General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI heard an interesting take on the Geller/1st Amendment thing this morning ...
Essentially, the Free Speech claims (would) fail; but, for the American penchant for seeing everything through our own eyes (and then, selectively so).
The SCOTUS has, long, recognized the/a "Fighting Words" exception to protected free speech. As it applies to this situation, no one here would argue that standing on a street corner yelling the "N-word" to African-Americans passing by, would be constitutionally protected speech. Well, some might; but, they would be at odds with what the SCOTUS has announced.
However, those trying to make geller's action constitutionally protected can only do so; but, ignoring that her words/actions, are, in fact, "fighting words" for Islamists, especially if viewed frame outside of the American context ... and even as, some Islamists do/will not respond by fighting.
ETA: I guess I should include the following ... Nothing I have written justifies the taking of a life (under these circumstances), especially over speech, period.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)the sheriff said that they had advised Geller and co. that they needed to provide extra security. They knew there could be trouble and chose to intentionally provoke Muslims with their actions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)can claim ignorance, that their words/actions were unprotected "fighting words."
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)
msongs
(67,357 posts)don't need any phony justifications at all
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)they deliberately set out to provoke a reaction and they got the reaction they were looking for.
So who is more fucked in the head, the religious nuts or the nuts that provoke them?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)The people who tried to kill because they were offended.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)they way I see it she wanted people to be killed. The religious nuts did her dirty work for her.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)There could have protests like those who protest Phelps. There could have been viral videos to out these muhammed drawing assholes. there could have been boycotts and billboards. Unfortunately, if you believe the prophet of the creator of the entire universe of everything has been "insulted," ya might shoot somebody.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)But Ms Geller needs not to hide behind the 1st Amendment. The sheriff has acknowledged that they were aware there could be trouble and advised her to add extra security. She's nothing but a cowardly shit stir-er and she needs to stand up and take responsibility for all those she put in danger. She manipulated and exploited both side's ignorance and hatred.
Has she even been confronted by the media yet? Has anyone bothered to contact and interview her or is she hiding?
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)She calls Muslims 'savages' then turns around and says she doesn't call Muslims 'savages' then she tells the interviewer that she is disrespectful toward Muslims. Gellar kind of reminds me of George Lincoln Rockwell, the former head of the American Nazi Party. He used similar rhetoric about blacks and jews. Eventually I think people saw him for who he was. A very bizarre and hate-filled man, whose 'arguments' were juvenile and a projection of his own hatreds & insecurities.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)While not at all familiar with "fighting words" precedents & guidelines but certainly Geller has many statements that are simply hate. The event itself, it depends if she was expressing her viewpoints & if those viewpoints are hate. The issue alone, while offensive depictions would simply offend traditional Muslims (in addition to the bigotry they face that comes with all that) that may come closer but the image depictions alone simply isn't offensive as images from Muslims in Asia have existed for thousands of years. Even though Iran has an image ban -- they tolerate it but those are more artistic depictions but there have also been stereotypical Eastern depictions as well. The fundamentalist sects take things such as not to drink alcohol or worship images of Muhammad so far to prevent the choice they go bulldozing over his families' graves & moved Muhammad's grave to an undisclosed location because of the idea that since if people don't know where he is then they can't worship his grave. Alcohol is generally punished with a public whipping & religious instruction (the fundamentalist sect interpretation) but literally countless things can be "fighting words" to a sect that practices "convert or die"
On edit -- there is an image of Muhammad literally on the walls of the Supreme Court
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And many, including myself, think it's wrong. The Court has only used it once, Chaplinsky, and since then every other case after it in the Supreme Court has narrowed the grounds to almost make it completely meaningless. Some of the later rulings contradict Chaplinsky, but the Court rarely overturns anything.
And if you look at the Chaplinsky decision, it's terrible, and makes no sense. Who gets to decide what are "fighting words". Much like the 10th Amendment, it's not that relevant anymore.
Anyone who reads the Chaplinsky decision and agrees with it is engaging is some serious cognitive dissonance if they also are progressive, IMHO.
The way that the lower courts use it now is oftentimes to go after people that criticize the police. Surprise surprise.
Because guess what, the privileged and the powerful get to decide what fighting words are, and they'll use it to suppress things they don't like.
I definitely believe standing on a street corner yelling obscenities is protected speech. Because who gets to decide what is offensive? And how does banning offensive speech improve society?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But there have been numerous cases that followed, and turned on, Chaplinski.
The fact that YOU think it a terrible decision is irrelevant, other than to serve as a personal, and legally, unpersuasive, opinion ... and you know what they say about opinions.
Actually, the vast majority of (successfully brought) "fighting word" cases (as late as 2003) have nothing to do with criticizing the police; but rather, involve cross burning cases (as intended)
Again, you belief is irrelevant, other than to serve as a, personal, and legally, unpersuasive, opinion.
As the case law of related cases has evolved, that answer is clear ... the offended; or rather, "the reasonable person of similar circumstance." (See: Tort law)
I say an absolute and definitive "HELL YES" ... With rights, comes responsibility; and, where that fails, we have laws and the courts.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Amd im not talking about people burning a cross on someone else's lawn, I'm talking about "speech that makes someone else real mad" or 'blasphemy', which is the specific speech you want outlawed, here.
Lucky for the United States, you are strenuously misinformed about the 1st Amendment.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And yes ... it was a cross burning case ... which was "speech" that makes someone else real mad", IN THE CONTEXT OF beliefs outside the limits of American hegemony.
Misinformed ... strenuously so? Okay ... but case law is on my strenuously misinformed side ... unless you toss out the cases you don't like.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It struck down a Virginia statute that's didn't allow cross burning. It said a statute could ban intimidation, and if a cross burning was done in a way to intimidate, then it would not violate the first amendment to have a law against that.
That's not the fighting words doctrine. That's incitement. The fighting words doctrine has two prongs, speech that by its very utterance inflict injury and speech that tend to incite a breach of the peace.
The difference between fighting words and incitement is that incitement applies to speech meant to encourage someone else do something bad on the speaker's behalf. Fighting words is speech that will make the hearer react against the speaker.
The history of the fighting words doctrine lies in laws meant to discourage deuling among the privileged overclass in antebellum America. It's a great example that offensive speech is a completely subjective notion.
So we're still left with a doctrine that hasn't been used once by the SC since it was created, and which likely would be overturned IMHO if it were able to go before the current SC.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If you think courts in this country are going to start prosecuting people for blasphemy, you're sadly mistaken. Waaah.
And if you can't understand the difference between burning a cross on someone else's property and drawing a cartoon, I really can't help you.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was arguing from memory ... though incitement and "fighting words" spring from the same philosophical well, and are generally lumped together.
Also, I never said courts in this country are going to start prosecuting people for blasphemy, or anything close to that ... nor, would I support the state prosecuting based on speech ... there is much space between constitutional protection and criminality.
And I am, most certainly, not seeking your help. Thank you.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The first words of the 1A are, "Congress shall make no law" .... so, okay, you claim now you're not interested in censorship-- in your OP you seem to feel you have hit upon a novel, creative "solution" for people saying things you don't like.
I'm wondering what you think that is, in a practical sense. What would be the point of taking the Mohammed Cartoons into a courtroom under the context of "fighting words", if not to censor them?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Because this is a discussion board. Where we share... opinions. What's with the rudeness and condescension?
Numerous cases afterwards turned on Chaplinsky, and every single SC decision rejected it.
The Supreme Court has used used the Fighting Words doctrine in one case and one case only to restrict speech, and that's the one that began the legal doctrine. Every single SC decision since on the matter has limited the decision, narrowed it, or contradicted it.
What are the numerous cases the SC decided up to 2003 which used the Fighting Words doctrine to restrict speech? Please list them.
The reasonable person of similar circumstance seems like a really vague way to determine what is or isn't allowed as speech. That's a recipe for disaster.
Again, how does banning offensive speech improve society? Hell yes isn't a reason.
In Chaplinsky, a guy was arrested for calling the town marshall a fascist. The SC upheld it. That's the doctrine you're defending in action.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Just saying.
You have a right to say whatever you want, but sometimes there are legal consequences for what you say
By the way, still waiting on your spirited defense of David irving and Ernst zundl. Let me know when you get around to it 
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)"You have a right to say whatever you want, but sometimes there are legal consequences for what you say"
Just for the record, that isn't what free speech means. Anyone anywhere can say anything at anytime, but in several places those words can get them fined, imprisoned, or executed. Free speech is the right to say controversial or disliked speech without any government imposed consequences whatsoever.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)10,000 protesters gather in a large city to protest police violence. They are there to hear a group of speakers. One speaker gets up and yells, 'I say all this peaceful protest is nonsense! Turn your guns on the police right now and start offing them!' A riot breaks out.
Fighting words?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)on stage, two guys, and they kiss each other.
Crowd goes insane, riot breaks out.
Fighting words?
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The rule requires the lawless action to be imminent - merely promoting violence is protected speech.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)That's incitement, telling others to engage in unlawful action.
Fighting words would come in if a person said to another person that their mother was a newt. Seriously. It's about saying something to another person that makes them want to act violently against you. It's about laws that would allow your arrest if you said something really offensive.
You can see why the doctrine has only been used once. And the time it was, a person was jailed for calling a town Marshall a fascist.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)It's interesting, learning differences between fighting words and incitement and how courts view them. For the record I'd never call your mom a newt or even your dad a newt gingrich.
I've been thinking about this Gellar or Phelps thing today, along the lines of granting permits based on exercise of free speech versus acceptable restrictions on time place and manner on the exercise thereof.
For example, I can deny any whacko entry into my home. Expanding outward, a day care center or elementary school can deny them a permit with little problem, citing private property and public safety, I presume.
When you get to a town, it becomes a grayer area.
I think a mayor or city council may argue that it could present an undue strain on public resources for providing public safety, and could possibly jeopardize the safety of innocent citizens who could get caught in crossfire.
But then you have Skokie, IL, and successful arguments made by nazis and the ACLU there. I wonder why the nazis didn't keep trying to push it, into other towns. Maybe people just lost interest in their hatred & violence? Or maybe were other towns successful in denying them permits to march? And how might this relate to Phelps or Gellar type whackos?
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I believe, and off the top of my head such venues cannot discriminate on who can use them based on the content of the speech, they can discriminate based on other factors though. If they didn't allow any outside groups to use it for example... but it has been a while since I've looked into venue and free speech issues.
Depending on the "forum" of speech different limitations can be enacted. The commons and public squares are usually seen as the ultimate open forum (parks generally) and are the toughest to restrict speech.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)yelling that word is constitutionally protected free speech. As would be the following viral videos of that asshole. I believe the consequences - like those for the guy who berated the Chik-Fil-A employee - would be swift and severe.
But, to be clear, I would defend the rights of the person yelling racist epithets. No question. No problem.
UTUSN
(70,642 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)UTUSN
(70,642 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)the fighting words doctrine. No, really!1
UTUSN
(70,642 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
kcr
(15,314 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)those of us hounded and constantly attacked by mainstream religious figures. The Obama 2008 campaign alone employed 'Ministers' who had called LGBT people child killers, prostitutes, perverts, called for war against us and equated all of our relationships to criminal behavior and pedophilia. According to Obama, all of that was acceptable, mainstream and worthy of being part of a Democratic campaign for the WH.
So it is odd to me that folks who insisted 'they are trying to kill our children' was 'just church talk' are now claiming to oppose all hate speech.
There are hundreds of attacks against LGBT people in the US each year. Hundreds, met with silence by DU, a place that cheers for the Pope, who says our rights are Satan's idea.
Fighting words. Matter of perspective, perhaps? I would think so.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)particularly, that much of mainstream religion sounds like fighting words and should not be protected speech just because they come out the mouths of "the clergy."
I probably should point out there is a difference between constitutionally protected speech and unlawful/criminal speech.
However, I question(?)/disagree with your characterization of the 2008 (President) Obama campaign, in that I do not recall the vilification being put of the campaign.
One becomes associated with the words one speaks ... so while the vilification was not all that these clergy spoke, I can understand the taste left.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's disgusting to see you defend hate speech against LGBT people in the context of the other things you are saying here.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and re-read what I said ... which is the opposite of what you understood.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)drawing Mohammad. How many standards can a person have before we just say they have no standards at all?
At least have the decency to stand up and clearly say what you mean.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)where have I minimized hate speech against LGBT?
Where have I called for laws against drawing Mohammad?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Someone seems to have decided that's an actual legal standard, from the legal precedent of DU just made some shit up.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)As if all members of law enforcement are a monolith. To a chemist, everything above absolute zero is a reaction.
Unvanguard
(4,588 posts)Irrespective of whether or not it's appropriate (and also irrespective of whether or not police officers you encounter while wearing it are likely to respect your First Amendment rights.)
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)I could stand on a street corner and say the "N" word all i wanted. Would it be smart? No. Would it be illegal? No. As long as I wasn't threatening anyone, I could say it to the heavens all I wanted.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I said nothing about "illegal" ... I said constitutionally protected speech.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And if you're bending yourself into pretzels to try to come up with a way where a cartoon someone else doesn't like would not be "constitutionally protected speech", then yes, you are arguing it should be illegal, no matter how much fabric softener you wrap around that constitution-disregarding fish head you've got there, to try and disguise the smell.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that's no argument as to my strenuously informedness ... that is just a strongly stated opinion ... that seems to win the day, these days.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)aren't all that informed. Especially since the law is often subject to debate because what's being debated is a pretty gray area. I kind of feel that way about a lot of political arguments here too. If the topic being discussed was easily solvable, most good-minded people would have solved it already. I appreciate your arguments and believe you are correct that often times these aren't open and shut discussion. Even court opinions often have dissenting opinions. I'm here to enjoy myself and to learn things too. I often learn most from posters like you and others who present challenging questions. I tend not to learn much from folks who yell 'you're wrong!' (unless it's something pretty obvious like the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese and frankly we even have some of those type posters here too).
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Which is what this is about.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I had family members die in concentration camps, and yet I understand why the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie in the 1970s. Hell, I support that position- not because I lurrrrv Nazis, but because I know that the freedom of the most noxious-ass or unpopular views to be spoken is absolutely diametrically opposed to the kind of totalitarianism Nazis represent. To censor the Nazis would have been to give Naziism a victory. Letting them speak, and be spoken to, they lose.
So I don't fuck around when it comes to the 1st Amendment. And it never fails to depress the crap out of me when so-called "progressives" on DU seemingly can't wait to ditch the damn thing with all sorts of half-baked rationales to censor speech, entertainment, or media that bugs them, usually with nothing more than the justification that "butbutbut you don't understand- it REALLY bugs me!".
If I can handle living on a planet where Nazis march in Skokie, people can handle sharing the planet with pictures of naked boobs on the internet or cartoons about Mohmammed. (One of the most popular, long-running shows on Broadway right now is a play making fun of the LDS church. By your logic, shouldn't Parker and Stone be in jail right now?)
Hell, they don't have to handle them, even. They can scream and yell and get mad. They can ignore them. They can change the channel. What they can't do is get violent--- or use the government to try to surpress that speech.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)But if you can give directions to the Pretzel Bending Fabric Softening Constitution Disregarding Fish Head Smell Convention I'd like to check it out.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
"they can't all be winners, can they?"
Oktober
(1,488 posts)It sure as shit does not mean any speech that could potentially incite someone to commit an act of violence...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)In Turkey it's illegal to criticize Ataturk. Our country should be viewed through the prism of what we find acceptable. Other countries may do the same
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In recent decades.
One of the last times it came up, I believe, was a case in New York with a Vietnam war protester who wore a shirt that said "fuck the draft"
A message which apparently pissed some people off as much, even, as the mohammed cartoons.
So the folks clomping around DU frothing at the prospect of being able to shut down speech they dont like, would do well to bear that in mind.
Anyway, the SCOTUS ruled it was protected speech, to the disappointment of all the folks who think "free speech" only means "stuff i agree with"
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)yes, lets outlaw Blasphemy. GREAT fucking idea.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I must say I am amazed to see so many people here finding so many reasons to want to restrict free speech they don't like.
The case should be clear: like her style or not (she is a firebrand), Geller was exercising her free speech right of criticizing the Islam ideology. No racism involved.
Then people came with guns to silence her. Just as people came with guns to Charlie Hebdo, a magazine that printed mostly caricatures of the Catholic faith. And in both cases, lots of DU members find lots of reasons to 'understand' the folks with guns.
It baffles me.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But she absolutely has the right under the 1st Amendment to say whatever obnoxious thing she wants, and I will fight with every fiber of my being against any argument that tries to fuck with that particular very important piece of liberty for human consciousness.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)They too might have souls.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)No, but that probably would have made that intolerable thing better.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)In the early morning hours of June 21, 1990, the petitioner and several other teenagers allegedly assembled a crudely made cross by taping together broken chair legs.[1] The cross was erected and burned in the front yard of an African American family that lived across the street from the house where the petitioner was staying.[1] Petitioner, who was a juvenile at the time, was charged with two counts, one of which a violation of the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance.[1] The Ordinance provided:
“ Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. ”
Petitioner moved to dismiss the count under the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance on the ground that it was substantially overbroad and impermissibly content based, and therefore facially invalid under the First Amendment.[2] The trial court granted the motion, but the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, rejecting petitioner's overbreadth claim because, as the Minnesota Court had construed the Ordinance in prior cases, the phrase "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others" limited the reach of the ordinance to conduct that amounted to fighting words under the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire decision.[3] The Minnesota Court also concluded that the ordinance was not impermissibly content based because "the ordinance is a narrowly tailored means towards accomplishing the compelling governmental interest in protecting the community against bias-motivated threats to public safety and order."[4] Petitioner appealed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.[5]
...
The majority decision[edit]
...
The Court recognized two final principles of free speech jurisprudence. One of these described that when "the entire basis for the content discrimination consists entirely of the very reason the entire class of speech is proscribable, no significant danger of idea of viewpoint discrimination exists." As examples, Justice Scalia wrote,
“ A State may choose to prohibit only that obscenity which is the most patently offensive in its prurience — i.e., that which involves the most lascivious displays of sexual activity. But it may not prohibit, for example, only that obscenity which includes offensive political messages. And the Federal Government can criminalize only those threats of violence that are directed against the President, since the reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment (protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur) have special force when applied to the person of the President.[18] ”
The other principle of free speech jurisprudence was recognized when the Court wrote that a valid basis for according different treatment to a content-defined subclass of proscribable speech is that the subclass "happens to be associated with particular 'secondary effects' of the speech, so that 'the regulation is justified without reference to the content of the … speech'"[19] As an example, the Court wrote that a State could permit all obscene live performances except those involving minors.[20]
Applying these principles to the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, the Court concluded that the ordinance was facially unconstitutional. Justice Scalia explained the rationale, writing,
“ Although the phrase in the ordinance, "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others," has been limited by the Minnesota Supreme Court's construction to reach only those symbols or displays that amount to "fighting words," the remaining, unmodified terms make clear that the ordinance applies only to "fighting words" that insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Displays containing abusive invective, no matter how vicious or severe, are permissible unless they are addressed to one of the specified disfavored topics. Those who wish to use "fighting words" in connection with other ideas — to express hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality — are not covered. The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.[21] ”
The Court went on to explain that, in addition to being an impermissible restriction based on content, the Ordinance was also viewpoint- based discrimination, writing,[21]
“ As explained earlier, see supra, at 386, the reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey. St. Paul has not singled out an especially offensive mode of expression—it has not, for example, selected for prohibition only those fighting words that communicate ideas in a threatening (as opposed to a merely obnoxious) manner. Rather, it has proscribed fighting words of whatever manner that communicate messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance. Selectivity of this sort creates the possibility that the city is seeking to handicap the expression of particular ideas. That possibility would alone be enough to render the ordinance presumptively invalid, but St. Paul’s comments and concessions in this case elevate the possibility to a certainty. ”
Displays containing some words, such as racial slurs, would be prohibited to proponents of all views, whereas 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 those speakers' opponents."[21] The Court concluded that "St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquess of Queensberry rules."[21]
The Court concluded, "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire."[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul
For whatever it's worth.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Yes, it would be "Fighting Words" to "stand on a street corner yelling the "N-word" to African-Americans passing by". Because you would be insulting people, and not only insult them, but insult them right under their noses, thereby quite probably triggering a physical shuffle, if not worse.
Pamela Geller's case is quite different: she holds a rally to warn against the dangers of the ideology of Islam by means of little cartoons. If it becomes impossible to criticize ideologies (through cartoons or speech), it's quite literally good bye to free speech.
What obscures the issue is that Geller is a firebrand with a confrontational style. But style cannot be given precedence over substance. The substance of the case is free speech. And radicals who want to silence free speech with guns.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Criticism of ideas cannot ever be considered "fighting words" IMO. That standard can be used to prevent all kinds of political speech. Terrible, TERRIBLE IDEA.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I piss on your Christ! I pretty up your Virgin Mary with pachyderm poop!
Allah however, is merciful. Peace be upon his prophet Mohammed. Death to blasphemers!
I thought it was supposed to be Christian fundamentalists and their guns we were supposed to be afraid of.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)You wrote
In the Holy Cookbook of the supreme Flying Spaghetti Monster, it clearly states page 63
(after the recipe of the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster alla carbonara), that:
boil them in salted water until al dente or fry them with meatballs and tomatoes with garlic
This being my faith, consider yourself a dead noodle.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Dente.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Especially because we all have different views on what constitutes 'fighting words.' This woman Gellar makes me want to vomit. She refers to all Muslims as 'savages.' They are not. A grotesque woman and a violent woman, imo. She's a radical extremist trying to paint all others of a religion as radical extremists and it's just not true.
The mayor of Garland, TX has expressed that it's a very diverse community and that Geller is not even from there, she's from NYC. And Geller then goes on tv and attacks the mayor for not speaking out in favor of free speech. What a vile person, this Geller. And yes I agree that nothing justifies the taking of a life, especially over speech. I condemn the people who attacked the conference. I condemn anyone who cheers their deaths or uses them as saying that all Muslims are like them. That's like any Christian murderer or atheist murderer is an example that all Christians are savages or all atheists are savages. It's just not true. I'm a big believer in ecumenical respect for other people's religions and non-religion. I especially believe in the separation of church and state.
On a funny note. The Supreme Court said that one example of 'fighting words' is yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater. Woody Allen joked that one thing he learned in school is that it's okay to yell 'Movie!' in a crowded fire department.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm sure the Going Clear documentary recently aired on HBO offended the religious sensibilities of lots of devout scientologists. Hell, it cast their leader, L. Ron Hubbard, in a TERRIBLE light - I'm sure that hurt some feelings much as a cartoon about Mohammed might.
So, HBO is headed to jail en masse, now, right? I mean, they just bad-mouthed a religion. DU's legal eagles seem to have discovered this amazing legal precedent whereby anything offensive to someone's sincerely held religious belief is not protected speech.
melman
(7,681 posts)When discussing what's constitutionally protected in the United States?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I will try to explain how this MIGHT fly.
Yes, hers are fighting words, though calling you the N word alone would not be subject to a criminal trial either. Tough you might, and this is where it might be actionably, sue me for psychological distress under tort law. So in the case of Geller the way this works and has been tried and no judge has yet to agree, is by accusing her of using hate speech.
There is precedent with her, and it has to do with all the adds MTS has tried to prevent from running. She has prevailed every time.
Now, purely as a thought experiment. I am muslim, I obviously object to the drawings of the prophet, they are fighting words. If I, and a bunch of my friends, lets say CAIR, get together and file a class action we MIGHT have a chance of getting standing. This is the first challenge. (There are many reasons, some have nothing to do with the amendment that give me pause with the legal system, and I doubt this case would get standing.)
Now me, the jewish immigrant hispanic woman from Mexico City, would have zero chance of getting standing since I am no part of the aggrieved class.
And this is truly the test for those who are going there. Whether a court of law will go there. So far they have not. There have been a few cases.
Now outside the court system... I find her speech to be hateful, you are correct in calling it fighting words, and perhaps something that an enterprising lawyer should explore and explore with the concept of stochastic terrorism.
One thing I have learned from watching both civil and criminal courts over the last two years is that precedent is king (I knew this but now it is beyond clear in ways that the theory does not start to illuminate) and that a decision might truly depend on word usage, and who is your expert. A lot of it has nothing to do with what started the whole thing. At times it looks like a socratic exercise as well.
On the bright side, she will be facing quite a bit of possible lawsuits, from all the folks who were there and know she has money. This is the deep pocket syndrome. It is Texas though, were tort awards are severely limited. Those, I almost expect.
Edited to clarify what areas of law the use of the N word, or this for that matter, would fall.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)than to imagine some arbitrary constraint one day being wielded by an authority to silence liberal voices. No thanks.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Must the entire country be off limits to something that may offend?
by your argument a man could be arrested in his own home for making a racist statement. No fan of racists but no fan of tryanny either.
JustAnotherGen
(31,780 posts)Start from there.
Next - look at all the money she has made off of this. Not this incident alone - but the profitability of her Atlas Shrugged blog. That's what her blog was called originally.
If she follows her leader - she will die broke and alone. And that makes me all warm and fuzzy. She's just like Ayn Rand.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)mostly funerals was 'protected' because they were hurling slurs and insults at LGBT people but if they did the same to 'real humans' that would be 'fighting words'? Is that what your Straight Mind thought when Straight Pastor Phelps behaved for many years at hundreds of events just like your Straight Geller Lady? Straight people produce this sort of hate monger regularly. Why is this one so offensive to you while Phelps and the others were allowed to do hundreds of attacks over many years in all 50 States without so much as a peep of objection from the Straight Community? Explain that.
Why doe Geller wind you up when Pheps left you utterly sanguine and bereft of any motivation to object? This double standard you express is part of what is so very dangerous about your mindset on display in this thread. You dismiss hate speech against LGBT if it serves your faith or politics but you'd prosecute other hate speech if it bugs you. You see yourself as the metric, the standard, the judge and the jury. Fascist bullshit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Westboro's conduct is not/should not be constitutional protected. There is a difference.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)That's what this was about.
She set up an event (which as I understand it, she did not attend) so that some fools would come and play bait, while unknowingly auditioning to become the "martyrs" in her next book.
If only a few of them were killed ... she'd make a lot more money.
malaise
(268,692 posts)You can hate minorities or non-Xtian religions publicly - you can even have weapons around Obama but dare you criticize establishment America and there are no first amendment rights. Ask Malcolm X, ask the Panthers, ask Rev Wright and ask every non-Xtian cleric condemning any aspect of American policy - domestic or foreign.
Michelle Obama can't even tell them the truth about the experience of growing up African-American in the USA.
We Westerners can slaughter anyone - from leader of a country to its civilians if they dare to challenge our 'interests', while screaming about enlightenment rights. What a joke.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)You seem to be confusing criticism with arrest/prosecution. Mrs. Obama is free to say whatever she wishes. As are all the other entities you listed.
Unvanguard
(4,588 posts)"Fighting words" is about abusive language in a face-to-face confrontation. It is not about generically offensive or controversial speech.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Unvanguard
(4,588 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)really piss off many Christians. Some have even killed over it. Notice, I am talking about something that is not currently legal. While the issue is more serious than cartoon, the effect is the same. Angering members of a religion to the point they are willing to kill. I will not stop speaking and they are not fighting words.
I would never suggest you are justifying it. This is a great op for debate and it makes a point that is poignant today. I just don't see what they did as "fighting words." If so, any negative comments toward religion should be so. It has been proven that people will kill in the name of religion. I should be able to put a pic of Mohammed wrapped in a bomb in my front yard without fear of death. I should be able to put a pro-choice sign in my front yard without fear of death. I won't do either, but it should be my right.
Coventina
(27,057 posts)