Stuart wrote:anything from the ACLU is hate speech IMO
Zarniwoop wrote:Stuart wrote:anything from the ACLU is hate speech IMO
that's a silly thing to say
Stuart wrote:pretty simple really, their in bed with soros
bucfanclw wrote:Hate speech legislation is dumb. If "hate speech" hits the level that it becomes assault, then local law enforcement should take action. I really don't know why that is a hard concept for some people to grasp.
bucfanclw wrote:Hate speech legislation is dumb. If "hate speech" hits the level that it becomes assault, then local law enforcement should take action. I really don't know why that is a hard concept for some people to grasp.
bucfanclw wrote:Hate speech legislation is dumb. If "hate speech" hits the level that it becomes assault, then local law enforcement should take action. I really don't know why that is a hard concept for some people to grasp.
Stuart wrote:pretty simple really, their in bed with soros
Michelle Carter was convicted last year of involuntary manslaughter because she told her boyfriend to kill himself. She has now appealed this decision on grounds that her conduct was permissible under the First Amendment.
"Carter's words encouraging Roy's suicide, however distasteful to this Court, were protected speech," wrote her lawyers in a recently filed brief. "A criminal law that penalizes a person who encourages another person to commit suicide cannot survive strict scrutiny."
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Not only should that be bounced out of court with zeal, her attorney should be censured for making that kind of argument.
NYBF wrote:Stand her next to her attorney. put a bullet through her skull. Whatever happpens, happens
uscbucsfan wrote:Mountaineer Buc wrote:Not only should that be bounced out of court with zeal, her attorney should be censured for making that kind of argument.
While I understand it's gross/disgusting/ abhorrent, whatever, the question is whether or not that sort of speech is protected by the first amendment or whether or not she broke the law. The judge cited an 1816 case from a Massachusetts jail. I can't say, if it does make it to the SC, what they will rule, but if they use SC precedence, it seems obvious that her words would lead to imminent lawless action and the production of such...which is not protected by 1A.
uscbucsfan wrote:Mountaineer Buc wrote:Not only should that be bounced out of court with zeal, her attorney should be censured for making that kind of argument.
While I understand it's gross/disgusting/ abhorrent, whatever, the question is whether or not that sort of speech is protected by the first amendment or whether or not she broke the law. The judge cited an 1816 case from a Massachusetts jail. I can't say, if it does make it to the SC, what they will rule, but if they use SC precedence, it seems obvious that her words would lead to imminent lawless action and the production of such...which is not protected by 1A.
Mountaineer Buc wrote:uscbucsfan wrote:While I understand it's gross/disgusting/ abhorrent, whatever, the question is whether or not that sort of speech is protected by the first amendment or whether or not she broke the law. The judge cited an 1816 case from a Massachusetts jail. I can't say, if it does make it to the SC, what they will rule, but if they use SC precedence, it seems obvious that her words would lead to imminent lawless action and the production of such...which is not protected by 1A.
It doesn't even pass the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" sniff test for protected speech. Just a piss poor argument.
uscbucsfan wrote:Mountaineer Buc wrote:It doesn't even pass the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" sniff test for protected speech. Just a piss poor argument.
I think you should re-read my post...and "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a different exclusion.
edit: Ok. I thought you were saying I was arguing against it.
Zarniwoop wrote:uscbucsfan wrote:While I understand it's gross/disgusting/ abhorrent, whatever, the question is whether or not that sort of speech is protected by the first amendment or whether or not she broke the law. The judge cited an 1816 case from a Massachusetts jail. I can't say, if it does make it to the SC, what they will rule, but if they use SC precedence, it seems obvious that her words would lead to imminent lawless action and the production of such...which is not protected by 1A.
I think this is something we need to flush out in our society.
What if someone gets in an argument and rashly says "Go kill yourself moron" then walks away. And later that person kills themself...is that unlawful? We see it on this board...people jokingly saying stuff like "go drink bleach".... Is that unlawful if someone actually then does it? Or what about kids who are bullies and their constant bullying causes someone to take their life ... is that unlawful?
How active and persistent must the behavior to be in order to be unlawful????
I think the court will soon be taking more 1A cases.
uscbucsfan wrote:Zarniwoop wrote:
I think this is something we need to flush out in our society.
What if someone gets in an argument and rashly says "Go kill yourself moron" then walks away. And later that person kills themself...is that unlawful? We see it on this board...people jokingly saying stuff like "go drink bleach".... Is that unlawful if someone actually then does it? Or what about kids who are bullies and their constant bullying causes someone to take their life ... is that unlawful?
How active and persistent must the behavior to be in order to be unlawful????
I think the court will soon be taking more 1A cases.
I think it's silly, but using legal precedent, I feel that many will believe that 1A doesn't protect her.
Imminent lawless action exclusion was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, it basically states, "advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action."
Now...depending on where you are suicide or the attempt thereof is not a crime. So if it's not a crime, is she inciting or producing imminent lawless action?
It's interesting that a Minnesota case ruled that "the court held that merely advising or encouraging suicide was speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that those prohibitions were unconstitutional. It went on to hold, however, that speech which actually assisted a suicide was not protected." This leads us back to who is interpreting it and which precedence they choose to use.
So in the end I don't know. I would have to go through and re-read (it's been since college) Badenburg v Ohio or Schenck v. United States or "case x" and read how these exclusions were born in the first place and then determine if it fit what 1A originally intended.
As an aside, the flock of, "I can't believe a lawyer would take that" are ridiculous. If this is an avenue that she wants to take and someone feels confident they can articulate this logically, I see no issue. It's her right to fight this.
Zarniwoop wrote:uscbucsfan wrote:
I think it's silly, but using legal precedent, I feel that many will believe that 1A doesn't protect her.
Imminent lawless action exclusion was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, it basically states, "advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action."
Now...depending on where you are suicide or the attempt thereof is not a crime. So if it's not a crime, is she inciting or producing imminent lawless action?
It's interesting that a Minnesota case ruled that "the court held that merely advising or encouraging suicide was speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that those prohibitions were unconstitutional. It went on to hold, however, that speech which actually assisted a suicide was not protected." This leads us back to who is interpreting it and which precedence they choose to use.
So in the end I don't know. I would have to go through and re-read (it's been since college) Badenburg v Ohio or Schenck v. United States or "case x" and read how these exclusions were born in the first place and then determine if it fit what 1A originally intended.
As an aside, the flock of, "I can't believe a lawyer would take that" are ridiculous. If this is an avenue that she wants to take and someone feels confident they can articulate this logically, I see no issue. It's her right to fight this.
It is certainly a tough issue to parse out. It's easy to jump to a reaction and say this woman was awful because she tried hard to get her boyfriend to kill himself...and that actions like hers are not protected. Even if someone espouses those views, the examples I gave above are worth discussing.
If someone tells another poster on the board to drink bleach under what reasoning is it different then what the girl did?
1.) Simply because they wrote it jokingly? If that's the case what if the person it was directed at didn't take it as a joke?
2.) Simply because it wasn't persistent? If that's the case how many times must you tell someone to kill themselves before its persistent?
3.) Is it different because the two posters aren't close friends? If so, what degree of closeness is required?
Etc.
Zarniwoop wrote:Thanks for that info. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to build a slippery slope either way. I’m just suggesting I don’t think it’s a very simple idea. And pointing out where I think there could be difficulties
In this particular case, I do think the girl in question broke the law. In no way am I arguing she shouldn’t be punished.
DreadNaught wrote:I think nuance/context matters, especially in cases like this.
When I was in the Navy it was not uncommon for the phrase "kill yourself" to be thrown around in joking manner. So while joking about suicide is poor behavior it doesn't make it criminal. This is where intent and context matters and needs to laid out by the prosecutor.
If a cult leader brainwashes people into committing suicide I believe that to be criminal act and not protected under free speech, but if I tell MB to take a "long walk off a short pier" after a disagreement and he goes out and walks off a pier and drowns to death than I don't believe I should be charged criminally for his death.
Return to Politics and Religion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests