- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 9,869
- Reaction score
- 3,495
- Location
- Los Angeles area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas
I am trying to figure out what it means--if anything--to be "argued under unprotected speech," or how something can "draw out extremists for violence." I don't think I'll spend much time trying, though.
You could always write a couple of your favorite Supreme Court justices and suggest they reconsider Brandenburg v. Ohio. Or, maybe you'd want to suggest they take a "fighting words" approach, ignore R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, and breathe new life into Chaplinsky after seventy-plus years. Who knows, they might send you your very own Supreme Court decoder ring!
Here is a link to R.A.V., a very important First Amendment case in which that prince of darkness, Justice Scalia, and his fellow bigots on the Supreme Court held that there is a "right" to burn crosses on the lawns of black people! It was a sad day for everyone who wants to suppress hate speech.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/377/case.html
And here is a link to the transcript of the oral arguments in R.A.V., for anyone who wants to hear the laughable hyperbole these judges are willing to engage in to defend hate speech. They are wrong! No human being should ever have the right to say anything that might make another human being--and especially a Muslim!--feel icky and invalidated, or in any way give his inner child an owie.
R.A.V. v. St. Paul | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
I said its my position that it should be argued under unprotected speech. And it most certainly did draw out extremists for violence. Which is why I would like to see it successfully argued in court. Your still lacking understanding of how things work in America. And your hyperbole that two posters who happen to be fellow bigots of yours constitutes "everyone" is laughable.
I am trying to figure out what it means--if anything--to be "argued under unprotected speech," or how something can "draw out extremists for violence." I don't think I'll spend much time trying, though.
You could always write a couple of your favorite Supreme Court justices and suggest they reconsider Brandenburg v. Ohio. Or, maybe you'd want to suggest they take a "fighting words" approach, ignore R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, and breathe new life into Chaplinsky after seventy-plus years. Who knows, they might send you your very own Supreme Court decoder ring!
Here is a link to R.A.V., a very important First Amendment case in which that prince of darkness, Justice Scalia, and his fellow bigots on the Supreme Court held that there is a "right" to burn crosses on the lawns of black people! It was a sad day for everyone who wants to suppress hate speech.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/377/case.html
And here is a link to the transcript of the oral arguments in R.A.V., for anyone who wants to hear the laughable hyperbole these judges are willing to engage in to defend hate speech. They are wrong! No human being should ever have the right to say anything that might make another human being--and especially a Muslim!--feel icky and invalidated, or in any way give his inner child an owie.
R.A.V. v. St. Paul | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law