Quote:While the First Amendment does protect hate speech, the Supreme Court has limited that protection when it leads to violence. In a unanimous opinion on 1940's Cantwell v. Connecticut, Justice Owen Roberts held that uttering offensive remarks that provoke violence is criminal, even if the resulting violence was unintended. Two years later, in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Justice Frank Murphy wrote that a "certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech" was not protected under the First Amendment, including "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Maybe this?

(08-17-2017 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He can say what he likes.

Until he actually becomes violent he is protected.

The people who are threatening him are no better than he is.

This.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-17-2017 02:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He can say what he likes.

Until he actually becomes violent he is protected.

The people who are threatening him are no better than he is.

This.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yep. This is why they are allowed to speak.


Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment - Justice Kieth Watkins.


Every protest, every speech could be shut down using the standard that it could possbly incite violence.

Why are people so eager to give freedoms away?

Someone posted on my Facebook an apologetic on why we must be intolerant of the intolerant.

Rationalization for them to be intolerant themselves. An excuse to supress speech they do not like.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(08-17-2017 03:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He can say what he likes.

Until he actually becomes violent he is protected.

The people who are threatening him are no better than he is.

This.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yep. This is why they are allowed to speak.


Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment - Justice Kieth Watkins.


Every protest, every speech could be shut down using the standard that it could possbly incite violence.

Why are people so eager to give freedoms away?

They should be given the right to protest but they shouldn't be allowed to carry torches or weapons.

If you are going to protest peacefully, you don't need that stuff.

(08-17-2017 03:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He can say what he likes.

Until he actually becomes violent he is protected.

The people who are threatening him are no better than he is.

This.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yep. This is why they are allowed to speak.


Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment - Justice Kieth Watkins.


Every protest, every speech could be shut down using the standard that it could possbly incite violence.

Why are people so eager to give freedoms away?

They should be given the right to protest but they shouldn't be allowed to carry torches or weapons.

If you are going to protest peacefully, you don't need that stuff.

Sure you do. If somebody decides to get violent because they dont like what you say you should be able to protect youraelf.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-17-2017 03:14 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He can say what he likes.

Until he actually becomes violent he is protected.

The people who are threatening him are no better than he is.

This.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yep. This is why they are allowed to speak.


Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment - Justice Kieth Watkins.


Every protest, every speech could be shut down using the standard that it could possbly incite violence.

Why are people so eager to give freedoms away?

They should be given the right to protest but they shouldn't be allowed to carry torches or weapons.

If you are going to protest peacefully, you don't need that stuff.

Sure you do. If somebody decides to get violent because they dont like what you say you should be able to protect youraelf.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

The police are there to protect you. If they can't then you don't protest simple as that.

Besides, you don't need weapons to protect yourself. What's wrong with using fists?

(08-17-2017 03:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:14 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  This.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yep. This is why they are allowed to speak.


Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment - Justice Kieth Watkins.


Every protest, every speech could be shut down using the standard that it could possbly incite violence.

Why are people so eager to give freedoms away?

They should be given the right to protest but they shouldn't be allowed to carry torches or weapons.

If you are going to protest peacefully, you don't need that stuff.

Sure you do. If somebody decides to get violent because they dont like what you say you should be able to protect youraelf.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

The police are there to protect you. If they can't then you don't protest simple as that.

Besides, you don't need weapons to protect yourself. What's wrong with using fists?

The police werent there.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-17-2017 03:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The police are there to protect you. If they can't then you don't protest simple as that.

Not many LEOs would agree that they are there to "protect" you. In fact, many will say their responsibilities are to respond to calls, enforce laws, investigate crimes, and collect evidence.

They are not there to "protect" people from their actions, or from the actions of others.

(08-17-2017 03:18 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:14 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Yep. This is why they are allowed to speak.


Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment - Justice Kieth Watkins.


Every protest, every speech could be shut down using the standard that it could possbly incite violence.

Why are people so eager to give freedoms away?

They should be given the right to protest but they shouldn't be allowed to carry torches or weapons.

If you are going to protest peacefully, you don't need that stuff.

Sure you do. If somebody decides to get violent because they dont like what you say you should be able to protect youraelf.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

The police are there to protect you. If they can't then you don't protest simple as that.

Besides, you don't need weapons to protect yourself. What's wrong with using fists?

The police werent there.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

That is incorrect. The police were there.

(08-17-2017 03:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The police are there to protect you. If they can't then you don't protest simple as that.

No they aren't.

(08-17-2017 03:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He can say what he likes.

Until he actually becomes violent he is protected.

The people who are threatening him are no better than he is.

This.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yep. This is why they are allowed to speak.


Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment - Justice Kieth Watkins.


Every protest, every speech could be shut down using the standard that it could possbly incite violence.

Why are people so eager to give freedoms away?

They should be given the right to protest but they shouldn't be allowed to carry torches or weapons.

If you are going to protest peacefully, you don't need that stuff.

You are going to ban torches???? More leftist totalitarianism. In any event, they probably had a legal right to carry the guns.

(08-17-2017 03:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 02:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He can say what he likes.

Until he actually becomes violent he is protected.

The people who are threatening him are no better than he is.

This.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yep. This is why they are allowed to speak.


Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment - Justice Kieth Watkins.


Every protest, every speech could be shut down using the standard that it could possbly incite violence.

Why are people so eager to give freedoms away?

Democrats only want to give other people's freedoms away, like they want to help people, but only with other people's money.

(08-17-2017 04:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The police are there to protect you. If they can't then you don't protest simple as that.

No they aren't.

Then why do police come out to these events then?

To provide a buffer, respond to threats, investigate crimes, and collect evidence.

They are not there to stand in front of you and take a billy club to the head. They might do that, but "protecting" people is not an LEO's job.....

(08-17-2017 04:16 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  To provide a buffer, respond to threats, investigate crimes, and collect evidence.

They are not there to stand in front of you and take a billy club to the head. They might do that, but "protecting" people is not an LEO's job.....

Then we have a serious problem here. Who in their right mind would allow hundreds of armed men come to your town and protest if the cops can't protect you from them or protect them from you?

Well for one, the protesters don't need to physically attack the other protesters.

The police are not their to protect you. They are there to do as I said before. And that may deter an attack through their presence and the threat of arrest, but you must understand that they are not there to protect you in the sense of standing in front of you getting physically harmed.

(08-17-2017 04:29 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Well for one, the protesters don't need to physically attack the other protesters.

The police are not their to protect you. They are there to do as I said before. And that may deter an attack through their presence and the threat of arrest, but you must understand that they are not there to protect you in the sense of standing in front of you getting physically harmed.

Now I see your point but that brings up other questions.

Given that the police aren't there to protect you, can city governments simply refuse to allow a protest under the grounds that they can't protect them?

(08-17-2017 01:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And I won't have to hope. They'll take care of him good, in there.

Just wanted to add my name to the record along with other posters on this board that is officially against prison rape as punishment for any crime. Encouraging it and being pleased that it will occur is a sickening thing

(08-17-2017 04:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Given that the police aren't there to protect you, can city governments simply refuse to allow a protest under the grounds that they can't protect them?

No. That would infringe upon the protesters Constitutional rights.

Hasn't stopped city government from doing so, though.