Thread: Freedom of Speech Vs. Hate Speech

Originally Posted by pio

so you are saying you have to RIGHT to offend me and i have no right to get offended?

You have the right to be offended as you choose.

You have NO right to insist that others avoid saying anything that offends you.

Originally Posted by pio

so you are saying you have to RIGHT to offend me and i have no right to get offended?

you can get offended if you want, but being offended is not a valid reason to violate or limit 1A

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?

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.

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...

Originally Posted by pio

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".

Originally Posted by TexasBob

"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".

who say it so?
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.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

insults may hurt, but aren't unlawful
threats may not hurt, but are unlawful

depending on the insult and the situation...

i think all this isn't black and white...
its a gray area and should be a case by case...