You have the right to be offended as you choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by pio
You have NO right to insist that others avoid saying anything that offends you.
Printable View
You have the right to be offended as you choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by pio
You have NO right to insist that others avoid saying anything that offends you.
you can get offended if you want, but being offended is not a valid reason to violate or limit 1AQuote:
Originally Posted by pio
so i can verbaly abuse you if i want and you cant legaly do nothing about it...
even if i'm provoking you?
just because its the 1A?
or am i taking your point the wrong way?
Yes, to a degree. When it gets to the point of harassment, there may be legal steps he can take to get you to stop. If you are "provoking" him, it may fall into a thin exception to freedom of speech called "fighting words" in which (if I remember correctly, it ahs been a long time) mere words (once again) rise to the level of an ACTION, which is not protected udner the 1st amnedment. I don't remember the specifics, I am sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by pio
If every morning when I left my house you stood there as I walked to work (I drive, but take the point) screaming obscenities and vulgarities at me, I could likely force this to stop. If you THREATEN me, (a threat is an action!), I could likely take legal action.
In the case of the "fighting words" above, there MIGHT be cases (I seem to remember at least one jurisdiction in which this is true...any recent law students recall?) one could even force the words to stop with a physical altercation, and not be liable for the assault (was this civilly or criminally, I do not remember).
So who decide if i crossed the line?
if the extremist group x are ralling against group y just using words like...
"God Hates you", "you are infirior to us", "you should die", "you look like a [put something derogative here]"...inst that fighting words, provoking? or are they just simply hate speech protected over the 1A?
just trying to undestand why "hate speech" is not "fighting words"...
i would think both have the same result...
"Fighting words" involve threats. One is allowed to defend against threats. Calling someone names is not "fighting words". We learn this as kids: "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me".Quote:
Originally Posted by pio
who say it so?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBob
Is there a book about what is considered a fighting word and what is not...
if you go to a comity and start yelling derogatory names about their ethnicity or religion...
i think those become fighting words...
i guess its all in the context, and the delivery of the words...
I can finally add something useful to this thread.
insults may hurt, but aren't unlawful
threats may not hurt, but are unlawful
As I have seen the law applied the fighting words, aka "Verbal Assault"
requires a realistic expectation that the threat may be carried out, and the proximity must be such as to allow it.
A simple example would be some teens I had charged with verbal assault for a prank in the supermarket.
I had dealt with them at work and I'm sure they weren't happy with being evicted.
One day in the store I hear " There he is GET HIM !!!" and turn to see 3 teens rushing at me. I dropped an armful of stuff and was going for my gun when they turned and hauled ass laughing. Little snots thought it was funny.
Scared the living **** out of me though and I was mad as hell.
I exited the store after them and called the police while following them on their bicycles.
The police finally showed and were pretty ****ed off about the call.
Didn't seem to think I had a leg to stand on.
But I persisted and demanded to speak to a supervisor, then explained to the Sgt. that two had violent records (of which I had previous knowledge) and that the threat had produced in me a reasonable fear that I was about to experience great bodily harm.
I managed to press charges against two (the ones I knew) for verbal assault.
What did it gain me?
I knew that those two were on probation and the new charge equaled VOP and made their lives suck a little harder.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can give real world examples of how I've seen the law applied.
My point was to give an example of an application of these laws and in what context.
You are right about context Poi.
EDIT
and no I didn't post this just to talk about carrying a gun but it was a factor in the story and needed to be included
I would rather have left it out, and I'm sure someone will be along shortly to accuse me of trying to murder little kiddies.
You kiddie murdering gun-slinging right wing nutjob.
There ya go.
depending on the insult and the situation...Quote:
Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr
i think all this isn't black and white...
its a gray area and should be a case by case...
GW I knew you could not stay away! There is something about a good :rant: that makes you want to :medvl: and end the end we all end up :cen.
Matt
Sorry. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
He wanted an example and I managed to stay on topic
but since you mentioned it........
why does it always have to be about race?Quote:
Originally Posted by pio
:roflmao
I couldn't disagree more. there has to be a black and white standard, very clear cut, to prevent abuse by the authorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by pio
to get back to your previous quote, it may differ state by state, but in Texas, "fighting words" must be a verbal threat to you or your family. e.g. "i'm gonna kill you" or "i'm gonna wait in the parking lot for your wife" because they indicate a PHYSICAL danger.
if you just call someone names and say "god hates you" "you suck" "you stupid !@#$%" that's all perfectly fine because it doesn't indicate a threat of force. the rules may be different in other states, but that's the way it is where I live. in order to get a CHL you must study the law and pass a written exam about it (100 questions the last time I took it) and some of these things were covered on the test.
racial slurs are NOT illegal. tacky and hurtful, perhaps, but still protected speech. I don't know how to make this distinction to you any clearer, Pio.
got it!Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
i might not like it...but that how it is...
NO APPOLOGIES! I was just trying to make a sentence out of smilies.Quote:
Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr
Matt
Everything is open to interpretation. Everything is down to the discretion of the authorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
Everything is open to abuse.
some things are more open than others. a rigidly defined standard is less easily abused, imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
Like the speedlimit?
In many, many cases it's more easily abused. If you nail something down hard enough with a definition, then it only takes a small variable to throw it off.
These are systems made by people, interpreted different ways by different people, and ignored by others.
Everything is open to abuse, and the degree of how open it is changes like the wind, depending on the guy who's standing there making the decision.
That's where "Jury of your peers" comes in.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
that is, of course, assuming you go to court in the first place. Even then, there are two guys standing there twisting the law into their favor.
But, what if it never got to court because it never got called in because the cop was your mate and hey, he only looked to be a little drunk, I phoned up and he got home ok.
Or 'Don't let me catch you with pot again'
Or maybe you had a lot of cash, and the cop was taking on the side?
You get the idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBob
This isn't what the following page
Fighting Words Law & Legal Definition
seems to indicate:
Fighting words are words intentionally directed toward another person which are so venomous and full of malice as to cause the hearer to suffer emotional distress or incite him/her to immediately retaliate physically. Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery. However, if they are so threatening as to cause apprehension, they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault, even though the words alone don't constitute an assault.
The utterance of fighting words is not protected by the free speech protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The words are often evaluated not only by the words themselves, but the context in which they are spoken. Courts generally impose a requirement that the speaker intended to cuase [sic] a breach of the peace or incite the hearer to violence.
This isn't anything I have any special knowledge of; it's just that
Google can find stuff. In this case, it's Googling
"fighting words" definition
I have to admit I didn't peruse the remainder of the 31 million hits.
I can go along with that. The key being the intention to "cause..." or "incite...". These are action words, not simple name-calling. (aka "hate speech"). The "intention" is also important. If I call someone a name he doesn't like it is not my problem if he gets excited by that. And remember there are laws against slander and libel so, for example, I can't call anyone a tax cheat just because I feel like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wdhall
Worse is if someone gets excited when I call somebody else a name!
how is the speed limit more easily abused? it's a hard line: if you're going faster, you can get a ticket if caught. if you don't go faster, you won't get a ticket.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
as to your comment about dishonest cops; yes, people are a problem. you really can't escape that. but that doesn't make well-defined laws any less necessary. if anything, it makes them more necessary.
My point was all systems are open to abuse, every single one, and by narrowing the definition, you don't reduce it's susceptibility to abuse at the most basic level, and, indeed, you might make it more susceptible at a higher level.
I would say it's pretty easy to abuse the speed limit. No law has ever changed that.
i think a hard and fast speed limit is less open to abuse than a nebulous definition like "not a safe speed"Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
in that scenario, i think a hard line is less open to abuse by the one enforcing it than a vague one that can be made to apply to anyone the enforcer doesn't like.