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.

 

Trump says the 'alt-left' bears some responsibility for violence in Charlottesville

page: 25
62
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's been summarily dismantled in cases following it. There may be some narrow exceptions you could squeeze through but by and large that precedent doesn't really exist anymore.

Gooding v. Wilson pretty much did it in.


it is important to note the speech involved in Gooding. While assaulting a police officer, Gooding shouted, “White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you.” “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death.” and “You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I’ll cut you all to pieces.” If this speech doesn’t constitute fighting words, one would be hard-pressed to think of speech that would qualify.

www.thefire.org...
edit on 15-8-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's been summarily dismantled in cases following it. There may be some narrow exceptions you could squeeze through but by and large that precedent doesn't really exist anymore.

Gooding v. Wilson pretty much did it in.


Not at all. Goodling v. WIlson was 1971. The matter was still before the Supreme Court in 2003.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Actually ...



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."


Fighting Words Doctrine


Your wrong in 1992 they overturned a large part of the law. Then in 2011 over west biro baptists church they said that their rhetoric was indeed protected by freedom of speech.

So the law has been changed and for good reason. Think about it the first amendment is not meant to protect speech you agree with. It's meant to protect speech you disagree with find evil repugnant etc. This is the speech that needs protection yes everyone has the right to express their opinion even racists. By trying to take away their rights is the fast track to a dictator.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It was decided by the Supreme Court in 1972. Maybe you're looking at a different Gooding v Wilson?

supreme.justia.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Further:



The varying decisions in the lower courts — and the complexity of the qualified-immunity doctrine — show that judges struggle with whether profane speech crosses the line from protected criticism or protected expression into the realm of unprotected fighting words. As Justice Harlan wrote in his Cohen opinion: “This case may seem at first blush too inconsequential to find its way into our books, but the issue it presents is of no small constitutional significance.” Whether expression constitutes fighting words, remains a difficult, contentious issue that is also of “no small constitutional significance.”

Updated July 2009


www.firstamendmentcenter.org



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

It was decided by the Supreme Court in 1972. Maybe you're looking at a different Gooding v Wilson?

supreme.justia.com...


Yes, there are cases which deal with fighting words before the Supreme Court as late as 2003. As I said.

The concept is not "dismantled" at all.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Actually ...



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."


Fighting Words Doctrine


Its ironic you bring that case up.

You know what Chapinsky was charged for?

Calling people fascists.


The original fighting words doctrine was born out of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted of disturbing the peace for yelling at a local sheriff, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist” and for further remarking, “the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, creating a narrow category of speech—“fighting words”—that did not enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. The fighting words doctrine, as originally announced in Chaplinsky, found that two types of speech were not protected—words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace


www.thefire.org...

So by this interpretation, the leftists yelling fascist at the righties would not have been free speech, lol!

But the statute was later vastly limited.


The very next year, in Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972), the Court cited Cohen and stated that speech that is “vulgar or offensive…is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Then, the very next term, the Court reaffirmed this stance in Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) by finding that the pronouncement “we’ll take the #ing street later” did not constitute fighting words.

In assessing the fighting words doctrine at this point, it is important to note the speech involved in Gooding. While assaulting a police officer, Gooding shouted, “White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you.” “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death.” and “You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I’ll cut you all to pieces.” If this speech doesn’t constitute fighting words, one would be hard-pressed to think of speech that would qualify.


www.thefire.org...



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Oh, but the only motive was from the alt-righter with the cool-looking Dodge Challenger.

No way would anyone else with motive try to organize and orchestrate this.

Never. Only a fool would not believe everything they are told to believe!



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Right, and as noted, SCOTUS was still hearing issues regarding fighting words in 2003 (ETA and 2008 and 2009).

So, the legal concept of "fighting words" hasn't been "dismantled."

That's my only claim in this regard.

Also, it's considered "just" to react defensively to anyone shouting anything into your face. That's called assault.
edit on 15-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Actually ...



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."


Fighting Words Doctrine


Your wrong in 1992 they overturned a large part of the law. Then in 2011 over west biro baptists church they said that their rhetoric was indeed protected by freedom of speech.

So the law has been changed and for good reason. Think about it the first amendment is not meant to protect speech you agree with. It's meant to protect speech you disagree with find evil repugnant etc. This is the speech that needs protection yes everyone has the right to express their opinion even racists. By trying to take away their rights is the fast track to a dictator.


I'm not "wrong" by any means; SCOTUS was still considering the question of fighting words in 2003 and 2008 and 2009.

I'm not sure why so many are trying to weigh in on this ... should I switch fighting words to assault?

Has assault also been dismantled? LOL
edit on 15-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually it is. They would be going against current precedent if they sided with the fighting words doctrine. Now, people will continue to try to use it, but until the Supreme Court goes against their current stance, it's a toothless doctrine.

All of the recent cases the SC has sided against the fighting words doctrine. For all intents and purposes, it's dead.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually it is. They would be going against current precedent if they sided with the fighting words doctrine. Now, people will continue to try to use it, but until the Supreme Court goes against their current stance, it's a toothless doctrine.

All of the recent cases the SC has sided against the fighting words doctrine. For all intents and purposes, it's dead.


Each of those decisions has involved Law Enforcement, yes or no?

Fighting words, indeed, does not justify telling a cop that you're going to cut their f-ing throat.

That's assault.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

But the courts held that it was protected by free speech. Not that it was assault. The assault of the officer was assault. But the speech wasn't called assault.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

But the courts held that it was protected by free speech. Not that it was assault. The assault of the officer was assault. But the speech wasn't called assault.


Now you're interpreting these decisions, eh?

It's your opinion, and the opinion of the article that you and Grambler both quoted, that the fighting words doctrine is now "toothless."

I respect that is your opinion, however, mine differs for the reasons I have outlined. Also I quoted a knowledgable source which clearly stated that the concept while limited is still in effect, i.e. not dismantled.

Now, let's bring it back to the matter at hand.

If UTR Attendee #1 gets in ANTIFA Protester #2's face and says "I'm going to f-ing kill you" then #2 has the right to protect themselves including reasonable violence.

And vice versa.

So, whether it is fighting words or assault per se, there are legal limits on free speech. (Not to mention, libel, incitement, etc.)

That's the point.
edit on 15-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Threatening physical violence is unprotected, I believe you're correct there. But that's not the situation we were talking about here. We were talking about attacking nazis (or kkk or BLM or antifa) for having a non-violent rally and opinions that you or I don't like.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

That was the prominent thinking of basically everyone at that time.


I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

-The Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln


So racism is okay as long as famous people agree with it?

Nah, that's not what you mean to say, I'm sure of it.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not only conditioned, but life in America has been above the fray for so long, we neglect the foundation. It's not often that there is a major threat to the foundation. But when there is, our commonality seeps through.


Absolutely. However we (and the world at large) have been primed for about the last five decades (give or take) to fundamentally question what "reality" really is.

How many shots were fired at Kennedy?

Did planes bring down the WTC?

Are humans responsible for global warming?

What is being DISMANTLED before our eyes is reality itself. (And don't even get me started on the f-ing "Mandela Effect")

Some of us are aware of that and have been fighting (a pointless battle against) "the other side" ... when the real enemy is "hidden" (or occulted, as some would have it.)
edit on 15-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Threatening physical violence is unprotected, I believe you're correct there. But that's not the situation we were talking about here. We were talking about attacking nazis (or kkk or BLM or antifa) for having a non-violent rally and opinions that you or I don't like.


It wasn't a non-violent rally. Also, it wasn't a non-violent counter protest.

And violence for political purposes is always wrong.

However.

The essence of the UTR rally was not merely to protest the decision of the local government to take down a statue. Please don't even suggest that's true.

The essence of the rally was to make a public display of the consolidation of power that multiple groups that can be CLEARLY be classified as Nazis, White Supremacists and White Nationalists feel they now have.

Whether that is actually a declaration of intentions to commit violence ... remains to be seen.

However, given the past of those groups, I can personally understand that some see the open proclamation of these ideas to be incitement and a threat.

That is, however, an opinion.
edit on 15-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I'm saying destroying history and monuments isn't something that should be supported.
edit on 15-8-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


It wasn't a non-violent rally. Also, it wasn't a non-violent counter protest.


It certainly wasn't. But I was originally addressing kruphix, who called for violence against all nazi's and kkk members, with no requirement for violence to have been committed by them.


The essence of the UTR rally was not merely to protest the decision of the local government to take down a statue. Please don't even suggest that's true.


I couldn't tell you a thing about this rally. I frequent a number of right wing publications and didn't see it anywhere. Now, I may have overlooked it, because political rallies aren't my thing, but it wasn't prominently advertised to the point where it entered my thoughts.


The essence of the rally was to make a public display of the consolidation of power that multiple groups that can be CLEARLY be classified as Nazis, White Supremacists and White Nationalists feel they now have.


That's an odd goal, in and of itself, don't you think? A massive failure too, by all of the media accounts I read, there were literally hundreds of them! LOL



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join