US Elections 2016

[HoonDing]

Closed that quiz after three questions. Just too alien for me.

[Elerond]

 

 

Lets take my country for example, make it out as you will:

 

In December 2008, Halla-aho was put under investigation for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred (under Finnish law referred to as "ethnic agitation") for remarks published on his blog.%5B34%5D%5B35%5D

On 27 March 2009, the Helsinki District Court ordered Halla-aho to stand for trial on charges of ethnic agitation and breach of the sanctity of religion. The charges were raised on the basis of remarks related to the sentencing of Seppo Lehto on Halla-aho's blog in 2008. Here, he wrote that the prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, making reference to Muhammad's relationship with Aisha, and that Islam is a religion that sanctifies pedophilia.%5B36%5D In another text, he asked if it could be stated that robbing passersby and living on taxpayers' expense are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis.%5B31%5D The text was originally intended as a response to a Finnish columnist of the newspaperKaleva, who had written that drinking excessively and killing when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns.%5B37%5D

 

 

...And the bolded part is supposed to make it less appallingly racist... how?

 

 

No, it was not about the level of racism expressed by him or the newspaper, but rather it was to highlight the absurdity of it all: the guy just applied the same argument to its logical conclusion, but to another target than the native population.

 

He got criminal charges against him for his opinion, while the newspaper did not. As in he might be equal to some, but some are simply more equal to others. A perfect example of an Orwellian society in motion if anything, and they didn't even had to fire a single shot or have the police to bash his skull in. If you have no problem with this, then there's little to discuss really.

 

 

Although that isn't why he was convicted. Supreme Court said that argument part itself was OK, but because rest of his blog post purposefully left impression for reader that Somalis are what his claim says, so he was purposefully insulting ethnic group in manner that is apt to cause hatred towards said ethnic group and endanger public order. Which of course don't mean that newspaper story wasn't guilty to same although prosecutor general didn't think so, but of course one can always argue that prosecutor general was more politically motivated to go after Halla-aho (who was in that time politician in one of the opposition parties, currently said party is in government) than newspaper with such charge.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Elerond

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Lets take my country for example, make it out as you will:

 

In December 2008, Halla-aho was put under investigation for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred (under Finnish law referred to as "ethnic agitation") for remarks published on his blog.%5B34%5D%5B35%5D

On 27 March 2009, the Helsinki District Court ordered Halla-aho to stand for trial on charges of ethnic agitation and breach of the sanctity of religion. The charges were raised on the basis of remarks related to the sentencing of Seppo Lehto on Halla-aho's blog in 2008. Here, he wrote that the prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, making reference to Muhammad's relationship with Aisha, and that Islam is a religion that sanctifies pedophilia.%5B36%5D In another text, he asked if it could be stated that robbing passersby and living on taxpayers' expense are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis.%5B31%5D The text was originally intended as a response to a Finnish columnist of the newspaperKaleva, who had written that drinking excessively and killing when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns.%5B37%5D

 

 

...And the bolded part is supposed to make it less appallingly racist... how?

 

 

No, it was not about the level of racism expressed by him or the newspaper, but rather it was to highlight the absurdity of it all: the guy just applied the same argument to its logical conclusion, but to another target than the native population.

 

He got criminal charges against him for his opinion, while the newspaper did not. As in he might be equal to some, but some are simply more equal to others. A perfect example of an Orwellian society in motion if anything, and they didn't even had to fire a single shot or have the police to bash his skull in. If you have no problem with this, then there's little to discuss really.

 

 

Although that isn't why he was convicted. Supreme Court said that argument part itself was OK, but because rest of his blog post purposefully left impression for reader that Somalis are what his claim says, so he was purposefully insulting ethnic group in manner that is apt to cause hatred towards said ethnic group and endanger public order. Which of course don't mean that newspaper story wasn't guilty to same although prosecutor general didn't think so, but of course one can always argue that prosecutor general was more politically motivated to go after Halla-aho (who was in that time politician in one of the opposition parties, currently said party is in government) than newspaper with such charge.

 

 

True enough about the conviction. But dispite the fact Halla-Aho being a dip**** as he always is, it is his own views and should be able to express them as he sees fit and anyone should be able to call upon them. Instead we have a system where the public prosecutor (the state) can press charges on a person (an individual) based on the possible feelings of people who may or may not feel them (public order). That's quite Orwellian because at the same time the state proudly celebrate Finland as being an open, tolerant and free society.

 

Well, maybe for some, it is.

[Rostere]

ps for rostere, and not thinking you is using "ironic" correct.  is hardly ironic that a jewish group, american or otherwise, would be offended by nazi propaganda.  is almost the complete opposite o' irony and the very reason we got a First Amendment? is not ironic at all that an offended group would be angered and overzealous.  the irony, that you missed, is that your jewish americans (cite please) were apparently successful in much of europe but not in America.

 

also, no. hate speech laws is not same as defamation and  assault.  there is no need for hate speech laws where they overlap with common law crimes.  use defamation if it is defamation.  duh.

I am afraid you missed the point entirely. The irony was that while our hate speech laws was triggered by an international embarrassment and (among others) pressure from American (Jewish) groups, when I 70 years later go to an Internet forum, it is full of Americans who say that hate speech laws are the worst thing ever. If I was in your situation I would perhaps also be against hate speech laws, but I can only conclude that in practice, the law has not been misused the way Guard Dog hints at.

 

I am not saying that hate speech laws is exactly the same as defamation and assault. I am saying that from my point of view, with the hate speech laws I am used to, I could see that what is covered by them could instead be covered by defamation and /or assault in different countries. When I say "defamation" I am referring to various roughly equivalent crimes across different countries which might not be defined the same way, same with "assault". When you read about US defamation and assault laws on Wikipedia it seems to cover everything that hate speech does here, apart from more implicit threats, which I guess constitutes the actual difference in practice.

[Guard Dog]

Like I said before, the very presence of the law (however wrong headed it is) does not necessarily mean there will be abuse at some point but once the law is passed the potential is there. It comes down to this: do you trust the people in your government? Do you trust the people who will be in your government years down the road? In my mind the only rational, even sane answer is "no". From that point it is smart to keep your government on a short leash. 

 

Like I pointed out it is not an absolute right. If a man is on the street shouting "Rise up and kill the jews" that is protected. If someone listens to him and does it the criminal liability is on that guy but the man on the street is complicit in a civil action. If the man on the street walks up to a jewish guy and says "I'm going to kill you" that is assault.

 

I've never liked the notion of hate speech laws or even hate crime laws. The reason why is unlike any other charge it is requiring the state to pass a judgment on motive. You can't know what is in a person's head. Judge them based on what they DID not what you assume they were thinking.

[Rostere]

Like I said before, the very presence of the law (however wrong headed it is) does not necessarily mean there will be abuse at some point but once the law is passed the potential is there. It comes down to this: do you trust the people in your government? Do you trust the people who will be in your government years down the road? In my mind the only rational, even sane answer is "no". From that point it is smart to keep your government on a short leash. 

 

But that is also a very good argument for not having any military, or not having any police force. Those are entities which can be vastly more harmful than hate speech laws, and which, depending on the judicial system, might even be easier to misuse, and historically have been much more often misused than hate speech laws.

 

I think you are subscribing a bit to a very idealistic world-view, where it is wrong to introduce any laws or elements of state governance at all. Because the truth is of course that basically anything can be misused. But there are also a lot of things which can do good, which can also be misused. So what we are really looking for are laws which asymptotically will accumulate more good than harm to society over time. What you really need is a compelling argument why hate speech laws would do more harm than good in the long term, when you state they can be abused you are stating the obvious, looking only at one side of the argument.

 

 

Like I pointed out it is not an absolute right. If a man is on the street shouting "Rise up and kill the jews" that is protected. If someone listens to him and does it the criminal liability is on that guy but the man on the street is complicit in a civil action. If the man on the street walks up to a jewish guy and says "I'm going to kill you" that is assault.

 

But this is only a difference in specificity. I would be inclined to think that if someone addresses a Jew personally and says "We're going to rise up and kill all the Jews" that is a much a crime as the guy who says "We're going to rise up and kill you" or the guy who addresses a public audience with the words "We should rise up and kill all the Jews". I think it is absurd that you can threaten groups of people in ways you cannot threaten single individuals. Then of course it becomes a question of how far you are going to persecute more implicit threats.

[Gromnir]

 

ps for rostere, and not thinking you is using "ironic" correct.  is hardly ironic that a jewish group, american or otherwise, would be offended by nazi propaganda.  is almost the complete opposite o' irony and the very reason we got a First Amendment? is not ironic at all that an offended group would be angered and overzealous.  the irony, that you missed, is that your jewish americans (cite please) were apparently successful in much of europe but not in America.

 

also, no. hate speech laws is not same as defamation and  assault.  there is no need for hate speech laws where they overlap with common law crimes.  use defamation if it is defamation.  duh.

I am afraid you missed the point entirely. The irony was that while our hate speech laws was triggered by an international embarrassment and (among others) pressure from American (Jewish) groups, when I 70 years later go to an Internet forum, it is full of Americans who say that hate speech laws are the worst thing ever. If I was in your situation I would perhaps also be against hate speech laws, but I can only conclude that in practice, the law has not been misused the way Guard Dog hints at.

 

I am not saying that hate speech laws is exactly the same as defamation and assault. I am saying that from my point of view, with the hate speech laws I am used to, I could see that what is covered by them could instead be covered by defamation and /or assault in different countries. When I say "defamation" I am referring to various roughly equivalent crimes across different countries which might not be defined the same way, same with "assault". When you read about US defamation and assault laws on Wikipedia it seems to cover everything that hate speech does here, apart from more implicit threats, which I guess constitutes the actual difference in practice.

 

again, there is no irony that the group being attacked would be offended.  jewish americans. jewish swedes. jewish poles.  whatever.  here in the US we got the First Amendment which protects, among other things, offensive speech. the same folks (Americans) who woulda complained that hate speech laws is repugnant to the first amendment in your uncited 1947 incidents has not disappeared.  the same folks is fighting 'gainst the tyranny o' the majority.  that is why First Amendment is different.

 

once again, for those who missed.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419

 

but yeah, when jon stewart did his vagina-manger bit, many catholic and christian groups were outraged.  many ignored the First Amendment 'cause o' their outrage.  that isn't the least bit ironic. that is the expected outcome and it is precisely why we got the First Amendment. if all Americans were dedicated to resisting diminution o' Free Speech in every circumstance, there would be no need for a Constitutional Amendment to protect free speech.  duh.

 

and again, if is roughly equivalent crimes, then is no need to add fluff.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

 

defamation feels samish to you? 

 

*chuckle*

 

and for chrissakes, how many times does Gromnir need chastise folks for using wikis as a source o'... anything.  surely do not use to educate self 'bout law.  no doubt that is the reason a few o' the self appointed legal pundits from these boards is so frequent making foolish and ridiculous statements.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Rostere]

 

 

ps for rostere, and not thinking you is using "ironic" correct.  is hardly ironic that a jewish group, american or otherwise, would be offended by nazi propaganda.  is almost the complete opposite o' irony and the very reason we got a First Amendment? is not ironic at all that an offended group would be angered and overzealous.  the irony, that you missed, is that your jewish americans (cite please) were apparently successful in much of europe but not in America.

 

also, no. hate speech laws is not same as defamation and  assault.  there is no need for hate speech laws where they overlap with common law crimes.  use defamation if it is defamation.  duh.

I am afraid you missed the point entirely. The irony was that while our hate speech laws was triggered by an international embarrassment and (among others) pressure from American (Jewish) groups, when I 70 years later go to an Internet forum, it is full of Americans who say that hate speech laws are the worst thing ever. If I was in your situation I would perhaps also be against hate speech laws, but I can only conclude that in practice, the law has not been misused the way Guard Dog hints at.

 

I am not saying that hate speech laws is exactly the same as defamation and assault. I am saying that from my point of view, with the hate speech laws I am used to, I could see that what is covered by them could instead be covered by defamation and /or assault in different countries. When I say "defamation" I am referring to various roughly equivalent crimes across different countries which might not be defined the same way, same with "assault". When you read about US defamation and assault laws on Wikipedia it seems to cover everything that hate speech does here, apart from more implicit threats, which I guess constitutes the actual difference in practice.

 

again, there is no irony that the group being attacked would be offended.  jewish americans. jewish swedes. jewish poles.  whatever.  here in the US we got the First Amendment which protects, among other things, offensive speech. the same folks (Americans) who woulda complained that hate speech laws is repugnant to the first amendment in your uncited 1947 incidents has not disappeared.  the same folks is fighting 'gainst the tyranny o' the majority.  that is why First Amendment is different.

 

For ****'s sake Gromnir. The irony I spoke of was NOT that the group being attacked would be offended. Which I don't consider ironic, which would be very clear from my previous post. The irony was that Americans pushed for our hate speech laws, while you Americans apparently don't want any hate speech laws for yourselves. If at this point you still do not understand what I meant, it can no longer be excused by me not being a native English speaker and not getting my point across, or something similar.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

 

defamation feels samish to you?

 

Yes, absolutely.

[Gromnir]

*groan*

 

is so incredibly not ironic that jewish folks would be offended by nazi propaganda circa 1947.  jewish americans. jewish swedes. jewish poles.  there is no irony that some group o' (as yet uncited) jewish americans would be offended and outraged.  is also not the least bit ironic that America, as a whole, did not respond to the outrage of an offended minority group by suppressing free speech.  your example is no more ironic than that American catholics and American christians were outraged enough by jon stewarts' vagina-manger that they demanded suppression.  the outrage o' the offended is so freaking predictable that the Founding Fathers made our free speech protections part o' the Constitution so that simple majorities, moved by anger or guilt or whatever, could not dilute free speech protections.

 

again, duh.

 

the only irony is that the (hypothetical?) outraged jewish americans who wanted to suppress free speech and predictable got no traction in the US in 1947  were actual able to sway virtual all o' the rest o' the western world in suppressing Free Speech protections. what a hoot.

 

once more, so is not forgotten, we add your original statement:

 

"That's ironic you know, that you are so opposed to hate speech laws. The Swedish hate speech laws was initially pushed by American Jewish groups, after some wacko handing out Nazi propaganda became an international embarrassment in 1948."

 

is not the least bit ironic.  Americans like gd had to have been fighting against abridgment of free speech in 1948 or we woulda' ended up having our liberty encheapened here in the US.

 

"for ****'s sake" is right.

 

and we can't help you on your misapprehensions regarding the law.  we thought the linked article did a fair job o' explaining the basics o' how hate is different than assaults and defamations.  perhaps this confusion is resulting from obtuseness rather than misunderstanding.  dunno.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gromnir

[Rostere]

*groan*

 

is so incredibly not ironic that jewish folks would be offended by nazi propaganda circa 1947.  jewish americans. jewish swedes. jewish poles.  there is no irony that some group o' (as yet uncited) jewish americans would be offended and outraged.  is also not the least bit ironic that America, as a whole, did not respond to the outrage of an offended minority group by suppressing free speech.  your example is no more ironic than that American catholics and American christians were outraged enough by jon stewarts' vagina-manger that they demanded suppression.  the outrage o' the offended is so freaking predictable that the Founding Fathers made our free speech protections part o' the Constitution so that simple majorities, moved by anger or guilt or whatever, could not dilute free speech protections.

 

again, duh.

 

the only irony is that the (hypothetical?) outraged jewish americans who wanted to suppress free speech and predictable got no traction in the US in 1947  were actual able to sway virtual all o' the rest o' the western world in suppressing Free Speech protections. what a hoot.

 

once more, so is not forgotten, we add your original statement:

 

"That's ironic you know, that you are so opposed to hate speech laws. The Swedish hate speech laws was initially pushed by American Jewish groups, after some wacko handing out Nazi propaganda became an international embarrassment in 1948."

 

is not the least bit ironic.  Americans like gd had to have been fighting against abridgment of free speech in 1948 or we woulda' ended up having our liberty encheapened here in the US.

 

To me it is greatly ironic that when we talk about hate speech laws and how they came to be, a large part of that stems from embarrassment in the international press, from which resulted pressure from American groups. But when you actually talk to Americans, it appears as though they all agree that hate speech laws is a bad thing. The irony results from Americans having an opinion opposite from what you might expect.

 

From Dictionary.com:

 

 

an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

 

So the irony is that Americans actually have the opposite opinion from their previous advice. I would expect that a Jewish American group still has American values. If it is so obvious to you, and so central an American value to you, I would expect that Jewish Americans think the same. Apparently this is not the case according to you, and I don't understand why.

 

 

and we can't help you on your misapprehensions regarding the law.  we thought the linked article did a fair job o' explaining the basics o' how hate is different than assaults and defamations.  perhaps this confusion is resulting from obtuseness rather than misunderstanding.  dunno.

 

But the article you linked seems to have something different in mind when discussing "hate speech". Hate speech where I live, "hets mot folkgrupp", literally something like "incitement against group of people" is not at all related to the idea of banning offensive things which get people angry, no matter how offensive they are. It is about taking the laws against threats and defamation/slander/libel and also including abstract or indirect threats. Nevertheless, it's pointless to argue about the views of some journalist about some invented notion of hate speech, when I am referring to a concrete, specific, legal notion of hate speech which you will find in Swedish law.

[Gromnir]

there is nothing ironic about gd's posting.

 

"That's ironic you know, that you are so opposed to hate speech laws. The Swedish hate speech laws was initially pushed by American Jewish groups, after some wacko handing out Nazi propaganda became an international embarrassment in 1948."

 

gd, and those like him, has been arguing the importance o' free speech since 1787... and before.  given you can't cite 1948, we will use skokie.  in 1977, the largely jewish community o' skokie illinois were understandably offended when illinois nazis chose to have a march through the streets o' their town.  the reaction o' the community were predictable.  most americans were offended by nazis parading down the streets of a quiet suburban town, but folks like gd were equal disturbed that the offensiveness o' speech could be provided as the rationale for denying a fundamental right to american citizens. if europe had waited until 1977 to suppress offensive speech in response to the plight o' the jewish community o' skokie, gd's current posting still would't result in irony. same scenario, but different year.

 

perhaps you feel that the jewish americans o' 1948 or 1977 were hypocritical, but there is nothing ironic about GD'S behavior.  his behavior is, thankfully, as predictable as were the folks living in skokie in 1977.  americans have a far greater respect for free speech than does most europeans (am knowing this offends many europeans, but is an inescapable conclusion) so it should come as no shock at all that in 1787, 1977 or 2016, folks such as gd is raging 'bout liberty and the ease with which some enlightened folks were willing to give up that liberty.  again, is precisely 'cause o'f folks like GD that America has a different perspective regarding free speech.  call it arrogance or obtuse if you wish, but GD'S demands to preserve liberty is in no way ironic.

 

again, duh.  is no ironic, or quixotic, or hyperbolic that can be reasonable attributed to GD'S posting that you identified.  the best you can argue is the hypocrisy o' some Americans... very predictable hypocrisy and is nothing particular ironic about hypocrisy.

 

*insert more ros misapprehensions 'bout law*

 

for chrissakes...

 

the journalist article is much relevant given YOUR description o' how hate crimes work.  

 

"For an example of what not constitutes hate speech you have the statement "homosexuals are a cancerous tumor on society". What hate speech does encompass however, is for example the use of Nazi symbols in certain ways. It's not illegal with swastikas in games, movies, historical re-enaction et.c., but if you were to publicly hand out leaflets with swastikas, pictures of Hitler and an invitation to join your political party, that would be considered hate speech (but ONLY if this is done in the public sphere, so if I gave you one such invitation in a meeting between friends, it would not be illegal). Maybe you view hate speech laws as a slippery slope, but that's not how things have turned out in reality. So while I understand your criticism, as it turns out, this type of legislation does not end up being used wrongly."

 

is possible you is confused, but is nothing remote like common law defamation or incitement... which is why the eu had to come up with new laws and why the USA has no such. you use wiki to misunderstand? shocking.

 

regardless, the article is talking exact 'bout what you deem to be hate speech. you didn't actual read it, did you? incitement can be criminalized in the US.  we criminalize incitement.  article makes that very point. however, we don't have special rules for classes and categories o' people.

 

"Displays containing some words -- odious racial epithets, for example -- would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But "fighting words" that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender -- aspersions upon a person's mother, for example -- would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but could not be used by that speaker's opponents. One could hold up a sign saying, for example, that all "anti-Catholic [p392] bigots" are misbegotten; but not that all "papists" are, for that would insult and provoke violence "on the basis of religion." St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules."

 

r.a.v. v. city of st. paul

 

burn a cross on a person's lawn in the US and you is likely gonna be criminalized for any number o' different violations o' state criminal codes. however, what we do not have is special categories o' crimes that is dependent on the race, color, creed, or gender o' the speaker or listener.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we keep writing 1948 as 1938.  perhaps if we get an actual cite to a reputable source, we will be able to keep it straight in our noggin.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

aside:

 

oddly enough in the USA we do have one category o' "offensive" speech that may be abridged due to the class (legal class as 'posed to simple dictionary meaning) o' the listener.

 

warning: sweary

 

 

carlin's routine inspired a constitutional battle. the actual facts  o' the case is kinda ridiculous and will make most roll their eyes.  a ny radio station broadcasts the above during afternoons when kids as at school and the radio station adds a warning that hic svnt dracones. john douglas is driving his son to a dentist appointment during regular school hours and he fails to catch the warning before the mind o' his infant (trivia o' the day: common law legal infancy is one younger than eighteen) were warped by the offensive torrent o' vulgarity blaring from his amc pacer's radio.  the father just happens to be part o' a an advocacy group: Morality in Media. 

 

were such an obvious set-up.

 

regardless, the Court decides that government efforts to censor media broadcasts gets reduced scrutiny wherein goal is to protect the innocent children. is a decision based very little on the rule o' law. 

 

Gromnir's mentor observed that more than a couple fundamental rights decisions could be best explained by identifying the "victim"-- Cute Cases is what he called 'em. why does children, the mentally handicapped and amish get seeming special rulings that don't align logically with established Constitutional Jurisprudence? perhaps, at the end o' the day, Justices is ordinary folks who will let their sympathy guide their choices?

 

anyways, we did wanna clarify that there is one situation where in the class o' the listener is relevant when deciding if offensive speech can be suppressed.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we don't actual know if mr. douglas' car were a pacer.  

[Elerond]

Here is study that helps you (collective you) to understand about European hate speech and blasphemy laws and their relation to fundamental right of free speech and how things work in reality. (Although it is 446 pages and full of jargon, so not necessary quickest read)   

 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/536460/IPOL_STU(2015)536460_EN.pdf

Edited February 19, 2016 by Elerond

[Gromnir]

Here is study that helps you (collective you) to understand about European hate speech and blasphemy laws and their relation to fundamental right of free speech and how things work in reality. (Although it is 446 pages and full of jargon, so not necessary quickest read)   

 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/536460/IPOL_STU(2015)536460_EN.pdf

better not have gd read or he will pop a blood vessel.  the most common criticism o' the incitement to hatred provisions is that they is not defined and there is lack o' consistent application. regardless, the hate laws o' the eu is a morass as will become readily apparent to those who read.

 

...

 

not that such has anything to do with ros misapprehensions.

 

thanks for posting though.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Gromnir can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe incitement to violence is not protected speech. Also I think here the court was wrong to rule in favor of "free speech", I think the protestors' actions went way beyond just speech: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2016/01/06/first-amendment-ruling-christian-evangelists-arab-festival/78376188/

[Gromnir]

Gromnir can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe incitement to violence is not protected speech. Also I think here the court was wrong to rule in favor of "free speech", I think the protestors' actions went way beyond just speech: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2016/01/06/first-amendment-ruling-christian-evangelists-arab-festival/78376188/

is more chaplinsky than brandenburg.  

 

brandenburg's incitement to violence exception is most typical used in cases where an individual is encouraging folks to perform acts o' violence.  is a three part test requiring intent, imminence and likelihood. facts: a kkk guy  gets on tv  and says,  “if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken," and  “the **** should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel.”  Court strikes down the ohio conviction o' the d-bag kkk member.  as reprehensible as were the words, the speaking were not likely to result in an IMMINENT and violent response from other d-bag kkk members.

 

fighting words, as 'posed to incitement, is those utterances that the listener is likely to respond to with violence, but chaplinsky is... problematic.  fighting words is Not protected speech, but the SCOTUS has refused to uphold a challenge based on chaplinsky since... well, ever.  chaplinsky were the first, and last, successful fighting words case.   fighting words is "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."  unfortunate, lower state and fed courts has been kinda all over the place and the closest we got from SCOTUS is dicta that cross burning is likely verboten when is intended as a threat o' harm, so providing you with the rule is less than illuminating, eh?

 

if it makes you feel better, angry muslims could march outside fenway park, set fire to the stars and stripes while spouting... well, pretty much every third qistina post.  stuff 'bout american antichrist and how the west will burn.   wouldn't offend the Constitution even if it angered almost every drunken southie sox fan. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-pope-francis-mexico-visit-425792?rm=eu

 

Guys this is UNACCEPTABLE, now Trump has insulted the Pope and called him " political" .....we know there is no worse insult than to compare someone to a politician,....its a low blow and I think Trump needs to seek immediate forgiveness and absolution 

[Meshugger]

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-pope-francis-mexico-visit-425792?rm=eu

 

Guys this is UNACCEPTABLE, now Trump has insulted the Pope and called him " political" .....we know there is no worse insult than to compare someone to a politician,....its a low blow and I think Trump needs to seek immediate forgiveness and absolution 

 

Strangely enough, the media seems to omit some interesting parts of Trump's response. Here's the complete one:

 

 

In response to the Pope:

 

If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.

 

The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story – he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.

 

For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.

 

Donald J. Trump

 

But the opinions of a pope bear little meaning to leaders world-wide anyway, historically speaking. Should we trust the judgements of Pius XI and Pius XII on Hitler? or should we trust the opinion of pope Gregory IX on naming the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, one of the greatest rulers in Europe only matched by Charlemagne, as the Anti-Christ?

 

You might as well just let the result of a coin-flip to guide you.

[Raithe]

[HoonDing]

10 Swiss Guard are worth more than 100 US marines.

[Raithe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCyzdD0vYOw&feature=youtu.be

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Democrats going after the Bern for "hurting the progressive image"

[ktchong]

October Surprise: The FBI indicts Hillary Clinton.

[ManifestedISO]

10 Swiss Guard are worth more than 100 US marines.

 

Doesn't count as fighting words. 'Marines' has to be capitalized. They're pretty obsessed with it. 

[ShadySands]

Charles Koch agrees with Bernie Sanders on income inequality