GigaFool said:Except you're comparing a funny Musashi flash to inciting hate speech.
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, bro?
GigaFool said:Except you're comparing a funny Musashi flash to inciting hate speech.
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, bro?
Raven said:There we go.
Raven said:Plan on the moon bitch, peace.
fraidykat said:I'm having a legitimate discussion with another poster over a topic which interests me. I said that if I'm wrong, I'll back off. It's called exchanging information. You, on the other hand, have nothing to add but "hurrrr....religion si dum." Please, you're not fooling anyone.
Morbid said:Damn, this was such a good [strike]thread[/strike] world untill the christian right showed up.
T w i z t i D said:roll your eyes, i've argued with you, you're right to roll them
It is quite obvious you never tire of being wrong.
fraidycat said:According to Texas v. Johnson (flag burning case), "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Selective restraints based on offensiveness of speech strictly limited: unless speech invades privacy of home or the degree of captivity makes it impractical to avoid exposure, the burden is on the offended person to "avert his or her eyes."
Cohen; Erznoznik
- Caveat: Speech that constitutes "fighting words" under the Chaplinsky standard is not protected. But see R.A.V. v. St. Paul (partial restriction of fighting words based on intent to "arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others" on basis of race, etc. unconstitutional as viewpoint restriction). Contrast Wisconsin v. Mitchell (penalty enhancement for racial motivation in committing aggravated battery upheld).
mznthrope said:[/list] There is absolutely nothing in the text you've quoted that indicates that anything Musashi did would be considered "fighting words," but, hey, keep telling yourself that you're right. Maybe that'll actually make it true. The meat of that quote is this sentence: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
I suppose that your point that there is indeed speech that may not be protected is valid, but that point is so fucking irrelevant in this situation that you look like an idiot for bringing it up, and I would guess that most of us are also already aware of the "fire in a movie theater" caveat, so you needn't bring that one up, either. Self-ownage is the best kind.