Players So ‘Upset and Distraught’ Over Chants That They ‘Weren’t Able to Finish the Game’

a reply to: grainofsand

The aforementioned link gives you the Supreme Court detail behind the 1942 decision that made "Fighting Words" a real thing.

As with most laws relating to the publics use of force, it mostly boils down to what a reasonable person would do. Now, i am not allowed to shoot someone for insulting my wife. That is deadly force, and is reserved for when either me, or someone in my vicinity is facing a reasonable risk of harm to their life. But I am likely going to be allowed to put my fist in his mouth often enough to stop the words from coming out, and not have too many issues (assuming no booze is present, and witness statements are pretty clear about who deserved the beating).

How it plays out everywhere else, i have no idea. How it plays out in West Texas: you would never press charges for it. Because no jury would convict over it.

My uncle married a Korean woman. He moved home after he got out of the service, and she came here with him. We loved her, mostly because she could cook Korean food of the highest caliber. BUt she was also a good lady. My uncle was an asshole, so they divorced eventually....but i still see her and keep in touch. Anyway, one night at the bowling alley someone called her some racial eptithet. My uncle told him to stow it, or suffer for it. A few minutes later, he made a comment about her eating "ground dog" when she brought a burger back from the concessions. My uncle dragged him outside and curb stomped him into ICU. My uncle was not arrested, but that man was served a criminal tresspass warning by the bowling alley when he was released from the hospital. Had my grandfather not been there to stop it, my uncle may have went in for murder that night. But reasonable people gave witness statements to the officer that the guy was begging for an ass whooping, and I guess the officer agreed.

There is a town very near where I live that Paul Harvey once said is the best place to commit a murder and get away with it. We are quite far from the Roman Guards out this way, and live mostly under barbarian notions of justice.

originally posted by: grainofsand
No, I recognise where legislation has brought about societal change for the better.
I ignore the law all the time, it's only a bonus if it falls within my own ethical and moral considerations.

The fact that you ignore law that does not fit your morals proves that point that legislating morality is not very effective.

...and how does society deal with it? Beatings by parents on other parents? Is that allowed in the constitution?
If so it seems most of your parents are too # scared to call racists out in this OP.

Where did I say that it required beatings? I am also unable to locate whether any of these children's parents were present.

It would appear the adults were incapable of addressing the racist #ers and legislation could have helped.

Again, I am not able to determine whether any of their parents were there. Also, how would a law have prevented them from saying something?

How is it that the other parents didn't end up challenging it, do they not feel confident enough that the constitution would back them up?

Which parents?

BFFT seems to be saying that beating someone is allowed under the constitution if facing merely verbal attack...I don't believe him.

I would address the quotes he provided you if you are looking for an explanation on that topic.

a reply to: grainofsand

making it an offence to verbally abuse people in public

You just verbally abused me.

How do I charge you?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
You know how I learned you don't call a girl "fat"? In 2nd grade, a girls brother taught me that lesson. And i learned it well.

So that girls brother assumed 'authority' and infringed on your legal rights, but you support it?
How do you resolve that apparent contradiction?
As far as I understand it, the use of violence is illegal in response to simple insults in the US. Do you think that is constitutional or not?

No, you are incorrect.

en.wikipedia.org...

Our first amendment recognizes that there is a such thing as "fighting words".

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

I'm curious more than anything as I have no dog in this fight. Legislation has tempered the racists in UK society, publicly at least. Without legislation the UK would be as racist as it was in the 70's and 80's. Legislation combined with generational die-off's has worked, very well.

You really believe that your government can legislate away racism? If you think that, I have a ton of anti-Syria threads from UK members to show you.

So what can you do, as I asked you in a previous reply?
Can you stove a man's face in? All the front teeth/nose/cheekbones because he insulted his wife as you referred to earlier?
Please do explain how your society stops kids being verbally abused at sporting events if the parents don't have the law backing them up to use reasonable force like we have in the UK?

You're a mod lol, you enforce rules against racists on ATS but you apparently disagree with your nation's mod's creating rules to protect your kids from verbal racial abuse?!
Lol, I couldn't make that up for a book!

originally posted by: ketsuko
How do I charge you?

With your head down, wearing a Kaiser helmet.

I blame the adults that were there for not standing up to the unsportsmanlike comments from the fans chanting "Donald trump build that wall" that type of political rhetoric has no place in a sporting event, how come they weren't chanting "Donald trump lower taxes", because they were race baiting plain and simple. what if it were black fans chanting "Bernie sanders more affirmative action"?????? anyone that thinks that type of behavior is acceptable must be praying for a race war.

Grainofsand...since you may have missed it:

en.wikipedia.org...

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

and some clarification:

Gooding was the nail in the coffin—if the fighting words exception has any real vitality left at all (and many commentators, including Nadine Strossen, think it is essentially dead) the Supreme Court has effectively limited the exception to only include abusive language, exchanged face to face, which would likely provoke a violent reaction.

www.thefire.org...

Call my wife a wet back, and you'll need a set of dentures. And I will be given a parade. I promise. Believe it or not.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, I just felt verbally abused by that post, so I thought I ought to bring charges you know.

And that is the problem with that kind of legislation. It becomes a weapon for anyone who doesn't like what you are saying.

Btw, you verbally abused me too a time or two.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Btw, you verbally abused me too a time or two.

Here, have a Kleenex.

a reply to: sputniksteve

I can tell you right now your anger has you blind to what the other posters are saying.

You're right, which is why I bowed out a little while ago. It actually hits home with myself a lot and regret letting my feelings get involved with this thread.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

Just like the great Larry Bird one time saying he was insulted if a white guy was guarding him?

Please, grow some thicker skin. Was the move "White Man Can't Jump" also race baiting?

The wall isn't even about race. The snowflakes don't recognize that though.

originally posted by: grainofsand

So what can you do, as I asked you in a previous reply?
Can you stove a man's face in? All the front teeth/nose/cheekbones because he insulted his wife as you referred to earlier?

It would seem SCOTUS believes that I can, yes.

Please do explain how your society stops kids being verbally abused at sporting events if the parents don't have the law backing them up to use reasonable force like we have in the UK?

You don't. One thing that will drive you crazy quicker than anything is trying to control other people. If you think writing a law will do it....how come you still have murders?

No, its better to let free people be free. And let the school deal with it. Like i mentioned earlier: had that happened in any school that we played against, the game would have been stopped long enough to eject the assholes. And if either team quit playing in protest, they'd get a Loss recorded.

You're a mod lol, you enforce against racist rules but you apparently disagree with you nation's mod's creating rules to protect your kids from verbal racial abuse?!
Lol, I couldn't make that up for a book!

I am a moderator that enforces the rules of a private entity. I am not a police, and ATS is not a nation or court. While I get where you are trying to go with that....you failed miserably. Because ATS is a private entity where freedom of speech does not exist.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Am I bad because I liked that..sometimes one needs to take care of business.

a reply to: Metallicus

Yeah, I think stop playing was be appropriate. who cares, just a game. Tell the other team to get their fans together.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Call my wife a wet back, and you'll need a set of dentures. And I will be given a parade. I promise. Believe it or not.

Your quotes don't cut the mustard for me and I'd rather read whatever it is you believe the law will back you if I called your wife the word you posted earlier.
You've been evasive to my questions so I'll ask again, can you stove my face, nose, cheeks, and teeth in to punish me for disrespecting your wife?

Can you get away with forcing me to count my fingers and toes out as you break them?
What does your constitution say? I'm genuinely interested, I adapt easily to any jurisdiction because there is always the hardest gang in town, wherever you are in the world.

So BFFT, come on, be honest and detailed, what exactly can I do to another human in your state if they disrespect my wife?

a reply to: MysticPearl


the wall isn't about race neither is lowering taxes, so why did the students decide to chant build that wall, would they have chosen to chant that against an all white team? why didn't they chant Donald trump lower our taxes? white men can't jump was about street ball not a public school venue. since when is it the norm to chant political rhetoric at a public school sporting event anyway?

a reply to: conspiracy nut

Probably because

a) kids don't know much about needed tax reform given they're kids and

b) the MSM has splashed "Build the Wall" across the news for months now and turned it into an insult through constant lying and misrepresentation of racial issues, so these kids latched onto the catch phrase

a reply to: DBCowboy

Setting aside the sarcatistic comments for a moment.


Do the group of you who are excusing this 'chanting' as acceptable really want to establish thaat it okay to shout racial slurs in public?

If it's okay to shout slurs at kids then it's ...
okay to shout slurs in the mall
on the street
in the bar
ANd they Don't have to be just racial. They can be ...
Anti gender
Anti religion
Anti political

In a country that seems to be reeling back and forth on the race issue the US needs to balance it's freedom of speech with its MULT-Iculturalism and find away to be decent to other.

Shame on you who approve of shout anything at children except words of support.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

Have you read the thread?

They did it to get under the other team's skin, and look at that ... it worked. Crowds do it all the time. It blurs the lines between offensive sometimes. This was a bit overboard. And I don't think anyone disagrees on that. My post about it not having overt racial language in it was to illustrate the difficulty of making laws to stop it. How do you define what language is bad v. what is good?

You can either target specific terms, but this didn't really have any. Or, you can say "whatever makes you feel bad" in which case anything can make a person feel bad and no one can then say anything which is bad law IMO.

But things like this get yelled by fans all over the world all across different sports. This is hardly a unique incident.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: conspiracy nut

Probably because

a) kids don't know much about needed tax reform given they're kids and

b) the MSM has splashed "Build the Wall" across the news for months now and turned it into an insult through constant lying and misrepresentation of racial issues, so these kids latched onto the catch phrase

so you just admitted the kids were using the phrase as a racist taunt.