General Discussion

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)

83. I would argue that, while lawful ...

Reply to Bluenorthwest (Reply #75)

Wed May 6, 2015, 11:13 AM

May 2015

Westboro's conduct is not/should not be constitutional protected. There is a difference.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I heard an interesting take on the Geller/1st Amendment thing this morning ... [View all] 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 OP

I also heard that the town was aware that there could be trouble notadmblnd May 2015 #1

So no one, of, or in, good faith ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #2

Nope. notadmblnd May 2015 #4

cower in fear of the religious bullies who believe any criticisms are "fighting words" or msongs May 2015 #3

How is what Geller and co did, not the same as bullying? notadmblnd May 2015 #6

Easy... MellowDem May 2015 #8

they're both diseased notadmblnd May 2015 #13

It wasn't bullying because no muslim needed to be there or experience the offense. RadiationTherapy May 2015 #10

you're right. they didn't need to show up notadmblnd May 2015 #12

She was interviewed by CNN . . . here's a link to the full interview ---> Petrushka May 2015 #35

Gellar makes a lot of circular arguments. lovemydog May 2015 #52

It would be difficult to fully detail my thoughts on that JonLP24 May 2015 #5

"Fighting words" is a rarely used legal doctrine... MellowDem May 2015 #7

I don't know where you get your information ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #21

When is the last time "fighting words" was SUCCESSFULLY used in a case? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #27

2003, the case of VIRGINIA v. BLACK et al. ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #40

That case didn't use the Fighting Words doctrine... MellowDem May 2015 #45

Okay n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #46

So, then, you were wrong. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #55

Yes ... Virginia v Black, et al., is an incitement case ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #72

"there is much space between constitutional protection and criminality"- no, not really. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #91

It's relevant what I think... MellowDem May 2015 #41

Actually standing on the corner screaming slurs might get you arrested forpublic disorder and harass Scootaloo May 2015 #37

I keep seeing this phrase from some folks NutmegYankee May 2015 #69

How do you think the police & courts would treat this example: lovemydog May 2015 #51

How about this example. 10,000 fundamentalist Christians rally against gay marriage. Gay couple gets Warren DeMontague May 2015 #60

That would be the incitement to imminent lawless action rule from SCOTUS. NutmegYankee May 2015 #70

Only if they kick the shit out of the guy who said it... Oktober May 2015 #71

Fighting words doctrine doesn't apply... MellowDem May 2015 #86

Yeah, I hear you. Thanks. lovemydog May 2015 #88

It was led at a school auditorium... MellowDem May 2015 #89

I would argue that. I would certainly argue that standing on a street corner RadiationTherapy May 2015 #9

Yip somebody here called GELLER a victim and the object of "victim blaming" n/t UTUSN May 2015 #11

And I'll still say it. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #22

"Fire!1" "crowded theater!1" "fighting words!1" (Here's one that never works: Goodbye!1) n/t UTUSN May 2015 #23

It's not illegal to yell "Fire!" in a theater if there's actually a fire and you sorely misstate Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #24

Let's try this: I don't care about you. I don't want to hear from you. I am happy without you. n/t UTUSN May 2015 #28

You're also posting in a public forum. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #33

Of course n/t kcr May 2015 #39

I would suggest that you think about this: much of mainstream religion sounds like fighting words to Bluenorthwest May 2015 #14

While I largely agree ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #20

So what the fuck does any of that mean, man? It means you defend hate speech if it is against me. Bluenorthwest May 2015 #30

Breathe my friend ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #42

So condescending. You minimized hate speech against LGBT while calling for laws against Bluenorthwest May 2015 #73

Did you read whatI wrote? ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #74

It means that speech is only protected if it doesn't make certain people real mad. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #61

Similar to a "Fuck the Police" T-shirt seveneyes May 2015 #15

Which is without question protected by the First Amendment. Unvanguard May 2015 #82

You're wrong. philosslayer May 2015 #16

I'm "wrong" or do we have a difference of opinion? ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #18

No, you're wrong. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #32

Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #44

It doesn't win the day with me. Many times the most strenuously argued things lovemydog May 2015 #50

You tell me the last time anyone was successfully prosecuted in the US for "blasphemy". Warren DeMontague May 2015 #59

Yeah, I take the 1st Amendment pretty fucking seriously. I've certainly never claimed otherwise. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #57

I'm afraid I stumbled into the Mixed Metaphor Discussion. lovemydog May 2015 #54

In the words of Billy Bob Thornton Warren DeMontague May 2015 #56

I don't think you know what 'fighting words' means... Oktober May 2015 #17

Okay. n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #19

Of course we view everything through our context, the US is a western English-speaking country LittleBlue May 2015 #25

Actually the so-called "fighting words" exception has been repeatedly narrowed by the court Warren DeMontague May 2015 #26

Yay, another pro censorship thread on DU. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #29

"another pro censorship thread on DU." neatly sums it up Yorktown May 2015 #36

To call her an asshat is an insult to both asses and hats. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #58

Agreed++. But please stay civil with hats and asses. Yorktown May 2015 #65

it's like that song from "Annie", about how you're never fully dressed, without a hat. On your Ass. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #66

R.A.V. vs City of St Paul MN Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #31

The argument reported in the OP is a fallacy Yorktown May 2015 #34

That is a very dangerous position to take. Adrahil May 2015 #38

I fart in the general direction of your Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Noodly Appendage! cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #43

Death to YOU Yorktown May 2015 #67

You may call me Al... cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #80

I think it's an interesting debate. lovemydog May 2015 #47

You seem to have confused "wrong" and "offensive" with "not constitutionally protected". Warren DeMontague May 2015 #62

Why would you look "outside of the American context" melman May 2015 #48

Since you are making a legal argument nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #49

Geller is filth mwrguy May 2015 #53

Yes she is. That has nothing to do with her right to express a political opinion. n/t Adrahil May 2015 #77

It is much more palatable to defend that organizations freedom of speech as it is Puzzledtraveller May 2015 #63

If she held her exhibit outside a mosque, sure, fighting words. CBGLuthier May 2015 #64

Geller doesn't have the courage of her convictions JustAnotherGen May 2015 #68

So were you under the impression that Westboro Baptist's hundreds of attacks on LGBT events Bluenorthwest May 2015 #75

I would argue that, while lawful ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #83

Geller was trying to get some dummies to become martyrs for her insane cause. JoePhilly May 2015 #76

Free speech in America is only free for the privileged white people malaise May 2015 #78

Someone has arrested/charged Mrs. Obama for her speech? philosslayer May 2015 #79

That's not how the fighting words doctrine works. Unvanguard May 2015 #81

Ummm ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #84

That example is probably fighting words. What Geller does isn't. n/t Unvanguard May 2015 #87

My comments on the free and unfettered ability for women to get abortions at will.... NCTraveler May 2015 #85

GMTA! I said a very similar thing on another thread! Coventina May 2015 #90