Originally posted by badabing
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 operative phrase being, "that contains fighting words." In other words, speech that contains an actual threat of violence.
Originally posted by CM-Shazam
holy heck! with the your opinion is wrong and red ball defense you've changed my mind.how many times have you posted this tired court case? the others have brought many more cases than you did. but in your mind this court case sets the standard. get over yourself. your opinion is wrong because the red ball says so. 😆 😆 😆
A case in which Freedom of Speech is restricted in instances of fighting words is only evidence that Freedom of Speech may be restricted in instances of fighting words; it is not evidence that hate speech qualifies as fighting words.
Therefore, no matter how many cases you and others post in which Freedom of Speech is restricted in instances of fighting words, it is only evidence that Freedom of Speech may be restricted in instances of fighting words.
The "tired court case" that I continue to post establishes a legal precedent that hate speech does not qualify as fighting words.
The ball is red and you are an idiot.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The operative phrase being, "that contains fighting words." In other words, speech that contains an actual threat of violence.
Now, I'm not quoting you to argue, but just to understand your point of view. Are you saying that these protests are not intended or likely to incite violence? If that's your viewpoint then that's cool. I happen to think that they will incite violence. I listed the definitions again for a reference, not to prove you wrong or try to sway your opinion. Anyway, good debate. I think we both brought different ideas to the table. 😎
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.
Originally posted by badabing
Now, I'm not quoting you to argue, but just to understand your point of view. Are you saying that these protests are not intended or likely to incite violence? If that's your viewpoint then that's cool. I happen to think that they will incite violence. I listed the definitions again for a reference, not to prove you wrong or try to sway your opinion. Anyway, good debate. I think we both brought different ideas to the table. 😎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.
Unless there is an actual threat of violence, one is not justified in responding to speech with violence.
Likewise, unless there is an actual threat of violence, one is not justified in restricting speech.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Is it the best answer to opposition to give in and practice the habits of others with whom you disagree?
I think your taking to too seriously. It's just a joke, relax. He's not my favorite debator, true, but the offensive things he's called me in the past surpasses anything i ever sed to him 😆
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A case in which Freedom of Speech is restricted in instances of fighting words is only evidence that Freedom of Speech may be restricted in instances of fighting words; it is not evidence that hate speech qualifies as fighting words.Therefore, no matter how many cases you and others post in which Freedom of Speech is restricted in instances of fighting words, it is only evidence that Freedom of Speech may be restricted in instances of fighting words.
The "tired court case" that I continue to post establishes a legal precedent that hate speech does not qualify as fighting words.
The ball is red and you are an idiot.
Originally posted by CM-Shazam
i say the other cases set the precedent, especially the supreme court. the congress and states back up my opinion. the ball might red on your planet but not on earth. with all due respect, you are a schmack off.
😆 😆
The Supreme Court cases in question do set a precedent, i.e. that Freedom of Speech may be restricted in instances of fighting words.
They do not however, address hate speech.
The federal case that I continue to post establishes a legal precedent that hate speech does not qualify as fighting words.
What part of this are you having trouble comprehending?
Originally posted by Adam_PoEThat's all fine, but do you think it's right that people can go and cheapen someone else's funeral? That they can use their shock tactics at a place where a family just wants to mourn, just so they can get their little 15 minutes in the spotlight to spew hate? I think there should be laws stopping people from portesting at funerals, it's just an inappropriate setting for a protest, there's no real need to have them there. It doesn't mean they can't still say "god hate's ****" they just shouldn't be able to do it within x yards of a funeral service.
The Supreme Court cases in question do set a precedent, i.e. that Freedom of Speech may be restricted in instances of fighting words.They do not however, address hate speech.
The federal case that I continue to post establishes a legal precedent that hate speech does not qualify as fighting words.
What part of this are you having trouble comprehending?
Originally posted by ElectricKoolAidAs much as it disgusts me that they can, if you limit where or when someone can protest or speak their mind then where does it stop, it is easy to pass a law when it is something that people are generally offended or believe is wrong but then a precedence is set and make laws in the future easier to pass.
That's all fine, but do you think it's right that people can go and cheapen someone else's funeral? That they can use their shock tactics at a place where a family just wants to mourn, just so they can get their little 15 minutes in the spotlight to spew hate? I think there should be laws stopping people from portesting at funerals, it's just an inappropriate setting for a protest, there's no real need to have them there. It doesn't mean they can't still say "god hate's ****" they just shouldn't be able to do it within x yards of a funeral service.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Why ?
Because there is what we would like to be right...and then there is what is legal. There is legal and then there is lawful. There is good taste and bad taste, but neither should be law. And as long as the debate continues to be centered on personal taste, then there will be no end to the thread. Look at the other two threadds that are centered on personal taste. The Homosexuality thread and teh abortion thread.
And if you want to get right down to it, the act passed by congress belongs in your conservative agenda thread. Because it's a no loose situation for Republicans. Introduce an act that shows support for the military, while chipping away at the rights of every American citizen. It's a ****ing scam. And no democrat is going to vote against such a thing because they still have to get re elected and a Republican would jump at teh chance to accuse a democrat of voting against an act that showed respect for a member of the military. It would be un'meerican and it would apparently help the terrorists.
Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
That's all fine, but do you think it's right that people can go and cheapen someone else's funeral? That they can use their shock tactics at a place where a family just wants to mourn, just so they can get their little 15 minutes in the spotlight to spew hate? I think there should be laws stopping people from portesting at funerals, it's just an inappropriate setting for a protest, there's no real need to have them there. It doesn't mean they can't still say "god hate's ****" they just shouldn't be able to do it within x yards of a funeral service.
I believe that staging a protest at a funeral is distasteful, and depending on the circumnstances, disrespectful. However, it is not just to legislate taste, respect, or politeness.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Because there is what we would like to be right...and then there is what is legal. There is legal and then there is lawful. There is good taste and bad taste, but neither should be law. And as long as the debate continues to be centered on personal taste, then there will be no end to the thread. Look at the other two threadds that are centered on personal taste. The Homosexuality thread and teh abortion thread.And if you want to get right down to it, the act passed by congress belongs in your conservative agenda thread. Because it's a no loose situation for Republicans. Introduce an act that shows support for the military, while chipping away at the rights of every American citizen. It's a ****ing scam. And no democrat is going to vote against such a thing because they still have to get re elected and a Republican would jump at teh chance to accuse a democrat of voting against an act that showed respect for a member of the military. It would be un'meerican and it would apparently help the terrorists.
There is nothing unlawful about protesting....even against the military, or even against Gay Civil Rights....as long as you do it legally.
To protest in front of funeral homes is a violation of privacy....funerals are not public display..they are private ceremonies, and if the protests interupt those ceremonies than there is a huge violation.
You wanna protest on Television, in a march in the city, in city hall, etc.etc.etc. do so.
But to do an Anti-Military protest on FUNERAL GROUNDS is fkn absurd....why don't those cowards protest on Military grounds ?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
To protest in front of funeral homes is a violation of privacy....funerals are not public display..they are private ceremonies, and if the protests interupt those ceremonies than there is a huge violation.
The next time you see a funeral procession and a cop has stopped traffic to allow the uninterupted passage of the funeral, remember how private a funeral is. And you describe it as though the protestors are mingling with the family members. But they aren't.
Again, I agree that it's poor taste to act in this manner, but it isn't illegal. And certainly isn't lawful for congress to act out of respect for one segment over another.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
The next time you see a funeral procession and a cop has stopped traffic to allow the uninterupted passage of the funeral, remember how private a funeral is. And you describe it as though the protestors are mingling with the family members. But they aren't.
I have never seen a cop stop traffic in any regards to a funeral.
A Funeral is private. It is not open to intruders or those who aim to disturb its peace.
Protestors mingling with family members? Where the hell are you getting this from ? No sh*t they aren't....they are speaking out Hate against the currently deceased, interupting the Funeral itself with protests, disturbing the peace the family deserves, all because they don't like America's military?
Those fkn cowards, why don't those a**holes grow a backbone and protest on MILITARY camps...I'd love to see those Gay-Bashing, Bible thumping, family-created Church turds protest there !
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Again, I agree that it's poor taste to act in this manner, but it isn't illegal. And certainly isn't lawful for congress to act out of respect for one segment over another.
It's Illegal to Disturb the Peace. It's illegal to promote Hate Speech in the event where an immediate danger is likely (such as riot, etc.). It's illegal to trespass (and let's hope they don't attempt that next), and it's illegal to harass funeral goers by protesting right in front of the funeral buildings (I'd just bet my bottom dollar the funeral attendees can hear the entire protests even from that distance)
It is very Lawful for Congress to protect Privacy from Hatred, and Peace from Instigation ✅