TakeYouToTasker Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 (edited) Correct. However, the interpretation that hate speech which plausibly incites violence is indefensible under the First Amendment has been gaining steam of late. Which is appropriate IMO. There's a linear argument to be made for the concept of speech presenting 'clear and present danger' precedent and that of groups using rhetoric that directly contributes to the public safety's detriment.Wrong. The decision, rendered less than two month ago, accounted for everything going on today. Specific threats used to incite violence like, "Let's kill the black guy over there in the blue shirt!" rise to that standard. "We should kick out all the Mexicans and blacks because they are subhuman animals." does not. This interpretation of the Law is resting on just about two and a half centuries of Stare Decisis. Further, your argument, in it's practical application is seeking to criminalize political thought on the grounds that the person who hears the speech might be offended and therefore compelled to violence. You asking to suspend one persons rights because another person isn't adult enough to control themselves and not perpetrate violence against the speaker[/i]. That's an absurd position to take. Edited August 20, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 Wrong. The decision, rendered less than two month ago, accounted for everything going on today. Specific threats used to incite violence like, "Let's kill the black guy over there in the blue shirt!" rise to that standard. "We should kick out all the Mexicans and blacks because they are subhuman animals." does not. This interpretation of the Law is resting on just about two and a half centuries of Stare Decisis. Further, your argument, in it's practical application is seeking to criminalize political thought on the grounds that the person who hears the speech might be offended and therefore compelled to violence. You asking to suspend one persons rights because another person isn't adult enough to control themselves and not perpetrate violence against the speaker[/i]. That's an absurd position to take. One could argue both your examples are bad ones in that they expressly violate the Brandenburg standard (murder and unlawful deportation, respectively) in determining free speech limits. And it's not my argument that says speech which incites or produces imminent lawless action is against the law, it's been on the books since 1969. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 (edited) One could argue both your examples are bad ones in that they expressly violate the Brandenburg standard (murder and unlawful deportation, respectively) in determining free speech limits. And it's not my argument that says speech which incites or produces imminent lawless action is against the law, it's been on the books since 1969.No, the second is not, because it's not a specific call to action to do violence. Again, this is a recent unanimous SCOTUS decision, and more than 200 years of Stare Decisis supports my position. Further, it is your argument because you're calling for going against the interpretation of that law, as defined by the Supreme Court. Let's suppose we were having this conversation in person, and I was deeply offended by your political position, and it made me so mad that I punched you in the face, should your speech be censored? Edited August 20, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 No, the second is not, because it's not a specific call to action to do violence. Again, this is a recent unanimous SCOTUS decision, and more than 200 years of Stare Decisis supports my position. Further, it is your argument because you're calling for going against the interpretation of that law, as defined by the Supreme Court. Let's suppose we were having this conversation in person, and I was deeply offended by your political position, and it made me so mad that I punched you in the face, should your speech be censored? Ha! And which case? I'd be interested in hearing how you're applying their decision. And specificity has nothing to do with it. You're probably right that the second wouldn't make the cut, but the standard of 'inciting imminent lawless action' might reasonably be applied to a call for the harassing of Mexican and black people depending on the context...'imminent' is the key word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 Ha! And which case? I'd be interested in hearing how you're applying their decision. And specificity has nothing to do with it. You're probably right that the second wouldn't make the cut, but the standard of 'inciting imminent lawless action' might reasonably be applied to a call for the harassing of Mexican and black people depending on the context...'imminent' is the key word. I can make anything anyone is about to say certain to incite imminent violence by making them aware that I'll assault them for saying it. That's an absurd standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 (edited) I can make anything anyone is about to say certain to incite imminent violence by making them aware that I'll assault them for saying it. That's an absurd standard. There's solid precedent. Here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568/case.html And Cantwell v. Connecticut disproves your scenario above, I believe. Again: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10099999677896592458&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr So when you say "We should kick out all the Mexicans and blacks because they are subhuman animals." I am less than confident it's protected. Edited August 20, 2017 by GoBills808 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Sack Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 Trump is poll numbers suck, and Congress has passed zero pieces of legislation outside of confining Gorsuch and sanctioning Russia. We are being ripped off. It's all theatre and the taxpayers get screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Trump is poll numbers suck, and Congress has passed zero pieces of legislation outside of confining Gorsuch and sanctioning Russia. We are being ripped off. It's all theatre and the taxpayers get screwed. Are you drunk, a victim of bad autocorrect, or is English not your first language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Are you drunk, a victim of bad autocorrect, or is English not your first language? I'd venture to guess that it's two out of three, and he doesn't have autocorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Govt. Union Rep: Employees Only Have To Be “Available To Work” To Get Paidby Jazz Shaw FTA: It’s not just the VA where we’re having trouble cutting out the deadwood, however. This report from the Washington Post has at least one real eye opener in it. The head of the Treasury has been made aware of problems at the Patent and Trademark Office. Over there, a number of workers were found to be falsifying their time reporting, billing the government for hundreds of thousands of dollars for time not worked. In some of the most severe cases, workers put in two hours of time, then had the audacity to charge the government for a full day plus two hours of overtime. Only one person has managed to be fired in that scandal and that case may be put on hold also. Sounds like this should be fairly easy to clean up, right? Not so fast. Enter Harold Ross, president of Local 243 of the National Treasury Employees Union. He doesn’t see any reason for disciplinary action because even if his union members weren’t on the job, they were available to work. (Emphasis added) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 This should concern you........... DOJ TRIED TO FORCE PASTOR TO TESTIFY ON HIS VIEWS OF ISLAM Christian Adams at PJ Media reports that the United State Department of Justice issued subpoenas to force a Christian pastor in Virginia to disclose under oath his views on Islam. Fortunately, today a federal court dismissed the underlying case that gave rise to the subpoena. Nonetheless, the saga reminds us of the abusive leftism of the DOJ. Steve Harrelson is the pastor of the Mt. Lebanon Baptist Church in Boston, Virginia. He is not a party to any lawsuit or other action brought by the Justice Department. He is a private citizen. Nonetheless, the Department of Justice subpoened him to testify as to his view of Islam and other matters, and demanded that he bring any papers or documents he has to the deposition with government lawyers that relate to or mention Islam. The underlying case is a Justice Department action alleging that Culpeper County refused to grant a permit to allow the Islamic Center of Culpeper to pump and haul away sewage. The site of the Islamic Center was unsuitable for a septic system at the time of purchase. The Center has settled all possible claims against Culpepper County. Under the settlement, the Center will be allowed to pump and haul away sewage. However, DOJ is pursuing a case against the County. It claims that the County, not Pastor Harrelson or any individual Christian citizen, discriminated in zoning decisions regarding an application to build a mosque. That case is the vehicle for forcing a Christian pastor and other Christians to testify under oath about their views on Islam. The government’s theory? It’s a novel one developed during the Obama administration. As Adams describes it: [Z]oning boards can be saddled with any “naked animus or resistance from the community.” In other words, if some people don’t want a mosque in the community, then any zoning decision against the mosque must be because of citizen opposition. It’s the everyone-is-racist if anyone-is-racist theory advanced by academia and others. DOJ filed the case shortly before President Trump took office. It has continued to pursue it, notwithstanding the advent of the Trump administration. MORE AT THE LINK: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Wrong. The decision, rendered less than two month ago, accounted for everything going on today. Specific threats used to incite violence like, "Let's kill the black guy over there in the blue shirt!" rise to that standard. "We should kick out all the Mexicans and blacks because they are subhuman animals." does not. This interpretation of the Law is resting on just about two and a half centuries of Stare Decisis. Further, your argument, in it's practical application is seeking to criminalize political thought on the grounds that the person who hears the speech might be offended and therefore compelled to violence. You asking to suspend one persons rights because another person isn't adult enough to control themselves and not perpetrate violence against the speaker[/i]. That's an absurd position to take. What a great post . A thousand percent correct. So much groupthink these days that presumes one has a right not to be offended or " triggered" or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 WHAT COULD GO WRONG? Police Chief Says He’ll Decide Who Is Or Isn’t A Real Journalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 (edited) Mayor Daley's police sure made use of determining who is a real journalist in Chicago '68. hee. Edited September 8, 2017 by row_33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 Who do people turn to when disaster strikes? The Federal government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 Wrong. The government turns to them. People turn to families, their church, their insurance company, and charities if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 Wrong. The government turns to them. People turn to families, their church, their insurance company, and charities if need be. You must understand, that with the circles he runs walks crawls schits his pants with he's correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 You must understand, that with the circles he runs walks crawls schits his pants with he's correct. I don't live in Florida or Texas, places that will be getting even more than usual from the Feds. And you are a rodent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 I don't live in Florida or Texas, places that will be getting even more than usual from the Feds. And you are a rodent. I'm sure that makes the people of Florida and Texas very happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts