Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXVII
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXVII
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Never thought I'd agree with Capt. Fantastic, but he's right. No such thing as a right to free expression.
The 1st Amendment covers political speech.
Recent interpretations of the Supreme Court to the contrary are inconsistent with the meaning of the doucment.
The problem with a right to free expression is that "expression" can mean anything and everything.
Originally posted by badabing
Freedom of Expression as a unsaid right attached to the First Amendment always comes during flag burning hearings. The thought is that speech and expression are interchangeable.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if ever) censorship is necessary.
My original post on expression got lost in the entire Constitution. 😛 I've added a new explanation. If I can find anything else, I'll post it. 😎
Originally posted by badabing
The Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act is an Act of Congress, enacted on May 29, 2006. It prohibits protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment.
The constitutionality of which is being challenged in court.
Originally posted by badabing
In June of 1993 the United States Supreme court strongly endorsed the penalty enhancement approach and unanimously upheld Wisconsin's Hate Crime statute. This Supreme Court ruling was a milestone in the fight against hate crimes. It sends a clear and effective message warning those who would engage in criminal conduct motivated by bigotry (Hate Crimes, Paul A. Winters, 1996).
“The United States Supreme Court… unanimously upheld Wisconsin’s Hate Crime statute… warning those who would engage in criminal conduct…”
I am not surprised that you do not recognize the difference between hate speech and hate crimes considering that you do not recognize the difference between hate speech and fighting words.
Originally posted by badabing
The Supreme Court has ruled that some forms of expression do not constitute free speech. These include "fighting words" obscenity, and libel. However, a majority of the Court held that even expression that is so offensive as to amount to "fighting words" cannot be prohibited if the prohibition is limited to only "fighting words" concerning certain topics.
Fighting words--are not protected under the First Amendment. Words which provoke a reasonable person to violence and by their very utterance inflict injury and breach of peace (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568,572(1942).In the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court recognized a First Amendment exception for "fighting words", which it described as "those which by their very utterance [1] inflict injury or [2] tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." In the decades since this 1940 decision, the Court has limited its effects to the most challenging and confrontational of words spoken in a face to face encounter and likely to lead to immediate fighting.
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"
And subsequently, a federal court ruled in the case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin, "Since the elements of the UW Rule do not require that the regulated speech, by its very utterance, tend to incite violent reaction, the rule goes beyond the present scope of the fighting words doctrine."
In other words, hate speech does not qualify as fighting words as it does not incite an immediate violent response.
Your argument, “since fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment, the ‘Respect For America’s Fallen Heroes Act’ is constitutional,” is based on the premise, "hate speech qualifies as fighting words."
Since a federal court has determined that hate speech does not qualify as fighting words, the premise of your argument is false, and your argument is not sound.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Which was how long ago?Mere offensiveness is one thing when the situation is not hazardous. But making loud racist comments at a pride parade, or protesting with hate speech in front of a funeral is abuse of freedom of speech, not to mention dangerous.
Threat of actual violence is not necessary when the Instigation possibility is well understood.
To protest against funerals on television or in a well known public area is one thing...but to do it right near the funeral grounds themselves is an invasion of privacy, violation to a right to proper funeral, disturbing the deserved peace, and instigation.
They have no right...constitutional or otherwise, the protestors violated someone else's rights. That simple.
You are unequivocally wrong. For hate speech to qualify as fighting words, there must be an actual threat of violence. Not a possible threat of violence, not a potential threat of violence, not an emotionally-charged and/or volatile situation, etc. An actual threat of violence, period.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Can the funeral attendees here thier protests, see them, or are they aware of the fact that the protestors who are insulting thier deceased loved ones are right near?
Irrelevant; no one has an expectation of privacy in public.
Originally posted by badabing
Listen everybody, I've posted all the rulings, laws and legislation that have passed. There are others who have posted rulings that swing the other way, which is fine. I'm not obtuse and I can see everyone else's viewpoint.
You are either obtuse or obstinate, considering that you continue to equate hate speech with fighting words despite a federal court precedent stating otherwise.
I've done nothing on this thread but show Federal and Supreme Court rulings, bills that have passed through Congress and definitions of hate Speech and Fighting Words from different sources. I've brought this information to give everybody a chance to decide for themselves about the funeral protests and to support my own opinion. Freedom of Speech and Expression is at the heart of this debate. I'm using my right to express my opinion in a civilized and constructive forum. Some people on this thread don't like my point of view and that's fine. But I do expect people to behave rationally and not resort to name calling (You are either obtuse or obstinate) to get their point across. It's strange that some people will scream about the Freedom of Speech and then insult people using that freedom if their opinion differs. After all, opinion and interpretation is what we are all using here. Here are some of my quotes throughout this thread. "I see where you are coming from but I just don't agree." "I'm good to end this on a gentleman's disagreement or we could keep going around." "I'm not quoting your posts anymore because now we're just repeating ourselves." "Listen everybody, I've posted all the rulings, laws and legislation that have passed. There are others who have posted rulings that swing the other way, which is fine. I'm not obtuse and I can see everyone else's viewpoint."
Here are the definitions of Hate Speech and Fighting Words. You all decide if there is a correlation or if these definitions apply to the funeral protests.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by badabing
I've done nothing on this thread but show Federal and Supreme Court rulings, bills that have passed through Congress and definitions of hate Speech and Fighting Words from different sources. I've brought this information to give everybody a chance to decide for themselves about the funeral protests and to support my own opinion. Freedom of Speech and Expression is at the heart of this debate. I'm using my right to express my opinion in a civilized and constructive forum. Some people on this thread don't like my point of view and that's fine. But I do expect people to behave rationally and not resort to name calling (You are either obtuse or obstinate) to get their point across. It's strange that some people will scream about the Freedom of Speech and then insult people using that freedom if their opinion differs. After all, opinion and interpretation is what we are all using here. Here are some of my quotes throughout this thread. "I see where you are coming from but I just don't agree." "I'm good to end this on a gentleman's disagreement or we could keep going around." "I'm not quoting your posts anymore because now we're just repeating ourselves." "Listen everybody, I've posted all the rulings, laws and legislation that have passed. There are others who have posted rulings that swing the other way, which is fine. I'm not obtuse and I can see everyone else's viewpoint."Here are the definitions of Hate Speech and FightingA fe Words. You all decide if there is a correlation or if these definitions apply to the funeral protests.
[B]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.
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.
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. [/B]
Whether or not hate speech qualifies as fighting words is not up for interpretation.
Until which time a challenge to the federal court decision in the case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin is brought before the United States Supreme Court and is reversed, hate speech does not qualify as fighting words, period.
You can opine to the contrary all you like, but you would be wrong.
Here are the definitions of Hate Speech and Fighting Words. You all decide if there is a correlation or if these definitions apply to the funeral protests.
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.
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.
Either one of these definitions have and can be used to regulate protests.
The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order.
It seems that some people feel my opinion is wrong. It could be, but the Congress and many States agree. It's eerie how similar the ban on abortion clinic protests is to the funeral protest controversy. It's funny that this debate is about Freedom of Speech. All that I'm doing is exercising my right to Free Speech yet some feel it necessary to name call. I enjoy a healthy debate where both sides bring evidence to support opinions and present new ideas. I don't enjoy the ire and vitriol that occurs though.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are unequivocally [b]wrong. For hate speech to qualify as fighting words, there must be an actual threat of violence. Not a possible threat of violence, not a potential threat of violence, not an emotionally-charged and/or volatile situation, etc. An actual threat of violence, period
Prove to me that I am wrong, that hate speech is protected by the Constitution, especially in cases where it poses an immediate danger. 🙄
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Irrelevant; no one has an expectation of privacy in public.
Funeral Services has the Absolute Right to privacy, genuis.
Originally posted by badabing
Here are the definitions of Hate Speech and Fighting Words. You all decide if there is a correlation or if these definitions apply to the funeral protests.
No, "you all" do not get to decide if hate speech qualifies as fighting words. A federal court has already determined that it does not.
Originally posted by badabing
Either one of these definitions have and can be used to regulate protests.
Wrong. Freedom of Speech can and has been restricted in instances of fighting words, but not in instances of hate speech.
Originally posted by badabing
It seems that some people feel my opinion is wrong.
Your opinion is wrong.
Originally posted by badabing
All that I'm doing is exercising my right to Free Speech yet some feel it necessary to name call. I enjoy a healthy debate where both sides bring evidence to support opinions and present new ideas. I don't enjoy the ire and vitriol that occurs though.
To paraphrase my boyfriend, "At some point, we all must look at the same red ball, and agree that it is in fact, red."
If this discussion has become less than civil, it is because you want to debate the meaning of "red."
You want to debate the meaning of "red" despite the meaning of "red" having been provided for you, because "you are entitled to your opinion."
Reality check; the ball is red. Stop arguing otherwise.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, "you all" do not get to decide if hate speech qualifies as fighting words. A federal court has already determined that it does not.Wrong. Freedom of Speech can and has been restricted in instances of fighting words, but not in instances of hate speech.
Your opinion is wrong.
To paraphrase my boyfriend, "At some point, we all must look at the same red ball, and agree that it is in fact, red."
If this discussion has become less than civil, it is because you want to debate the meaning of "red."
You want to debate the meaning of "red" despite the meaning of "red" having been provided for you, because "you are entitled to your opinion."
Reality check; the ball is red. Stop arguing otherwise.
Again, Adam Hoe, can you prove that Hate Speech is protected by the constitution, and that funeral services do not have the right to privacy?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Prove to me that I am wrong, that hate speech is protected by the Constitution, especially in cases where it poses an immediate danger. 🙄
A federal court ruled in the case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin that because hate speech does not incite an immediate violent response, codes restricting hate speech are unconstitutional. Hence, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Funeral Services has the Absolute Right to privacy, genuis.
There is no right to public privacy recognized in American law, genius. Since the protests in question are taking place on public property in front of national cemetaries, there is no invasion of privacy taking place.
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.
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.
Hate speech that contains fighting words is not protected by the First Amendment. It is the opinion of the Congress and many states that these funeral protests fall under this category. The argument of "because I say" or "the ball is red" does not make anybody correct. Some people hate viewpoints that they don't agree with. BTW, I'm not arguing.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, "you all" do not get to decide if hate speech qualifies as fighting words. A federal court has already determined that it does not.Wrong. Freedom of Speech can and has been restricted in instances of fighting words, but not in instances of hate speech.
Your opinion is wrong.
To paraphrase my boyfriend, "At some point, we all must look at the same red ball, and agree that it is in fact, red."
If this discussion has become less than civil, it is because you want to debate the meaning of "red."
You want to debate the meaning of "red" despite the meaning of "red" having been provided for you, because "you are entitled to your opinion."
Reality check; the ball is red. Stop arguing otherwise.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
However, a federal court ruled in the case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin, "Since the elements of the UW Rule do not require that the regulated speech, by its very utterance, tend to incite violent reaction, the rule goes beyond the present scope of the fighting words doctrine."
Originally posted by FeceMan
Heh...Adam Hoe. That's so terribly not-witty it's almost like hearing "ur name is accurate everything u say is feces poop comes out of ur mouth" for the hundredth time.
Well, all I know is that the H key is way off from the P key.
And no, it isn't terribly witty. But wit isn't my point.