General Discussion

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

19. Correct, but a threat is grounds for seeking suit for tortious wrong as it might also be grounds

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:08 PM

Dec 2015

for civil rights violation or even arrest for violation of criminal code. It all depends upon the circumstances, who makes the threat, how the threat is made, previous history, whether that person is armed, etc.

"Hate Speech", e.g., threatening behavior, even symbolic acts such as signs and edifices, has most certainly been prosecuted as a criminal violation under federal and most state law.

See, Another way of saying this is to create laws and policies that do not attempt to define hate speech as hate crimes, or “acts.” In two recent hate crime cases, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that acts, but not speech, may be regulated by law.
Hate Speech Debate - American Bar Association
www.americanbar.org/...in.../debate_hate.html
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Isn't this how it started 80 years ago in Germany? [View all] diabeticman Dec 2015 OP

It must be alright then to have a Jewish free zone, and a black free zone now also. LiberalArkie Dec 2015 #1

The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Are Beside Themselves With All The Distractions cantbeserious Dec 2015 #2

+1 Populist_Prole Dec 2015 #24

The judge is actually right. Someone from the CAIR needs to go in and get denied service. X_Digger Dec 2015 #3

What happens if they post a second sign, "We reserve the right to deny service - we are armed"? leveymg Dec 2015 #6

You can put up a sign that says, "Unattended children will be eaten." X_Digger Dec 2015 #10

The threat can be a crime - that's circumstantial - if the owner has a reputation for baby eating. leveymg Dec 2015 #11

I do disagree, yes. X_Digger Dec 2015 #12

What if the gun shop owner had a history of threats against Muslims? leveymg Dec 2015 #14

Making a threat doesn't subsequently remove your right to free speech in the future, no. X_Digger Dec 2015 #16

Correct, but a threat is grounds for seeking suit for tortious wrong as it might also be grounds leveymg Dec 2015 #19

I can't imagine a case where your sign would be taken, prima facie, as a threat. X_Digger Dec 2015 #21

If the sign were surrounded by firearms, it might. That is exactly the case here. leveymg Dec 2015 #22

So every sign in a gun shop is a threat because it's a gun shop? "No checks." (OR I'LL SHOOT YA!) X_Digger Dec 2015 #23

The key provision is also that the display is on another's property. NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #25

Muslims in this country have enough speech against minorities, etc, that you don't Yo_Mama Dec 2015 #18

Not attempting to justify one set of wrongs with another. leveymg Dec 2015 #20

Wrong. closeupready Dec 2015 #7

Why do you think the ACLU had William Smith and James Yates attempt to get a marriage license in KY? X_Digger Dec 2015 #9

The owner can call his store anything he wants LittleBlue Dec 2015 #4

well no but it is still odious. Warren Stupidity Dec 2015 #5

You're right frazzled Dec 2015 #26

In some respects, yes. And I'd be lying if I said closeupready Dec 2015 #8

The case fell apart because to have standing you actually must be denied service. NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #13

The plaintiff had no standing. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #15

It was dismissed for lack of standing, because claimants did not show that anyone was refused Yo_Mama Dec 2015 #17

No The River Dec 2015 #27

Actual refusal and discrimination has to happen in order to sue. And my friend you live in a country Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #28