Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Back]

That's not targeted insults.

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.

Hey, I dialed it back and agreed that the rallies were indeed protected. Give me some credit.

[Tgo01]

Tell us again what a great friend to Israel you are.

I can both be a great friend to Israel and recognize when speech doesn't break the law. Crazy I know.

[Androidpk]

Hey, I dialed it back and agreed that the rallies were indeed protected. Give me some credit.

I'll give you credit when you admit that Antifa violence has no place in political discourse.

[drauz]

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.

speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

Saying things that people disagree with is protected by the First Amendment. A call to direct violence isn't.

Just so there is no gray area (a place you seem to love to stay in).

Tell us your opinion of this whole situation.

[Tgo01]

I'll give you credit when you admit that Antifa violence has no place in political discourse.

What happened to pk? Yesterday he was all "NAZIS SUCK! DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE LEFT!"

Now he's all "ANTIFA SUCKS TOO! ADMIT IT!!!"

[Gelston]

What happened to pk? Yesterday he was all "NAZIS SUCK! DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE LEFT!"

Now he's all "ANTIFA SUCKS TOO! ADMIT IT!!!"

I think it would be awesome if they both just beat each other into submission.

[Latrinsorm]

Saying things that people disagree with is protected by the First Amendment.

False, because one thing that people can disagree with is, drum roll please...

A call to direct violence on the spot, isn't.

And we have a case where a bunch of people exhorted direct violence and direct violence promptly happened. You can stop virtue signaling about how much you want to protect speech you hate. I can't stress this enough, the amount anyone disagrees with speech is completely irrelevant to whether it's protected or not. Stop taking your Constitutional clues from Larry Flynt.

[Gelston]

False, because one thing that people can disagree with is, drum roll please...And we have a case where a bunch of people exhorted direct violence and direct violence promptly happened. You can stop virtue signaling about how much you want to protect speech you hate. I can't stress this enough, the amount anyone disagrees with speech is completely irrelevant to whether it's protected or not. Stop taking your Constitutional clues from Larry Flynt.

Where were they calling for direct violence?

[Androidpk]

What happened to pk? Yesterday he was all "NAZIS SUCK! DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE LEFT!"

Now he's all "ANTIFA SUCKS TOO! ADMIT IT!!!"

When did I ever say don't say anything about Antifa?

[drauz]

False, because one thing that people can disagree with is, drum roll please...And we have a case where a bunch of people exhorted direct violence and direct violence promptly happened. You can stop virtue signaling about how much you want to protect speech you hate.

Its not just protecting speech I hate, its just protecting free speech full stop. Whether it is hateful or not doesn't matter to me in this regard. You know next to nothing about me but pretend to know the inner workings of my mind.

So there are the quotes I read about, and then there are the quotes you still have yet to provide that show what you are talking about. I'm not going to fish around google for what you want me to see. I read a LA times article and a WaPo article and nothing I read said what you are saying happened.

I can't stress this enough, the amount anyone disagrees with speech is completely irrelevant to whether it's protected or not.

What's your point?


Just so there is no gray area (a place you seem to love to stay in).

Tell us your opinion of this whole situation.