General Discussion

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)

75. There are some states that have laws on the books about "fighting words"....

Fri May 8, 2015, 11:15 PM

May 2015

You can actually get out of punching someone in the face before a judge by saying you were provoked because, "Them is fightin' words".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

129 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment [View all] Not water May 2015 OP

True shenmue May 2015 #1

well, no not exactly true, but reddread May 2015 #3

It does cover yelling fire in a theater. NutmegYankee May 2015 #7

And people also seem to forget the qualifier for that phrase NuclearDem May 2015 #9

True, but the reasoning behind it is sound. If someone Exilednight May 2015 #31

No, it has to be a lot more direct than that. Yo_Mama May 2015 #116

k&r beam me up scottie May 2015 #2

Hateful acts like beheading people, raping people, murdering people seveneyes May 2015 #4

+10 840high May 2015 #30

Thank you iandhr May 2015 #51

1st Amendment doesnt mean a thing reddread May 2015 #5

The author has an interesting biography... DonViejo May 2015 #6

So do the RW Scotus Justices. merrily May 2015 #82

Yes, the justices he used to write decisions for and who use his writings to make DonViejo May 2015 #104

Pamela Geller specializes in incitement. guillaumeb May 2015 #8

How is what she did any different than any other hate group? beam me up scottie May 2015 #11

Many hate groups and speakers use the same tactics. guillaumeb May 2015 #16

How does she differ from Westboro Baptist, which took it's attacks directly to the victims and did Bluenorthwest May 2015 #19

Show me where the Westboro baptist Church called for attacks on gays, guillaumeb May 2015 #21

When did Geller tell her followers to attack muslims? beam me up scottie May 2015 #24

check my post 23 guillaumeb May 2015 #27

What would you prevent her from saying or doing? beam me up scottie May 2015 #29

And yet you just said this when asked how she differs from Westboro Baptist: Bluenorthwest May 2015 #36

Geller is smart enough to know how far she can go. guillaumeb May 2015 #47

No, we just don't believe islam deserves special treatment. beam me up scottie May 2015 #50

"incited to violence"? beam me up scottie May 2015 #25

You tell me that the shit on their picket signs was not incitement? Are you serious? Bluenorthwest May 2015 #32

I guess you were right, Blue. It is different when it's about lgbt people. beam me up scottie May 2015 #34

The people pulling this 'religion must not be insulted' shit all get very angry when asked about Bluenorthwest May 2015 #38

If Geller had hidden behind religion they wouldn't be freaking out like this. beam me up scottie May 2015 #42

That is the fact. Bluenorthwest May 2015 #46

They're too busy telling us we support Geller. beam me up scottie May 2015 #48

No, they'll go right back to DEFENDING hate speech wrapped in dogma. PeaceNikki May 2015 #49

All right, now it's ON. beam me up scottie May 2015 #52

Stop reading my thoughts! I see your drones! PeaceNikki May 2015 #55

If they wanted to defeat Geller, they'd shut the fuck up and take lessons. Who ya gunna call? Bluenorthwest May 2015 #57

Some here are so obsessively defensive of Islam and Christianity that it blinds all sense of reason. PeaceNikki May 2015 #61

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #84

Not an incitement as per the law. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #99

There were counter protests in which heteros particpated, even school kids, but not enough. merrily May 2015 #83

This was eventually true, but it took years and it was in fact a school kid whose counter picket Bluenorthwest May 2015 #121

Again, nowhere near enough, but there were merrily May 2015 #129

How do you know they didn't "try to provoke a riot" but Geller did? beam me up scottie May 2015 #20

Geller saw what happened in Denmark and France. guillaumeb May 2015 #23

What tactics did she use that should be prohibited? beam me up scottie May 2015 #28

there may be nothing criminally she can be charged with notadmblnd May 2015 #37

Thank you. beam me up scottie May 2015 #40

The Garland Police knew of the threats, the FBI had notified them of numerous threats GGJohn May 2015 #43

The guy in Denmark was inspired by Geller. notadmblnd May 2015 #33

Except of course that the limits on "incitement" are quite specific. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #97

Sorry, but Ms. Geller didn't incite those 2 asswipes to attack that event, GGJohn May 2015 #14

So you feel Geller had zero intent to provoke? guillaumeb May 2015 #17

Have you read some of the stuff Westboro Baptist says about lgbt people? beam me up scottie May 2015 #22

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Behind the Aegis May 2015 #89

And lawd knows they never incited any violence... beam me up scottie May 2015 #90

What would be REALLY interesting... Behind the Aegis May 2015 #91

I don't think that would be healthy. beam me up scottie May 2015 #92

I know what you mean, but I did write this... Behind the Aegis May 2015 #93

That is very good, a perspective from someone who knows what it's like to be targeted. beam me up scottie May 2015 #94

But they have incited some amusing responses NobodyHere May 2015 #123

LMAO!!! Those are hilarious! beam me up scottie May 2015 #124

You did not actually respond to my question. guillaumeb May 2015 #106

What? That she meant to provoke? OF COURSE SHE MEANT TO PROVOKE. beam me up scottie May 2015 #118

Of course she provokes, which isn't illegal, GGJohn May 2015 #26

"intent to provoke" is not what is meant by the incitement limitation of free speech. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #100

Legally, that argument is full of shit. X_Digger May 2015 #39

And if she incites somebody to go out and kill a Muslim, she can be held accountable. Igel May 2015 #102

Nice speech wouldn't need to be guaranteed. ileus May 2015 #10

Exactly. beam me up scottie May 2015 #12

Yep. hifiguy May 2015 #112

so what? ibegurpard May 2015 #13

Yeah, that's the thing people tend to miss, or misunderstand. cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #18

The author doesn't claim that calling out racists is unconstitutional Not water May 2015 #35

That's exactly what you are supposed to do, and what other populations targeted by hateful Bluenorthwest May 2015 #44

Sing it Blue! beam me up scottie May 2015 #45

None of them can answer for it. They can't even manage to explain why, if they are opposed to Bluenorthwest May 2015 #54

Well when the pope uses hate speech it's okay because...god and stuff. beam me up scottie May 2015 #58

It's a very revealing subject. Bluenorthwest May 2015 #60

When muslims try to shoot people it's because they were REALLY FUCKING PROVOKED!!! beam me up scottie May 2015 #62

Excellent thread. GGJohn May 2015 #15

Maybe she should speak less critical of those that behead and murder innocents seveneyes May 2015 #41

Hate speech is protected speech. guillaumeb May 2015 #53

You left many pointed, direct questions unanswered upthread so posting down here looks craven. Bluenorthwest May 2015 #56

I will cravenly direct you to Brandenberg v. Ohio. guillaumeb May 2015 #64

Free clue: IMMINENT. You don gots it. n/t X_Digger May 2015 #70

One of us "don gots it" to use your phrasing. guillaumeb May 2015 #105

"imminent lawless action" -- notice that word, again? X_Digger May 2015 #107

Can I assume that you did NOT actually read my link? guillaumeb May 2015 #108

I've read Brandenberg multiple times, thanks. X_Digger May 2015 #109

Still no response to my questions? guillaumeb May 2015 #110

Lol, keep trying. You're not getting anywhere, but you look funny trying. X_Digger May 2015 #111

That is a correct reading and interpretation hifiguy May 2015 #113

Finally, someone explains it in a way that poster will understand. beam me up scottie May 2015 #115

You have yet to point out where she did anything illegal. beam me up scottie May 2015 #59

she skirts the illegal guillaumeb May 2015 #66

So she hasn't done anything to actually incite her followers to violence. beam me up scottie May 2015 #69

Geller incited with her non-protected speech. As a result, people died. guillaumeb May 2015 #103

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. beam me up scottie May 2015 #114

Your version of incitement accepts the "heckler's veto" Jim Lane May 2015 #119

Thank you, Jim Lane. beam me up scottie May 2015 #120

It doesn't matter who her rhetoric is directed at - it matters whether it is illegal or not Yo_Mama May 2015 #117

^^^THIS^^^ beam me up scottie May 2015 #126

Welcome to DU, Not water! calimary May 2015 #63

may i suggest the 9th amend for your reading pleasure, Cryptoad May 2015 #65

I'm not so sure about that anymore. Gman May 2015 #67

so basically any time anyone says something that they know will piss someone else off Warren DeMontague May 2015 #73

First off, that is not a metaphor Gman May 2015 #80

So when is the last time it was used? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #87

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #86

I don't think that means what you think it means. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #101

Cue the "Butbutbut" brigade. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #68

Nope, they're falling all over this thread to explain why hate speech against religious groups beam me up scottie May 2015 #71

And can you imagine how much better these arguments would go for people offended by her Warren DeMontague May 2015 #76

The best way to prove she's wrong is to not shoot at her group. beam me up scottie May 2015 #77

it's not about hate speech, it's about the idiotic left/dem certainot May 2015 #72

Every right has limits. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor "Hi, Jack! " in an airport. Hekate May 2015 #74

There are some states that have laws on the books about "fighting words".... Spitfire of ATJ May 2015 #75

If you have to win the argument by using government to silence the other side bluestateguy May 2015 #78

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #79

Volokh :puke: Hate speech and "fighting words" ARE the same. Matthew Shephard. merrily May 2015 #81

Matthew Shepard was murdred, not insulted. Murder is against the law. What happened to him was Bluenorthwest May 2015 #122

I know he was murdered and I was not equating killing someone with insulting someone. merrily May 2015 #128

So, by all means, hate away. 6000eliot May 2015 #85

Kick Warren DeMontague May 2015 #88

From the ACLU: beam me up scottie May 2015 #95

+1 reddread May 2015 #96

Thank You Warren DeMontague May 2015 #125

And for all you people using the "Fire in a crowded theather" analogy Lee-Lee May 2015 #98

How about "a dirty bomb to wipe out half the liberals in Fresno"? reddread May 2015 #127