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

Ignore is a good option for those who deny their own words. Rose colored glasses come to mind.

Nightmare said:

May I suggest that our opinions be distilled into a couple of lines, Clear, Concise and Correct.

My most common complaint to myself is TL;DR, followed by capricious jargon. My ignore list is UUGE even though purged regularly, and used differently - to remind me to think twice before responding to an ignored poster than I might deign to read.

Click to expand...

Much the same, Nightmare. Since the '80s, my greatest complaint has always involved people who have all the capabilities of discussing the topic at hand in a sensible, rational manner, but then out of the blue start hurtling personal insults in violation of the forum rules. I've got very thick skin, but I'm not going to waste my time reading it much less responding to it. Fortunately, the vast majority of the people on this forum know full well how to behave. Sadly, a handful do not.

I care very much about good, healthy discussion. Personal attacks and insults aren't "good, healthy discussion." It's abusive to others and destructive to the forum at large.

If someone errantly believes my refusal to engage in abuse, manipulation, and forum destruction is donning "rose colored glasses," that's why they're on ignore.

since9 said:

Much the same, Nightmare. Since the '80s, my greatest complaint has always involved people who have all the capabilities of discussing the topic at hand in a sensible, rational manner, but then out of the blue start hurtling personal insults in violation of the forum rules. I've got very thick skin, but I'm not going to waste my time reading it much less responding to it. Fortunately, the vast majority of the people on this forum know full well how to behave. Sadly, a handful do not.

I care very much about good, healthy discussion. Personal attacks and insults aren't "good, healthy discussion." It's abusive to others and destructive to the forum at large.

If someone errantly believes my refusal to engage in abuse, manipulation, and forum destruction is donning "rose colored glasses," that's why they're on ignore.

Click to expand...

I provided a critique of your behavior and your failure to control your kid in a public setting. I highlighted, specifically, that you chose to let your five y/o be trained in proper manners by a stranger. You not reading my posts will not change the words you posted.

OC for ME said:

I provided a critique of your behavior and your failure to control your kid in a public setting. I highlighted, specifically, that you chose to let your five y/o be trained in proper manners by a stranger. You not reading my posts will not change the words you posted.

Click to expand...

Not that anyone needs to get in the middle of you two, but from my perspective, OC for ME, your responses regarding since9's account his child mildly misbehaving has been kind of jerky. If that is your intent, so be it. I think it is the wrong issue to harp on, but to each his own.

If you are not intending to be jerky about it, you might consider on why you are so intent in presenting his words in the least favorable light possible.

Assuming what he posted is accurate, there is nothing there that is terribly out of line with what any number of very responsible parents might choose to do. A youngish child cutting into a line is not the kind of thing that a sensible adult should blow up over and so it is not the type of thing that a parent necessary should need to rush in to helicopter and resolve for the child.

In decent society, decent adults feel a bit of communal obligation to help raise and guide the upcoming generation. Some do so very directly as coaches, scout masters, teachers, or clergy. Others simply do their bit civilly as needed in various situations. Sometimes that bit is to congratulate a young person on a job well done. Sometimes it is to offer correction in a mature, appropriate fashion.

In the semi-rural town where I grew up, every decent adult felt perfectly at liberty to so interact with any child or adolescent in town. And every decent young person knew to show appropriate respect to his elders, never quite sure whether that "stranger" knew his father or not.

One way or another, if you don't intend to continue looking jerky, it is probably time to let the topic drop.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Not that anyone needs to get in the middle of you two, but from my perspective, OC for ME, your responses regarding since9's account his child mildly misbehaving has been kind of jerky. If that is your intent, so be it. I think it is the wrong issue to harp on, but to each his own.

If you are not intending to be jerky about it, you might consider on why you are so intent in presenting his words in the least favorable light possible.

Assuming what he posted is accurate, there is nothing there that is terribly out of line with what any number of very responsible parents might choose to do. A youngish child cutting into a line is not the kind of thing that a sensible adult should blow up over and so it is not the type of thing that a parent necessary should need to rush in to helicopter and resolve for the child.

In decent society, decent adults feel a bit of communal obligation to help raise and guide the upcoming generation. Some do so very directly as coaches, scout masters, teachers, or clergy. Others simply do their bit civilly as needed in various situations. Sometimes that bit is to congratulate a young person on a job well done. Sometimes it is to offer correction in a mature, appropriate fashion.

In the semi-rural town where I grew up, every decent adult felt perfectly at liberty to so interact with any child or adolescent in town. And every decent young person knew to show appropriate respect to his elders, never quite sure whether that "stranger" knew his father or not.

One way or another, if you don't intend to continue looking jerky, it is probably time to let the topic drop.

Charles

Click to expand...

Agreed.

While hate speech is indeed protected under the First Amendment, be advised, it can and will be used against you, in a criminal or civil action.

My .02
CCJ

utbagpiper said:

Not that anyone needs to get in the middle of you two, but from my perspective, OC for ME, your responses regarding since9's account his child mildly misbehaving has been kind of jerky. If that is your intent, so be it. I think it is the wrong issue to harp on, but to each his own.

If you are not intending to be jerky about it, you might consider on why you are so intent in presenting his words in the least favorable light possible.

Assuming what he posted is accurate, there is nothing there that is terribly out of line with what any number of very responsible parents might choose to do. A youngish child cutting into a line is not the kind of thing that a sensible adult should blow up over and so it is not the type of thing that a parent necessary should need to rush in to helicopter and resolve for the child.

In decent society, decent adults feel a bit of communal obligation to help raise and guide the upcoming generation. Some do so very directly as coaches, scout masters, teachers, or clergy. Others simply do their bit civilly as needed in various situations. Sometimes that bit is to congratulate a young person on a job well done. Sometimes it is to offer correction in a mature, appropriate fashion.

In the semi-rural town where I grew up, every decent adult felt perfectly at liberty to so interact with any child or adolescent in town. And every decent young person knew to show appropriate respect to his elders, never quite sure whether that "stranger" knew his father or not.

One way or another, if you don't intend to continue looking jerky, it is probably time to let the topic drop.

Charles

Click to expand...

You could have posted nothing. My critique was spot on given the proclivities of what is considered good parenting when I was a kid and how I have raised my kids. Individual liberty demands that we do not place a undue burden on a fellow citizen where we can avoid doing so. Your view seems to be contrary to my view.

I will withdraw.

OC for ME said:

I provided a critique of your behavior and your failure to control your kid in a public setting...

Click to expand...

And in so doing your rather bizarre critique disqualified yourself from ever commenting on any OCDO family gathering, much less my own, ever again. Have a nice day, but should I ever spot you I will call the cops as you've already pegged yourself as in the 99% psychopath category. I'm forwarding your concerns to my friend with the FBI. Have a nice day.

I highlighted, specifically, that you chose to let your five y/o be trained in proper manners by a stranger. You not reading my posts will not change the words you posted.[/QUOTE]

And yes, I have SECONDED forwarding ALL of your comments to the FBI. All of the following will be handled off-site.

Back to reality... (sheesh)

It appears that there is some house keeping needed on this thread, specifically, some deleting of rhetoric from the public eye.

like the premise of the entire thread?

wabbit said:

like the premise of the entire thread?

Click to expand...

If I meant that, I would have said that.

i guess since your sensibilities took offense and for the sake of argument, that is why my comment is under my byline not yours

Hate speech exists, but it ought not be legislated against, nor Found to not fall within persons First Amendment exercise. Whether it's hate speech from the Alt-Right, or hate speech from the Alt-Left, both ought to be Constitutionally protected.

There are certain types of speech that ought to be legislated as a criminal act.

Beretta92fsQueer said:

Hate speech exists, but it ought not be legislated against, nor Found to not fall within persons First Amendment exercise. Whether it's hate speech from the Alt-Right, or hate speech from the Alt-Left, both ought to be Constitutionally protected.

There are certain types of speech that ought to be legislated as a criminal act.

Click to expand...

I deplore hate speech, deplore it I tell you.

We on OCDO do have rules on certain types of speech.

When the spoken or written word puts someone at risk of physical harm, the line has been crossed.

Grapeshot said:

I deplore hate speech, deplore it I tell you.

We on OCDO do have rules on certain types of speech.

When the spoken or written word puts someone at risk of physical harm, the line has been crossed.

Click to expand...

+1

since9 said:

And in so doing your rather bizarre critique disqualified yourself from ever commenting on any OCDO family gathering, much less my own, ever again. Have a nice day, but should I ever spot you I will call the cops as you've already pegged yourself as in the 99% psychopath category. I'm forwarding your concerns to my friend with the FBI. Have a nice day.

I highlighted, specifically, that you chose to let your five y/o be trained in proper manners by a stranger. You not reading my posts will not change the words you posted.
And yes, I have SECONDED forwarding ALL of your comments to the FBI. All of the following will be handled off-site.

Back to reality... (sheesh)

Click to expand...

Doo do doo, nice to have some time to be back on OCDO, doo do... :shocker: Well that escalated kind of insanely. Alrighty then...

Beretta92fsQueer said:

Hate speech exists, but it ought not be legislated against, nor Found to not fall within persons First Amendment exercise. Whether it's hate speech from the Alt-Right, or hate speech from the Alt-Left, both ought to be Constitutionally protected.

There are certain types of speech that ought to be legislated as a criminal act.

Click to expand...

I agree on both counts. "Hate speech" is merely politically incorrect speech, rude speech, or speech that someone finds personally offensive. One cost of enjoying freedom of speech is tolerating offensive speech.

Certain speech does cross the line from constitutionally protected to criminal or civilly prohibited. Among these are libel/slander, assault (making a credible threat, as opposed to unwanted physical contact or battery), inciting a riot, perjury, conspiring to commit a crime, fraud and other theft through deception, child pornography, etc.

In addition to these, I believe that we ought to revise the doctrine of "fighting words" to recognize that certain insults, specifically directed, move beyond merely offensive and into the realm of assault. If the Westboro Baptists want to stand on a street corner and rant and rave about god hating homosexuals or Mormons, we'll just to ignore or endure the public display of bigotry. But if they want to stand right outside a specific person's funeral, point to a grieving mother and yell about god taking vengeance on her son because of sexual orientation, that's fighting words and they ought to either be charged with assault as if they had threatened to hit someone, or they ought to expect a punch in the nose from the grieving father. Ditto if they want to stand outside LDS General Conference and accuse a specific person of being a ***** of Babylon.

Generally offensive speech must be protected. But when a specific individual is targeted with patently offensive insults, that ought to be treated as we used to treat it: fighting words, roughly equal to a mild assault.

Charles