Be glad — be grateful — that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists

[MO Fugga]

9 hours ago, tous said:

Multiple courts, state and federal, over the years have also struck down violence or intent justified by 'fighting words.'

Free speech means what it says: free.

Not restricted or allowed by government, but protected and guaranteed by government.

Thus, I disagree with the Brandenberg decision and the Court's free speech -- but not really, decision.

Yes, I am a constitutional absolutist.

It means what it says until amended by the defined political process, not some lawyer with delusions of brilliance, a political agenda or desire for wealth.

Free means free, not somewhat free, not just about free, not free if politicians agree.

Now, most uneducated folk with little ability for critical thinking will immediately shout, Shouting fire in a movie theater! as a good reason for government restrictions on speech.

Said numpties have never read nor do they understand where that came from: a Supreme Court case that decided that opposition to the draft during the First World War was not protected under the First Amendment.

Similar to today,  President Wilson believed that he was not to be challenged -- on anything.

Sound familiar?

The glaring contradiction in Justice Holmes' paraphrased utterance is: what if the theater is on fire?  Can I say it then?

 

So, there.

Eh, this movie sucks, let it burn.

[El Spicoli]

So we are arguing about whether it is ok to say you are going to commit murder against a certain class of people?  Freedom of speech doesn't extend to allow that.

[Lucnik]

I keep saying they need to protest in Gaza. Don’t do it here. Go to where the problem is. Don’t just talk the talk, walk the walk. I’m good for a one way airline ticket for him to go. Hamas will welcome him with open arms. 

[tous]

4 hours ago, El Spicoli said:

So we are arguing about whether it is ok to say you are going to commit murder against a certain class of people?  Freedom of speech doesn't extend to allow that.

Ah, but it does.

Speech is not action and the beauty of the First Amendment re speech is that it primarily defends the vile and repugnant, no?

The ugly will be if we allow some arbiter, like a government, to whom we give power to decide what we can say and what we can't.

Such will always decide in their best interests, not ours.

 

Saying you're going to kill someone or a group of someones injures no one other than making them angry.

Being pissed off is a personal condition, not an excuse to do physical harm.

The concept of when does a verbal or written threat translate into imminent fear of death or grievous bodily injury has been debated forever, I would imagine.

If I'm standing a foot away and I say, I'm going to kill you; can you physically  defend yourself?

What if I'm empty-handed?

How about if I send the same threat in an email or phone call and I'm 1,000 miles away?

Can I then get on an aircraft, travel to where you are and attack you because I was in fear of my life?

Words.

Just words.

 

 

[El Spicoli]

2 hours ago, tous said:

Speech is not action and the beauty of the First Amendment re speech is that it primarily defends the vile and repugnant, no?

The ugly will be if we allow some arbiter, like a government, to whom we give power to decide what we can say and what we can't.

Such will always decide in their best interests, not ours.

 

 

If I'm standing a foot away and I say, I'm going to kill you; can you physically  defend yourself?

What if I'm empty-handed?

How about if I send the same threat in an email or phone call and I'm 1,000 miles away?

Can I then get on an aircraft, travel to where you are and attack you because I was in fear of my life?

Words.

Just words.

 

 

In the truest sense, speech IS an action.  What we are debating is - does that speech constitute a threat.  The Govt. has always been an arbitor in societies, both civilized and uncivilized.   We have a Republic or I should say had a Republic and the people constituted the govt.  The govt. should decide what is in the best interest of society and sometimes they get it right.   I consider myself a conservative and don't believe the Constitution is a living document to be changed.  That said, I don't believe (and many legal scholars would agree with me) the 1A allows you to legally threaten to murder someone.

As for as your scenario, it goes back to ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.   As a citizen you have a right to say whatever outlandish thing you want, the Jews are mud people, Muslims are goat fookers that believe in a false religion.  Black people are inferior and should be separated from Whites.  Asians can't drive worth a chit.   Mexicans are great at landscaping, dishwashing, and cooking.   You are free from govt. punishing you for that but not free of the consequences for saying those things.  Now if you are a foot from me and threaten my life, we are going to have an issue.  Will I be charged if I physically counter assault you?   Maybe maybe not.  

You are not free to threaten the life of another.   If someone told me they were going to kill me in the back of the squad, that was a crime.  Now the DA wouldn't take the charge but it was still against the law.  To "incite a riot", most statutes require a verbal threat and some additional action that furthers the crime.

[tous]

Good points all, but your assertion is that mens rea supersedes  actus reas .

That was my objection to Bradenberg.  That decision relied on intent (mens rea) and not action (actus rea.)

The weakness is: who determines what is a guilty mind (mens rea) and will guilty acts (actus rea) irrevocably follow, thus the crime is thinking about committing murder, not committing murder?

As you noted, an agency of a government: legislatures, courts, mayors, governors, Presidents, have seized the opportunity to impose their wisdom and if I believed that government could do that without prejudice, I would agree with you.

Governments cannot be trusted.

 

Thank you for a great discussion, amigo.

 

NB  by several state (California and Texas come to mind) and Federal statutes, the pro-Hamas demonstrators/rioters are committing terroristic acts.

Do you see any of them being charged or indicted?

Still trust the government to determine intent without prejudice?

[tous]

It just occurred to me, I'm old,

What about rap and hip hop songs?

I don't listen at all, but I am familiar with the concept.

Aren't many of the lyrics threats to commit murder, severe harm or mayhem?

So, African music is immune to scrutiny as terroristic threats?

How are they different than chanting Death to America or Kill the Jews?

Who decides?

Al Sharpton?

Tipper Gore?

 

[El Spicoli]

1 hour ago, tous said:

Good points all, but your assertion is that mens rea supersedes  actus reas .

That was my objection to Bradenberg.  That decision relied on intent (mens rea) and not action (actus rea.)

The weakness is: who determines what is a guilty mind (mens rea) and will guilty acts (actus rea) irrevocably follow, thus the crime is thinking about committing murder, not committing murder?

As you noted, an agency of a government: legislatures, courts, mayors, governors, Presidents, have seized the opportunity to impose their wisdom and if I believed that government could do that without prejudice, I would agree with you.

Governments cannot be trusted.

 

Thank you for a great discussion, amigo.

 

NB  by several state (California and Texas come to mind) and Federal statutes, the pro-Hamas demonstrators/rioters are committing terroristic acts.

Do you see any of them being charged or indicted?

Still trust the government to determine intent without prejudice?

Agreed govt. Can't be trusted.  The founders were aware of this too, hence our Constitution but that is a whole different subject.

Was not Trump charged initially for what he said on 1/6?  

As for actus rea, I am not an attorney but having spent 21 years enforcing the law and spending a lot of time around prosecutors and in court, I can tell you  the elements of the offense and mens rea was always considered.  Never heard of actus rea until you brought it up now.  You might not like the law but that doesn't make it invalid.

IF the only thing you have is a verbal threat, that is still a C misdemeanor in TX falling under simple assault, an arrestable offense.

Tell a prosecutor or LEO you are gonna murder them and see what happens.

[El Spicoli]

21 minutes ago, tous said:

It just occurred to me, I'm old,

What about rap and hip hop songs?

I don't listen at all, but I am familiar with the concept.

Aren't many of the lyrics threats to commit murder, severe harm or mayhem?

So, African music is immune to scrutiny as terroristic threats?

How are they different than chanting Death to America or Kill the Jews?

Who decides?

Al Sharpton?

Tipper gore?

 

You don't see the difference?  One is in the realm of entertainment and one is not.  Do you see Comedians being arrested for what they say in their act?  Yet we both know entertainers have also lost contracts or fans depending on what they said.

Who makes the determination?  C'mon we know.  Is Sharpton or Gore gonna arrest you?  Are they gonna prosecute the case?  Are they gonna judge the case?

I think your argument is going farther out to sea.

[tous]

So, entertainers are immune from consequences of a threat to an individual or a group?

It's okay to say, Kill all white boys as long as there's a back beat?

Is threatening a peace officer or a prosecutor a greater sin than threatening a citizen that doesn't work for the government?

Thanks again for the discussion.

[El Spicoli]

6 hours ago, tous said:

So, entertainers are immune from consequences of a threat to an individual or a group?

It's okay to say, Kill all white boys as long as there's a back beat?

Is threatening a peace officer or a prosecutor a greater sin than threatening a citizen that doesn't work for the government?

Thanks again for the discussion.

Yes

No

No