It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: benrl
A person with a private opinion, who holds an elected public office, making statements in a Public establishment,
Free speech, does not mean freedom from consequences from said speech,
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
The Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the arrest. Writing the decision for the Court, Justice Frank Murphy advanced a “two-tier theory” of the First Amendment. Certain “well-defined and narrowly limited” categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection. Thus, “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous,” and (in this case) insulting or “fighting” words neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any “social value” in the search for truth.[2]
Murphy wrote:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
So, just to be clear, you feel it is your right to sit in a starbucks, or any busy public place, say ANYTHING you want loud enough for others to hear, and to be free of any response to it?
originally posted by: FlyersFan
originally posted by: benrl
A person with a private opinion, who holds an elected public office, making statements in a Public establishment,
He was speaking to a friend in a private conversation .. not 'making public statement's' ...
Free speech, does not mean freedom from consequences from said speech,
Ya'll keep going back to that. He didn't make a public statement. He said one word about one politician in private and a busy-body listened in and reported what was said to the press. So you are grabbing the torches and pitchforks over that? really? Seems like that's not really free speech at all.
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
A)Theres nothing private about a conversation in a public place
B)You are an idiot if you are a public figure of ANY sort and think that people arent going to notice what you say.
On top of that, the situation raises the very pertinent question of whether or not this person is qualified to do with job without prejudice.
originally posted by: whyamIhere
originally posted by: intelligenthoodlum33
originally posted by: minusinfinity
originally posted by: intelligenthoodlum33
Oh goodie! Another thread defending bigots. Ignorance runs deep around here.
I don't think anyone is defending bigotry but we are defending free speech.
You are defending hate speech....by playing the "victim card"
And you are doing the same exact thing...
Playing the victim card.
Not a single person defended what he said.
If you have read this thread and believe that, I can't do anything to help you. You obviously view reality through special glasses. Good luck.edit on 5/16/2014 by intelligenthoodlum33 because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: intelligenthoodlum33
Oh goodie! Another thread defending bigots. Ignorance runs deep around here.
If you ask me, the N***s around here have been treated awful bad for a long time.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
He HAS free speech ....
If you are saying it within earshot of other people, you cannot expect them to shut off their hearing and/or comprehension skills to save your right to (public) privacy.
There is an assumption of privacy from busy-bodies listening in when they have no business doing so.
Which means that....HE'S A PUBLIC FIGURE. Heck, you said it yourself: he's an elected official. Its the town's right to decide if they still want him.
It's a town of like 6,000 people and he's just an elected police commissioner.
Until now.
There have never been any complaints raised against him.
Thats for the town to decide.
Obviously he's doing his job just fine.
So you're claiming that she snuck up in a way so that they didnt know she was there and spied on their conversation? Or did she plant a listening device?
- The woman listened in when it wasn't any of her business on a private conversation.
Sometimes thats enough.
- The man said ONE WORD about ONE POLITICIAN.
Im not seeing the outrage. If the town wants him gone, its their right. In fact, the only 'outrage' here is outrage over his being (perfectly legally) called out.
- This is faux outrage.
originally posted by: FlyersFan
There is an assumption of privacy from busy-bodies listening in when they have no business doing so.
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
So you're claiming that she snuck up in a way so that they didnt know she was there and spied on their conversation? Or did she plant a listening device?
Im not seeing the outrage.
So you are freely admitting that he said it in public, within earshot of other people, correct?
I'm saying she listened in when it was none of her business to do so. And then she blabbed. That's not part of her job description. Customers expect privacy when eating out.