Since my argument is about
very specific signs in very specific situations, and not about an overbroad ordinance, Lewis v. New Orleans does not apply. This is clear from in the courts findings:
The ruling was not about the specific words used in the case, but the overly broad
ordinance that was used to punish the words.
My argument, however, is
very specific and not related to ordinances, except insofar as it could be used as the basis for making such ordinances very specific
instead of overbroad.
And my argument is also
fully supported by the reactions people are having in this thread (even though you don't seem to understand
why such statements, "which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of
common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke
violent reactions," actually provoke said violent reactions, it is clear that people here,
ordinary people, have repeatedly stated that such statements being addressed at them, in the described situation, would very much provoke violence. It is very clearly
common knowledge that certain things they do say
will provoke a violent reaction from people.)
To be honest, someone simply
protesting outside of the funeral alone is
not enough to provoke a violent reaction from ordinary people. If their words on their signs at these funerals were
limited to stuff like the following:
Then I'd say that there is
no issue. It would
surely provoke anger from ordinary people, but it would not be "inherently likely to provoke a
violent reaction" in an ordinary person when directed at them.
However, at a soldiers
funeral, a sign like:
or the sign on the left of the following picture:
Will, as a matter of
common knowledge, provoke a
violent reaction from an
ordinary person.
The reactions of people above clearly indicate as much.
The issue at the crux of my argument is that these particular signs are designed with
malicious intent to provoke the bereaved. To inflict an emotional wound.
The
other signs are
not designed with this
malicious intent to inflict an emotional wound on the bereaved,
not to promote the
message that they want to convey (which is that "fags are bad, mmmkay, and bad things happen to the US because we don't kill off the fags, mmmkay"). Their message is actually
fully conveyed with the "God hates Fag enablers" sign alone. The
gloating about the death of a
specific soldier is superfluous, and does not convey their message.
These signs are simply done for malicious intent AND they are
specifically oriented, a statement to the parents of the deceased in one case.
As you can see, it's common knowledge that this **** does indeed have the likelihood of inciting violence in ordinary people to whom these words are directed.
This is because of their inherent nature of inflicting injury upon the people to whom they are directed.
The reason people are prone to reacting violently to them is because they go beyond being merely offensive. They are clearly a malicious attack on people in a state of grief.
To clarify, my argument is based entirely on the fact that if I were at my own son's funeral, and some protesters were outside the funeral with a "God hates fags" sign, I would simply consider them vile pieces of ****.
However, if I were at my own son's funeral and some protesters were outside with signs that were
gloating about my son's death, calling him names, saying he was in hell, and that god killed him, I would walk outside and pummel one of them senseless.
It would be a
purely emotional reaction on my part. An
absolutely irrational one, in fact. I make no claims that my reaction would be rational or civilized. Quite the opposite. They would be animalistic, uncivilized, and extreme. They would absolutely deserve to be punished by law.
The
rational actions I would then take would be to turn myself in without resisting my arrest, plead
guilty to my crime and accept any punishments that the courts render for administering this beating. I would not attempt to doge the sentence in any way. I would
gladly accept it.
I wouldn't care if they were
legally justified, because my morality states that they would be
morally justified.
If the same statements were made about me
personally, and not my deceased
child, I would
not react in this manner. I would
not be driven to violence. When attacks are directed at
me, I do not react in an instinctive manner, but when they are directed at someone I love, my animal side will
always shine through.
It is this perfectly natural instinct to protect our loved one's, even if they are dead, that is the basis for my argument. People will protect the one's they love even more aggressively than they will protect themselves,
especially their children. This
instinct doesn't realize that the protections are futile due to the fact that the loved one is deceased because this instinct is
not rational.
Thus, my arguments have been directed entirely towards the signs that will trigger this instinct. These signs are also the ones that are likely to inflict an emotional injury upon the bereaved. Thus, these signs very clearly fit both possible qualifications for "fighting words", IMO.
