Originally posted by FeceMan
What exactly constitutes 'fighting words'? Calling a black person a ******? Telling someone to hit you? I'm not certain.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Per the case of Street v. New York, mere offensiveness does not qualify as fighting words; fighting words must include the threat of actual violence.
Not always.
If you were to go to an Irish parade, and yell into a megaphone "the Irish suck !" your words are in automatic violation of the constitutional limits on freedom of speech.
Was there any threat of violence? No..but the violence was an inevitable and definate reaction to such an outburst, that no matter who kills who, the person who initiated that hate speech will get punished primarily.
Same applies to intruders who protest on private funeral grounds. It's automatic instigation. You cannot bring your hateful protests to the grounds of a funeral with ultra sensitive mourners..its a brawl waiting to occur.
Why can't those Zealots just take thier protests elsewhere? Why not just protest on the street or sum shit liek that?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I'm going to back up badabing on this and say that some people are better off left silent.
This is ridiculous. Some people say it is a restriction placed on their rights if don't allow them to protest. I say that they are placing a restriction on the rights of the family to mourn their beloved. There is a time and a place for these things and someplaces should be considered sacred. That woman and her entire family need a serious wake-up call.
I have to say that I love Hannity and Colmes sometimes. They didn't hold back on saying, "Shame on you." to these sick and twisted people. These people who claim that God is invoking His wrath upon us. I wonder just how well they know God?
Originally posted by badabing
I'm not quoting your posts anymore because now we're just repeating ourselves. I and others have showed Supreme Court rulings from the 40's and early 90's plus new legislation that has passed Congress and Federal rulings that support my point of view. You keep posting the same Federal Court ruling. Well, IMO Supreme Court > Federal Court. I see where you are coming from but I just don't agree. There's a murky line between Hate Speech and Fighting Words. I think the 1st Amendment is important but not absolute. I'm good to end this on a gentleman's disagreement or we could keep going around. Anyway, I posted on your new thread. I'll check later to see your response. BTW, you never commented on the youtube video that I posted before.
As an objectinve audience, I'd like to see actual court rulings that substantiate your point of view.
Originally posted by FeceMan
What exactly constitutes \'fighting words\'? Calling a black person a ******? Telling someone to hit you? I\'m not certain.
I think that most will agree on the government doing the right thing in this particular instance. The protesters rights were upheld by giving them a time and place to speak, without taking away the families rights to grieve the loss of their loved ones.
Still the legal term Fighting words is far too generalized, and such a term gives those in power far too much ability to interpret the law in any way they see fit. Imagine if the same legal terminology was used during the Civil Rights Era.
Lets hope the US government doesnt get any extremist people in power anytime soon.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not always.If you were to go to an Irish parade, and yell into a megaphone "the Irish suck !" your words are in automatic violation of the constitutional limits on freedom of speech.
Was there any threat of violence? No..but the violence was an inevitable and definate reaction to such an outburst, that no matter who kills who, the person who initiated that hate speech will get punished primarily.
Same applies to intruders who protest on private funeral grounds. It's automatic instigation. You cannot bring your hateful protests to the grounds of a funeral with ultra sensitive mourners..its a brawl waiting to occur.
Why can't those Zealots just take thier protests elsewhere? Why not just protest on the street or sum shit liek that?
I'm gonna kick your ass... 😛
Originally posted by Psyquis52
I'm going to back up badabing on this and say that some people are better off left silent.This is ridiculous. Some people say it is a restriction placed on their rights if don't allow them to protest. I say that they are placing a restriction on the rights of the family to mourn their beloved. There is a time and a place for these things and someplaces should be considered sacred. That woman and her entire family need a serious wake-up call.
I have to say that I love Hannity and Colmes sometimes. They didn't hold back on saying, "Shame on you." to these sick and twisted people. These people who claim that God is invoking His wrath upon us. I wonder just how well they know God?
i agree with this... sometimes there's no substitute for plain good manners and common sense, which these people seem to lack...
Originally posted by Mr Ed
I think that most will agree on the government doing the right thing in this particular instance. The protesters rights were upheld by giving them a time and place to speak, without taking away the families rights to grieve the loss of their loved ones.Still the legal term Fighting words is far too generalized, and such a term gives those in power far too much ability to interpret the law in any way they see fit. Imagine if the same legal terminology was used during the Civil Rights Era.
Lets hope the US government doesnt get any extremist people in power anytime soon.
Originally posted by badabing
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not always.If you were to go to an Irish parade, and yell into a megaphone "the Irish suck !" your words are in automatic violation of the constitutional limits on freedom of speech.
Was there any threat of violence? No..but the violence was an inevitable and definate reaction to such an outburst, that no matter who kills who, the person who initiated that hate speech will get punished primarily.
Per the case of Street v. New York, mere offensiveness does not qualify as fighting words; fighting words must include the threat of actual violence.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Same applies to intruders who protest on private funeral grounds. It's automatic instigation. You cannot bring your hateful protests to the grounds of a funeral with ultra sensitive mourners..its a brawl waiting to occur.Why can't those Zealots just take thier protests elsewhere? Why not just protest on the street or sum shit liek that?
This group is not protesting on the grounds of a private cemetary, they are protesting on public property directly in front of it.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I'd say that these protestors have a degree of common sense, since they're accomplishing exactly what they intended: pissing people off!Err, publicity. Since their antics were bound to get the attention of the media.
Negative attention... people know about them, but any decent human being should be, imo, appalled at what they're doing...
Originally posted by badabing
I'm not quoting your posts anymore because now we're just repeating ourselves. I and others have showed Supreme Court rulings from the 40's and early 90's plus new legislation that has passed Congress and Federal rulings that support my point of view. You keep posting the same Federal Court ruling. Well, IMO Supreme Court > Federal Court. I see where you are coming from but I just don't agree. There's a murky line between Hate Speech and Fighting Words. I think the 1st Amendment is important but not absolute. I'm good to end this on a gentleman's disagreement or we could keep going around. Anyway, I posted on your new thread. I'll check later to see your response. BTW, you never commented on the youtube video that I posted before.
You and others have posted Supreme Court rulings restricting Freedom of Speech in instances of fighting words. I have posted federal court rulings indicating that hate speech does not qualify as fighting words:
To qualify as fighting words, speech must include the threat of actual violence. A white man calling a black man a "nig·ger" is not fighting words. A white man saying to a black man, "Nig·ger, I am going to kill you," is fighting words.
Moreover, for the higher-court decision to supercede the lower-court decision, it must be ruling on the same case. In this instance, the lower-court is expounding on the decision of the higher-court in a related case.
Originally posted by Psyquis52
I'm going to back up badabing on this and say that some people are better off left silent.This is ridiculous. Some people say it is a restriction placed on their rights if don't allow them to protest. I say that they are placing a restriction on the rights of the family to mourn their beloved. There is a time and a place for these things and someplaces should be considered sacred. That woman and her entire family need a serious wake-up call.
I have to say that I love Hannity and Colmes sometimes. They didn't hold back on saying, "Shame on you." to these sick and twisted people. These people who claim that God is invoking His wrath upon us. I wonder just how well they know God?
What if tomorrow the group who is being silenced is one that you are a part of?
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.
Fighting words doctrine. The First Amendment doctrine that holds that certain utterances are not constitutionally protected as free speech if they are inherently likely to provoke a violent response from the audience. N.A.A.C.P. v. Clairborne Hardware Co., Miss., 458 U.S. 886, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982). Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed. The test is what persons of common intelligence would understand to be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wash.2d 49, 701 P.2d 499, 500.
The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031.