0
Andy9o8

Stupid Asshole Deprived of Free Speech & Due Process by Other Stupid Assholes

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Why is it not allowed and an arrest be made for disorderly conduct if a fool started using it openly on teh streets or at work, etc?



Cite, please - never heard of anyone getting arrested for that.



Here's my entire statement, I will put the assertion into context:

Really? KKK fools get shut down all the time with their anti-black message. Where do you their ideals derrived? Also, where did the word, "N*****" come from? Wasn't it used a lot and/or derrived as we know it from the slavery days? Why can't we use it in open speech w/o citing a riot? Why is it not allowed and an arrest be made for disorderly conduct if a fool started using it openly on teh streets or at work, etc? I now see why you don't like analogies.

I guess it's regional perhaps, the neck states probably use it as normal dialogue. As for the N-bomb being codified illegal, there is no statute that would cover every single word, but if the use of any defamatory language leads to disorder, the neck purveying that would be arrested. It's purely discretionary, but using the word is inherently disorderly, esp in the context to which we are referring.

Lenny Bruce, a commedian was in the 1960's: http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Nigger_Nigger_Nigger.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce

But here's folks from a neck state org using the word recently: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/20/90772/rep-john-lewis-charges-protesters.html

At the same time, there are hate statutes that EXTREMELY aggravate crimes if that langauge is used, which isn't the same as illegalizing that language, but it is close. Probably every jurisdiction by now has hate crime statutes.

So there it is, it is codified via general disorderly conduct, WHICH IS WHAT I STATED INITIALLY, not explicitly. If you use it in a workplace, that employer would have to conform, fire, etc or be charged with allowing a, "hostile workplace."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

...The shame, as I see it, is how many people in the US who favor the stifling of speech they abhor - as if they are the ones who desire the totalitarian power to decide what is permissible to say.



:D:D
That's Americans at their best.

"I support your right to Free Speech as long as you don't say anything that pisses ME off."

There's your assholes.


No, the assholes are: go ahead and say what you want, if it incites riots, so what? If people die, so what? Absolute free speech is more important than civil order. :S


I would venture that the person responsible for the riot is the person who actually starts acting violently. Somebody saying something you abhor doesn't give you the right to do whatever the fuck you want.
If you only have the freedom to say things that everybody already agrees with, you don't really have "free" speech. Also, I highly agree with what lawrocket said about keeping the bigots out in the open. It makes it easier to counter their arguments and takes away their ability to argue from the position of "they're trying to shut me up because they know I'm right and they can't defeat my clearly superior arguments."


That's a question for the jury. If you get charged with disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, etc for running off, you leave the judgment to a jury in cases where there is no clear statute covering every little behavior.

>>> If you only have the freedom to say things that everybody already agrees with, you don't really have "free" speech.

We don't. Again, yelling fire in a crowded theatre is disorderly if there is no fire and people can die. Do you think that person, if caught would face charges? Of course they would if you could prove they did so with malice or at least without the belief there was a fire.

Go call a judge a douchbag, hell, publish outside the courtroom that a judge is an idiot and see how your free speech works out. And it's not about, "freedom to say things that everybody already agrees with" it's about not inciting people by intentionally using language that would forseeably, to a reasonable person, incite disorder.

>>> It makes it easier to counter their arguments and takes away their ability to argue from the position of "they're trying to shut me up because they know I'm right and they can't defeat my clearly superior arguments."

That's akin to paranoia. Not allowing certain speech to avoid civil disorder is overtly obvious, look at the Watts riots, Rodney King, etc. It doesn't take a whole lot of language to incite a riot and the way prosecution works, do you think they would miss a chance to pounce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


No, the assholes are: go ahead and say what you want, if it incites riots, so what? If people die, so what? Absolute free speech is more important than civil order. :S



Do you know the difference between inciting a ruot and getting the shit kicked out of you by a mob that objects?

(1) Inciting a riot means advocating that a group of people get violent
(2) Rioting means rioting.

By the way, lucky - rioting is against the law.

Again I ask - are you against speech that can incite a riot or just some? Because - trust me - if you opened your mouth to certain groups of people they'd respond violently.

Would you blame yourself or the people who are too chickenshit to handle words? Personally, I tend to side with the speaker versus the thumper.

"He made us lynch him. He said, 'where the white wimmin at?'!". Such language inciting riots should be banned. ("Where the white wimmin at?" is something far different to certain groups, and they may respond with violence. Ban black men talking about white women.)

I simply cannot help but think that you would not advocate black men having their speech stifled to avoid violence. Neither would I. The difference is that you advocate stifling others for different things.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Au contraire



Amazing you couldn't see I was referring to this:

Here we I use it as a very bad metaphor to describe Republicans, there they produced it.

Quote

Ring a bell for you? Please note the author of the post.



I see, run from the issue and bring back an old post I clearly stated was an errant cite right from the start. I guess you're done with this issue and are creating the ultimate strawman.

Quote

Because of idiotic comparisons like you make SO often.



See, if I said that to you or returned the volley, I would be banned. These rules things are soooo hard for me to understand, it must be me.

Now that I've once again addressed all of your babble, see if you can address some of what you avoided:

As for Hoover policies killing xxx number of Americans, I already agreed that the source was a quick look and likely high. They used census data which really isn't reliable to determine deaths since the Republican kingdom was so horrible that people fled to go to places like the USSR. (1) Basically tho, for you and for Republicans, the number isn't important, dead Americans during the GD, Katrina, etc are not the issue, it's how taxes are spent.

(2)The Nazi Republican machine wants all asset left with and/or given to the elite for use in military operations to kill people and leave the few in a position of luxury; dead Americans are just, as the Great Republican Timothy McVeigh would say: collateral damage.

(3)So my point was made regardless of the actual number, affirmed by you here being more worried about the actual number than the fact that there was widespread suffering at the hands of, you guessed it, a Republican.


Address those, or not as you won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is completely different from dropping the N-bomb in a crowd of black people. Yelling fire in a theater compels a person to act (by heading to the exit) because most of us are flammable and do not want to burn. Meanwhile, dropping the N-word does not compel a person to do anything. Some people might choose to beat your ass. Some might choose to yell at you. Some might choose to tell you you're being an ass hole. And some might do nothing. Whatever they choose to do, it's because they made that choice, NOT because of what you said. Just look at those "God hates fags" ass holes at the military funerals. If there is anybody deserving of an ass whooping, it's them. But they are allowed to say what they want, even if it has a decent chance of leading to a violent confrontation, because the First Amendment guarantees them that right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I guess it's regional perhaps, the neck states probably use it as normal dialogue.



And, as usual, you guess wrong. Blacks use it on a pretty regular basis, based on what I've seen/heard, however, so I guess it's not just a 'neck' thing, now is it?

Quote

As for the N-bomb being codified illegal, there is no statute that would cover every single word, but if the use of any defamatory language leads to disorder, the neck purveying that would be arrested. It's purely discretionary, but using the word is inherently disorderly, esp in the context to which we are referring.



I see - so, your claim that someone using the word openly on the streets would be arrested for disorderly conduct was a bunch of bullshit, then.

Quote

But here's folks from a neck state org using the word recently: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/20/90772/rep-john-lewis-charges-protesters.html



Amazingly enough with all the cameras around (including Jesse Jackson Jr. on his cell phone), nobody can seem to come up with any recordings of people saying the word - imagine that.

Quote

So there it is, it is codified via general disorderly conduct, WHICH IS WHAT I STATED INITIALLY, not explicitly. If you use it in a workplace, that employer would have to conform, fire, etc or be charged with allowing a, "hostile workplace."



Codified as disorderly conduct? You keep saying that, then walking it back - make up your mind.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you know the difference between inciting a ruot and getting the shit kicked out of you by a mob that objects?

(1) Inciting a riot means advocating that a group of people get violent
(2) Rioting means rioting.



Inciting means to provoke, not advocate, that's more of a conspiracy definition, counselor.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inciting

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advocate

The legal defs and appellate renderings may slightly differ from dictionary defs, but usually statute tends to be more confining than less. Conspiracy means that you agree with another person that a crime should happen, advocate is right there, so you're trying to morph advocate into incite and away from conspire; I disagree. Inciting is often individual and w/o premeditation, advocate/conspire must have both elements. Nice try, use it on a layperson next time.

BTW, counselor, inciting is too, it's call disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, etc.

Quote

Again I ask - are you against speech that can incite a riot or just some?



I'm against speech that a reasonable person would believe would cause a riot or disorder.

Quote

Because - trust me - if you opened your mouth to certain groups of people they'd respond violently.



Which is why I don't do it, I won't cite a riot. I will reffer to Republicans as having a Nazi agenda, as a metaphor - never got in a fight yet. Also, last I checked, Repubs weren't part of hate crime protection; quit diff calling a Repub a Nazi over calling a black person a N*****. Perhaps you look at it as the same, but, er, that's right, you're not a Republican, you're an indep - I almost forgot:S.

Quote

Would you blame yourself or the people who are too chickenshit to handle words? Personally, I tend to side with the speaker versus the thumper.



The people purveying the hate speech are the liable ones. Again, at a tea bagger ralley, there are no protected people if the conversation stays taxes, political parties, etc. When garbage baggers start calling people fags and niggers then they have crossed protected lines both ways.

Quote

I simply cannot help but think that you would not advocate black men having their speech stifled to avoid violence. Neither would I. The difference is that you advocate stifling others for different things.



There is a double-standard, but in case yoiu missed history, us whites have fucked over American Indians, blacks, etc. But I don't advocate blacks defaming people due to being white, I view it as the same as the opposite party's behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is completely different from dropping the N-bomb in a crowd of black people.



Oh really? In fact it is, you could infer a hate speech, hate crimes aggravation from the racial slur, whereas fire is not protected. Me thinks you don't take that to a prosecutor/jury.

Quote

Yelling fire in a theater compels a person to act (by heading to the exit) because most of us are flammable and do not want to burn. Meanwhile, dropping the N-word does not compel a person to do anything. Some people might choose to beat your ass. Some might choose to yell at you. Some might choose to tell you you're being an ass hole. And some might do nothing. Whatever they choose to do, it's because they made that choice, NOT because of what you said.



Right and it's all based upon what an ass said that started the mess. Again, take that to a jury and see how they buy your BS that you call a group of blacks, niggers and you had no idea a fight would break out, then it would turn to a riot, etc. Rots a ruck. They would just arrest all and let the DA/CA sort it out. If you think you would be in the clear - free speech - have a good one.

Quote

Just look at those "God hates fags" ass holes at the military funerals. If there is anybody deserving of an ass whooping, it's them. But they are allowed to say what they want, even if it has a decent chance of leading to a violent confrontation, because the First Amendment guarantees them that right.



If a riot ensued, it would be discretion, but I bet people would be hauled in and charges filed. The 1st is way misunderstood as a blank check to say you want, when you want and where you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would venture that the person responsible for the riot is the person who actually starts acting violently. Somebody saying something you abhor doesn't give you the right to do whatever the fuck you want.



So, if you say 'Fuck Off' to say, a cop and he and his buddies beat you senseless with their batons - it's THEIR fault entirely?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

...The shame, as I see it, is how many people in the US who favor the stifling of speech they abhor - as if they are the ones who desire the totalitarian power to decide what is permissible to say.



:D:D
That's Americans at their best.

"I support your right to Free Speech as long as you don't say anything that pisses ME off."

There's your assholes.


No, the assholes are: go ahead and say what you want, if it incites riots, so what? If people die, so what? Absolute free speech is more important than civil order. :S


Actually, we don't have absolute free speech. There are limits.
And yes, having minimal limits on free speech is much more important than absolute total civil order.

But I do enjoy your postings in this thread. They continue to provide evidence of your attitude that you can say whatever you want but if somebody says something you don't like they have to STFU.
BTW, the word "nigger" comes from the Latin "niger" (black) and French "nigre" (black).
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

OK, let's tally up the score so far. I'm right, and so is Belgian Draft and Lawrocket.
The rest of you are wrong.

Now back to the fun.



You led me somewhere previously to the conclusion that freedom of speech means nothing if it does not permit the most objectionable form of speech.

I also believe it is useful for identifying certain types of people. View them as harbingers of things to come so that you may prepare yourself accordingly.

(Edited for reader friendliness.)
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AZ has disorderly conduct statutes:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02904.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or

2. Makes unreasonable noise; or

3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or

4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or

5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or

6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I would venture that the person responsible for the riot is the person who actually starts acting violently. Somebody saying something you abhor doesn't give you the right to do whatever the fuck you want.



So, if you say 'Fuck Off' to say, a cop and he and his buddies beat you senseless with their batons - it's THEIR fault entirely?



Yes, as I believe is being discussed in another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

...The shame, as I see it, is how many people in the US who favor the stifling of speech they abhor - as if they are the ones who desire the totalitarian power to decide what is permissible to say.



:D:D
That's Americans at their best.

"I support your right to Free Speech as long as you don't say anything that pisses ME off."

There's your assholes.


No, the assholes are: go ahead and say what you want, if it incites riots, so what? If people die, so what? Absolute free speech is more important than civil order. :S


Actually, we don't have absolute free speech. There are limits.
And yes, having minimal limits on free speech is much more important than absolute total civil order.

But I do enjoy your postings in this thread. They continue to provide evidence of your attitude that you can say whatever you want but if somebody says something you don't like they have to STFU.
BTW, the word "nigger" comes from the Latin "niger" (black) and French "nigre" (black).


>> And yes, having minimal limits on free speech is much more important than absolute total civil order.

Really? Civil order is at a higher premium, isn't it?

>> Actually, we don't have absolute free speech. There are limits.

Of course, that was my point.

>> But I do enjoy your postings in this thread. They continue to provide evidence of your attitude that you can say whatever you want but if somebody says something you don't like they have to STFU.

I'm not telling anyone to STFU, I just abhore their, "my diddy told me it ws that way mentality."

>> BTW, the word "nigger" comes from the Latin "niger" (black) and French "nigre" (black).

Fair enough, but as I referred, the usage in the US is based upon slavery and general black oppression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You can add "hate crimes legislation" to the list of things that you don't understand. Not really surprising, though it is kinda sad, considering how important that legislation is.



See, with intelligent discourse, you would then post what I wrote and show how errant it is by showing supporting ev.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[36] and incitement to riot.[37] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[38] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[39] See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[40] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[41]


You're welcome, no problem. Are you straightened out yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Andy:

What's going on is another person out there has been raised with an ethos that the system he/she was raised in is superior. The ethos dictates that some ideas simply are so terrible that the mere mention is worthy of criminal sanction.

You and I have a different ethos based upon the notion that thoughts and ideas are important, and that no matter how subjectively ridiculous or even objectively dangerous the idea is, that a greater danger lies in squelching speech than in allowing it.

I, too, believe this system to be superior.

I believe, however, that your and my learned ideas sound ridiculous to his/her way of thought. Because we come from different viewpoints, we are morons and deserving of "special education." Meanwhile, people like you and me realize that his/her ideas are not idiotic - just different. Perhaps this is because we are trained to actually respect opposing views.

I wonder is "special education" is the same as "re-education."



I should have told you before, that would've saved you a lot of brain activity: I grew up in North America/Canada and returned to Germany when I was 15 y/o.

What kind of "special education" are you talking about? I don't remember of any during these years.

:P

dudeist skydiver # 3105

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Really? Civil order is at a higher premium, isn't it?



Every freedom has it's price. Free speech included.

Quote

>> Actually, we don't have absolute free speech. There are limits.

Of course, that was my point.



No, your point has been that certain subjects should be suppressed and not protected under free speech.
Big difference between that and not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. If you can't make that distinction then you are beyond any help I can give you.
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

AZ has disorderly conduct statutes:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02904.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or

2. Makes unreasonable noise; or

3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or

4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or

5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or

6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor.




Key word there being "intent".
Being the world famous legal expert you are you should know that and how hard it can be to prove intent.
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

AZ has disorderly conduct statutes:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02904.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or

2. Makes unreasonable noise; or

3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or

4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or

5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or

6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor.




Key word there being "intent".
Being the world famous legal expert you are you should know that and how hard it can be to prove intent.



Being the forum layperson I will help. Intent = mens rea; virtually all criminal cases must have a culmination of mens rea and actus reaus, whether explicitly stated or not. Civil cases need only have actus reus.

Again, you wanna go to the south side, find a run down BB court with a bunch of locals playing ball and say, "Hey, you niggers wanna get a job and quit living off my welfare" or some other brilliant neck passage? Now go before a jury and see how they view the intent. Or even a civil rights meet, go downtown and start yelling, "You fucking niggers just want everything for free" or some other tea bagger expression of freedom of speech and if a riot or even small disorder breaks out, see how that works in front of a jury.

I could go on and list examples, but the key here is based upon ends justify the means, if nothing breaks out, you won't get the requisite police attention and might get away, but if a black person views this ignorance as unacceptable and decides to swing, it's basically on you. You provoked it - you own it; scream 1st all you want, the courts are here to set a tone to avoid LA riots and the like, fuck your Const rights. Think a jury would find any different? And in Nazizona you don't get a jury unless they are seeking time.

BTW, intent is proven through the totality of circumstances, in most cases where the N-bomb is dropped with people of color present, there is an assumed intent perceived that observers should recognize it won't go over well. Either way, intent is an issue for a jury, so rots-a-ruck with that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0