222180 Bullies, 3839 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 1,111 to 1,120 of 1308
Page 112 of 131 FirstFirst ... 1262102108109110111112 113114115116122 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Snake Plissken is offline
    Snake Plissken's Avatar

    When I Get Back

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,559

    Posted On:
    6/19/2009 3:10pm

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank White View Post
    Is this place somehow different now?
    There are people here.
  2. Lu Tze is offline

    BJJ might make you a better ground fighter, but Judo will make you a better dancer.

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    W. Yorks, UK
    Posts
    5,018

    Posted On:
    6/19/2009 3:10pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cy Q. Faunce View Post
    I suspect it's because there's no point in being a bÍte noire in the absence of a chevalier blanc.
    The only bÍte knocking about round here is one of the jambon variety.

    I'm not going to point any fingers though... ooh ooh eek eek.
  3. Cy Q. Faunce is offline
    Cy Q. Faunce's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    3,577

    Posted On:
    6/19/2009 3:12pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Finding You

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank White View Post
    um, sorry, no habla espanol senior...
    I'm saying he can't be a proper Emmanuel Goldstein if he can't manufacture a Big Brother to oppose.
  4. kenpostudent is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    502

    Posted On:
    6/19/2009 3:15pm


     Style: American Kenpo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by crappler View Post
    Well, it's a pretty complicated area of con law actually, but for your purposes, "fighting words" are not protected speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplin..._New_Hampshire
    "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

    The above came directly from the decision in question. Notice the bolded words.

    So, it appears Munacra was correct. I stand corrected.
  5. Cy Q. Faunce is offline
    Cy Q. Faunce's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    3,577

    Posted On:
    6/19/2009 3:17pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Finding You

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by kenpostudent View Post
    So, it appears Munacra was correct.
    No. That law only restricts certain forms of racist speech.
  6. kenpostudent is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    502

    Posted On:
    6/19/2009 3:22pm


     Style: American Kenpo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cy Q. Faunce View Post
    No. That law only restricts certain forms of racist speech.
    It's not a clear principle in terms of application, for sure, but speech that is likely to incite violence is not protected. We can argue about what constitutes speech inflammatory enough to incite violence. The principle is simple, though. I've seen the N-word and other racial slurs incite immediate violence. Context is the key, though.
  7. HappyOldGuy is offline
    HappyOldGuy's Avatar

    Slipping coal into stockings with a little sumptin for mom.

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,825

    Posted On:
    6/19/2009 3:23pm


     Style: Rehab Fu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    and from the cited wiki article.

    Although the Court continues to cite Chaplinsky's position on “fighting words” approvingly, subsequent cases have largely eroded its initial, broad formulation; libelous publications and even verbal challenges to police officers have come to enjoy some constitutional protection. Chaplinsky remains the last case in which the Court explicitly upheld a conviction only for “fighting words” directed at public officials.
    But even if you take a broad brush with fighting words, there is still no ban on racist speech because it is racist. Any such ban would be based on the intent of the speaker and likely reaction of the listeners. Banning speech based solely on it's ideological content is an absolute nono.

    Also, more recent and directly on point.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V...ty_of_St._Paul
    Last edited by HappyOldGuy; 6/19/2009 3:27pm at .
  8. ysc87 is offline
    ysc87's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    LA/CA ; STL/MO
    Posts
    1,136

    Posted On:
    6/19/2009 3:24pm


     Style: crapp-lawl-ing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by kenpostudent View Post
    It's not a clear principle, for sure, but speech that is likely to incite violence is not protected. We can argue about what constitutes speech inflammatory enough to incite violence. The principle is clear, though. I've seen the N-word and other racial slurs incite immediate violence. Context is the key, though.

    You can argue that it does all you like, but it still doesn't qualify in this case. :/
  9. kenpostudent is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    502

    Posted On:
    6/19/2009 3:26pm


     Style: American Kenpo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by HappyOldGuy View Post
    and from the cited wiki article.



    But even if you take a broad brush with fighting words, there is still no ban on racist speech because it is racist. Any such ban would be based on the intent of the speaker and likely reaction of the listeners. Banning speech based solely on it's ideological content is an absolute nono.
    You are correct. I am not arguing that. Again, it goes back to the ability of the speech to incite. There is forseeability involved. The speech has to have the ability of provoking immediate violence. Hence, why a threat is not covered by free speech. You can make a convincing argument that calling anyone a racial slur is inciting violence or provoking a fight.
  10. kenpostudent is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    502

    Posted On:
    6/19/2009 3:29pm


     Style: American Kenpo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirc View Post
    By the way, ******, I went out to buy some ice cream with my girlfriend and having a life while your wife is assassinating your sexual identity and your children are eating your dreams.

    In fact, as I sit here and type, my girlfriend is feeding me ice cream. It's delicious.

    Let's do this, let's have a Unified MMA ruleset. Then we'll run a track, any track you want, and then a rally stage. And finally, we'll learn a choreographed ballet number and have it judged by ballet teachers to see who did it best. Winner takes all.

    Your children will make beautiful live mantle pieces and your wife will make a wonderful gardener. I have a shed out back she can live in.
    Are you telling me that this does not qualify as "fighting words"? Please!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.