Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It didn't in the other either... My point is that moe often than not, the LAW is becoming whatever suits the mood of the judge(s).
Yes it did. She was curdling at the cop. Repeatedly.
If you cannot differentiate between the sentence "stop squishing the ****ing bread" and words that incite a breach of peace, you probably should refrain from participating in this discussion.
As for the law, fighting words and "mood of the judge", it has been more and more NARROWLY interpreted rather than broadly by SCOTUS for the last 100 years.
I know it is fashionable now to pretend that that the court no longer even pretends at fairness but you would be wrong. It is not a perfect system but when it comes you protected speech, it is more protected than ever before, not less. Even at the appellate level, more and more cases are finding even fighting words to be protected.
Regardless, squishing the ****ing bread would not be found to be breaching the peace by any high court, I promise.
I've been noticing the same thing. If we are going to arrested for bad manners now, I need a memo.
The thing is, this was a woman being arrested by a cop interpreting an arcane law not a judge. If it makes it to court, and by some ridiculous means the town judge decides to let it stand, the ACLU will be glad to move it up the appellate ladder as SCOTUS has shown that their interpretation of fighting words is getting more and more narrow. But realistically, it would be thrown out of court, as would the law itself, well before than.
...If you cannot differentiate between the sentence "stop squishing the ****ing bread" and words that incite a breach of peace, you probably should refrain from participating in this discussion....
...Even at the appellate level, more and more cases are finding even fighting words to be protected.
Geesh, I get tired of people trying to tell others when they should or should not participate in a conversation. Your interpretations and understandings are NOT the only ones that matter. Especially when your interpretations of the subject are just as up in the air as anyone elses.
No, they are not finding "more and more" that fighting words are protected. The courts - as quoted in this article - are in disarray on the subject.
I think there is a place in society for laws regarding public disorderliness. I just don't think this particular situation met the requirements of what constitutes "disorderly."
If the woman had been on a rampage, and was cursing in a loud voice -- raging -- and acting out . . . then it would have been wise for the manager to have asked for her to leave the premises or to have LE intervene (to keep the peace).
These laws, when enacted, typically included the phrase: "drunk and disorderly conduct" and were instituted primarily to curb just that: someone being drunk and acting out in public.
Geesh, I get tired of people trying to tell others when they should or should not participate in a conversation. Your interpretations and understandings are NOT the only ones that matter. Especially when your interpretations of the subject are just as up in the air as anyone elses.
No, they are not finding "more and more" that fighting words are protected. The courts - as quoted in this article - are in disarray on the subject.
You should be able to tell the difference between SCOTUS and state courts. SCOTUS is clear, and as the highest court, they are the authority.
I posted the SCOTUS case law, clearly you didn't even look at it. So why bother.
And finally, you have yet to show how uttering "stop squishing the f-ing bread" is remotely "fighting words". Nothing you have posted show how anything commented to a relative can remotely be found to be "fighting words". Again NO BREACH OF PEACE.
And finally, you have yet to show how uttering "stop squishing the f-ing bread" is remotely "fighting words". Nothing you have posted show how anything commented to a relative can remotely be found to be "fighting words". Again NO BREACH OF PEACE.
I'll bite as a devil's advocate for the fun of it.
From your link:
Quote:
those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Quote:
Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.
The woman who called police stated that hearing the mother swearing at her family gave her flashbacks about her abusive childhood. The words didn't simply invoke anger or outrage. The words actually inflicted harm via trauma of having flashbacks. It doesn't matter that the words weren't directed towards her. What matters if the reaction the words caused for people who heard them. That brings us to the reasonable person test. Would a reasonable person be harmed by these words? Probably not people wo weren't victims of child abuse, but most likely for people who were victims of child abuse. Are survivors of child abuse disqualified as being considered reasonable people? Probably, but it's a question worth considering.
You should be able to tell the difference between SCOTUS and state courts. SCOTUS is clear, and as the highest court, they are the authority.
I posted the SCOTUS case law, clearly you didn't even look at it. So why bother.
And finally, you have yet to show how uttering "stop squishing the f-ing bread" is remotely "fighting words". Nothing you have posted show how anything commented to a relative can remotely be found to be "fighting words". Again NO BREACH OF PEACE.
Sorry, the SCOTUS may be the ultimate authority... But it is far from "settled law." That is why the courts keep interpreting it in various ways. Or didn't they teach you that in pseudo-law school.
And finally, I never showed how uttering "stop squishing the f-ing bread" is remotely "fighting words" because I don't believe it is. Never did. Just posted an article to indicate that it is not settled law. You made the assumption and jumped to conclusions. Guess they didn't teach you not to do that in pseudo-law school either.
Last edited by blktoptrvl; 08-18-2014 at 10:56 AM..
I'll bite as a devil's advocate for the fun of it.
From your link:
The woman who called police stated that hearing the mother swearing at her family gave her flashbacks about her abusive childhood. The words didn't simply invoke anger or outrage. The words actually inflicted harm via trauma of having flashbacks. It doesn't matter that the words weren't directed towards her. What matters if the reaction the words caused for people who heard them. That brings us to the reasonable person test. Would a reasonable person be harmed by these words? Probably not people wo weren't victims of child abuse, but most likely for people who were victims of child abuse. Are survivors of child abuse disqualified as being considered reasonable people? Probably, but it's a question worth considering.
You are daring Hope. lol
What if the color of someones dress reminded me of an abusive childhood? All of a sudden, someone unknown to them has caused me distress.
What if a legal gun owner is carrying a gun and it reminds me of getting held up at a bank? Should I call the cops because of my suspicion?
This lady called the cops because of her suspicion. Not because she witnessed abuse, because it reminded her of her mother abusing her.
It's getting hard to draw the line on suspicion I agree, mass murders, the media taunting our suspicions of everyone but, it will get increasingly difficult to live our lives if we allow such suspicions to be addressed randomly by arresting those we suspect without any other proof.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we are going to arrested for bad manners now, I need a memo.
