NationStates Jolt Archive

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?

Considering that it is a private college doing the investigating and not the government.....no.

Fail.

NEW YORK (AP) - A lower Manhattan college is investigating how a paperback copy of the Quran from the campus library ended up in a public toilet, school officials said Tuesday.

The discovery at Pace University was among three separate incidents in the past two weeks involving vandalism with racial or religious overtones. In the other two, racial slurs were scrawled on a student’s car parked at a satellite campus in Westchester County and on a bathroom wall at the downtown campus.

University President David A. Caputo said the incidents did not appear to be related. But he called them “deeply disturbing” and invited faculty and students to discuss them Tuesday afternoon at a meeting.

“One of our university’s greatest strengths is its diversity,” Caputo wrote in a letter describing the incidents. “However, when speech is hurtful towards a class of people or incites violence, we must condemn it and take measures to stop it.” The school’s security force was trying to identify the vandals so they could be disciplined, Caputo said.

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?

You can burn a flag, piss on Jesus, and do all sorts of other desecration that's protected under the First Amendment here in the US...

Considering that it is a private college doing the investigating and not the government.....no.

Fail.

Apparently, the college wants to file legal charges of vandalism. So the government is going to be involved.

The university has referred it to the New York Police Department's hate crimes unit.

No, it's just vandalism

You know this is old news, stop dicking around in your attempt to villainize Muslims.

And, it isn't free speech because it was done in secret. You don't get to throw around freedom of speech and expression when you are doing things in secret without publicizing them. Had he gathered a crowd in the middle of the parking lot and ran over the book with his truck, it would have been freedom of expression. As the evidence stands, it is a hate crime.

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?

You can burn a flag, piss on Jesus, and do all sorts of other desecration that's protected under the First Amendment here in the US...

I don't think so. "Speech" is protected because usually "speaking" you cannot directly cause physical harm. So, "speech" is protected because it is the non-harmful way of explaining one's position or beliefs or dissent. Taking "action", such as desecrating things, is a different thing from "speech"... I think.

In the US, you can burn the US flag and not say a word, and it's protected speech. You can piss on a statue of Jesus, and not say a word (other than to claim that it's art), and it's protected.

I am for that interpretation - these are protected speech.

As far as I'm concerned, so is flushing the Koran.


Even it you do consider it free speech, that still doesn't make it right.

Neo Art Fails:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--vandalismquran0727jul27,0,6882662.story

NEW YORK (AP) _ A 23-year-old man was arrested Friday on hate-crime charges after he threw a Quran in a toilet at Pace University on two separate occasions, police said.

Stanislav Shmulevich of Brooklyn was arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment, both hate crimes, police said. It was unclear if he was a student at the school. A message left at the Shmulevich home was not immediately returned.

The Islamic holy book was found in a toilet at Pace's lower Manhattan campus by a teacher on Oct. 13. A student discovered another book in a toilet on Nov. 21, police said.

Muslim activists had called on Pace University to crack down on hate crimes after the incidents. As a result, the university said it would offer sensitivity training to its students.

The school was accused by Muslim students of not taking the incident seriously enough at first. Pace classified the first desecration of the holy book as an act of vandalism, but university officials later reversed themselves and referred the incident to the New York Police Department's hate crimes unit.

Apparently, the college wants to file legal charges of vandalism. So the government is going to be involved.

The university has referred it to the New York Police Department's hate crimes unit.

and yet vandalism has nothing to do with speech. It has to do with defacing property.

So, yes, you can burn a flag. YOUR flag. You can piss on a model of jesus. YOUR model of jesus.

But just because you are within your first amendment rights to burn a flag doesn't mean you can go burning anybody's flag you want to under the guise of freedom of speech. Even if the government can't regulate your exercise of free speech doesn't mean you can't be arrested for destroying someone elses private property.

So yeah you can go shove a koran down a toilet if you want, and deface a bathroom wall. YOUR bathroom wall. That's fine.

But do it to someone elses bathroom wall, and its still vandalism. The first amendment isn't at issue here.

So, again, fail.

I don't think so. "Speech" is protected because usually "speaking" you cannot directly cause physical harm. So, "speech" is protected because it is the non-harmful way of explaining one's position or beliefs or dissent. Taking "action", such as desecrating things, is a different thing from "speech"... I think.

In the US, you can burn the US flag and not say a word, and it's protected speech. You can piss on a statue of Jesus, and not say a word (other than to claim that it's art), and it's protected.

I am for that interpretation - these are protected speech.

As far as I'm concerned, so is flushing the Koran.

As far as I'm concerned, so is flushing the Koran.

Same here.

As long as it's YOUR Koran being flushed down YOUR toilet. Otherwise you're fucking with someone elses property.

Sorry, the charge is no longer vandalism. It's "hate crime".

You fail.

I fail because you didn't properly back up your claim with sources? You hadn't posted that until AFTER you had already discussed claims of "vandalism". You said that, not me. I, admittedly erroniusly, assumed you knew what the fuck you were talking about.

Silly me.

Now as for the real meat of it, I don't believe such hate crime laws that criminalize certain forms of speech are constitutional, as this appears to be a speech demonstration, not a crime of violence directed at any one person.

Although it most certainly CAN be vandalism.

If you wanted to discuss the hate crime charge, you should have said that to begin with, non?

and yet vandalism has nothing to do with speech. It has to do with defacing property.

So, yes, you can burn a flag. YOUR flag. You can piss on a model of jesus. YOUR model of jesus.

But just because you are within your first amendment rights to burn a flag doesn't mean you can go burning anybody's flag you want to under the guise of freedom of speech. Even if the government can't regulate your exercise of free speech doesn't mean you can't be arrested for destroying someone elses private property.

So yeah you can go shove a koran down a toilet if you want, and deface a bathroom wall. YOUR bathroom wall. That's fine.

But do it to someone elses bathroom wall, and its still vandalism. The first amendment isn't at issue here.

So, again, fail.

Sorry, the charge is no longer vandalism. It's "hate crime".

You fail.

The Korans in question belonged to the flusher. So they're calling it a "hate crime".

Interestingly, Pace University had several instances of swastikas painted in the bathrooms, but no one bothered with the police then.

In the US, you can burn the US flag and not say a word, and it's protected speech. You can piss on a statue of Jesus, and not say a word (other than to claim that it's art), and it's protected.

I am for that interpretation - these are protected speech.

As far as I'm concerned, so is flushing the Koran.

If that's is the interpretation, then yes, flushing the Koran is "free speech" also. I disagree with the interpretation; not that it's any of my business, however. Censorship is sometimes needed to avoid stupidity.

so this is a hate crime? throwing a book n the toilet is a hate crime? :headbang:

if anything the student should get destruction of property for destroying the book that he did not own. and maybe for clogging the toilet if it did so. but to charge him a hate crime just because he threw a book in the toilet is ridiculous. i didnt realize books had equal protection under the constitution as people did.

i am almost certain that if this was a bible there would be little out cry, and for the people that did outcry about it would simply be told to stop their bitching.

so this is a hate crime? throwing a book n the toilet is a hate crime? :headbang:

if anything the student should get destruction of property for destroying the book that he did not own. and maybe for clogging the toilet if it did so. but to charge him a hate crime just because he threw a book in the toilet is ridiculous. i didnt realize books had equal protection under the constitution as people did.
He did it twice. There is an intent to insult and inflame the Muslim community through calculated actions by assaulting a book known to be extremely holy to them. Hate crime.


I choose option 4 in the poll: This is not free speech or expression because it doesn't meet the criteria and DK is a bigot.

As long as it's YOUR Koran being flushed down YOUR toilet. Otherwise you're fucking with someone elses property.

Well, if it didn't damage the toilet, I don't see what the problem is really. (Outside of any damage possibly caused by flushing).

Mind you having experienced some public toilets in NYC, I'm all in favor of criminal sanctions for teh legion of 'blockers', but the fact that it was a koran that did the blocking should be irrelevant.

He did it twice. There is an intent to insult and inflame the Muslim community through calculated actions by assaulting a book known to be extremely holy to them. Hate crime.


I choose option 4 in the poll: This is not free speech or expression because it doesn't meet the criteria and DK is a bigot.

once is freedom of speech twice is a hate crime?

this doesn't make any sense to consider this a hate crime. it is pure double standard that is going on here.

Putting their own Quran that they own in the toilet is free speech, putting someone elses in the toilet is stealing.

Writing something on someone's car is vandalism of private property.

Apparently, the college wants to file legal charges of vandalism. So the government is going to be involved.

The university has referred it to the New York Police Department's hate crimes unit.

putting things in a public toilet that do not belong in a toilet sounds like vandalism to me.

putting things in a public toilet that do not belong in a toilet sounds like vandalism to me.

Unfortunately, vandalism isn't what he's being charged with:

Stanislav Shmulevich of Brooklyn was arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment, both hate crimes, police said

Yes and no. Scrawling racial slurs on your own car would be protected, and flushing the Quran would be too. But scrawling racial slurs on someone else's car is vandalism.

Unfortunately, vandalism isn't what he's being charged with:

well, what's the law concerning those charges? I am not familiar.

Although, trying to flush books down someone's toilet does sound criminally mischiefy just from my knowledge of the words criminal and mischief

Apparently, the college wants to file legal charges of vandalism. So the government is going to be involved.

The university has referred it to the New York Police Department's hate crimes unit.
If it was their book and or their toilet then the vandalism charges could be legit ...

well, what's the law concerning those charges? I am not familiar.

Unfortunately, neither am I and the article doesn't specify how these charges came about save for "desecrating the Qu'ran is offensive to Muslims."

Neo Art might be able to specify.

Although, trying to flush books down someone's toilet does sound criminally mischiefy just from my knowledge of the words criminal and mischief

No argument here, but that doesn't make it a hate crime.

Well, if it didn't damage the toilet, I don't see what the problem is really. (Outside of any damage possibly caused by flushing).

Mind you having experienced some public toilets in NYC, I'm all in favor of criminal sanctions for teh legion of 'blockers', but the fact that it was a koran that did the blocking should be irrelevant.

There's also the incidents of vandalism on another person's car, and on school property. Those things are most certainly not free speech.

BTW I think it's cute how the poll choices don't really leave you with a logical option, just inflametory BS.

If I purchase a book, that book now belongs to me. I get to do whatever I want with that book, provided I'm not breaking other laws in the process (i.e. I can't hit somebody with the book and say it's okay because I bought the book fair and square).

If I purchase a copy of a religious text and then decide to use it to prop up my coffee table, that's my damn business. If I want to tear out the pages and use them to puppy-train my new pet, that's my choice. If I want to toss the book into my fire place, that's for me to decide. The book is mine.

The only problem I have with what this person did is that they may have damaged or vandalized PUBLIC property (i.e. the toilet). I think it's damn rude to put random objects into public toilets, because those things are nasty enough as it is.

once is freedom of speech twice is a hate crime?
Once, it is vandalism. Twice shows a method and history and thus it can be upgraded to having a purpose.

this doesn't make any sense to consider this a hate crime. it is pure double standard that is going on here.
No, it isn't. You arn't paying attention.

This was deliberately done where the result would attract attention - twice. Whether it was his or not is irrelevant. You can't build a cross and burn it in your own lawn.

Actually, that depends. For example, if the ink it was printed in was known to release highly toxic fumes, you might be required by law to dispose of it in some non-flammable manner.

:p
STOP OPPRESSING ME!!!

:P

If I want to toss the book into my fire place, that's for me to decide. The book is mine.


Actually, that depends. For example, if the ink it was printed in was known to release highly toxic fumes, you might be required by law to dispose of it in some non-flammable manner.

:p

Actually, that depends. For example, if the ink it was printed in was known to release highly toxic fumes, you might be required by law to dispose of it in some non-flammable manner.

:p

Buy some carbon offsets first...

Buy some carbon offsets first...

Yes, because that was applicable.

Yes, because that was applicable.

DK: "help help, i'm surrounded by liberals, i better make a joke about them to reassert my masculinity"

DK: "help help, i'm surrounded by liberals, i better make a joke about them to reassert my masculinity"

Actually, I was following the pattern of Non Aligned, who was making a joke.

I could care less if I'm surrounded by "liberals".

DK: "help help, i'm surrounded by liberals, i better make a joke about them to reassert my masculinity"

:D Quote For Truth

"Quote:
Originally Posted by The_pantless_hero
DK: "help help, i'm surrounded by liberals, i better make a joke about them to reassert my masculinity"

:D Quote For Truth"

QFT * 2!

If I write "******" on my wall, it's free speech. If I write "******" on your wall, it's vandalism and I'm likely to be charged with a hate crime. If you clean it off once and I do it again, what are the chances when I get caught I'm NOT going to get charged with a hate crime?

This person committed a crime, vandalism, and chose as a part of that crime a message that was directed at a minority community, a message designed to denigrate them and harm them. If this had been paint or any other media, I'm quite certain the fact that was a hate crime and not free speech would not be at question.

The only thing this thread demonstrates is that some people don't know that free speech cannot involve the property of others or involve a crime and still be protected.

If I purchase a book, that book now belongs to me. I get to do whatever I want with that book, provided I'm not breaking other laws in the process (i.e. I can't hit somebody with the book and say it's okay because I bought the book fair and square).

If I purchase a copy of a religious text and then decide to use it to prop up my coffee table, that's my damn business. If I want to tear out the pages and use them to puppy-train my new pet, that's my choice. If I want to toss the book into my fire place, that's for me to decide. The book is mine.

The only problem I have with what this person did is that they may have damaged or vandalized PUBLIC property (i.e. the toilet). I think it's damn rude to put random objects into public toilets, because those things are nasty enough as it is.
The difference here is that the person was doing it (befouling the Koran) in a public place to deliberately incite and denigrate a specific population.

Your analogy fails simply because your actions are done in private and are not intended to deliberately offend.


Sitting in your bedroom saying, "Fucking Junglebunny!" is fine (albeit weird) but standing on the street outside a Black person's home yelling it isn't.
Slightly difference in geographical location, but huge difference in intent and effect on others.

The Korans in question belonged to the flusher. So they're calling it a "hate crime".

A lower Manhattan college is investigating how a paperback copy of the Quran from the campus library ended up in a public toilet, school officials said Tuesday.

Not according to your OP

Interestingly, Pace University had several instances of swastikas painted in the bathrooms, but no one bothered with the police then.
link?

I find it incredulous that the idea that Jews (or Jewish student association) on any campus in the US, upon finding swastika graffiti, wouldn't be (and rightly so) up in arms and outraged about such offensive and inflammatory daubings.
Which does imply that you're talking out of your behind.
again.


If somehow this is true, it proves nothing but that either Pace Uni isn't that great a college to go to or that no-one bothered complaining and/or found it offensive. Police only investigate if and when asked to.


I suppose you're trying to imply that the ebil Muslamics are behind the swastikas. Not that you'll admit it of course. You'll just claim my inference is because I'm stoopid. Because we all know how much you love Muslims and would never, ever, imply anything negative about them.

Not according to your OP
wow. what a surprise. RO doesn't even bother reading or researching his own thread links before posting anti-Muslim crap.

I am dumbfounded and flabbergasted.
Truly my found has never been this dumbed, nor my gast been this flabbered.


my guess is that he just copies and pastes from some virulent anti-Muslim site he belongs to (prob that army one he's always going on about) w/o ever bothering to check the links out first. Only way I can imagine that he can so consistently screw up over and over again and never learn from his mistakes.

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?

You can burn a flag, piss on Jesus, and do all sorts of other desecration that's protected under the First Amendment here in the US...

That's library property. So no, it's not. It's the destruction of library property and, unless the library's board agreed that the Quran should go into the toilet, then it's illegal. If they did, it's perfectly fine.

Apparently, the college wants to file legal charges of vandalism.

Throwing a library book into the toilet seems like vandalism to me. It's not your book. "Free speech" got nothing to do with it. But I know you're trying to work the "MUSLIMS ARE OPPRESSING US AND STEALINGS OUR FREEDOMS!" troll angle here, so I'll just leave you alone.

link?

I find it incredulous that the idea that Jews (or Jewish student association) on any campus in the US, upon finding swastika graffiti, wouldn't be (and rightly so) up in arms and outraged about such offensive and inflammatory daubings.
Which does imply that you're talking out of your behind.
again.


If somehow this is true, it proves nothing but that either Pace Uni isn't that great a college to go to or that no-one bothered complaining and/or found it offensive. Police only investigate if and when asked to.


I suppose you're trying to imply that the ebil Muslamics are behind the swastikas. Not that you'll admit it of course. You'll just claim my inference is because I'm stoopid. Because we all know how much you love Muslims and would never, ever, imply anything negative about them.

I'll help him out with a link.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060829/ai_n16694674

Prosecutor Robert Berlin said it was more than a prank, noting the graffiti specifically included anti-Semitic symbols and language.

"It's a hate crime," he said.

A 15-year-old charged pleaded guilty earlier this month to committing a hate crime and criminal damage to property. He was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to perform 20 hours of community service.

Oh, damn, sorry, that shows someone being prosecuted with a hate crime FOR spraypainting swastikas. Shoot, I'm always accidentally showing RO's rants to be absurd.

Just ignore me. I'll be over here in the corner giggling at the silliness.

Unfortunately, vandalism isn't what he's being charged with:

From what I can tell looking these things up, vandalism and criminal mischief are closely related, as both involve interference with or damage to the property of others or public property. Putting a book in a public toilet would interfere with the use of that toilet, and would thus pretty clearly qualify. Destroying a library book would also qualify.

I'm not really sure how aggravated harassment qualifies, however. I haven't found the particular version of the law that would apply here, but other versions of aggravated harassment seem to require either a previous conviction or a court-ordered injunction against the behavior. Perhaps they are using this charge because the action was repeated?

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?

You can burn a flag, piss on Jesus, and do all sorts of other desecration that's protected under the First Amendment here in the US...

You had to go dig up something from OCTOBER 2006?

*bows at the throne of Kat*

You had to go dig up something from OCTOBER 2006?

http://www.slate.com/id/2171371/fr/flyout

Gee, the story is NEW now because the police are now involved...

Perhaps the pole is biased? :p

I sure hope this gets thrown out.

Inane, unjust application of already dubious 'hate crime' statutes.

Perhaps the pole is biased? :p

I love the darling "special protection for Muslims above others" option. Apparently it's RO's contention/trolling concept that Muslims live a privileged life, elites, under which we proletariat White Christians are suffering horribly and must awake before we all find ourselves wearing burkas and facing Mecca.

I love the darling "special protection for Muslims above others" option. Apparently it's RO's contention/trolling concept that Muslims live a privileged life, elites, under which we proletariat White Christians are suffering horribly and must awake before we all find ourselves wearing burkas and facing Mecca.

I'm not the only one making that observation.

http://www.slate.com/id/2171371/fr/flyout

It's not trolling, either.

Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the “moderate” imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?

The Pace University incident becomes even more ludicrous and sinister when it is recalled that Islamists are the current leaders in the global book-burning competition. After the rumor of a Quran down the toilet in Guantanamo was irresponsibly spread, a mob in Afghanistan burned down an ancient library that (as President Hamid Karzai pointed out dryly) contained several ancient copies of the same book. Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.

This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of “hate crime,” I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.

It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?

You can burn a flag, piss on Jesus, and do all sorts of other desecration that's protected under the First Amendment here in the US...

Owning a Bible is illegal in Muslim countries. If you own a Bible it will be confiscated, thoroughly salted, and burned - you will be punished - I'm not sure what the punishment is, but I'm sure it involves disfigurement and publich humiliation. They have no respect for us, why should we bend over backwards to show deference to them?

Perhaps the pole is biased? :p

It certainly has more votes than people on the planet.

and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least.

Hmmmm.....

A lower Manhattan college is investigating how a paperback copy of the Quran from the campus library ended up in a public toilet, school officials said Tuesday.

Owning a Bible is illegal in Muslim countries. If you own a Bible it will be confiscated, thoroughly salted, and burned - you will be punished - I'm not sure what the punishment is, but I'm sure it involves disfigurement and publich humiliation. They have no respect for us, why should we bend over backwards to show deference to them?

Because this is the United States of America, not Afghanistan, and in America we don't arrest people for owning books.

Owning a Bible is illegal in Muslim countries. If you own a Bible it will be confiscated, thoroughly salted, and burned - you will be punished - I'm not sure what the punishment is, but I'm sure it involves disfigurement and publich humiliation. They have no respect for us, why should we bend over backwards to show deference to them?

Since when is it "bending over backwards" to prosecute someone who destroys or interferes with the property of others?

Meanwhile, your "BUT MOOOOMMMMM!!! HE DID IT EVEN WORSE THAN ME!!!!!" mentality is cute.

Because this is the United States of America, not Afghanistan, and in America we don't arrest people for owning books.

Except maybe The Anarchist's Cookbook or w/e it's called.

Because this is the United States of America, not Afghanistan, and in America we don't arrest people for owning books.

It has to do with destroying a specific book, in Muslim countries, the destruction of Bibles and the punishment of the owners is institutionalized. In the United States, it isn't and we shouldn't make an exception just because the agrieved party is Muslim.

It's not trolling, either.

What you ARE doing is carefully avoiding all of the arguments that demonstrate how silly your point is?

What of the linked article showing that swastikas being painted on walls are in fact prosecuted as hate crimes? What about the arguments that they were already committing a crime and this is why the speech related to that crime does not qualify as free speech but instead gives an idea of the motivation of the act.

You carefully avoid the arguments only to spew more crap or to only respond to either the really poor arguments or to people not even discussing the actual issue. This is why you're considered a troll by so many, because you make it patently obvious that you're avoiding debate, not engaging in it.

Paranoid, idiotic rants about Muslim supremacy do not qualify as "observations," DK. Just like your trolling posts don't really qualify as arguments.

Especially in this thread. It's like your brain went on self-destruct and wandered into MTAE-style irrational incoherence.

Hitchens is not engaged in a rant. It's an astute observation that you choose to ignore, because you're afraid of pissing off Muslims.

If it's hate crime, throwing a Bible down a toilet must also be a hate crime.

I'm not the only one making that observation.

http://www.slate.com/id/2171371/fr/flyout

Paranoid, idiotic rants about Muslim supremacy do not qualify as "observations," DK. Just like your trolling posts don't really qualify as arguments.

Especially in this thread. It's like your brain went on self-destruct and wandered into MTAE-style irrational incoherence.

Owning a Bible is illegal in Muslim countries.

Destroying public property (or someone else's private property/possessions) is illegal in the US.

They have no respect for us, why should we bend over backwards to show deference to them?

Well you know, there's that whole "law" thing you're conveniently forgetting.

It has to do with destroying a specific book, in Muslim countries, the destruction of Bibles and the punishment of the owners is institutionalized. In the United States, it isn't and we shouldn't make an exception just because the agrieved party is Muslim.

and yet you, just like RO, miss the point.

I can go buy a Koran. This is legal. I can read the Koran. That is also legal. I can rip the pages out of it if I want. That too, is legal. If I want, I can even burn that Koran. That is all legal.

And if I take my Koran and flush it down my toilet that, too, is legal.

Except this was not HIS Koran. This was not HIS toilet. It was the school's Koran. It was the school's toilet.

He willfully and knowingly destroyed somebody else's property. That is criminal mischief. When that willfull and knowing destruction of other's property is destroyed for reasons of hate, that's a hate crime.

It wasn't his book. It wasn't his toilet. Your rights don't allow you to just destroy other people's property.

If it's hate crime, throwing a Bible down a toilet must also be a hate crime.

hate crime is based on intent. If you throw SOMEBODY ELSE'S bible down SOMEBODY ELSE'S toilet and did so as an act against christians...yes, that would be a hate crime.

Hitchens is not engaged in a rant.

You are.

The article you mentioned doesn't even support your nonsense nor does it contradict my post you quoted.

Again it's rather like you're incapable of reading. You can do better than this. Right? Nah, guess not.

It's an astute observation that you choose to ignore, because you're afraid of pissing off Muslims.

Observations? OK.

1. You're a proven liar.
2. You're a proven troll.
3. Nothing you say means anything other than the above, especially since
4. You don't know how to argue worth shit anymore (if you ever did).
5. You lost. Get over it, start a new trolling thread, use your other accounts, beg for my attention some more.

It has to do with destroying a specific book, in Muslim countries, the destruction of Bibles and the punishment of the owners is institutionalized. In the United States, it isn't and we shouldn't make an exception just because the agrieved party is Muslim.

The destruction of someone else's book using someone else's property absolutely is illegal in this country.

If the student had owned the book and flushed it down a toilet he personally owned, there'd be no issue here.

It was, in both cases, his own book.

Is that why your own source says it was owned by the library? Of course, even if your source is incorrect and it was his own copy (something you have yet to provide a real source for, while you did provide a source stating that it was a library copy), the toilet was still not his.

The destruction of someone else's book using someone else's property absolutely is illegal in this country.

If the student had owned the book and flushed it down a toilet he personally owned, there'd be no issue here.

It was, in both cases, his own book.

It was, in both cases, his own book.

as was stated, from your own OP, in the first line:

A lower Manhattan college is investigating how a paperback copy of the Quran from the campus library ended up in a public toilet, school officials said Tuesday.

Wow, look at that, it wasn't his book was it?

2. You're a proven troll.

The last time someone said this, I asked for Moderation.

They said that I'm not trolling.

So get over it.

Impressive poll :)

The last time someone said this, I asked for Moderation.

They said that I'm not trolling.

What a joke. You asked for Moderation if you were trolling in that instance. They don't tend to make rulings on whether someone "is a troll."

Luckily, they don't need to. You admitted it yourself. And it's pretty obvious from your method of "debate."

Cute attempt though!

Sorry, it's not trolling, no matter how many times you say it is.

Your only form of debate seems to be

"you're a liar"
"you're a troll"
etc...

you post no links in response to me, or even in support of your arguments

- ever -

He's not the one trying to claim something refuted in his very own OP.

But go on, tell us how it was his Koran again. Go on, I'd love to hear how he owned the library.

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?

No.

1) It's a private school. They are under no legal obligation to hold themselves to First Amendment standards.

2) I'm sure there are policies against throwing things in toilets that don't belong, regardless of any symbolic significance. Just as it does not violate the First Amendment to prosecute a person for burning a flag under a general prohibition on burning (as due to a fire code or during a drought-related burn-ban), it would not violate the First Amendment to prosecute a person for throwing the Koran in a toilet...

... because we'd prosecute them just the same if they threw anything else in there that does not belong.

What a joke. You asked for Moderation if you were trolling in that instance. They don't tend to make rulings on whether someone "is a troll."

Luckily, they don't need to. You admitted it yourself. And it's pretty obvious from your method of "debate."

Cute attempt though!

Sorry, it's not trolling, no matter how many times you say it is.

Your only form of debate seems to be

"you're a liar"
"you're a troll"
etc...

you post no links in response to me, or even in support of your arguments

- ever -

Apparently, the college wants to file legal charges of vandalism. So the government is going to be involved.Right. So long as they charge them with vandalism, and not with some charge based on the content of their vandalism, it passes First Amendment scrutiny.

So, yes, you can burn a flag. YOUR flag.And you can't even get away with that much if you're doing it under a sign that says "no burning."

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?


no.

this has been another edition of 'simple answers to stupid questions'.

As far as I'm concerned, so is flushing the Koran.Sure, if you use your own toilet.

no.

this has been another edition of 'simple answers to stupid questions'.

Apparently, it is.

You don't have to ask me. Just ask Neo Art how he voted.

Apparently, it is.

You don't have to ask me. Just ask Neo Art how he voted.

How I voted is simple. The act of flushing A religious text down A toilet is first amendment protected freedom of speech. And he is not been charged with any act concerning his SPEECH.

So to answer your question it's simple, the SPEECH aspect inherent in the general act is protected, it is a statement.

however it's not protected when you use someone elses property. But the charges stem not from the content of his message in and of itself, but of the fact that he used other people's property to spread it.

The message is protected. The way he chose to distribute that message by destroying private property is not.

Sorry, it's not trolling, no matter how many times you say it is.

Your only form of debate seems to be

"you're a liar"
"you're a troll"
etc...

you post no links in response to me, or even in support of your arguments

- ever -

Links do not an argument win. Particularily if the link is to a lie, or accompanmied by such. As a perpetrator of a few of these, that should come no suprise to you at all. As for "you're a liar" "you're a troll", if the cap fits, I say put it on.

Sure, if you use your own toilet.

and your own Koran.

Sorry, it's not trolling, no matter how many times you say it is.

Oh, well I guess it's not trolling, because of how many times you say it isn't. ;)

Your only form of debate seems to be

"you're a liar"
"you're a troll"
etc...

With you? Of course. I see in this thread other people wasting their time treating you like a real person, addressing your 'arguments' rationally. And I see how you react to them. And I see how futile it is to pretend a troll, and a liar, is a worthy partner for rational debate.

you post no links in response to me,

Oh, gosh, I'm sorry (http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g130/infernalledgend/dumbass.jpg).

or even in support of your arguments

I don't need to support my statements in this thread, because you haven't done anything to them that threatens their validity.

- ever -

Oh, damn, I have to apologize (http://www.225.ca/ivan/nov03/crybaby.jpg) for that! Yes, more links will do my arguments for me. And if someone else doesn't have enough links to match mine, TEHY LOSE LOL!

Now as for the real meat of it, I don't believe such hate crime laws that criminalize certain forms of speech are constitutional, as this appears to be a speech demonstration, not a crime of violence directed at any one person.Well, a statute specifically criminalizing a behavior as a "hate crime" would be unconstitutional to the extent that it effectively directs itself at the content of the speech.

The developing hate crime jurisprudence of the United States, however, does not criminalize behaviors as "hate crimes" that would not otherwise be criminal. Rather, it increases the sentences for ordinary offenses when one of the motives is to terrorize a minority. Since motivation and state of mind have always been mitigating/aggravating factors in criminal sentencing, there is no reason to consider hate crime penalties a violation of the First Amendment's free speech clause.

Interestingly, Pace University had several instances of swastikas painted in the bathrooms, but no one bothered with the police then.Source?

Oh, well I guess it's not trolling, because of how many times you say it isn't. ;)

With you? Of course. I see in this thread other people wasting their time treating you like a real person, addressing your 'arguments' rationally. And I see how you react to them. And I see how futile it is to pretend a troll, and a liar, is a worthy partner for rational debate.

The standard method of debate here seems to be:

you suck
no I don't
yes you do

If I post links, they are all claimed to be bad (even when from mainstream media, which is strange).

If I do a reductio ad absurdum on someone's argument, the immediate reaction is "you fucker you are twisting my words".

Sorry, that last one is one I prefer and one I like, and it isn't twisting words and lying.

It has to do with destroying a specific book, in Muslim countries, the destruction of Bibles and the punishment of the owners is institutionalized. In the United States, it isn't and we shouldn't make an exception just because the agrieved party is Muslim.

What the hell does that have to do with this case? This person destroyed a book that didn't belong to them. It's not illegal because it's the Quran. It would have been illegal if it had been The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The fact that it was designed to denigrate members of a religion is what makes it hate crime, but it was a crime either way. If this had been his Quran and his toilet it would have been perfectly legal.

What the hell does that have to do with this case? This person destroyed a book that didn't belong to them. It's not illegal because it's the Quran. It would have been illegal if it had been The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The fact that it was designed to denigrate members of a religion is what makes it hate crime, but it was a crime either way. If this had been his Quran and his toilet it would have been perfectly legal.

Both were his books.

If I post links, they are all claimed to be bad (even when from mainstream media, which is strange).

Usually they don't wind up supporting your statements and arguments. Like for example the poll option about "special treatment for Muslims" is not supported by anything other than your own paranoia. It's certainly not supported by the events in the OP or the links describing them.


Sorry, that last one is one I prefer and one I like, and it isn't twisting words and lying.

No, but creating the RO account and claiming again and again not to be DK was lying. Cute attempt though, really! You're just FABULOUS today.

If I post links, they are all claimed to be bad (even when from mainstream media, which is strange).

Darling, you are the one claiming that there is something wrong with your links. You keep telling us something that is clearly refuted by the article you quoted in the OP.

Your problem here is that the links you provide, except for opinionated rants, don't say what you claim they say.

Both were his books.

So the article in the OP is wrong?

How do you know this, considering that you haven't posted a single source to back it up, while you have posted a source that contradicts it?

They have no respect for us, why should we bend over backwards to show deference to them?Because we used to believe in something called "principle."

Some of us would like to remind our society what that means.

The *....)lying.


But you've been proven without doubt a liar on a number of occassions - thats rather different than an alternative interpretation of the facts. Seriously, you havent a leg to bigot on.

The standard method of debate here seems to be:

you suck
no I don't
yes you do

If I post links, they are all claimed to be bad (even when from mainstream media, which is strange).

If I do a reductio ad absurdum on someone's argument, the immediate reaction is "you fucker you are twisting my words".

Sorry, that last one is one I prefer and one I like, and it isn't twisting words and lying.

Keep digging DK. It's fun to watch you flail (and fail for that matter). It is honestly beyond me why you hang out here. No one likes you, and a sizable percentage of people here can honestly say that they actually hate you. To say that you are unwanted and unappreciated here would be the most drastic understatement I've ever uttered in my entire life. Why don't you go hang out and do your dick-waving somewhere where people will be even slightly more receptive, and save yourself the time, trouble, and almost daily humiliation?

I can only conclude that it has something to do with some kind of BDSM ritual you are forced to go through by your top so that you can get your "reward" later. But that's really just a wild guess.

Usually they don't wind up supporting your statements and arguments. Like for example the poll option about "special treatment for Muslims" is not supported by anything other than your own paranoia. It's certainly not supported by the events in the OP or the links describing them.

No, but creating the RO account and claiming again and again not to be DK was lying. Cute attempt though, really! You're just FABULOUS today.

It's special treatment if you're going to prosecute the Koran flushing as a hate crime.

It's protected speech under the First Amendment.

Use your logic, boy.

If I say flag burning is OK and protected, and pissing on statues of Christ is OK and protected under the First Amendment no matter how many people get angry, then if I say that flushing a Koran you own yourself is a crime (both belonged to the flusher), then that's special treatment.

If you can't follow that, I suggest you go back to pre-school and start over again.

You keep saying this. According to your source it is untrue. Do you have a source that shows the books belonged to him?

Regardless, who did the toilets he vandalized belong to? Is it okay to spraypaint a swastika on the bathroom wall provided I use my paint? And yes, that's another thing you were wrong about, I posted a link to students being prosecuted for and pleading guilty to a hate crime for spraypainting swastikas on the school walls.

In order for it not to be a crime, this had to have been his books and his toilets. Neither was true.


You'd think for somebody who says he has a legal degree, he'd know that.

Both were his books.

You keep saying this. According to your source it is untrue. Do you have a source that shows the books belonged to him?

Regardless, who did the toilets he vandalized belong to? Is it okay to spraypaint a swastika on the bathroom wall provided I use my paint? And yes, that's another thing you were wrong about, I posted a link to students being prosecuted for and pleading guilty to a hate crime for spraypainting swastikas on the school walls.

In order for it not to be a crime, this had to have been his books and his toilets. Neither was true.

Both were his books.Okay...

I'm reading this thread, and your insistence that they were his books DESPITE the evidence YOU SUPPLIED leads me to believe that one of two things must be true:

1) You have a severe learning disability.
2) You are a troll.

It's special treatment if you're going to prosecute the Koran flushing as a hate crime.

It's protected speech under the First Amendment.

Use your logic, boy.

If I say flag burning is OK and protected, and pissing on statues of Christ is OK and protected under the First Amendment no matter how many people get angry, then if I say that flushing a Koran you own yourself is a crime (both belonged to the flusher), then that's special treatment.

If you can't follow that, I suggest you go back to pre-school and start over again.

Use yours. Can I burn YOUR flag legally or is it protected speech?

Things that would normally be legal or protected speech can be used to demonstrate motivation in the case of a crime. This was a crime. Hate is just an analysis of motivation. Hate crime legislation merely increases the punishment of a crime based on motivation much like murder charges analyze motivation to determine degree.

It's special treatment if you're going to prosecute the Koran flushing as a hate crime.

It's protected speech under the First Amendment.

I think I'll burn down the courthouse. That's protected speech too, right?

Use your logic, boy.

Why, I just did! That was reductio ad absurdum. How do you like it - do you need a towel?

If I say flag burning is OK and protected, and pissing on statues of Christ is OK and protected under the First Amendment no matter how many people get angry, then if I say that flushing a Koran you own yourself is a crime (both belonged to the flusher), then that's special treatment.


He didn't own either the toilet or the book. Attending a college doesn't mean you own a single thing there.

If you can't follow that, I suggest you go back to pre-school and start over again.

Well you know, since I own the pre-school I went to, I guess maybe I WILL! Maybe I can have a book-burning in the library. You know, to express my free speech, and because I own the library and all the books there!

Use yours. Can I burn YOUR flag legally or is it protected speech?

Things that would normally be legal or protected speech can be used to demonstrate motivation in the case of a crime. This was a crime. Hate is just an analysis of motivation. Hate crime legislation merely increases the punishment of a crime based on motivation much like murder charges analyze motivation to determine degree.

Like I said, the Koran flusher flushed his own copies.

No, it's just vandalism

Yeah it's vandalism since it was school property. If you own the copy of the Koran in question, then you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

Like I said, the Koran flusher flushed his own copies.


Is that your legal opinion?

You keep saying this. According to your source it is untrue. Do you have a source that shows the books belonged to him?

Regardless, who did the toilets he vandalized belong to?

Apparently he is arguing that college tuition means you own the college.

Or, he's just playing stupid for the sake of annoying intelligent people.

Or, he really *is* stupid.

Take your pick!

It's special treatment if you're going to prosecute the Koran flushing as a hate crime.

The term "hate crime" refers to the motive behind something that is already a crime. The action here was clearly aimed at a specific religion and, because the actions were already criminal, it is possible to classify this as a hate crime.

It's protected speech under the First Amendment.

No, it isn't. It is vandalism and/or criminal mischief no matter how you look at it. He could have flushed the library's copy of Huckleberry Finn down a public toilet because he didn't like having to read it in a class. It would still be a crime. Hell, he could flush his own copy of Huckleberry Finn down a public toilet and it would still be a crime.


If I say flag burning is OK and protected, and pissing on statues of Christ is OK and protected under the First Amendment no matter how many people get angry, then if I say that flushing a Koran you own yourself is a crime (both belonged to the flusher), then that's special treatment.

And once again, I'll point out that your own source contradicts you and clearly states that it was the library's copy.

Meanwhile, no source states that the toilet belonged to the student. Clogging up someone else's toilet with your own book would still be a crime. It has nothing to do with special treatment and everything to do with the fact that this student destroyed the property of others using the property of others.

If he had flushed his own copy of the Qu'ran down his own toilet, there would be no crime.

Nope, because the courthouse doesn't belong to you.


If the college toilets in your own bloody OP belong to the kid, then the courthouse belongs to me.

Also, not just the courthouse. All your base, too.

Like I said, the Koran flusher flushed his own copies.

Dude! Seriously, knock it off!! How many people have to site your own OP in order to refute this statement before you get it through your battleship plated head!!!

I think I'll burn down the courthouse. That's protected speech too, right?

Nope, because the courthouse doesn't belong to you.

The Korans in this incident belonged to the man who flushed them.

So he can do with them what he wants to - just like people who burn the flag.

The Korans in this incident belonged to the man who flushed them.

So your own source is wrong? Where is the source that refutes it?

Or do you just want this to be true so badly that you'll make yourself look incredibly stupid over and over and over again?

So he can do with them what he wants to - just like people who burn the flag.

Even if he did own the books, which does not appear to be true in any reality except the fictional one in your own head, he did not own the toilet.

I can burn my flag, if I want, but I cannot do it in your grill and keep you from using your own grill as you please.

It's special treatment if you're going to prosecute the Koran flushing as a hate crime.How is it "special treatment" when it, umm... rather obviously IS a hate crime?

It's protected speech under the First Amendment.How many times do people have to refute this?

If I say flag burning is OK and protected, and pissing on statues of Christ is OK and protected under the First Amendment no matter how many people get angry,You're not reading (as if I should be surprised).

I can burn my flag, yes. That doesn't mean I can burn your flag. And it doesn't mean I can burn my flag whenever and wherever I please.

I can piss on statues of Christ all I want, but if I happen to piss on the one standing outside the local church crying "free speech" isn't going to help me when I'm arrested for public urination.

If you can't follow that, I suggest you seek help for your learning disability. Seriously, someone might be able to help you. Maybe medication, maybe just some fun learning exercises, but either way you'll probably find that the world starts making a lot more sense when you actually manage to process the information given to you.

LEGAL:
- You purchase or otherwise legally acquire a Qur'an.
- You burn it, flush it or whatever it in order to express a position, even if that position is an angry one.
- You engage in no violence or do it in no way that is deliberately provocative (i.e. inciting a riot by doing it in a mosque on Ramadan, or the like).

ILLEGAL:

- You steal from the campus bookstore, check out of the library without intention of returning or otherwise illegally acquire, a Qur'an.
- You burn, flush or otherwise desecrate it just to piss muslims off without any other reason.
- You do it in such a way as to provoke a reasonable response of rage from those you intended to piss off.

In short, just being an asshole isn't protected. Political speech is.

The Korans in this incident belonged to the man who flushed them.PLEASE.... ANSWER..... SIMPLE.... QUESTION:

You say the Korans belonged to the suspect.

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THIS??????

Source up or shut up.

The Korans in question belonged to the flusher. So they're calling it a "hate crime".

Interestingly, Pace University had several instances of swastikas painted in the bathrooms, but no one bothered with the police then.

actually, the Korans, at least one of them anyway, belonged to the school library.

It's not a hate crime since the guy who flushed the Koran flushed his OWN Koran.

Bingo (if true).

EDIT: Who'm I kidding? This is RO, of course it's not true. Whitdrawn.

How is it "special treatment" when it, umm... rather obviously IS a hate crime?

It's not a hate crime since the guy who flushed the Koran flushed his OWN Koran.

It's not a hate crime since the guy who flushed the Koran flushed his OWN Koran.While I might like to argue that it WOULD be a crime, and even a hate crime, if he'd flushed his own Koran, that discussion is irrelevant, because...

IT WAS NOT HIS KORAN.

It's not a hate crime since the guy who flushed the Koran flushed his OWN Koran.

GODDAMNIT!!!

Now it's become obvious that you're being deliberatly obtuse. Jerk.

It's not a hate crime since the guy who flushed the Koran flushed his OWN Koran.
Because you have, apparently, (and by extraordinary coincidence, I am sure), not noticed it when it has been posted several times before, I will make sure it is visible:

ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SOURCE, IT WAS THE FUCKING LIBRARY'S BOOK.

Ahem.

Now, there's now way you will be unable to see this, and, since I am quite sure you aren't deliberately ignoring the point, you will be forced to concede that he did not, in fact, own it.

No, I'm not so naive that I actually believe he just didn't see the points. I do know that he's deliberately ignoring them because they contradict him.

While I might like to argue that it WOULD be a crime, and even a hate crime, if he'd flushed his own Koran, that discussion is irrelevant, because...

IT WAS NOT HIS KORAN.

And, even if it was his Koran, it still doesn't matter, as it wasn't his toilet. Thus, the action was still a crime.

Now, there's now way you will be unable to see this, and, since I am quite sure you aren't deliberately ignoring the point, you will be forced to concede that he did not, in fact, own it.

No, I'm not so naive that I actually believe he just didn't see the points. I do know that he's deliberately ignoring them because they contradict him.

Yeah, it wouldn't be of good trolling sportsmanship to ever admit to being wrong on anything at all, ever. Not even on a tangential matter that wouldn't save his stupid-ass trolling argument either way.

And, even if it was his Koran, it still doesn't matter, as it wasn't his toilet. Thus, the action was still a crime.

I think you have to cause a minimum amount of dollar damage before it's a crime. I'm not sure flushing a book would do that.

Though I'm all for the standard being tightened. It's about time we prosecuted those who wantonly block.

The Korans in question belonged to the flusher. So they're calling it a "hate crime".

If you ever come into my house and flush a book down my toilet - your book, ANY book - I'll turn you in to the police AFTER restraining you. Why? Did you EVER wonder what flushing an entire book will do to MY toilet? Also, flush MY book down MY toilet as it was the case with this moron and I'll make sure you spend the rest of your life answering charges.

I think you have to cause a minimum amount of dollar damage before it's a crime. I'm not sure flushing a book would do that.

Not according to the one definition I found online for "criminal mischief". You simply have to interfere with its use. Flushing a book down a toilet certainly will interfere with its use, unless we're talking about a very tiny book.

I can't find New York's law, so take this with a grain of salt, but here is how it is defined in Montana:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/6/45-6-101.htm

Doing something that you know might damage another's property or interfere with its use is criminal mischief.

Not according to the one definition I found online for "criminal mischief". You simply have to interfere with its use. Flushing a book down a toilet certainly will interfere with its use, unless we're talking about a very tiny book.

I can't find New York's law, so take this with a grain of salt, but here is how it is defined in Montana:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/6/45-6-101.htm

Doing something that you know might damage another's property or interfere with its use is criminal mischief.

You have to actually damage the property in NY. I'm certain of that much. (I'm certain there would have been no investigation if it wasn't a 'holy' text either, which makes the whole thing ridiculous).

I think you have to cause a minimum amount of dollar damage before it's a crime. I'm not sure flushing a book would do that.

Though I'm all for the standard being tightened. It's about time we prosecuted those who wantonly block.

I'm sure you have a source that says that vandalism is acceptable provided you don't do much damage. *waits*

Voters: 1000000000000000035. You have already voted on this
What the hell?!?!?!

Both were his books.

Even if that were true...

It was not his toilet.
It was not his toilet.
It was not his toilet.
It was not his toilet.
It was not his toilet.
It was not his toilet.
It was not his toilet.
It was not his fucking toilet. Nor were they his books.

You, once again, claim that anything from petty theft to murder is acceptable, as long as it's done against Muslims. We, once again, beat the snot out of you in an argument.

Not according to the one definition I found online for "criminal mischief". You simply have to interfere with its use. Flushing a book down a toilet certainly will interfere with its use, unless we're talking about a very tiny book.

I can't find New York's law, so take this with a grain of salt, but here is how it is defined in Montana:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/6/45-6-101.htm

Doing something that you know might damage another's property or interfere with its use is criminal mischief.

According to Little Green Footballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20070730ShmulevichComplaint01.jpg) he has been charged with "criminal mischief in the fourth degree." Which is apparently

§ 145.00 Criminal mischief in the fourth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the fourth degree when,
having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he
has such right, he:
1. Intentionally damages property of another person; or
2. Intentionally particpates in the destruction of an abandoned
building as defined in section one thousand nine hundred seventy-one-a
of the real property actions and proceedings law; or
3. Recklessly damages property of another person in an amount
exceeding two hundred fifty dollars.
Criminal mischief in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor.


http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0145.00_145.00.html

So, not too far away

I'm sure you have a source that says that vandalism is acceptable provided you don't do much damage. *waits*

Apparently in NY is it is £250.00


Which seems a bit odd to me, but I'm sure they have their reasons

I'm sure you have a source that says that vandalism is acceptable provided you don't do much damage. *waits*

Was the toilet actually damaged? I don't think dropping a book into a public toilet and flushing actually causes damage.

Apparently in NY is it is £250.00


Which seems a bit odd to me, but I'm sure they have their reasonsThat's not exactly right.

If you intentionally damage someone's property, whatever the value, you commit a crime.

The $250 figure is in reference to recklessly damaging someone's property. In other words, even if you don't do it intentionally, if the recklessness of your behavior leads to more than $250 in damages, it can be charged as a crime.

But if you do it intentionally it doesn't matter how minor the damages are.

But if you do it intentionally it doesn't matter how minor the damages are.

But arguably the toilet wasn't damaged. And you certainly could drop a book in and flush it without damaging it. It's certainly a bit gross, but not criminal.

To clarify:

If I start intentionally snapping your DVDs in two, that's criminal mischief even if the total value of the (used) DVDs was, say, $30.

If, on the other hand, my friends and I are recklessly throwing a baseball about your living room (without permissions), and we knock over your DVDs and damage $30 worth of them, that is not chargeable as criminal mischief.

Of course, if we throw the ball into your brand new $300 amplifier, then that's criminal mischief even though we never intended to do any harm.

But arguably the toilet wasn't damaged. And you certainly could drop a book in and flush it without damaging it. It's certainly a bit gross, but not criminal.But the book was damaged, no?

Was the toilet actually damaged? I don't think dropping a book into a public toilet and flushing actually causes damage.

Clogs the toilet. If I wanted to take a sh*t and saw a moron clogging the toilets I'd knock him down and take the crap on his face.

Was the toilet actually damaged? I don't think dropping a book into a public toilet and flushing actually causes damage.

It needn't be. Even an attempt, performing an act that could reasonably cause damage or deny use, is a crime. If I spraypainted a wall and it turned out they could just wipe it off with a napkin because of some special substance on the wall, it would not change my intent nor whether it was a crime.

http://www.answers.com/topic/vandalism?cat=biz-fin

Generally, the attempt to commit vandalism is an offense as well, but the penalties for attempted vandalism are not as severe as the penalties for a completed act. Penalties also depend on the value of the property destroyed or the cost of repairing it.

Denial of use is damage. So is the cost of the janitor repairing the toilet, even if that was just removing the book and ensuring the toilet functioned properly and cleaning up the mess. If he spent an hour each time, that's probably $100 when factoring benefits. Depending on the value of the usage, one could argue that actual damage far exceeded $250, but the fact is that in flushing an entire book it's quite reasonable to think that there is a significant potential for far greater than $250 damage.

That's not exactly right.

If you intentionally damage someone's property, whatever the value, you commit a crime.

The $250 figure is in reference to recklessly damaging someone's property. In other words, even if you don't do it intentionally, if the recklessness of your behavior leads to more than $250 in damages, it can be charged as a crime.

But if you do it intentionally it doesn't matter how minor the damages are.

Also, even then, I'm sure it still wouldn't be "acceptable" as Jocabia challenged.

But the book was damaged, no?

Yis. But I was pointing out that had the koran been his, then it is possible there was no criminal mischief, regardless of toilet ownership.

What the hell?!?!?!

The poll asked, and the moderators answered. :)

To clarify:

If I start intentionally snapping your DVDs in two, that's criminal mischief even if the total value of the (used) DVDs was, say, $30.

If, on the other hand, my friends and I are recklessly throwing a baseball about your living room (without permissions), and we knock over your DVDs and damage $30 worth of them, that is not chargeable as criminal mischief.

Of course, if we throw the ball into your brand new $300 amplifier, then that's criminal mischief even though we never intended to do any harm.

I know, just trying to get in the mind of RO :)

But arguably the toilet wasn't damaged. And you certainly could drop a book in and flush it without damaging it. It's certainly a bit gross, but not criminal.

Good. It means MY solution wouldn't be either.

Yis. But I was pointing out that had the koran been his, then it is possible there was no criminal mischief, regardless of toilet ownership.That would be a fair argument in his defense, though I think grounds for an acquittal are far from obvious. The jury might buy it, though. ;)

At any rate, flushing two Korans would still seem to qualify as harassment.

(For those who don't get it, imagine that people start finding your picture floating in toilet bowls all over campus. Feel threatened? It's really no different when you are a member of a minority, especially an easily identifiable minority, and people start finding symbols of your faith/race/ethnicity/whatever floating in toilets. It's harassment.)

But the book was damaged, no?

Unless you think somebody went into a library with their own book and threw it down the toilet.


As someone seems to think

Yis. But I was pointing out that had the koran been his, then it is possible there was no criminal mischief, regardless of toilet ownership.

It was not possible that it was not criminal. There is no chance that he unintentionally flushed a Quran twice. In order for it to not be a crime it would have had to be unintentional and the potential for damage to the property would have to not exist or be reasonably expected. At the very least it's reasonable to expect the toilet to be flooded as a result of flushing the Quran. Flooding a toilet could and usually does do a ton of damage.

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?

You can burn a flag, piss on Jesus, and do all sorts of other desecration that's protected under the First Amendment here in the US...

Dumping a library book in a toilet is a high crime.

Denial of use is damage. So is the cost of the janitor repairing the toilet, even if that was just removing the book and ensuring the toilet functioned properly and cleaning up the mess. If he spent an hour each time, that's probably $100 when factoring benefits. Depending on the value of the usage, one could argue that actual damage far exceeded $250, but the fact is that in flushing an entire book it's quite reasonable to think that there is a significant potential for far greater than $250 damage.

I don't think you can say a priori that for the purpose of NY law under this statute that denial of use is damage. (Though I'll remember that next time some twunt double parks and blocks me in. I shall call the cops post haste and demand their arrest).

As for the janitor thing, that's just all hypothetical. It's just as likely that someone picked it out of the toilet, and life moved on. We don't even know whether or not the toilet was ever properly blocked.

Dumping a library book in a toilet is a high crime.

Are you a librarian too?

That would be a fair argument in his defense, though I think grounds for an acquittal are far from obvious. The jury might buy it, though. ;)

I think it hinges on the actual mechanics of the flushing. If he blocked and flooded &c. then yes, it's criminal mischief most likely. A quick dunking, not so much.

At any rate, flushing two Korans would still seem to qualify as harassment.


As per the statute, I would agree on that.

I don't think you can say a priori that for the purpose of NY law under this statute that denial of use is damage. (Though I'll remember that next time some twunt double parks and blocks me in. I shall call the cops post haste and demand their arrest).

As for the janitor thing, that's just all hypothetical. It's just as likely that someone picked it out of the toilet, and life moved on. We don't even know whether or not the toilet was ever properly blocked.

1 - Not his book anyways.
2 - Did you ever really, REALLY have to go only to find a clogged toilet?

2 - Did you ever really, REALLY have to go only to find a clogged toilet?

Oh yes. And as I said earlier in the thread, I support stronger sanctions against those people. All I'm saying is I don't think tossing a book (provided you own said book) down a public bog in NY actually qualifies as a crime. (Though it would seem to in Montana).

I don't think you can say a priori that for the purpose of NY law under this statute that denial of use is damage. (Though I'll remember that next time some twunt double parks and blocks me in. I shall call the cops post haste and demand their arrest).

As for the janitor thing, that's just all hypothetical. It's just as likely that someone picked it out of the toilet, and life moved on. We don't even know whether or not the toilet was ever properly blocked.

Intentional denial of use is a requirement. He would likely be fined for double parking and violating the law, but you cannot show that there was a reasonable expectation that he would denying you use. In fact, most people who double park bank on it not creating a problem at all.

Intentional denial of use is a requirement. He would likely be fined for double parking and violating the law, but you cannot show that there was a reasonable expectation that he would denying you use. In fact, most people who double park bank on it not creating a problem at all.

And I have asked them to move sometimes, and they refuse to do so immediately because they are unloading shit - like their horrible twunty children. So my use is denied for often four or five minutes.

Anway, the new york statute says nothing about intentional denial of use. (Given it's absence from the NY statute, and it's inclusion in the Montana statute I'm inclined to believe that it's not covered).

Oh yes. And as I said earlier in the thread, I support stronger sanctions against those people. All I'm saying is I don't think tossing a book (provided you own said book) down a public bog in NY actually qualifies as a crime. (Though it would seem to in Montana).

Meh, I'd make my own justice if I found the guy. :D

And I have asked them to move sometimes, and they refuse to do so immediately because they are unloading shit - like their horrible twunty children. So my use is denied for often four or five minutes.

Unless it is illegal to unload, then you've not got a case. If it is, try it. Technically, the denied use in many cases would constitute a crime. Or, at least, would be grounds for civil action, particularly if you were prevented from doing something valuable.

Anway, the new york statute says nothing about intentional denial of use. (Given it's absence from the NY statute, and it's inclusion in the Montana statute I'm inclined to believe that it's not covered).

The New York statute does say that the action has to be intentional in order to generally qualify or be over a certain dollar amount for intent not to matter. It's not vandalism for me to trip and scratch your car. It's not vandalism for me to accidentally clog the toilet or accidentally mark up a wall. Intent is necessary for it to be a crime.

According to Little Green Footballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20070730ShmulevichComplaint01.jpg) he has been charged with "criminal mischief in the fourth degree." Which is apparently

§ 145.00 Criminal mischief in the fourth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the fourth degree when,
having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he
has such right, he:
1. Intentionally damages property of another person; or
2. Intentionally particpates in the destruction of an abandoned
building as defined in section one thousand nine hundred seventy-one-a
of the real property actions and proceedings law; or
3. Recklessly damages property of another person in an amount
exceeding two hundred fifty dollars.
Criminal mischief in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor.


http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0145.00_145.00.html

So, not too far away


It has to be intentional if it is not above a certain amount, and if it is above a certain amount it must only be reckless. Denial of use constitutes damage but it would have to be intentional or reckless and above a certain amount of damage.

It has to be intentional if it is not above a certain amount, and if it is above a certain amount it must only be reckless. Denial of use constitutes damage but it would have to be intentional or reckless and above a certain amount of damage.

:confused:

I never said otherwise

"Muslim activists had called on Pace University to crack down on hate crimes after the incidents. As a result, the university said it would offer sensitivity training to its students."

Haahahahaa why would someone want to goto that class if they already hate Muslims? They wouldn't. Infact most people hate all "sensitivity" training, no one takes it seriously, its just "feel good" bullshit.

What we need to look out is why the man put the Koran in the shitter.

:confused:

I never said otherwise

No, I quoted you because you'd quoted the law, I was replying to Lac. Sorry for any confusion.

No, I quoted you because you'd quoted the law, I was replying to Lac. Sorry for any confusion.

Sorry, my mistake. It's late and is probably a sign I should go to bed :)

Denial of use constitutes damage but it would have to be intentional or reckless and above a certain amount of damage.

You say that like it was self evident. But I don't think it is. Especially in cases where the 'denial' of use is fleeting or momentary.

So we'll both have to agree to disagree. (Because I cannot be arsed to go look at an annotated statute).

What we need to look out is why the man put the Koran in the shitter.

I'll go out on a limb here and say... "because he's a moron?".

You say that like it was self evident. But I don't think it is. Especially in cases where the 'denial' of use is fleeting or momentary.

So we'll both have to agree to disagree. (Because I cannot be arsed to go look at an annotated statute).

In this case it wasn't fleeting nor was it intended to be fleeting. It's quite reasonable to conclude that he was intending for the issue to be exactly that. An issue. If he'd simply wanted to send the message of damaging the book he could have gone about it another way, but this way ensured the book would be left to found by authorities. And when one book got no response, a second was left just to make sure the message got across.

There is pretty much no world where this can be defended as "speech". It was clear vandalism and it appears that the state of New York agrees.

If I write "******" on my wall, it's free speech.
I don't know if this point has been accepted yet but: no, it isn't. That is hate speech. If you write "******" on a wall in secret and where some one will come across it, and especially if you do it more than once, that is hate speech. If you do it in public in a gathering and do it for a 'purpose', it is free speech

I don't know if this point has been accepted yet but: no, it isn't. That is hate speech. If you write "******" on a wall in secret and where some one will come across it, and especially if you do it more than once, that is hate speech. If you do it in public in a gathering and do it for a 'purpose', it is free speech

Only if the wall belongs to you. Otherwise, it is vandalism, no matter how big a gathering you are a part of.

Meanwhile, I don't see how only super-duper public speech is protected. I can write a book and publish under a pseudonym, but my speech is still protected. I don't have to announce it loudly for it to be protected.

I don't know if this point has been accepted yet but: no, it isn't. That is hate speech. If you write "******" on a wall in secret and where some one will come across it, and especially if you do it more than once, that is hate speech. If you do it in public in a gathering and do it for a 'purpose', it is free speech

It is not illegal for me to write "******" on my own wall even if people will come across it. It's free speech. Freedom of speech isn't only engaged if you have an agenda. I'm permitted to have thoughts and express them as I like provided I'm not harming others. If you put "******" in the category of harming others, then you're going to have to outlaw a LOT of speech. Can't speak out against the KKK. Might harm others. Etc.

I don't know if this point has been accepted yet but: no, it isn't. That is hate speech. If you write "******" on a wall in secret and where some one will come across it, and especially if you do it more than once, that is hate speech. If you do it in public in a gathering and do it for a 'purpose', it is free speech

Um, no. Not even close.

Hate crime laws do not make a crime out of what would have ordinarily been an otherwise legal activity. hate crime laws take ALREADY illegal activity and add another element of illegality if that illegal activity was motivated by hate.

It does not, as I said, turn otherwise legal activity into illegal activity.

If I beat the crap out of someone, that is assault. If my beating the crap out of someone was caused by him being gay, that's a hate crime. It turned my specific intent to commit an act already a crime based on hate into a hate crime.

If I write something on MY wall, this is free speech. It's my property. As my writing on my wall, or publication, or anything else that is mine is free speech, and thus, legal, nothing I say, no matter how offensive, turns it into a hate crime, because my activity at base, was legal.

Hate crimes only work by taking a preexisting crime and adding another criminal element based on intent.

If I say "I do not like you" that is free speech. If I say "I do not like you because you are a ******"...also free speech.

If however I say "I am going to fucking kill you" this is a threat, it's illegal. Thus if I add "I am going to fucking kill you because you're a jew", now it's a hate crime. An activity, ALREADY ILLEGAL, with an added illegal element based on intent.

The underlying act must ALREADY be illegal.

What the fuck did you do to that poll.

And no.

What the fuck did you do to that poll.
The Truth Demon ate it.

The Truth Demon knows bias when he smells it.

Um, no. Not even close.

Hate crime laws do not make a crime out of what would have ordinarily been an otherwise legal activity. hate crime laws take ALREADY illegal activity and add another element of illegality if that illegal activity was motivated by hate.

It does not, as I said, turn otherwise legal activity into illegal activity.

If I beat the crap out of someone, that is assault. If my beating the crap out of someone was caused by him being gay, that's a hate crime. It turned my specific intent to commit an act already a crime based on hate into a hate crime.

If I write something on MY wall, this is free speech. It's my property. As my writing on my wall, or publication, or anything else that is mine is free speech, and thus, legal, nothing I say, no matter how offensive, turns it into a hate crime, because my activity at base, was legal.

Hate crimes only work by taking a preexisting crime and adding another criminal element based on intent.

If I say "I do not like you" that is free speech. If I say "I do not like you because you are a ******"...also free speech.

If however I say "I am going to fucking kill you" this is a threat, it's illegal. Thus if I add "I am going to fucking kill you because you're a jew", now it's a hate crime. An activity, ALREADY ILLEGAL, with an added illegal element based on intent.

The underlying act must ALREADY be illegal.
1) You could at least read what I said.
2) You could at least have quoted the post I actually said "hate crime" in.
3) I'm sure you would love to throw your legal prowess around, but we already know you arn't in Constitutional law.
An exclusion to freedom of speech is that speech which incites violence and people to riot.

An exclusion to freedom of speech is that speech which incites violence and people to riot.

Oh very good. See, you can be taught, despite what people say about you.

Now, riddle me this. How does writing "******" on his own wall incite people to riot? Because, unless you have forgotten, let me show you what you were responding to:

If I write "******" on my wall, it's free speech.

So tell me, how is the mere act of writing "******" on ones own private wall, without any other commentary or discussion, inciting people to riot? Hmmm?

Come on, you showed the most bare glimmer of competance here, you managed to get something right, don't lose it now, stick with it, don't let it slip away

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?

You can burn a flag, piss on Jesus, and do all sorts of other desecration that's protected under the First Amendment here in the US...

What this describes is robbery and vandalism. If you burn a flag that you own it's free speech. If you steal a flag it's robbery. If you piss on your own statue of Jesus it's free speech. If you throw the piss on someone it's assault.

If you buy your own Koran and burn it or flush it, it can be free speech. If you steal it from the library it's robbery. If you paint a sign it's free speech, if you paint your own car it's free speech. If you paint someone else's car it's vandalism.

The difference seems simple to me.

Writing shit on other people's car isn't cool no matter what. And if it's racially motivated, it's a hate crime.

Also, all hail the mods.

How surprising. As soon has realizes that he can no longer plausibly pretend that he hasn't noticed the refutations of his insistence that the person owned the books, RO flees the thread. What a great troll he is.

The difference here is that the person was doing it (befouling the Koran) in a public place to deliberately incite and denigrate a specific population.

Doesn't matter.

I can do inflammatory, denigrating things in public, and it's still free speech.


Your analogy fails simply because your actions are done in private and are not intended to deliberately offend.

Actually, my analogy fails because in this case the person in question did not own either the book OR the toilet, so he was vandalizing public property. In other words, he was doing something that is already criminal. The fact that it is also insulting to certain people is secondary.

If you like, how about I modify my example? I can host a public beach bonfire (provided I get the required permit) at which we burn Bibles. As long as all the Bibles are owned by those who burn them, and as long as I got the permit to have a bonfire, it's all perfectly legal. And I firmly believe it SHOULD be.


Sitting in your bedroom saying, "Fucking Junglebunny!" is fine (albeit weird) but standing on the street outside a Black person's home yelling it isn't.

I think it is "fine," in that it is legal and it should be legal. I think it's an assholish thing to do, and I wouldn't choose to do it, but I also think it should be 100% legal. And, to the best of my knowledge, it is. Unless maybe you get charged with 'disturbing the peace' or something...not entirely sure how that one works.


Slightly difference in geographical location, but huge difference in intent and effect on others.
Doesn't matter what the 'effect' is on others. The fact that I am a female who works outside the home is profoundly insulting and offensive to some people in my country. Seeing me in public with my ankles bared is profane and revolting to some people. And believe me, both of those realities make me extremely happy, and if I ever encounter a person who informs me of how my behavior hurts their feelings I will be more than happy to follow them around all day flashing my ankles and talking about how often I vote.

I intentionally and willfully make other people sad. And guess what? It's legal. And it should be. There is no Constitutional right to not have your feelings hurt.

So tell me, how is the mere act of writing "******" on ones own private wall, without any other commentary or discussion, inciting people to riot? Hmmm?
It can be done for that explicit purpose. I'm pretty sure you can't set a cross ablaze in your own front yard.
I live in a black neighborhood. I decide to write "******" on the front of my garage, or on my driveway with chalk. I know full well it is going to incite a lot of hatred and very likely violence.

It can be done for that explicit purpose. I'm pretty sure you can't set a cross ablaze in your own front yard.
I live in a black neighborhood. I decide to write "******" on the front of my garage, or on my driveway with chalk. I know full well it is going to incite a lot of hatred and very likely violence.
That sounds a lot like the argument that a woman shouldn't be walking around in a short skirt because she should know it will "incite" lust and will get her raped.

You aren't allowed to riot and be randomly violent because something made you mad. Adult humans in our society are expected to act like freaking grown ups. If seeing a mean sign or a nasty word literally causes you to lose all control over your actions, then you are a danger to yourself and others and should be institutionalized. Alternatively, if you choose to use a mean sign or nasty word to try to excuse your poor judgment and violent behavior, then you're a liar and a menace and should be imprisoned.

It can be done for that explicit purpose. I'm pretty sure you can't set a cross ablaze in your own front yard.
I live in a black neighborhood. I decide to write "******" on the front of my garage, or on my driveway with chalk. I know full well it is going to incite a lot of hatred and very likely violence.

There are laws about what you can and cannot do, but it's likely that if you could burn leaves you could also shape them into a cross and burn them. Your freedom of speech is not restricted in the way you're claiming.

But, hey, I'm willing to be shown wrong. Please show me where it says that you can write whatever you like on your garage provided it's not insulting. Show me that law. I'd really be interesting.

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?

You can burn a flag, piss on Jesus, and do all sorts of other desecration that's protected under the First Amendment here in the US...

Wow, what a stretch just to try and make some bullshit point about political correctness. It was god damn vandalism.

That sounds a lot like the argument that a woman shouldn't be walking around in a short skirt because she should know it will "incite" lust and will get her raped.
Too bad the fact that incitations to violence as an exception to freedom of speech and expression is a matter of jurisprudence negates your straw man.

But, hey, I'm willing to be shown wrong. Please show me where it says that you can write whatever you like on your garage provided it's not insulting. Show me that law. I'd really be interesting.
Did you mean "can't"? Otherwise you arn't making sense.

Too bad the fact that incitations to violence as an exception to freedom of speech and expression is a matter of jurisprudence negates your straw man.

I don't think you quite understand what a "straw man" argument is. I was openly drawing a comparison, not constructing a straw man.

In addition, I don't think there are laws that do what you think they do. For instance, I'm not allowed to incite violence, but that's quite different from saying I'm not allowed to do anything that might conceivably provoke somebody to anger that would lead them to be violent.

I'm allowed to be insulting and inflamatory in public. I'm allowed to say offensive things. Indeed, that's the whole point of freedom of speech: you can't legally silence me simply because I offend you or insult you or anger you.

Did you mean "can't"? Otherwise you arn't making sense.
No, his sentence works.

A rephrase attempt:

"Are you (TPH) saying that I can only write what I want on my garage as long as it's not insulting to anybody?"

No, his sentence works.
I glazed over the second half of the sentence.

And I have already been addressed it.

I glazed over the second half of the sentence.

And I have already been addressed it.

No, you haven't. Offensive speech does not count as inciting violence. Otherwise the KKK could not have rallies and Anne Coultor would have to pretty much never talk.

If what you're saying were true there would laws all over the place disallowing insults. There aren't. But hey, AGAIN, PROVE me wrong and provide a law, any law, that states that I AM allowed to write what I like provided it's not insulting. I'll wait.

I glazed over the second half of the sentence.

Wait, so you actually had the nerve to claim he wasn't making sense, when you now admit you didn't even bother to read what he wrote?

How do you not fall down more?


And I have already been addressed it.
Where? Could you point to the post where you addressed it?

Where? Could you point to the post where you addressed it?
Exceptions to the First Amendment. They exist.

Groups like the KKK can sit around and be inflammatory on an exception to the exception. But individuals going around shooting off racial epithets knowing it will inflame people are not covered by the First Amendment. There are a number of court cases on the subject.

It's sad to see how school kids like that think their being radical by putting a Koran in the toilet, instead their just doing exactly what those who wish to benefit from post-9/11 hysteria around Islam and promote hate would wish. The more radical thing to do would be to challenge that kind of hateful mindset, rather than being the wet-dream of any demagogue.

Exceptions to the First Amendment. They exist.

Groups like the KKK can sit around and be inflammatory on an exception to the exception. But individuals going around shooting off racial epithets knowing it will inflame people are not covered by the First Amendment. There are a number of court cases on the subject.
"Exception to the exception"?

Could you please elaborate? Can you give specific cases in which an individual was legally prohibited SPECIFICALLY from saying racial epithets in public?

It's sad to see how school kids like that think their being radical by putting a Koran in the toilet, instead their just doing exactly what those who wish to benefit from post-9/11 hysteria around Islam and promote hate would wish. The more radical thing to do would be to challenge that kind of hateful mindset, rather than being the wet-dream of any demagogue.

I guess it's kind of on par with the Danish cartoons. They are challenging hateful mindsets by uncovering a disproportionately violent response to slights and expressions of disapproval.

Of course, it's one thing to say "Hey, certain 'Islamists' are seriously intolerant of opposition and contrary expression, and we should discourage such intolerance" and a an entirely different thing to conclude that all Muslims are inherently violent or intolerant.

Exceptions to the First Amendment. They exist.

Groups like the KKK can sit around and be inflammatory on an exception to the exception. But individuals going around shooting off racial epithets knowing it will inflame people are not covered by the First Amendment. There are a number of court cases on the subject.

As has been asked, please present these court cases. I assure you they don't mean what you think they mean, but I can't prove unless you cite your sources.

It sounds to me like you're stretching logic beyond recognition when you start saying there are exceptions to the exception, but that's me and my silly need for things to actually make sense.

"Exception to the exception"?

Could you please elaborate? Can you give specific cases in which an individual was legally prohibited SPECIFICALLY from saying racial epithets in public?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
Explains the KKK thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
Explains the KKK thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black

Read the text of that decision. As I said, it doesn't say what you think it says. The preacher was directing at people and picking a fight with them. The law that was being challenged was specific in that you must be using those words in such a manner.

From the case - Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.

It's talking about agressive language as shown in the actually offense. The person being charged called him things like a racketeer and a fascist, words that clearly aren't outlawed. It was his usage, his presentation, that created the problem.

Are you really going to suggest that they made the use of the words "racketeer" and "fascist" illegal? Seriously?

Now the second case is proof that the first case doesn't say what you think it says. The second case is talking about the fact that you cannot take certain expressions and outlaw them as having a prima fascie intent. It turns your entire argument on its head.

In other words, they state clearly in the case that the state must prove in the execution of any prohibition that an intent to intimidate or to harm existed in order to prosecute. The suggestion that such an intent is inherent does not apply. It's not an "exception to the exception", it's a clarification that shows you're wrong.

The prima facie evidence provision blurs the line between these meanings, ignoring all of the contextual factors that are necessary to decide whether a particular cross burning is intended to intimidate. The First Amendment does not permit such a shortcut.

I love that you posted a case that totally and utterly proves you wrong.

Seriously folks, you can't make this shit up.

TPH, in an attempt to argue that mere words, devoid of context, can be considered an incite to violence cites a case that states clearly that mere words, devoid of context can not be considered an incite to violence.

It doesn't get much better than that.

That's the whole point of the decision. Merely burning a cross is not enough. Merely saying ****** is not enough. There must be demonstrable proof that the utterance of this word or taking of this action was meant ot incite hate and violence.

The mere fact that some people might become angered and violent upon seeing the word ******, or witnessing a burning cross, or watching someone torch a flag isn't enough. There must be a demonstrable intent.

What kills me is watching TPH bend through intellectual pretzles trying to come up with the most bizarre situation of the KKK is an exception to an exception and it matters whether you do it in secret or not and nobody sees it.

It's nonsense, pure nonsense, especially when the truth is so simple. Yes, incites to violence are an exception to free speech. But the mere utterance of words that can have the tendancy to incite violence is not per se evidence of an attempt to incite violence. There MUST be more. There mere fact that someone might be driven to violence is not enough, it must be demonstrated that it was your PURPOSE to incite violence.

Really, this is an amazingly simple concept, I am amazed that it has so fully eluded TPH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
Explains the KKK thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black
Heh. Heh heh heh.

Yeah. So. Joc and NA have done my work for me. Instead of pointing out the detailed manner in which that case proves you wrong, I will simply content myself with a slightly-nervous chuckle as I back slowly away from a person who's attachment to reality appears so flimsy that it's a bit frightening...

Seriously folks, you can't make this shit up.

TPH, in an attempt to argue that mere words, devoid of context, can be considered an incite to violence cites a case that states clearly that mere words, devoid of context can not be considered an incite to violence.

It doesn't get much better than that.

That's the whole point of the decision. Merely burning a cross is not enough. Merely saying ****** is not enough. There must be demonstrable proof that the utterance of this word or taking of this action was meant ot incite hate and violence.

The mere fact that some people might become angered and violent upon seeing the word ******, or witnessing a burning cross, or watching someone torch a flag isn't enough. There must be a demonstrable intent.

What kills me is watching TPH bend through intellectual pretzles trying to come up with the most bizarre situation of the KKK is an exception to an exception and it matters whether you do it in secret or not and nobody sees it.

It's nonsense, pure nonsense, especially when the truth is so simple. Yes, incites to violence are an exception to free speech. But the mere utterance of words that can have the tendancy to incite violence is not per se evidence of an attempt to incite violence. There MUST be more. There mere fact that someone might be driven to violence is not enough, it must be demonstrated that it was your PURPOSE to incite violence.

Really, this is an amazingly simple concept, I am amazed that it has so fully eluded TPH.

You know what's funny. I hadn't seen that second case before. So I was reading it thinking they supported the law or TPH would not have cited it. So as I'm reading what this law says, I'm thinking in my head "Oh, my Lord, they cannot have supported this law. That would be ludicrous." And then I get to the part where they make it exceedingly clear they don't support the law and that such laws are automatically unconstutionly as they presume guilt and violate the freedom of expression, and I just started to giggle.

I did eventually stop giggling, but it took quite a while.

Heh. Heh heh heh.

Yeah. So. Joc and NA have done my work for me. Instead of pointing out the detailed manner in which that case proves you wrong, I will simply content myself with a slightly-nervous chuckle as I back slowly away from a person who's attachment to reality appears so flimsy that it's a bit frightening...

Now, the thing is Chaplinsky does kind of uphold what he's talking about, in that it states that certain words, having no social value in their utterance, can be considered "fighting words" through their mere statement.

Unfortunatly for him Chaplinsky is 45 years old, and really isn't that good law anymore, to whit:

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969), the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". Similarly, in Cohen v. California (1971), the fact that Cohen had been arrested for wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets."

So yes, Chaplinsky did say what he was arguing.

Chaplinsky is also no longer good doctrine, and in fact Street v. New York specifically said that mere offensiveness isn't enough.

Now, the thing is Chaplinsky does kind of uphold what he's talking about, in that it states that certain words, having no social value in their utterance, can be considered "fighting words" through their mere statement.

Unfortunatly for him Chaplinsky is 45 years old, and really isn't that good law anymore, to whit:



So yes, Chaplinsky did say what he was arguing.

Chaplinsky is also no longer good doctrine, and in fact Street v. New York specifically said that mere offensiveness isn't enough.

I probably should have looked at the dates. I took the two together.

However, I don't think that decision really is stating that there is never a case where I can use the word "racketeer" publicly even though it seems to out of context.

You know what's funny. I hadn't seen that second case before. So I was reading it thinking they supported the law or TPH would not have cited it. So as I'm reading what this law says, I'm thinking in my head "Oh, my Lord, they cannot have supported this law. That would be ludicrous." And then I get to the part where they make it exceedingly clear they don't support the law and that such laws are automatically unconstutionly as they presume guilt and violate the freedom of expression, and I just started to giggle.

I did eventually stop giggling, but it took quite a while.

What makes this even funnier is that this is not the first time that he quotes a case that, in fact, runs directly counter to what he was arguing

I probably should have looked at the dates. I took the two together.

However, I don't think that decision really is stating that there is never a case where I can use the word "racketeer" publicly even though it seems to out of context.

well it did say:

and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Which would fit in the general idea that certain words are by themselves unprotected.

Of course later cases pretty much did away with that idea.

well it did say:



Which would fit in the general idea that certain words are by themselves unprotected.

Of course later cases pretty much did away with that idea.

It does say that but in the rest of the decision they are defending this particular situation by the fact that he was being personally insulting and they even mention that requirement, the same requirement you later mentioned.

It strikes me as a poorly worded decision, but considering the specific words they found to be fight words in this case were "racketeer" and "fascist", I'm not entirely certain that one could claim that these were ever explicitely outlawed as automatic "fighting" words.

They did say that some words classify that way, as support for allowing the law and the prosecution for this man, but it doesn't seem they actually believe it was the case that these are without any merit ever. It strikes as patently obvious that such a thing would never last as caselaw and, frankly, I can't even see how, in context, it could be considered intentional.

It does say that but in the rest of the decision they are defending this particular situation by the fact that he was being personally insulting and they even mention that requirement, the same requirement you later mentioned.

It strikes me as a poorly worded decision, but considering the specific words they found to be fight words in this case were "racketeer" and "fascist", I'm not entirely certain that one could claim that these were ever explicitely outlawed as automatic "fighting" words.

They did say that some words classify that way, as support for allowing the law and the prosecution for this man, but it doesn't seem they actually believe it was the case that these are without any merit ever. It strikes as patently obvious that such a thing would never last as caselaw and, frankly, I can't even see how, in context, it could be considered intentional.

True, I'm not saying that there is particular value to that piece of dicta, and probably wasn't intended to be taken literaly as true.

However, even if it were later cases pretty much said the opposite, which strikes any later TPH argument of "OMG read the case!!!11oneoneoneone!!1!!

Seriously folks, you can't make this shit up.

Did you need to borrow an extra soap box to get way up there?

Merely saying ****** is not enough. There must be demonstrable proof that the utterance of this word or taking of this action was meant ot incite hate and violence.

The mere fact that some people might become angered and violent upon seeing the word ******, or witnessing a burning cross, or watching someone torch a flag isn't enough. There must be a demonstrable intent.
Since you bothered to equally argue the ambiguity of things in the Social Security thread, I'm sure you can realize, "demonstrable proof" can be stretched. If the cross is burnt because the person doing so knows it would inflame the community it was burnt in, would that not be an intention to incite people to riot.

What kills me is watching TPH bend through intellectual pretzles trying to come up with the most bizarre situation of the KKK is an exception to an exception and it matters whether you do it in secret or not and nobody sees it.
Since you give off the impression you read the links, you can note that that was my description of what it said about the KKK.

But the mere utterance of words that can have the tendancy to incite violence is not per se evidence of an attempt to incite violence. There MUST be more. There mere fact that someone might be driven to violence is not enough, it must be demonstrated that it was your PURPOSE to incite violence.

Really, this is an amazingly simple concept, I am amazed that it has so fully eluded TPH.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

You and Bottle like to accuse me of making arguments against you on things you supposedly did not support, yet you sit there and assume I make the argument that there doesn't have to be intent for it to qualify as incitation to violence and therefore not free speech. And then get on your pyramid of soap boxes and denounce me indirectly for it. You can climb down off your high horse for I believe the thin air is affecting your judgment.

Since you give off the impression you read the links, you can note that that was my description of what it said about the KKK.

And my description of an elephant is a small pink mosquito.

It's a wrong description, so was that.


yet you sit there and assume I make the argument that there doesn't have to be intent for it to qualify as incitation to violence and therefore not free speech.[?QUOTE]

hrm...

[QUOTE=Jocabia]
If I write "******" on my wall, it's free speech.

I don't know if this point has been accepted yet but: no, it isn't. That is hate speech. If you write "******" on a wall in secret and where some one will come across it, and especially if you do it more than once, that is hate speech.

Gee, no mention of "intent" there, just you arguing that merely writing ****** is hate speech. Nothing about intent

3) I'm sure you would love to throw your legal prowess around, but we already know you arn't in Constitutional law.
An exclusion to freedom of speech is that speech which incites violence and people to riot.

Only speech that incites violence, nothing about intent there

It can be done for that explicit purpose. I'm pretty sure you can't set a cross ablaze in your own front yard.


Nope, nothing about intent there, just a general per se "nope, can't"

I live in a black neighborhood. I decide to write "******" on the front of my garage, or on my driveway with chalk. I know full well it is going to incite a lot of hatred and very likely violence.


Hey, do I see the word intent here? No? Shocking?


Too bad the fact that incitations to violence as an exception to freedom of speech and expression is a matter of jurisprudence negates your straw man.

No discussion of intent here? Well fuck.

You know it's amazing. You're trying to argue that we "assumed" that you weren't trying to say that there's hate speech without intent. But you know what's funny? You never actually once SAID "intent".

And then get on your pyramid of soap boxes and denounce me indirectly for it.

I'm not denouncing your indrectly for it. I'm denouncing you quite directly for it. You said patently, factually false things. Directly, specifically wrong things. Then when it gets pointed out to you by people far more knowledgeable than yourself, rather than simply admit your error like a decent human being and be done with it, you try to weasle out of it.

You said it's not protected to write ******, or burn a cross, you said NOTHING about intent. I don't have to "assume" that you were arguing there need not be intent. You said that merely writing ****** is hate speech. You said you CAN'T burn a cross on your own property.

No discussion of intent. No discussion of purpose. You stated general rules and now, that you got your ass totally handed to you, try to weasle out of it by trying to argue of course you were only refering to when there was an INTENT to cause violence, not merely the chance to do so, despite your complete and total failure to actually at any point use the word "intent".

You fail.

If the cross is burnt because the person doing so knows it would inflame the community it was burnt in, would that not be an intention to incite people to riot.

Oh, look at those goalposts move. You said that some things are automatically illegal to say in public. The case you cited explicitly says the opposite.


You and Bottle like to accuse me of making arguments against you on things you supposedly did not support, yet you sit there and assume I make the argument that there doesn't have to be intent for it to qualify as incitation to violence and therefore not free speech. And then get on your pyramid of soap boxes and denounce me indirectly for it. You can climb down off your high horse for I believe the thin air is affecting your judgment.

Assumption? Seriously, you said plainly that intent doesn't matter, that you cannot write certain words simply because of their meaning.

Need evidence. Let's provide some.

-- Nevermind I went to quote it and saw NA had already done so. No assumption is necessary when you're clearly arguing that it's always illegal unless the purpose is political like the KKK, which is why you brought up that exception to the exception in the first place.

*snip to avoid doubling the painful levels of ownage already present*
Heh indeedy.

Heh indeedy.

The nuts part was that the reason TPH's claims were ever contested was because he was making a blanket exclusion with the understanding that intent was necessary. If he'd not argued that exact point, we'd not even be talking about this.

1) I'm pretty sure incite is an active verb.
2) I wasn't sure about the cross burning and I was wrong. However, I made no definite statement about it.
3) If you do something, without other purpose, knowing that the act will incite violence, is not your intent in carrying it out to incite violence?

You said you CAN'T burn a cross on your own property.
I said I'm pretty sure you can't. I made no definitive statement because I wasn't sure.

Heh indeedy.
"Heh heh, me too"
The first time you did that, it made some sense. Your continuation of it just makes you look immature and foolish.

So, is this protected speech under the First Amendment?

You can burn a flag, piss on Jesus, and do all sorts of other desecration that's protected under the First Amendment here in the US...

Expression, particularly hateful, being different than speech, should not be protected by the First Amendment, and subject instead to state laws on the matter.

1) I'm pretty sure incite is an active verb.
2) I wasn't sure about the cross burning and I was wrong. However, I made no definite statement about it.
3) If you do something, without other purpose, knowing that the act will incite violence, is not your intent in carrying it out to incite violence?

1) It is an active verb, which is precisely why claiming that if you don't have another intent then you're inciting violence. It makes it something you do passively, which by your own claim doesn't make sense. I'm glad you see the flaw.
3) Nope. That's the point. It is your job to prove intent. Not my job to prove I didn't intend it. That means I don't have to give you a reason why I'm innocent.

The case you cited explicitly says that they created a law under that very idea, that unless you can show otherwise, you've done something that by definition is intent to incite. The reason it was unconstitutional is because it flips it on its head and requires you to defend yourself rather than them to prove you guilty. You really should read what you cite BEFORE you cite it.

I said I'm pretty sure you can't. I made no definitive statement because I wasn't sure.


"Heh heh, me too"
The first time you did that, it made some sense. Your continuation of it just makes you look immature and foolish.

It made some sense everytime. She keeps coming late to the party, and at that point there is nothing left to say except, these guys said it for me. Would it make you feel better for her to respond fully and point out the exact same reasons we did as to why you're devestatingly wrong.

1) I'm pretty sure incite is an active verb.

Absolutly, and a word can incite violence. ****** can cause people to become violent, that is inciting violence.

It doesn't mean my INTENT in uttering it was to do so.

3) If you do something, without other purpose, knowing that the act will incite violence, is not your intent in carrying it out to incite violence?

What do you mean I'm a child molester? How fucking dare you?

See now, when you invent things other people said in order to win your argument, it doesn't make you clever or smart or win the argument.

It just makes you look stupid. Who said anything about any other purpose? Who said that Jocobia wasn't writing ****** on his wall because he felt like it? And which is what the court said. No purpose can be infered merely by saying something.

That's the whole point of the SCOTUS case YOU cited. The purpose of making a statement can not be infered merely through the making of the statement. Nobody ever said anything about knowing it would incite violence and without any other purpose.

All Jocobia said was "if I write ****** on my wall it's protected", you are the one who is now trying to infer that this is done with knowledge, and without any other intent. You know, the very thing your own citation says you can't do.

The first time you did that, it made some sense. Your continuation of it just makes you look immature and foolish.

Ahh sweet irony.

Expression, particularly hateful, being different than speech, should not be protected by the First Amendment, and subject instead to state laws on the matter.
How do you think we get these cases in the first place? Overly broad state laws that try to prevent specific methods of discouragable expression.

As for flag burning, I can only assume he is referring to Texas v. Johnson where the flag was burned in a manner of protest and is thus covered. Acts taken in legitimate protest should not be banned by overzealous states or federal government.

Expression, particularly hateful, being different than speech, should not be protected by the First Amendment, and subject instead to state laws on the matter.

Expression is the very purpose of the first amendment. It's an important means of protest. The founders were big fans of such things, as it was basically how they managed to create the support needed for the war for independence.

How do you think we get these cases in the first place? Overly broad state laws that try to prevent specific methods of discouragable expression.

As for flag burning, I can only assume he is referring to Texas v. Johnson where the flag was burned in a manner of protest and is thus covered. Acts taken in legitimate protest should not be banned by overzealous states or federal government.

Protest is not a requirement for freedom of expression. I swear to goodness, it's like you're not reading what anybody writes, even you. You just keep arguing in the same circle no matter how many times it's shown to be wrong.

What do you mean I'm a child molester? How fucking dare you?

See now, when you invent things other people said in order to win your argument, it doesn't make you clever or smart or win the argument.
What?

All Jocobia said was "if I write ****** on my wall it's protected", you are the one who is now trying to infer that this is done with knowledge, and without any other intent. You know, the very thing your own citation says you can't do.

You self-righteous gibbering aside, which case are you referencing.

What?


You self-righteous gibbering aside, which case are you referencing.

Seriously, did you not read the case. The case he's talking about is OBVIOUS.

The second case you cited said you cannot assume intent when talking about expression and speech in order to use the incite violence exception. It's not an exception to the exception. It simply clarifies that in order to accuse someone of inciting violence in order to limit their speech you must *gasp* prove they were actually intending to do so. It cannot be assumed of acts automatically.

That's why the second case completely destroyed your point. It means unless there is other evidence in my actions or words, that I can write "******" on my garage and it is protected speech. The exact opposite of what you claimed.

What?[QUOTE]

Exactly. See, when you make shit up, it doesn't make much sense does it?

[QUOTE]You self-righteous gibbering aside, which case are you referencing.

You don't even know the content of your own citations?

Pathetic.

Exactly. See, when you make shit up, it doesn't make much sense does it?

I didn't make anything up, I was proposing an argument. One you obviously answered with gibberish.


You don't even know the content of your own citations?

I havn't committed them to memory, no. And apparently not in the way you are using it. So why don't you provide which you are using.

It's not an exception to the exception.
And since I bothered reading your "me too."

Such a provision, they argue, blurs the distinction between proscribable "threats of intimidation" and the Ku Klux Klan's protected "messages of shared ideology."
Exception to the exception.

I didn't make anything up, I was proposing an argument. One you obviously answered with gibberish.



I havn't committed them to memory, no. And apparently not in the way you are using it. So why don't you provide which you are using.


And since I bothered reading your "me too."


Exception to the exception.

Let's try a game. In this game, you read the actual case, not the wiki summary that is relatively inaccurate. I already quoted the relevant parts of the case to you, as did NA. The case explicitely states the opposite of what you think it says. To continue to claim the opposite is really making you look silly.

From the ACTUAL case and not the summary -
The prima facie evidence provision blurs the line between these meanings, ignoring all of the contextual factors that are necessary to decide whether a particular cross burning is intended to intimidate. The First Amendment does not permit such a shortcut.

In case you don't understand what that says is that assuming that something is an effort to incite without proving intent is a disallowed shortcut under the First amendment. In other words, you must prove intent is there. You can't simply say, well, unless they show me otherwise, they're guilty.

Exception to the exception.

While I firmly believe you're borderline illiterate at this point, allow me to point out that I hope you realize that "the provision" they are discussing in your post is the provision of the law that the supreme court struck down, right?

This wasn't their RULING, this was the court discussing why the struck DOWN the provision.

Seriously man, what the fuck? You're using a discussion of the effects of a provision DEEMED INVALID. The whole reading of that wasn't that the KKK gets special treatment to spread their particular message. It means, the KKK, AS AMERICANS, gets protection. Their

If you knew ANYTHING about the constitution you'd realize how fucking stupid that sounded. Your argument is that the KKK gets certain acceptions, which is to say that things they do, otherwise illegal, is legal because they're the ones doing it, and that the KKK can say things I can't.

That's a HUUUUUUGE fucking violation of the equal protection clause. The KKK doesn't get some special protection, some bizarre exception to the exception. The KKK has the power to constitutionally perform protected speech...the same as anyone else.

My god, go back to highschool and learn to read.

Massively unconstitutional.

My god, go back to highschool and learn to read.

Careful or your massive self-righteousness might cause you to explode.


This wasn't their RULING, this was the court discussing why the struck DOWN the provision.
THAT WAS THE FUCKING POINT. You want a medal, Cpt. Obvious?

It means, the KKK, AS AMERICANS, gets protection.
No fucking shit.
I was using it as an example because it was referenced.

Groups like the KKK
The court referenced the KKK's burning of the cross for other means than just intimidation, specifically as a "shared message of shared ideology," and an instance of that was therefore improperly criminalized by the overly broad part of the Virginia statute - that part which they struck down.
1) A singular person cannot have a shared message of ideology.
2) I still don't see you addressing the argument I put forward, but instead getting more and more absurd. Maybe you should put on face paint and ride around on a unicycle.

Careful or your massive self-righteousness might cause you to explode.


THAT WAS THE FUCKING POINT. You want a medal, Cpt. Obvious?


No fucking shit.
I was using it as an example because it was referenced.


The court referenced the KKK's burning of the cross for other means than just intimidation, specifically as a "shared message of shared ideology," and an instance of that was therefore improperly criminalized by the overly broad part of the Virginia statute - that part which they struck down.
1) A singular person cannot have a shared message of ideology.
2) I still don't see you addressing the argument I put forward, but instead getting more and more absurd. Maybe you should put on face paint and ride around on a unicycle.

Dude, you're missing the point. By miles.

They gave an example, but they pointed out that it's specifically unconstitutional to assume guilt. You're doing that. How can you possibly not recognize this? I don't agree with the general comments of NA, but in this case I can't think of a rational way you can read this case and keep saying this woefully opposite to the case.

I'll ask you plainly - do you understand what prima fascie means?

It can be done for that explicit purpose. I'm pretty sure you can't set a cross ablaze in your own front yard.

It really depends on where you are. Most places, that is considered a fire hazard, and would thus be illegal.

1) A singular person cannot have a shared message of ideology.

Bullshit he can't. I can put forth a particular statement or act construed as speech so that anyone who follows my particular ideology may recognize it as such, even if nobody else on the planet shares that viewpoint.

2) I still don't see you addressing the argument I put forward, but instead getting more and more absurd.

That's because you haven't MADE a single, cohesive, and logical argument. First you try to argue that certain words are banned as hate speech merely by their utterance. They aren't.

Then you try to argue that specific groups function as an "exception" to the rule you erroniously tried to argue existed. They don't, first because there is no exception to the rule as you defined it, because your definition is wrong. Secondly because such exception would be massively unconstitutional.

Then you try to argue that you never actually meant that an act can be unconstitutional, minus intent, despite the fact that you in fact stated the exact opposite, and never actually said anything about intent.

Then you try to argue that certain words can create the inference of "fighting words", in spite of the very case you cited saying otherwise.

Then you tried to argue that absent a showing of any specific intent to do something other than incite violence, then that is the de facto intent, again, in spite of the very case law you cited.

You haven't put forth one single cohesive argument. Your utter failure to grasp even the simplist constitutional provisions is staggering. You have failed, completely and totally, to say something even remotely approaching a reasonable statement. You have failed to make a single logicl argument and defend it, instead trying to bend and twist to justify your position by creating nonsensical "exceptions to exceptions to the rule" rather than just simply admit that the rule you are trying to insist exists simply does not. You have argued that merely writing a racial epitaph is hate speech, regardless of specific supreme court cases saying it is not. You have tried to change your argument so many times I have to believe that you don't even know what you're arguing anymore, and instead just can't stand the though of saying "I was wrong".

In short, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and it has become painfully obvious to everyone who has tried to read this thread.

In the end, I am forced to resort to those more articulate than I in order to demonstrate the full depth of your failure here. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

There either a bug on this forum or someone hacked the poll. The results are ridiculous.

There either a bug on this forum or someone hacked the poll. The results are ridiculous.

meh, it's entirely possible that every single person on earth voted on the poll..

about 2 hundred million times.

There either a bug on this forum or someone hacked the poll. The results are ridiculous.

Yes, even if it's inane to do it - 19, 0.00%
No, Muslims deserve special protection above others - 4, 0.00%
More bacon for me... - 14, 0.00%
This poll is ridiculously biased - 1000000000000000024, 100.00%

lulz

Then you tried to argue that absent a showing of any specific intent to do something other than incite violence, then that is the de facto intent, again, in spite of the very case law you cited.

That is not addressed in Virginia v. Black as it would be a separate matter. In that case, there was specific purpose, ie "messages of shared ideology," behind the cross burning. There is a difference between the de facto intent I implied and the sweeping ban of all cross burnings regardless of reason which was struck down.

I'm sure there is a case addressing my point, but I can't think of it and Virginia v. Black doesn't. If there is knowledge the action would incite violence and the action has no specific purpose, where does it say that action does not qualify as intent to incite violence.

Bullshit he can't. I can put forth a particular statement or act construed as speech so that anyone who follows my particular ideology may recognize it as such, even if nobody else on the planet shares that viewpoint.
I would be amused to know how you can share a message of ideology with yourself.

That is not addressed in Virginia v. Black as it would be a separate matter. In that case, there was specific purpose, ie "messages of shared ideology," behind the cross burning. There is a difference between the de facto intent I implied and the sweeping ban of all cross burnings regardless of reason which was struck down.

I'm sure there is a case addressing my point, but I can't think of it and Virginia v. Black doesn't. If there is knowledge the action would incite violence and the action has no specific purpose, where does it say that action does not qualify as intent to incite violence.

It says you must prove intent. You are talking about the assumption of intent absent evidence of a lack of it. Those are completely opposite statements. That you don't manage to accept this rather obvious point is your failure.

This also ignores the fact that Virginia v. Black dealt with a symbol as opposed to words, which I believe was brought up in the case.

This also ignores the fact that Virginia v. Black dealt with a symbol as opposed to words, which I believe was brought up in the case.

Why do you make guesses to negate what you've read? Symbols are not more protected or less protected than words. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are tied together. If you're claiming that this being a cross somehow makes "******" different then provide proof. Don't guess and make crap up.

Why do you make guesses to negate what you've read? Symbols are not more protected or less protected than words.
As a symbol, it is harder to qualify under the exceptions to the First Amendment's freedom of speech.

Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are tied together. If you're claiming that this being a cross somehow makes "******" different then provide proof. Don't guess and make crap up.
But freedom of expression and freedom of speech arn't the same thing still.
As a symbol it isn't easily as qualified as a word. "******" can fall directly under bans on fighting words because it is a directed epithet that can incite immediate violence.

As a symbol, it is harder to qualify under the exceptions to the First Amendment's freedom of speech.

I claim you made this up. Proof? Since the last time you didn't get it, proof requires more than "I think it's this way".


But freedom of expression and freedom of speech arn't the same thing still.
As a symbol it isn't easily as qualified as a word. "******" can fall directly under bans on fighting words because it is a directed epithet that can incite immediate violence.

Dude, seriously, if you are just going to ignore facts, then you seriously should just stop talking. The fact is that you have NOT read that case. You don't have to admit it, because no reasonable person could read that case and make these statements.

The case says that NOTHING can be prima fascie considered to not be protected. Doing so assumes guilt and assumes intent which they say explicitly that you cannot do.

Do you know what prima fascie means? It means at first glance. It means you can't just say something has the intent to incite violence without some other evidence, some additional showing of intent. The first amendment requires this according to the case YOU cited. They did not limit it to symbols.

Let's restate your argument -
TPH - I'm declaring this refers to symbols only.
Us - Um, no. That is not anything found in the case or anywhere else. Provide proof.
TPH - I'm declaring this refers to symbols only.
continue ad nauseum

The worse problem is that you've changed your argument after it being proved wrong over and over and over, but your conclusion has never changed. Don't you think it's rather convenient that no matter how much your understanding of a particular case or the evidence changes, the conclusion never does? Could it be that no matter what the evidence says you're still going to claim it supports your conclusion no matter how stupid doing that is?

You don't have to answer those last questions. Everyone already knows.

The case says that NOTHING can be prima fascie considered to not be protected.
The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that in light of R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, even if it is constitutional to ban cross burning in a content-neutral manner
They can't prima facie assert that the act of burning a cross is, by itself, intent to intimidate.

Do you know what prima fascie means? It means at first glance. It means you can't just say something has the intent to incite violence without some other evidence, some additional showing of intent. The first amendment requires this according to the case YOU cited. They did not limit it to symbols.
Thus, for example, a State may punish those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572; see also R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 383 (listing limited areas where the First Amendment permits restrictions on the content of speech). We have consequently held that fighting words--
"those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction"--are generally proscribable under the First Amendment. Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 20 (1971); see also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572.

Let's restate your argument -
TPH - I'm declaring this refers to symbols only.
Us - Um, no. That is not anything found in the case or anywhere else. Provide proof.
TPH - I'm declaring this refers to symbols only.
continue ad nauseum
The problem is in classifying the symbol itself, regardless of purpose, as intent to intimidate. Words themselves can be defined directly as "fighting words" as per the definition there derived from Cohen v California and Chaplinsky.


All quotes from Virginia v. Black main opinion.


I think you should leave making me look like a fool to people better suited.

Thus, for example, a State may punish those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572; see also R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 383 (listing limited areas where the First Amendment permits restrictions on the content of speech). We have consequently held that fighting words--
"those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction"--are generally proscribable under the First Amendment. Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 20 (1971); see also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572.
All quotes from Virginia v. Black main opinion.

Very good, this is actually a respectable argument.

Unfortunatly for you, it still doesn't apply to the relevant discussion, which began with the discussion of placing "******" on ones wall, to whit:

Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Hock, 556 Pa. 409 (1998), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a "single profane remark" did not constitute fighting words. In Hock, the defendant's breach of the peace conviction was overturned after the court ruled that a jury could not reasonably determine that her single remark "risked an immediate breach of the peace."

Additionally, Street v. New York:

It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.

You are right, in a general sense, that the court has said that if a word exists such that the mere utterance will trigger violence, it is not protected. Now please, find me a case in the last...oh lets say...60 years, where the fighting words doctrine has been used and upheld.

Hint. There aren't any.

None.

Chaplinsky created the general doctrine, but it has NEVER been applied. No expression, no act, no words have ever been held to meet that standard. It has been articulated, but never utilized. In short, while SCOTUS has said that if a word exists to automatically trigger violence that word will not be protected, they have yet to find one.

They can't prima facie assert that the act of burning a cross is intent to intimidate.





The problem is in classifying the symbol itself, regardless of purpose, as intent to intimidate. Words themselves can be defined directly as "fighting words" as per the definition there derived from Cohen v California and Chaplinsky.


All quotes from Virginia v. Black main opinion.


Seriously, we say the same things, you blindly keep restating the same things that have already been proven false.

I swear you get your case summaries from the Onion.

This is from RAV v St Paul -
Such a simplistic, all-or-nothing-at-all approach to First Amendment protection is at odds with common sense and with our jurisprudence as well. 4 It is [505 U.S. 377, 385] not true that "fighting words" have at most a "de minimis" expressive content, ibid., or that their content is in all respects "worthless and undeserving of constitutional protection," post, at 401; sometimes they are quite expressive indeed.

In other words, your view is expressly addressed in the content of the case and that you cannot just assume my speech is unprotected because it contains that particular word.

Seriously, do you intentionally pick cases that prove you wrong?

EDIT: I enjoyed your edit, considering you've changed you assessment of the case a half dozen times and you've added another case to the list that expressly states the opposite of your claim, I'd argue that I've never made you look like a fool. You've been content provided all the evidence all on your lonesome.

Notice the deleted entry, NA. He realized the claims he was about to make were made to look completely absurd by our replies.

I see your Commonwealth v. Hock and raise you Bailey v. Arkansas.

Also, in reference to Street v. New York, you do realize that case is older than Virginia v. Black right? I stick with statements made in Virginia v. Black as referenced from Cohen v. Calirfornia.

I see your Commonwealth v. Hock and raise you Bailey v. Arkansas.

Also, in reference to Street v. New York, you do realize that case is older than Virginia v. Black right? I stick with statements made in Virginia v. Black as referenced from Cohen v. Calirfornia.

Virginia v. Black states the opposite of what you claim. How does anything you're saying at this point help you?

I'll tell you what. You claim that SCOTUS has supported "fighting words" doctrine as the exception. Name for me what these "fighting words" are. This should be good.

He also is fundamentally misreading what the fighting words doctrine actually MEANS. To quote RAV:

the reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey

which, to make it very simple, as described numerous times already, it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Seriously, we say the same things, you blindly keep restating the same things that have already been proven false.

I swear you get your case summaries from the Onion.

This is from RAV v St Paul -


We have not said that they constitute "no part of the expression of ideas," but only that they constitute "no essential part of any exposition of ideas." Chaplinsky, supra, at 572 (emphasis added).
...
In other words, the exclusion of "fighting words" from the scope of the First Amendment simply means that, for purposes of that Amendment, the unprotected features of the words are, despite their verbal character, essentially a "nonspeech" element of communication. Fighting words are thus analogous to a noisy sound truck: each is, as Justice Frankfurter recognized, a "mode of speech," Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 282 (1951) (opinion concurring in result); both can be used to convey an idea; but neither has, in and of itself, a claim upon the First Amendment.

Notice the deleted entry, NA. He realized the claims he was about to make were made to look completely absurd by our replies.
Enjoying the asserted intellectual circle jerk are you?

Enjoying the asserted intellectual circle jerk are you?

Um, you realize the quoted portion specifically says that they are not essential doesn't make they protected or unprotected. In the context of the part I quoted that you magically left out, you find that the words, along with the other cases they cite you'll find they are specifically stating that you must actually demonstrate intent. But, hey, I'm willing to have you list all of the "illegal" words. You must have a list. Right? Right?

Place list here -

He also is fundamentally misreading what the fighting words doctrine actually MEANS. To quote RAV:



which, to make it very simple, as described numerous times already, it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

I'm still waiting for this list of illegal words. If he's right, by now it must exist, no?

I see your Commonwealth v. Hock and raise you Bailey v. Arkansas.


Bailey v. State of Arkansas huh?

In any event, Mr. Bailey's argument must inevitably fail because the disorderly conduct statute was properly applied to his conduct. While he refers us to his use of the words, “motherfucker,” “asshole,” and “nigger” during his taped interview at the police station, it was Mr. Bailey's conduct at his residence that prompted his arrest for disorderly conduct. As Officer Geater testified, Mr. Bailey began to curse him, calling him “MF” *54 or “SB” when he brought Ms. Brock out of the residence. At one point, according to Trooper Newton, Mr. Bailey stated, “Fuck you, ******, and fuck you, too.” When Officer Randle arrived at the scene Mr. Bailey

stood up and grabbed me by the upper part of my arm, the biceps. Mr. Bailey said some profane things to me and told me to leave his friend alone. I told him to sit down and be quiet. He did sit down and be quiet. (Emphasis added.)

Not only did Mr. Bailey's direct various fighting words to the officers, when considering his surrounding conduct, such as standing up and grabbing Officer Randle's arm, we conclude that he used these words “in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response” under § 5-71-207(a)(3). Moreover, his act of standing up and grabbing Officer Randle's arm in and of itself supported a conviction under subsection (a)(1), as this conduct constituted “threatening behavior.”


Ohhh, so the individual who grabs at the cop by the arm and yells at him? Yeah, like I said. Not WHAT you say, HOW you say it.

Very different from a single epitaph directed at nobody in particular. As I said, SCOTUS nor any other court has ever upheld that a single word or expression, considered devoid of context has ever fallen into the catagory of fighting words.

Your case involves grabbing a cop by the arm and yelling at him. Very different.

He also is fundamentally misreading what the fighting words doctrine actually MEANS. To quote RAV:

which, to make it very simple, as described numerous times already, it's not what you say, it's how you say it.
What is said is relevant, and so is the target of what is said.

This Court has also held that the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so-called "fighting words," those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
Cohen v. California, restated in Virginia v. Black.

The court's opinion on RAV was a result of, again, too broad definitions.

What is said is relevant, and so is the target of what is said.


Cohen v. California, restated in Virginia v. Black.

You aren't reading, are you? It requires that I direct them at a person. That I be personally abusive.

How does that apply to my garage?

And where is my list?

Meanwhile here is also from that opinion -
For, while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual."

From Justice Harlan. He clearly states that you cannot remove a word from public use becasue you don't like and goes on to call this an important part of the ideals of freedom. Seriously, read these cases. This is just a beating.

What is said is relevant, and so is the target of what is said.

And once again, neither SCOTUS nor any other court in this country has ever articulated any single expression phrase word or act that by itself, devoid of context, constitutes fighting words.

At has ALWAYS been fact and circumstance dependant. There is not an expression on this planet in any language ever spoken that, by itself, constitutes fighting words.

The things that Bailey said to the cop weren't fighting words merely because he said them. They were fighting words because he said them while grabbing the cop by the arm and yelling at him.

There is no word that fills the fighting words doctrine every time it's uttered. There is no act that constitutes fighting words every time it is performed.

At no time, in no court, has any expression word act or deed been considered fighting words, while devoid of context.

And to go back to the original example that started all this, Jocabia writing "******" on his wall, without any futher act, is devoid of context. "******" is not a fighting word all by itself.

And once again, neither SCOTUS nor any other court in this country has ever articulated any single expression phrase word or act that by itself, devoid of context, constitutes fighting words.

At has ALWAYS been fact and circumstance dependant. There is not an expression on this planet in any language ever spoken that, by itself, constitutes fighting words.

The things that Bailey said to the cop weren't fighting words merely because he said them. They were fighting words because he said them while grabbing the cop by the arm and yelling at him.

There is no word that fills the fighting words doctrine every time it's uttered. There is no act that constitutes fighting words every time it is performed.

At no time, in no court, has any expression word act or deed been considered fighting words, while devoid of context.

And to go back to the original example that started all this, Jocabia writing "******" on his wall, without any futher act, is devoid of context. "******" is not a fighting word all by itself.

One wonders why TPH would cite a case that says "one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric" in support of his claims. Seriously, I wonder if he's not just a puppet trying to make his side of the argument look ridiculous. He's picking the same cases we would have to find to prove him wrong. This really plays like a really petty joke.