Lmao, so what's the problem you have with someone else doing it to black cops? Are cops above being 'n-words', apdst? Lay down the rules for those of us who aren't as black as you.White folks too, if they deserve the label.
Irrelevant. The law of the land specifically states that everyone will be equally protected by the law.
Etc. "Free speech" is not absolute and does not cover this sort of thing. Similarly, it doesn't protect you if you make a threat against the President. Or the well-known example of shouting "fire" in a theatre, just to troll the audience.
Contrary to the dishonest presentation of some, she is not suing them for being Nazis or for merely saying words. She's suing over a coordinated campaign of harassment under a state statute that creates that as a cause of action.
If someone seriously thinks this is what the first amendment is meant to protect, they know far less than they pretend about our history and constitution. But hey, every time something like this comes up a bunch of people have to group-signal an appearance of unflinching love of "the constitution." Modern day Calvanists....
Those who support terrorists and murderers don’t get to soes their poison without consequence bud, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say they are.
Lmao, so what's the problem you have with someone else doing it to black cops? Are cops above being 'n-words', apdst? Lay down the rules for those of us who aren't as black as you.
Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
I'm pointing out you have no problem with regular people being called 'the n word'. Why can't they be 'n-words' if they are cops? I am trying to get some understanding of how you got to this point. What about f(for the grown ups at home, the word here is faggot) word? Can whites and blacks be f words too? I bet the answer is yes. Kikes? Lesbos? Ragheads? Men women, Jews, atheists and Muslims can be those too right?Why don't you have a problem with it?
To an extent they do.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie
One thing's for damn certain: you don't get to decide who is entitled to free speech and who isn't.
See my post above which quotes the first few paragraphs of the article. And the headline says, "Neo-Nazi harassment is not free speech." It doesn't say "Neo-Nazi speech is not free speech", but "harassment."
So a fair reading of the article is that it made clear that the harassment is what isn't protected, not 'hate' speech in general. The problem was Anglin encouraged his readers to target the family, friends, with what ended up including threats of violence, and constant harassment.
I read your post and the article. I caught the attempt at nuance in both, and, if the harassment is physical in nature or if it's verbal and the words cause or result in physical harm to whom they are directed, then they may or may not be protected speech under the First Amendment.
However, if the words are just words, and the words do not result in physical harm to whom they are directed, then they are protected. Some physical acts are seen as speech, even if there are no words used. As an example, the burning a US flag by protesters who are protesting a group of US veterans could very reasonably be described and defined by the veterans and others as harassment of the veterans by the protesters, yet it's still protected speech because no actual harm was created or resulted from the act. There are thousands of other examples.
Verbal harassment, and even some physical acts of harassment, that don't cause or result in physical harm, is ... protected speech.
Edit: For you and anyone else that is actually interested in the facts, here's a rather left leaning group's opinion: https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression
Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."
At the same time, freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if words are used. Threatening phone calls, for example, are not constitutionally protected.
Thanks for the civil responses.eace
But first of all, I don't see why or that the harm must be "physical" and not just harm. If someone's kids are on the receiving end of harassment, and become emotionally unstable, too scared to attend school, and that result was intended or at least reasonably anticipated (as here) is that not 'harm?'
I also read the link, and here's what I saw as applicable to this conversation:
I agree with all that, including the bolded, which is the position I was trying to make here, and which I thought the article did a decent job of distinguishing actually.
That simply is not what the judge ruled.
The judge ruled on a procedural issue, and denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss the case. The motion was predicated on the idea that free speech is a defense to tort. The judge ruled in this case it is not and that the case may proceed to discovery and (presumably) to trial. This was done on the basis not of the content of the speech -- the Nazi language -- but on the nature of the speech, mostly whether it was speech of public concern or private speech.
The judge did not rule that said speech is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, the judge acknowledged that it is. But that wasn't the question.
This is a very irresponsible article, and an especially irresponsible headline.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?