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.

 

Wear a Gorilla mask and hold Banana at BLM protest You get---civil rights charges

page: 13
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: veracity

I can tell you're not a lawyer, or if you are, not a very good one.




The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

www.aclu.org...

en.m.wikipedia.org...




posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

What exactly did the ape-man say?



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Really...ok

So freedom of speech trumps the social contract.

Did the guy handing out nooses make any direct threats?



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: luthier

What exactly did the ape-man say?


Exactly.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: veracity

Then please use logical arguments.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You should read your own source:


In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.








edit on 22-12-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

What did he say?



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
This man clearly identifies as a Gorilla.

This is horrible that he can not express his true inner self without being called a racist.

People who identify themselves with other species have rights too you know!!!

This must stop immediately or I will have to go to my safe room and color for a while.


He might actually get off scot free with that excuse, especially if he identifies as a LGBTQXYZ gorilla. He should sue BLM in return for hatespeech and such.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Look. I really dont care how you FEEL about the situation. The bottom line is the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects our free speech. As long as the ape-man was not making clear and direct threats of violence, or directly soliciting violence/vandalism/rioting, he should be left alone to wallow in his own stupidity.

What social contract. The only social contract I acknowledge is the Bill of Rights.
edit on 22-12-2016 by BELIEVERpriest because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: luthier

You should read your own source:


In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.









So should you

the Supreme Court has effectively limited the exception to only include abusive language, exchanged face to face, which would likely provoke a violent reaction.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
What did he say?


He does not have to say anything, the law protects 'symbolic expression' as well as verbal.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sorry officer, didn't see a thing. He was standing right next to me? huh, how about that. I guess I'll just have to pay more attention next time.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: veracity
[
no, the idiot does not have the right to wear a mask and hold a piece of fruit in this situation, and NO the BLM protester does not have a right to punch the idiot.


I see 7 pages later and you still have not addressed my post.

If a person cannot dress up like an gorilla and act like a racist asshole how come the Klan still gets to play dress up in public and act like racist assholes?
.

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore you, this thread moves fast.

I have never experienced a kkk encounter but if that does happen my guess would be that for some odd reason it is not illegal bc they are an organization and therefore not of civil infringement??? I dunno



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
the Supreme Court has effectively limited the exception to only include abusive language, exchanged face to face, which would likely provoke a violent reaction.


That quote is not in the link you provided.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
I have never experienced a kkk encounter but if that does happen my guess would be that for some odd reason it is not illegal bc they are an organization and therefore not of civil infringement??? I dunno


No, it is legal because it is protected free speech. The Constitution has no differentiator between a group or individual citizen in regards free speech.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I can tell you are not a lawyer either




posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: veracity

You're not missing anything, trust me.

...and their speech, speech only, are protected by the same First Amendment.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: veracity

You do not need to be a Constitutional scholar to understand the simplicity of the Constitution.

Your very answer, 'I dunno', shows you have no understanding of this topic. A group has no more protection (or less) than does a private citizen. The Klan can dress up and say racist things because of free speech, the jackass in the Original Post can dress up and act like a racist asshole for the exact same reason.

If you were correct the video I linked, where the Klan is making hateful speech in public, would not exist.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull

You're not missing anything, trust me.

...and their speech, speech only, are protected by the same First Amendment.


Symbolic expression is protected as well, which covers flag burning and jackasses dressing up as Klan members or gorillas.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull
I think the fact that they are in thier white uniform (which I think is extremely scary) and not a tantalizing gorilla costume helps them. I'm sure there's lots of red tape. This is a good question to ask someone in civil law.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join