• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Supreme Court Unanimously Reaffirms: There is no "hate speech" exception to 1A

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Supreme Court Unanimously Reaffirms: There is no "hate speech" exception to 1A

Article.

OUTSTANDING!!!

The implications of this are HUGE:

1. There is NO SUCH THING as "hate speech." Specifically, "[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” " - Justice Samuel Alito, for four justices.

More to the point: "A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society." - Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, for four justices.

Finally, the justices made it clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions.

This means...

2. Universities may not exclude speakers because of their viewpoints.

3. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of "political correctness." A pre-hiring "culture fit" is one thing, but employers cannot fire you (or even treat you differently) simply because your beliefs disagree with theirs.

THIS IS AMERICA!!! This is what I spent my life fighting to support and defend. :)

Now, having said that, there is a place and time for various forms of speech.

For example, shouting "Fire!" in a non-empty movie theater that's not on fire remains prohibited. Interrupting either a volunteer or paid guest speaker at a university remains prohibited. Disrupting church service, an Elks Lodge meeting, etc. Whether the venue is public or private doesn't make a difference. What makes a difference is precisely the same thing enforced in Congress today: Whoever has the floor may speak. Whoever does not have the floor can either keep to themselves or they will be forcibly ejected from the venue.
 
Last edited:

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
Correctio

It is not illegal to yell fire in a deserted theater. Nor is it illegal to yell fire in a theater that is on fire
He it a fact though it should not be illegal to say whAtever you want in a public space no matter whose telling are hurt
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf

Nightmare
Justice Holmes on 'Shouting fire in a crowded theater' partially overturned.
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [ ... ] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Schenck v. United States

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) held that speech likely to cause lawless action is banned in prior restraint.​
Speech will incite violence?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446110/trump-assassination-threats-investigate-prosecute

SCOTUS gets it wrong on many occasions.

 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [ ... ] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Schenck v. United States

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) held that speech likely to cause lawless action is banned in prior restraint.

Agreed. Inciting a riot remains a crime in many jurisdictions, hence my comment about how this ruling is not absolute.

As for the other comments, I amended my OP to read, "For example, shouting "Fire!" in a non-empty movie theater that's not on fire remains prohibited."

Satisfied? But I hope you knew what I meant. ;)
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
It is not illegal to yell fire in a deserted theater. Nor is it illegal to yell fire in a theater that is on fire
He it a fact though it should not be illegal to say whAtever you want in a public space no matter whose telling are hurt

Really? Go up to a five year old kid and start telling him what a worthless, no-good piece of crap he is and see how far that gets you.

Of course that's not appropriate.

Our Founding Fathers' protection of free speech was predicated on the principle of propriety, that the general public would use it as a means of conveying ideas, even offensive ideas, rather than as an excuse to offend, disrupt, and incite riots.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement?
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Many states have DC laws that when words are used to create a disturbance one can be arrest for DC.


As for shouting fire in a theater I relate that to firearms, one can carry all the words you want and use them in an appropriate manner and location. If missed uses them one could face legal ramifications.

The same should be said of firearms carry and use them appropriately there should not be a problem, use them inappropriately face legal ramifications.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Really? Go up to a five year old kid and start telling him what a worthless, no-good piece of crap he is and see how far that gets you.

Of course that's not appropriate.

Our Founding Fathers' protection of free speech was predicated on the principle of propriety, that the general public would use it as a means of conveying ideas, even offensive ideas, rather than as an excuse to offend, disrupt, and incite riots.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement?
Trial of John Peter Zenger, the year was 1735, the place, New York. http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/

No law, that I know of, against chewing out a five year old. ;)
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Many states have DC laws...

Acronyms... Please!

Whenever I can remember to do so, I being posts using "Open Carry (OC)" to ensure that I don't leave people in the dark. Don't really need to do that, here, but on many other message forums, absolutely.

"DC?" Discriminatory Content? Divisive Content? Disturbing Content? Disgusting Content?

I realized one of the ramifications of this might be the eradication of a community's indecency laws. For example, does this mean that DMVs will no longer deny "offensive" license plates, even if some pathetic pedophile wants to register something as offensive as I***-KIDS?

Seriously, We the People need to be able to draw the line SOMEWHERE!!!
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Seriously, We the People need to be able to draw the line SOMEWHERE!!!

I agree. I think there is potentially offensive "speech" (in all its forms) that advances political dialogue, the arts, or otherwise is of greater good. Then there is that which is just patently offensive without any redeeming quality at all. As the civil libertarians say, "If you can't say 'F....' you can't say 'F... the government/war/policy.'" But that doesn't mean that the "F bomb" ought to be tolerated in every venue in every instance.

This ruling is very important given the way "hate speech" has become a catch-all for anything the left wants to shut down. But it isn't like the struggle over what society must tolerate vs what it can legitimately ban from the public space (or even entirely) is anything new. That has been going on a long time.

What adults do in the privacy of their own homes, clubs, churches, or businesses must be given the widest possible latitude. What the post on publicly accessibly bill boards, broadcast over the public airwaves, or otherwise thrust into the public's face ought to have some minimal standards of decency imposed. Bad manners will drive away good manners given the chance. Decent people simply abandon the public spaces to those whose conduct is overly offensive.

One line I wish the courts would firmly re-establish is the notion of "fighting words": that just as some words are not protected as they are intended to or have the effect of inciting a riot or other lawlessness, some words are intended to incite an individual to a response and so when that individual offers a mild physical response (a slap to the face, for example) he is not automatically guilty of the first offense. Rather, courts ought to consider on whether his response was an appropriate act of "self-defense" (as it were) against what amounts to a verbal assault.

I see no reason why an armed, and thus "polite" society, should be required to wholly tolerate the worst of verbal garbage that some can spew forth.

Charles
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Trial of John Peter Zenger, the year was 1735, the place, New York. http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/

No law, that I know of, against chewing out a five year old. ;)

It's about decency, humanity, propriety, and the fact that if some blithering idiot attempted to do that with my son, I'd intervene.

In fact, I had to do just that on one occasion, when my son was five. Yes, my son had done something wrong in public. He'd pushed his way into a line. Specifically, he'd squirmed in front of a gent who took exception to my son's behavior.

"No problem," I thought. "Good chance for him to learn from another adult that the behavior was inappropriate."

Unfortunately, this other "adult," about age 35, had zero manners at all and began talking to my son in precisely the way I mentioned, "Go up to a five year old kid and start telling him what a worthless, no-good piece of crap he is."

I stepped in and said, "I'll handle this, I'm his father."

Unfortunately, the mental midget decided to shove my kid to the floor while upping his game to obscenities.

Then, he tried pushing me away, which allowed me to grab his wrist and pull him away from that small arena and use Aikido to quickly move his screaming pie-hole to the floor, at which point I said to the approaching manager, "I'm arresting this man for assault and battery. Would you please call the cops?" They took him away, and the security footage, my statement, and the statements of a couple of others not only exonerated me of any wrongdoing, but replaced me in court so I didn't have to deal with the jerk ever again.

My point, OC for ME, is that absolute "rights" can be misused, abused, or simply contraindicated. Why don't we allow murderers to carry firearms into their trials? After all, it's their right, correct? How about during sentencing? Do we allow a murderer sentenced to death by hanging to walk up to the rope with a knife in his hand?

I am probably far more minimalist than you can imagine on this issue. While I do not believe someone who is under arrest or in prison should be allowed to possess arms (weapons), I do believe in restoring all rights to felons after they have served their time, including any parole. It is my opinion that if even half of all citizens carried, they'd still outnumber the violent criminals 50 to 1. Thus, if those criminals want to get violent, they'll soon be dead, good riddance, and we've filtered the gene pool.

I feel much the same way about free speech.

The problem occurs when others cram their free speech in my face, and that's where others cross the line. I have a right to prevent such intrusions on my privacy, and have exercised those rights recently, including against a neighbor who claimed he had a "right to grill," even at 3 AM when myself and most others have our windows open to allow in the cool night air. Naturally, that didn't fly, and the apartment manager told him in no uncertain terms to "knock it off."

Most parents don't want their children to see crude, unacceptable, pornographic, or pedophilia on license plates, much less on store fronts, t-shirts, or billboards.

I support community decency laws, because, quite frankly, I don't want to see that crap, either.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
It's about decency, humanity, propriety, and the fact that if some blithering idiot attempted to do that with my son, I'd intervene.

....[Snipped only for length]

Most parents don't want their children to see crude, unacceptable, pornographic, or pedophilia on license plates, much less on store fronts, t-shirts, or billboards.

I support community decency laws, because, quite frankly, I don't want to see that crap, either.

+1

Very well said.

Not only do most parents not want their kids to see that crap, but most decent adults don't want to see that crap themselves. I don't expect to be shielded from everything that might offend me. I do expect a community to be able to set standards of decency when it comes to pornography (written or imagery), vulgarity, and sexual content. Some variation in such standards helps prevent conflict. I fully expect that I will see far more explicit material in public in Vegas or NYC than I might in a rural town in Alabama or in Salt Lake City or Provo Utah.

On the flip side, I also expect a community to be able to honor basic moral or religious tenet without some pin head forcing the removal of a cross marking an honored death or other modest symbol under some misguided application of the non-existent "separation of church and state".

Charles
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I agree. I think there is potentially offensive "speech" (in all its forms) that advances political dialogue, the arts, or otherwise is of greater good. Then there is that which is just patently offensive without any redeeming quality at all. As the civil libertarians say, "If you can't say 'F....' you can't say 'F... the government/war/policy.'" But that doesn't mean that the "F bomb" ought to be tolerated in every venue in every instance.

Thank you for your voice of sanity on this issue!

This ruling is very important given the way "hate speech" has become a catch-all for anything the left wants to shut down.

Although this case was heard on racial grounds due to the asian band's choice of the racially charged name, "The Slants," the Supreme Court's ruling appears to cover any form hate speech. But it also seems to me to cover any and every form of "speech" others might find offensive, as well.

But it isn't like the struggle over what society must tolerate vs what it can legitimately ban from the public space (or even entirely) is anything new. That has been going on a long time.

Yes, it has. However, this decision appears to legitimize certain things no sane human would want in our communities.

What adults do in the privacy of their own homes, clubs, churches, or businesses must be given the widest possible latitude. What the post on publicly accessibly bill boards, broadcast over the public airwaves, or otherwise thrust into the public's face ought to have some minimal standards of decency imposed. Bad manners will drive away good manners given the chance. Decent people simply abandon the public spaces to those whose conduct is overly offensive.

...leaving nothing but cesspools behind them. After all, look what happened to Detroit after several decades of liberal, socialist policies. Those who could leave, left, including the automobile manufacturers. What was left imploded. If we allow cesspool-like behavior and cesspool speech everywhere, that'll just take the fun out of life!

One line I wish the courts would firmly re-establish is the notion of "fighting words": that just as some words are not protected as they are intended to or have the effect of inciting a riot or other lawlessness, some words are intended to incite an individual to a response and so when that individual offers a mild physical response (a slap to the face, for example) he is not automatically guilty of the first offense. Rather, courts ought to consider on whether his response was an appropriate act of "self-defense" (as it were) against what amounts to a verbal assault.

I see no reason why an armed, and thus "polite" society, should be required to wholly tolerate the worst of verbal garbage that some can spew forth.

Charles

While I agree armed societies tend to be polite societies, I think the second half of your last sentence stands on its own merit: No individual, community, or society "should be required to wholly tolerate the worst of verbal garbage that some can spew forth."
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Why I posted this here...

I posted this here as it has huge implications for 2A rights, particularly when it comes to absolutism.

From what I've read on this forum over the last eight years, most of us do not support the absolute right to keep and bear arms. For example, most of us do not want violent criminals (murders, rapists, etc.) to be able to keep their firearms. We want them in jail, if not swinging at the end of a rope. Nor do we want those whose mental capacities are such that would would never be responsible with a firearm to "keep and bear" (own/possess and carry) firearms, either. The Cho's, Holmes, and Loughners of this world do not need access to firearms.

Thus, we do have some restrictions on 2A rights. We do not, in reality, hold them to be absolute.

Similarly, 1A rights, if deemed absolute, can run in some seriously and similar foul weather:

- What if an oompah band decides to strike up 24/7 tunes on a public sidewalk directly in front of residents with PTSD? Sick elderly? A newborn infant?

I would find that offensive.

- What if a teenage decides his train horns are "free speech" and wanders through neighborhoods honking at 152 dB?

I would find that offensive.

The point here, which another has already mentioned, has to do with whether or not an action is detrimental to society, and not whether it's merely "offensive," or whether it actually goes to the next level, having become detrimental to society.

I do not see allowing a band to call themselves "The Slants" as being detrimental to society. After all, they are of Asian descent. They picked the name. Their followers respect that. Those who don't like it are free not to listen to their music or attend their concerts.

But that "freedom to leave" is crucial. When my neighbor is barbecuing at three o'clock in the morning, I am NOT "free to leave" as this is my home. My territory. Horn-honker's and barbecuer's actions have adversely impacted us where we live, because both actions disturb the peace i.e. my sleep, resulting in declining health if it continues, which is precisely what happened from March to May of this year. Fortunately, the problem has been successfully resolved for more than a month.

Let's turn the discussion back to firearms...

My OC may frighten a small percent of the public at large, but the majority of the public (at least here in Colorado Springs) accepts it. It may indeed be offensive to some, so if someone finds it "offensive," but the Supreme Court just ruled that free speech, even that which others find "offensive," remains a protected activity.

But what about speech that goes to the next level, being "detrimental to society?" Examples would include inciting others to riot, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater that's not on fire, committing slander, or practicing opera at 3 am in the middle of a public street?

Back to firearms...

I think it's a given that open carry (OC) is "offensive" to some (possibly many, in some locations). However, is OC detrimental to society? I would argue, "no, of course not." In fact, I would even argue that it's beneficial to society as it deters criminal activity aka Kennesaw-style.

However, OC in a courtroom may indeed be detrimental to society, as courtrooms are occasionally hotly contested arenas, where physical violence rears its head and must be controlled by bailiffs. It's a lot easier for them to keep the peace when they're not dodging bullets. Thus, OC in a courtroom may indeed be detrimental to society.

A courtroom, however, is not at all like a place normally accessible to the public. Whether it's a mall, a park, a parking lot, or a stroll down the street, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms for several outstanding reasons, one of which is self-protection. Yes, some may find that offensive, but I think we're all in agreement here that OC is not only not detrimental to society, but it's actually a boon.

Back to free speech...

I think we're all in agreement that while some things are offensive, others cross the line of moral decency and are therefore a detriment to society, wherein they should be restricted.

I invite you to pick apart the above with ration and reason. If you have examples from prior Supreme Court or federal court findings, that would be fine.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
... In fact, I had to do just that on one occasion, when my son was five. Yes, my son had done something wrong in public. He'd pushed his way into a line. Specifically, he'd squirmed in front of a gent who took exception to my son's behavior.

"No problem," I thought. "Good chance for him to learn from another adult that the behavior was inappropriate." ...
Maybe that fella was tired of "mental midget" parents letting their little five y/o crumb cruncher run amok out in public. Maybe you snatching your kid up and chewing him out, right then and there, would have prevented the entire incident and taught your kid the lesson you had hoped he would learn...from a stranger. Your teachable moment went sideways and it landed a stranger in jail. Well played.

... What if an oompah band decides to strike up 24/7 tunes on a public sidewalk directly in front of residents with PTSD? Sick elderly? A newborn infant? ...
Interesting position. What if the oompah band has a permit? Appeals to emotion noted.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Maybe that fella was tired of "mental midget" parents letting their little five y/o crumb cruncher run amok out in public. Maybe you snatching your kid up and chewing him out, right then and there, would have prevented the entire incident and taught your kid the lesson you had hoped he would learn...from a stranger. Your teachable moment went sideways and it landed a stranger in jail. Well played.

It's apocryphal.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Maybe that fella was tired of "mental midget" parents letting their little five y/o crumb cruncher run amok out in public

Wow, that's a lot of creative license... That is not, however, how I described it. Perhaps you should stick to the words I used instead of trying to invent fiction that never happened.

Maybe you snatching your kid up and chewing him out, right then and there...

Maybe you should either have been there, or at least read my account of the event more carefully instead of blabbering on.

Appeals to fantasy noted.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Wow, that's a lot of creative license... That is not, however, how I described it. Perhaps you should stick to the words I used instead of trying to invent fiction that never happened.
Interesting.

since9 - It's about decency, humanity, propriety, and the fact that if some blithering idiot attempted to do that with my son, I'd intervene.

In fact, I had to do just that on one occasion, when my son was five. Yes, my son had done something wrong in public. He'd pushed his way into a line. Specifically, he'd squirmed in front of a gent who took exception to my son's behavior.


"No problem," I thought. "Good chance for him to learn from another adult that the behavior was inappropriate.
Are the above not the exact words you posted?

You let your kind run amok. You did not control your kid. You relinquished your parental responsibility and transferred it to a stranger. Your lack of respect for that citizen undermines your call for "decency, humanity, propriety." It is odd that you hold that citizen responsible for the entire incident when it is you not controlling your kid that initiated the incident. That citizen has been held accountable for his unlawful acts, and rightly so. You, on the other hand, have absolved yourself from any responsibility whatsoever.

Personally, I would have immediately apologized to the fella for my kid running amok. Removed my kid from his immediate vicinity and apologized again. Then start chewing my kid out for his complete lack of manners.


Maybe you should either have been there, or at least read my account of the event more carefully instead of blabbering on.

Appeals to fantasy noted.
Maybe you are reading a different post than I read. Me not being there does not change the words (account of the incident) posted.

Regarding "decency, humanity, propriety" you did not answer the question I pose "What if the oompah band has a permit?"
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
You let your kind run amok.

You've never met either myself or my son, so your fictional opinions aren't worth the bits that contain them.

I'm tired of you utterly failing to carefully read what's written while jumping to unbelievably wild conclusions about others.

Enjoy your day.
 
Last edited:
Top