- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Violent protests force cancellation of speech by Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos[W:
There are a number of laws that can limit free speech - Disturbing the Peace, Purposeful Efforts to Incitement of a Riot, and certain Conspiracy laws. Historically, they have come up thoughout US history, and in courts throughout our land, and rulings often go either way. Here is a quote from a lawyer.
In some situations what you say can qualify as disturbing the peace. Though the Constitution protects your freedom of speech, courts have long recognized some limitations to this freedom. You can commit a breach of the peace, for example, by making threats. However, the threats must be more than idle chatter or even arguments. The threat must threaten serious injury and be of a nature that would cause fear of an injury in an average listener. You must also issue the threat while acting recklessly and in a way that shows you intend to commit violence or follow through on the threat.
This well-spoken woman described speech that makes her campus unsafe for women, and especially minority women. It's important that we keep our society safe for the most physically disadvantaged person to walk through a college campus or on our public streets. As such, when dealing with some of the recent rhetoric and bigotry, with an ultimate goal of genocide, I believe it's time to start shifting these grey areas slightly the other way. Law enforcement has done this for years (Rodney King, etc.), and it can go both ways.
This is insane. Let the human speak. Give yourselves a chance to respond without going ape **** before you do. What in the Constitution disallows these others from speaking on the very grounds that our society has provided you to learn?
There are a number of laws that can limit free speech - Disturbing the Peace, Purposeful Efforts to Incitement of a Riot, and certain Conspiracy laws. Historically, they have come up thoughout US history, and in courts throughout our land, and rulings often go either way. Here is a quote from a lawyer.
In some situations what you say can qualify as disturbing the peace. Though the Constitution protects your freedom of speech, courts have long recognized some limitations to this freedom. You can commit a breach of the peace, for example, by making threats. However, the threats must be more than idle chatter or even arguments. The threat must threaten serious injury and be of a nature that would cause fear of an injury in an average listener. You must also issue the threat while acting recklessly and in a way that shows you intend to commit violence or follow through on the threat.
This well-spoken woman described speech that makes her campus unsafe for women, and especially minority women. It's important that we keep our society safe for the most physically disadvantaged person to walk through a college campus or on our public streets. As such, when dealing with some of the recent rhetoric and bigotry, with an ultimate goal of genocide, I believe it's time to start shifting these grey areas slightly the other way. Law enforcement has done this for years (Rodney King, etc.), and it can go both ways.