Squeak 17
Recommended Posts
Once again, you are wrong in your assertion and yet you ASSume to tell me and everyone else I am wrong.
Try reading for a change.
QuoteLegal Basis for Decision: The Court noted that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain "well-defined and narrowly limited" classes of speech that can be proscribed and regulated without constitutional problem. These include the "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words'." The Court defined fighting words as those words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Fighting words are excluded, the Court reasoned, because any benefit derived from their utterance is outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. The Court determined that the statute was constitutional. Finding that the epithets uttered by Chaplinsky were likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace, the Court ruled that Mr. Chaplinsky's words were unprotectable fighting words.
Quotable: "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."
Writing for the Majority: Justice Murphy
I can cite much more, but you won't read it.
Because if you had bothered in the first place you would have refrained from comment.
Like I said before, because I posted it does not make it wrong.
Quit while you are behind.
Bolas 5
QuoteWhat about in Lucky's example? Was that not ok for her brother to do what he did? What if that took place today with the following scenario: This is a little bit of a stretch but what if it was a chick saying she dyked it out with lucky at some party? (we'll pretend she WOULDN'T like that rumor
) is it then not ok for her brother to handle it still? and the way he did back then? Since it's another girl does it have to be her handling it?
) is it then not ok for her brother to handle it still? and the way he did back then? Since it's another girl does it have to be her handling it?In that scenario Lucky and her friends would tease the girl continuously and call her a fat whore until she developed a complex and an eating disorder: the standard high school girl response.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Squeak 17
that page was posted earlier by Skitz i read it then and commented THEN, now where does it say that physical violence is an acceptable answer to words you dont like.
I'm so sorry that you seem unable to grasp that but it's neither my problem nor my concern.
You have done similar in other threads, where you fail to acknowledge somthing i have already posted and continue with your rant that i am wrong.
Inciting a crowd is basically saying if you are clever enough to piss a lot of people off you can be held accountable for the disturbance.
Kindly point out anywhere in that URL page where is states that is ok to bash someone because they spoke at you?
BTW, I'm done with your lack of comprehension
I made new news years resolution, to not waste to much time with people of your ilk
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
wolfriverjoe 1,523
I see that the speech is not constitutionally protected. I don't see (although I realize that it is a very small part of a larger whole) where violent retaliation is permitted.
I think that a cop could issue a disorderly conduct citation to the guy with the big mouth, and his "fighting words" could be prosecuted. Free speech would not be a valid defense.
But popping the dude in the mouth for uttering "fighting words" could still be assault, if there was not a credible, immediate, serious threat of attack.
I think that a cop could issue a disorderly conduct citation to the guy with the big mouth, and his "fighting words" could be prosecuted. Free speech would not be a valid defense.
But popping the dude in the mouth for uttering "fighting words" could still be assault, if there was not a credible, immediate, serious threat of attack.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
I can cite other things that would prove otherwise, unfortunately sqeauk cannot figure that out on his own.
He is intent on proving something, only he does not know what it is.
In the case of fighting words, they can be injurious, therefore a physical stop would be considered self defense.
It has been done before.
He is intent on proving something, only he does not know what it is.
In the case of fighting words, they can be injurious, therefore a physical stop would be considered self defense.
It has been done before.
Squeak 17
you pick up on one word and base your argument on thatQuoteI can cite other things that would prove otherwise, unfortunately sqeauk cannot figure that out on his own.
He is intent on proving something, only he does not know what it is.
In the case of fighting words, they can be injurious, therefore a physical stop would be considered self defense.
It has been done before.
you're not very good at debating are you.
Would you please tell me what words i could speak that would be injurous to you?
Words (NOT Threats or aggression), words that would could you harm.
Also please do cite, where it is legally acceptable to cause physical harm to someone because of words they use. that are not implying harm or iminent danger
I PROMISE I'll READ IT
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites