July 19, 2020 11:10 pm at 11:10 pm #1883889
“includes actual outreach to the Black community in ways never attempted by a Republican President.”
That shows how little you know about US history. Read about Eisenhower and the 1957 Civil Rights Act.July 19, 2020 11:18 pm at 11:18 pm #1883896
So you are going back over half a century?July 20, 2020 12:43 am at 12:43 am #1883935
n0m, more ignorance. Your claim about displaying a confederate flag was that “There are two instances that it could be illegal. 1) To incite hate. 2) Anywhere that it is beholden to The Civil Rights Act. [Such as the workplace.]”. This is unambiguously wrong. Even if the “fighting words” doctrine were still law (and it probably is not) that would not justify either of your claims.
Inciting hate is not fighting words. Fighting words means one thing and one thing only: words directed to a particular person, said directly to his face, that are of such a nature that it would be completely natural for him to lose control of himself and punch you, so that in fact he didn’t consciously choose to punch you, you made him do it. In such a case the Court of 1942 erroneously believed that states could ban you from provoking him by saying such things to him. Speech not directed at an individual was NEVER included in this doctrine.
In any case it is very doubtful whether the doctrine itself is still good law. Chaplinsky has not yet been explicitly overruled, but only because nobody has tested it in decades; if it ever came up again it’s very likely that it would be overruled.
Your next claim refutes itself: For you BLM can be based on a lie. For people who live in it, it would be lying to see from without, all that is experienced in the first hand. A lie is a lie is a lie. It can’t be a lie for one person and not for another. And the FACT is that BLM’s founding claim is a lie. It is a FACT, which you cannot deny without being a damned liar yourself, that Michael Browne, rather than being shot with his hands up in surrender, was shot while he was charging at Darren Wilson. It is also an undeniable fact that BLM’s other founding martyr, Trayvon Martin, was killed while he was actively trying his best to murder George Zimmerman. There has never been a clearer case of self defense in human history. It is also a fact that there is no pattern of police murdering black people; on the contrary, police kill black criminals LESS often than they kill white criminals. Every single claim BLM exists to make is a lie. And if you defend those claims then you are a liar.July 20, 2020 1:16 am at 1:16 am #1883941
Hitler never murdered anyone either. But he was responsible for tens of millions of murders. Marx’s philosophy was responsible for more murders than any other philosophy ever — including all of Hitler’s murders.July 20, 2020 1:17 am at 1:17 am #1883940
No, charliehall, wartine does not suspend the first amendment. There is no exception in it for war. Schenck has been completely repudiated and is not good law, which is why those who quote Holmes’s line about falsely shouting fire in a theater make such fools of themselves.July 20, 2020 12:02 pm at 12:02 pm #1884076Doing my bestParticipant
Is it your belief that death threats are protected by the 1st amendment?July 20, 2020 12:03 pm at 12:03 pm #1884080Doing my bestParticipant
(i accidentally hit submit) And how about libel? and even telling China American secrets (also known as spying)?July 20, 2020 2:37 pm at 2:37 pm #1884237
Chavez being a Marxist was a funny one. After being president for ten years, and having all that oil cash, he gives a speech to the effect of ‘I assume Marxism, and also Christianity, Bolivarianism, Martianism, Sucrism and Mirandism.’ And then he admits that he never read The Capital. Reminds you of anything?
I do not know much about Maduro.
Castro was just as complicated as Lenin, and belongs in the same category. Was he a Marxist? The common debate on Castro is, conservative revolutionary or socialist nationalist.July 20, 2020 2:41 pm at 2:41 pm #1884228
Thank you for clarifying just how specifically displaying a flag would have to be done, to violate the law. Go look back at the OP and tell me if it makes sense that he meant something like that. Personally, I do not mind the Confederate flag. I do not mind my neighbor’s swastika, either.July 20, 2020 2:42 pm at 2:42 pm #1884227
Hitler ordered executions. Called for, and enacted genocide. And then there is Geli Raubal. (I would not use the word murder. It is a loaded term, that indicates a homicide was perpetuated with intent above and beyond all unreasonable doubt that is up to the discretion of non beholders.) Do you mean that Marx’s philosophy was responsible for Lenin’s?July 20, 2020 2:44 pm at 2:44 pm #1884236
I do not walk around with a mental list of Black people who were shot by Police. I do walk around a lot. And I see the way this Great Country interacts. You seem to have this long list of Blacks, that in your mind were in the midst of attacking when they were shot. Just a royal shame that these hapless Police Officers cannot defend themselves in a street fight, without resorting to their guns.
Now, about the lies and lies, and the exalted lies. It surprises me that you would have difficulty with a statement that is basic to logical systems going back hundreds of years. It can be a lie for one person, but not for another. Consider this statement. I am Milhouse.July 21, 2020 1:09 pm at 1:09 pm #1884889
Are you honestly suggesting that if someone attacks Police Officer he should respond with a “fist fight”?
I have a better one.
Do not attack men armed with guns.
It may be hazardous to your health.
Regardless of skin color.July 21, 2020 1:09 pm at 1:09 pm #1884890
The above PSA was brought to you free of charge.July 21, 2020 3:40 pm at 3:40 pm #1884945
Thank you for your public service.
No, it was not a very serious post.
I do not think that all those homicides were being attacked.
All of them were avoidable.July 21, 2020 5:28 pm at 5:28 pm #1885231
I agree 100%
If an officer arrests an individual do not resist arrest.
If you do not do so 99% of the time any violence will be avoided.
If you do resist arrest the likelihood of violence goes up dramatically.
Since the person being arrested is creating a violent situation with an armed individual there is a great likelihood that person will come to physical harm.
This harm could have been avoided simply by not initiating violence.July 21, 2020 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm #1885248som1Participant
nomesorah- if you have a gun and someone charges (and hes not much smaller/ weaker then you) at you, id like to to see you not use your gunJuly 21, 2020 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm #1885263
And more so, when the Officer thinks that he has to use force he must use it right away. Every second he delays, he risks his life, his partners, the detainee, and any bystanders.July 29, 2020 9:29 am at 9:29 am #1887728
I wonder how many of those killed by police were effective suicides. this is known as “suicide by cop”.July 29, 2020 9:30 am at 9:30 am #1887729
As far as the O.P.’s question is concerned, yes a swastika is permitted as is hate speech in general.
See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). BTW, a swastika is a religious symbol in native American and East Indian cultures.July 29, 2020 11:00 am at 11:00 am #1887801Reb EliezerParticipant
Avi K, At the incidence of Skokie, Illinois the state supreme court ruled that they can march without swastikas as swastika is considered instilling physical pain.July 29, 2020 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm #1887843
RE, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in Village of Skoke v. National Socialist Party of America 69 Ill. 2d 605 (1978) overruled the appellate court stating “The display of the swastika, as offensive to the principles of a free nation as the memories it recalls may be, is symbolic political speech intended to convey to the public the beliefs of those who display it. It does not, in our opinion, fall within the definition of “fighting words,” and that doctrine cannot be used here to overcome the heavy presumption against the constitutional validity of a prior restraint.” in Virginia vs. Black 538 U.S. 343 (2003), SCOTUS ruled that cross burning is permitted unless it is proved that the burners intended to intimidate rather than merely express an opinion.July 29, 2020 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm #1887857
There was a relatively recent “suicide by cop” attempt in the Bronx. The man survived being shot, but died a few days later from COVID-19. Very sad. 🙁July 29, 2020 4:18 pm at 4:18 pm #1887942Reb EliezerParticipant
Avi K, at the end, why did they not march in Skokie?August 11, 2020 1:25 pm at 1:25 pm #1891167
“There is no exception in it for war. ”
I don’t know whether I have responded to this or not, but yes, there is indeed an exception for war. Ask Eugene Debs. Or the several Americans convicted of treason for supporting the Axis during WW2.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.