s" on folks...so there's about 3 of them lol

trappedslider said:

You all do realize that certain folks are only taking part in this discussion out of their own amusement over everyone else's reactions right?

Click to expand...

Sure. And, in taking on someone like, say Danny, who is well versed on the subject and can continue such a discussion quite civilly until the other side is well and truly shown to be a troll, ignorant, or deficient in reasoning power, they don't do themselves any favors.

Umbran said:

Sure. And, in taking on someone like, say Danny, who is well versed on the subject and can continue such a discussion quite civilly until the other side is well and truly shown to be a troll, ignorant, or deficient in reasoning power, they don't do themselves any favors.

Click to expand...

They aren't so much as trolls as folks who enjoy causing heated discussions over nothing...It's how it went down back over at WoTc's forums.

trappedslider said:

You all do realize that certain folks are only taking part in this discussion out of their own amusement over everyone else's reactions right?

Click to expand...

Is that what you are doing? That's bad form. People are having a discussion. There is no need for you to go and derail it.

On Topic:Correct me if I'm wrong, Bullgrit, but the first example, the one about the white girl dressing up in black face, that's about Julianne Hough dressing up as the character Crazy Eyes from the show Orange is the new black on Netflix. Here is a pic of her.
[sblock]

[/sblock]
She did a pretty bad job with her costume. This is the actual character.
[sblock]

[/sblock]
Was Hough trying to be offensive or racist? Probably not. Still, she should have known that some people may have been offended. And yes, people don't have the right to be offended blah blah blah. People also don't have a right to be angered because others are offended.

Same goes for Prince Harry. Sure, he can dress as a Nazi if he wants, but people should realize that some people will find it offensive. Nazis have a wonderful history, and there are still people that continue with the philosophy of Nazis. So while he may not have intended to offend anyone, he still did.

That being said, you guys seem to be forgetting something very important. Prince Harry is a soulless redhead, so yeah, the soul see scumbag probably did it to be offensive. The soulless creatures that are redheads are offensive in all context. So screw that guy, someone hit him in the face with a shovel.