Thread: Freedom of Speech Vs. Hate Speech

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".

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.

Originally Posted by wdhall

Courts generally impose a requirement that the speaker intended to cuase [sic] a breach of the peace or incite the hearer to violence.

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.

Worse is if someone gets excited when I call somebody else a name!

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by gregs656

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"

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.