In N Carolina you can't have a bingo game that lasts more than 5 hrs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Printable View
In N Carolina you can't have a bingo game that lasts more than 5 hrs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
pwned. With precedent even.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
No, because that is fighting words. Not hate speech. Hate speech is protected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
The SCOTUS disagrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Attacking people physically, getting them fired, and so on because you disagree with what they say is exactly what real Nazis did before WWII. Trying to fight so called "fascists" using fascist tactics just makes you another kind of fascist.
BTW, as far as your "imminent danger" caused by speech, go ahead and check out the 2011 Snyder v Phelps.
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".
The event we're talking about produced lawless action very promptly after the speech in question. (That goes without saying, but I'm sure you'll disagree with it anyway because as I've said, your only purpose here is to find an argument.) The question is only whether that speech was likely to incite said action. We could talk about how said Nazis were wearing body armor, helmets, carrying shields, weapons, etc., and I would obviously be right. But a picture's worth a thousand words.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-20-2015/qAAvZh.gif
Look at that! I'm still right! Well put! Well put!Hate speech is neither protected nor forbidden. If a certain speech is Constitutionally protected, it is irrelevant whether it is hate speech or not. If it is not so protected, it is irrelevant whether it is hate speech or not. Freedom of speech does not protect speech you hate. Whether you hate it or love it is completely irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
A ruling that makes no reference to imminent danger whatsoever. Classic stuff, Gelly.Quote:
BTW, as far as your "imminent danger" caused by speech, go ahead and check out the 2011 Snyder v Phelps. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".
So it's as Gelston stated; you subtlety changed the conversation from "hate speech" to specific targeted insults on specific places of public property which would disturb the peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Got it.
"Jews will not replace us"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
"any street or other public place"Quote:
on specific places of public property
A hundred screaming bros with torches sounds like a noise ordinance violation to me.Quote:
which would disturb the peace.
Seriously, just take one second. Turn off your b***shit sarcasm and woe is me routine, and actually think about this.Quote:
Got it.
Why is Marco Rubio siding with the lefties on this?
MARCO RUBIO
Marco "human activity does not play a major role in global warming" Rubio
Marco "there should be more vetting of refugees" Rubio
Marco "prohibit an abortion from being performed if the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater" Rubio
Marco "gun control laws consistently fail to achieve their purpose" Rubio
Marco "streamline the appeals process on capital punishment" Rubio
You cannot find a more Republican Republican than Marco Rubio.
If him disagreeing with you doesn't give you pause, who on Earth would?
That's not targeted insults.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
A targeted insult would be walking up to a police officer and calling them a fascist, which ironically is the situation which prompted this ruling.
Now hmm...who is showing up to whom's rallies to get in people's faces and call them fascists? Who who who...
It also doesn't matter because Back started this tangent by saying hate speech is not protected speech then pivoted to this fighting words nonsense.
Hate speech != fighting words.
Tell us again what a great friend to Israel you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01