CoalFelpz's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of CoalFelpz's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

I wouldn't need much more of an argument than this. Donald Sterling, as well as every other citizen of the United States is entitled to free speech. He didn't INTEND for his words to be heard, and if so, he probably would have kept it to himself. Jailing or even punishing someone for a PERSONAL conversation they had with their peer(s) which happened to be publicized is downright unfair, unconstitutional and wrong. EVERY person is entitled to their own opinion, and has the right to speak in accordance to their opinion -- this is in a sense the essence of American freedom, the right to speak your mind and share your views. I will admit that his remarks were rather ignorant and disrespectful, but you cannot take the future of a tycoon right out from under them because of something that person said in private without ANY intent of sharing.

A personal prejudice does not warrant jailtime...

3 points

Absolutely not.

While I can say to an extent that some advertisements are a little "over the top" and some are practically designed to "hypnotize" children into new toys, fast foot and such; children are a demographic too. Banning television ads aimed at children would abolish advertisements that are actually relevant to children, such as toys. This would put in place a crucial bar between the producers and their potential consumers (the children, and/or their parents). If a company cannot advertise to children, how will they spread the word of their toys? It is not fair to deprive a company of potential income by not allowing them to spread the word to their PRIME demographic. A government should do as little as possible (in my opinion) to hinder the progress and/or success of a company or business leader.

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]