[Cream Soda Kid]

Originally Posted by Cochese

Although I'm charged with enforcing laws sometimes to the contrary, I tend to agree wholeheartedly.

Yup, sometimes a good butt whuppin’ cures despicable behavior, sometimes it doesn’t. But sometimes it just gives one satisfaction, hopefully with a lenient judge and no jail time for the butt whupper.

[JimP]

Sam, I do NOT think there is a fundamental right NOT to be offended.

I simply disagree that this was protected 1st Amendment speech. Reasonable minds can differ.

I think Cochise nailed it - this goes far beyond freedom of speech. My opinion only....your's may differ.

Just a note to those on this board who'd like to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to mock/belittle/humiliate a little disabled girl - please don't do it in my presence. You may very well learn the costs associated with doing so. Not chest-thumping as many of you may very well stomp me into a mud-puddle; but as a soldier and a Man....if I see it, one of us ain't walking away from that exercise.

[Sam Spade]

Cheesy, I went digging on your DOC references. The answer I got was: "It depends".

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/fighting-words

[concretefuzzynuts]

Originally Posted by JimP

Sam, I do NOT think there is a fundamental right NOT to be offended.

I simply disagree that this was protected 1st Amendment speech. Reasonable minds can differ.

I think Cochise nailed it - this goes far beyond freedom of speech. My opinion only....your's may differ.

Just a note to those on this board who'd like to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to mock/belittle/humiliate a little disabled girl - please don't do it in my presence. You may very well learn the costs associated with doing so. Not chest-thumping as many of you may very well stomp me into a mud-puddle; but as a soldier and a Man....if I see it, one of us ain't walking away from that exercise.

No one is defending the idiot who called the girl names.

It is a general defense of the first amendment and whether jail time for free speech is appropriate.

If threats are the issue and a law was broken via a threat, fine jail time. But to want someone in jail for saying insulting and rude things then many here on GT would be serving time.

No one should pick on a disabled child. But it is currently protected speech.

[JimP]

OK then. Please explain to me just WHY it would have been a crime if the little girl had been black? If free speech is free speech, why should the skin pigmentation matter?

(careful here...)

[concretefuzzynuts]

Originally Posted by JimP

OK then. Please explain to me just WHY it would have been a crime if the little girl had been black? If free speech is free speech, why should the skin pigmentation matter?

(careful here...)

If she had been black and he said the same thing then it wouldn't matter, constitutionally.

The difference might be if an overly sensitive, politically correct enforcement of a "hate crime" took place.

The constitution sets the basis for good law. The LEO and courts define the law to fit circumstances. The Appellate court settles the differences.

[TK-421]

Originally Posted by concretefuzzynuts

No one is defending the idiot who called the girl names.

It is a general defense of the first amendment and whether jail time for free speech is appropriate.

If threats are the issue and a law was broken via a threat, fine jail time. But to want someone in jail for saying insulting and rude things then many here on GT would be serving time.

No one should pick on a disabled child. But it is currently protected speech.

He's not going to jail for picking on the little girl, he's going to jail for making the threat of murder, the fact that he made fun of a little girl was taken into consideration based upon some law that allows the judge to link the two together.

If the only thing he did was make fun of the girl, he wouldn't be in the situation he is.

[concretefuzzynuts]

Thank you for pointing that out.

The thread had morphed into a free speech sub-topic and I was perusing a hypothetical.

[Smokin45]

What a piece of ****

[TK-421]

I personally think that if someone is making fun of you, ignore it. It can't hurt you unless you let it hurt you.

If someone is making threats and you're afraid he might actually follow through, that's an entirely different matter.

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

One of us may be. I don't see the crime in Westboro, either. Or in the Nazi rally in predominantly Jewish Skokie. Or in a whole lot of stomach-turning posts on the Internet.

Speech you approve of isn't the speech that needs protection.

(Kinda weird that a cop is here opposing the mob howl for government coercion to be applied to the unpopular guy. I expect to be richly rewarded in karma points. )

Exactly. Speech that is palatable to the masses needs no protection. Speech that others find appalling does.

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Might there be a difference between:
(a) being censored or shunned by the community;
(b) having your ass beat by an outraged family member; and
(c) having the full weight of the government work to take your freedom?

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by JimP

OK then. Please explain to me just WHY it would have been a crime if the little girl had been black? If free speech is free speech, why should the skin pigmentation matter?

(careful here...)

It wouldn't have been. In the link I posted above, you'll find the cite of RAV v St. Paul. In it, SCOTUS overturned the conviction of the teen who burned a cross on a black family's lawn. He was convicted under a disorderly conduct law, similar to this one, and the Supremes held that the law was unacceptable, as it focused on content. Can't do that.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=505&invol=377

[Keoking]

I don't remotely agree with what the asshat did. I also don't think that just insulting someone is a jail worthy crime (but he didn't just insult, so this isn't the case here).

That said, I am perfectly ok with his going to jail, even if all he did was make fun of the girl in the manner described in the article. Somehow I am ok with bad things happening to bad people, whether those bad things are justifiable or not.

Whatever.

[Gunnut 45/454]

Well that would have been one instance I would have broken the law! He would have gotten a knuckle sandwhich! Free speech doesn't apply as he harmed the young lady! Free speech applies as long as there is no harm! Besides the threat of death is way over the line!

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

I agree that what he did is rude and uncouth but does he deserve jail time for it?

No. He deserves to be stripped, tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail by the citizens of the burg.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy