beatlegs posted:

Actually Walsh will be forgotten in the trash heap of history while Maru will be long-remembered as a pop culture icon. Imagine that, being worth less than a cat.

Moktaro posted:

Republicans are the party of the Bible and fiscal responsibility.

Which is why they put you in a trillion-dollar plane that's buggy as poo poo and say "Thou shalt kill."

swampland posted:

I do not subscribe to the "They're just words" mindset. Screaming at potential rape victims they deserved it and should be mocked for it is a form of assault in itself in my view. I feel bad that this guy got to the point of becoming so loving awful but I couldn't care less he got hit in the head with a baseball bat by someone who was probably a rape victim who had been screamed at by this guy regularly.

Necc0 posted:

'Fighting words' is a real legal term recognized by the court of law and isn't protected by the 1st amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

It's up to the judge to decide if this guy actually was 'asking for it'

Necc0 posted:

'Fighting words' is a real legal term recognized by the court of law and isn't protected by the 1st amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

It's up to the judge to decide if this guy actually was 'asking for it'

quote:

The "fighting words" doctrine comes from the Supreme Court's decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire in 1942. Fans of censorship like to quote the broader language of the opinion:

"There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

But censors generally don't quote the later language of the opinion narrowing the First Amendment exception:

"It is a statute narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of state power, the use in a public place of words likely to cause a breach of the peace. . . . A statute punishing verbal acts, carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression, is not too vague for a criminal law. . . . .

Nor can we say that the application of the statute to the facts disclosed by the record substantially or unreasonably impinges upon the privilege of free speech. Argument is unnecessary to demonstrate that the appellations "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace."

This is the heart of the "fighting words" doctrine — a prohibition on face-to-face insults likely to cause a brawl. In that sense, it's entirely consistent with the Supreme Court's subsequent clear and present danger doctrine, in which advocacy can only be punished when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

People who cite the "fighting words" doctrine never tell you how it has been treated in the courts for the last half-century. The Supreme Court has refused every opportunity to rely upon it to uphold censorship, and in fact has consistently narrowed it. It was already narrowed by 1970 in Cohen v. California, when the Court refused to use it to justify punishment of a man who wore a jacket bearing the words "gently caress the Draft." The Court made it clear that the "fighting words" doctrine was narrowed to direct confrontations likely to provoke violence:

"This Court has also held that the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so-called "fighting words," those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942). While the four-letter word displayed by Cohen in relation to the draft is not uncommonly employed in a personally provocative fashion, in this instance it was clearly not "directed to the person of the hearer." Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 309 (1940). No individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant's jacket as a direct personal insult. Nor do we have here an instance of the exercise of the State's police power to prevent a speaker from intentionally provoking a given group to hostile reaction. Cf. Feiner v. New York, 340 U. S. 315 (1951); Termniello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949). There is, as noted above, no showing that anyone who saw Cohen was, in fact, violently aroused, or that appellant intended such a result. "

Later, in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court refused to use the "fighting words" doctrine to justify a ban on flag burning:

"Nor does Johnson's expressive conduct fall within that small class of "fighting words" that are "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 574 (1942). No reasonable onlooker would have regarded Johnson's generalized expression of dissatisfaction with the policies of the Federal Government as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs."

Sir Tonk posted:

edit, found the problem

Goatman Sacks posted:

Hi reactionaries aren't people and beating them should be a national sport god bless

fishmech posted:

He's constantly going to different high schools, colleges, etc. Many have booted him from the premises in the past, the one someone finally whacked him good at was one that hadn't booted him yet.

I'm sure in your country some rear end in a top hat could hang out at a university campus for a couple hours before getting booted and moving on too.

Shbobdb posted:

People advocate for non violence by I'm not sure why we should follow that path.

Shbobdb posted:

People advocate for non violence by I'm not sure why we should follow that path. Sure, in some colonial situations it lets you get the moral high ground (like India) but violence seems to work just as well in those situations (America, Vietnam, China).

In a civilized society I'm for universal healthcare and against guns. That way if you talk poo poo and get hit you are likely to survive with an important lesson learned.

Racist police complicate this but only insofar as you accept the legitimacy of the police. I don't.

Its no different from ancient Sparta or any other slave society you could name. The warrior class claims a false legitimacy. You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Revolutionary Suicide remains the best path forwards.

Shbobdb posted:

Revolutionary Suicide remains the best path forwards.

Sir Tonk posted:

Shbobdb posted:

Revolutionary Suicide remains the best path forwards.

Shbobdb posted:

Shbobdb posted:

There is already a great deal of politically motivated violence going on without reprisal. The woman hitting the man with a bat is an example of reciprocal violence against the very violent patriarchy. I'm OK with that. Most violence against women is not reciprocated and I think that is a shame.

RareAcumen posted:

While you were crying about a dead cop, 410 BILLION BABIES WERE ABORTED IN THE LAST TWO MINUTES.

CommieGIR posted:

We all agree she was in the wrong to actually attack him, and she'll serve her time.


...he still deserved it.

Goatman Sacks posted:

Hi reactionaries aren't people and beating them should be a national sport god bless

icantfindaname posted:

oh my god how is this an actual debate people are having? if the blackshirts are preparing to march down to the parliament and seize power by force then by all means, bash the fash. otherwise no, you can't assault people for saying things you don't like

WoodrowSkillson posted:

stop me nerd

icantfindaname posted:

oh my god how is this an actual debate people are having? if the blackshirts are preparing to march down to the parliament and seize power by force then by all means, bash the fash. otherwise no, you can't assault people for saying things you don't like

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Shbobdb posted:

People advocate for non violence by I'm not sure why we should follow that path. Sure, in some colonial situations it lets you get the moral high ground (like India) but violence seems to work just as well in those situations (America, Vietnam, China).

In a civilized society I'm for universal healthcare and against guns. That way if you talk poo poo and get hit you are likely to survive with an important lesson learned.

Racist police complicate this but only insofar as you accept the legitimacy of the police. I don't.

Its no different from ancient Sparta or any other slave society you could name. The warrior class claims a false legitimacy. You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Revolutionary Suicide remains the best path forwards.

quote:

Because we live in a fallen world, sin has affected everything, including gorillas and three-year-olds.

Therefore when deciding what to do in a situation where a human being, made in God’s image, is in the control of a sin-cursed animal with no sense of human morality, we must do all we can to protect the child from harm.

We are all saddened by such an event when an animal is killed and a child is harmed. But it is a reminder that we do live in a fallen world—and a reminder of the value of each human life made in the image of God.

Shbobdb posted:

People advocate for non violence by I'm not sure why we should follow that path. Sure, in some colonial situations it lets you get the moral high ground (like India) but violence seems to work just as well in those situations (America, Vietnam, China).

In a civilized society I'm for universal healthcare and against guns. That way if you talk poo poo and get hit you are likely to survive with an important lesson learned.

Racist police complicate this but only insofar as you accept the legitimacy of the police. I don't.

Its no different from ancient Sparta or any other slave society you could name. The warrior class claims a false legitimacy. You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Revolutionary Suicide remains the best path forwards.

Deified Data posted:

People like this are why I am a liberal but not a leftist.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

I don't even know where to put this...

Creationist, Ken Ham, blames gorilla killed because of sin