Quote from Maverick74:
The First Amendment forbids government from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Speech that threatens public safety or national security can be curbed, courts have ruled.
In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "God dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas."
Quote from spect8or:
Actually, I'll respond a bit more fully. Courts have ruled against speech that poses an imminent threat to public safety. You are quite within your rights to espouse a philosophy that demands an overthrow of the government and the eslavement of every left-handed Mexican, for example.
Also, it's amusing to see that the case you then go on to cite has nothing at all to do with the point you were ostensibly trying to make.
Quote from Maverick74:
Dude, re-read that post. That part about the hate speech was written by the supreme court, not me. LMAO!!!!
The Supreme court ruled on hate speech. Are you illiterate too as well as dumb? My God man. The supreme court uses hate speech as a description of fighting words. Hahahahahaha.
Get a clue man.
Now hear is an example of speech that is protected by the first amendment. "You are a f*cking faggot!!!!!!!" See, that speech is protected by the first amendment. Racial slurs that incite violence are not. Hahahahahahah!!!!!!!
Quote from Maverick74:
Dude, here is the case file. Read it for yourself and get back to me. LOL. What a moron.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=315&invol=568
Here is an excerpt.
"Appellant, a member of the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses, was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, Section 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire: 'No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation."
Quote from spect8or:
Lol, this is so funny. You get dumber with every post.
Your above example is far more likely to be construed as 'fighting words', you dope. It obviously isn't any "essential part of exposition of ideas". So, er, no, I don't see a whole lot of first amendment protection for you there.
You are really even more clueless than I though. You may want to go and look up what 'hate speech' actually is before you try debating it.
Quote from spect8or:
Mav, er, unlike you, I actually know something about the topic. If you think that that is the sole definition of 'hate speech', and that that case is defining piece of case law you are so wrong it absolutely laughable. 'Hate speech' does not equal only 'fighting words'. I know you're madly scrambling about the internet trying to find some back up for your bankrupt claims, so I'm sure you can't have failed to notice the numerous cases that deal with the speech/action dichotomy. Perhaps it's time for you to stop trying to 'be right', and actually get educated on the world around you.
Quote from Maverick74:
Hey jackass, I never said that was only definition nor did I ever say that was the defining case. You asked me to point out to you where the Supreme Court ruled on hate speech and I did just that. I then gave you a link that offered a view on what hate speech was. Now you are scrambling around to say, well hell's bells Margaret, that ain't the only definition. No shit sherlock. I just pointed out to you that you are wrong, nothing more. And you can't come to grips with that. You wanted the Supreme Court ruling, so I gave it to you, now you are backtracking pretending I made this out to be something more then it was. Please quote me where I said this was the only ruling or the defining ruling. I never said that!
Just admit it, you are a beat man. Go home. Nothing left to see here.