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.
The First Amendment protects a wide range of expression that many people do not like. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote in the Court’s 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because it finds it offensive or disagreeable.”
firstamendmentcenter.org: Arts & First Amendment in Speech - Topic (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=fighting_words - broken link)
No one stopped Tucker and Fitzgerald from expressing themselves.
No one stopped Tucker and Fitzgerald from expressing themselves.
So if the cops arrested anti-war protesters on campus, you would be OK with that? A right means you don't get arrested for exercising it. For the record, I think these guys are jackasses.
A right means you don't get arrested for exercising it.
In your example, the protesters wouldn't be arrested for exercising free speech. They would be arrested for or on suspicion of a crime. The act of protesting alone wouldn't have gotten them arrested.
The police can arrest a member of the protesting group for any reason as long as it meets the requirements of the law. They could site disorderly conduct, loitering, gathering in a group without a permit, resisting arrest, etc.
So if the cops arrested anti-war protesters on campus, you would be OK with that? A right means you don't get arrested for exercising it. For the record, I think these guys are jackasses.
Anti-war protests typically arise as a response to the notion of war, which is itself an act. Acts by their very nature stand to be adjudged on moral grounds. Speech or actions motivated by hate of another person or group have no motivation other than hate for who they are, independent of act. It is why these particular actions are considered especially detestable.
In your example, the protesters wouldn't be arrested for exercising free speech. They would be arrested for or on suspicion of a crime. The act of protesting alone wouldn't have gotten them arrested.
The police can arrest a member of the protesting group for any reason as long as it meets the requirements of the law. They could site disorderly conduct, loitering, gathering in a group without a permit, resisting arrest, etc.
Anti-war protests typically arise as a response to the notion of war, which is itself an act. Acts by their very nature stand to be adjudged on moral grounds. Speech or actions motivated by hate of another person or group have no motivation other than hate for who they are, independent of act. It is why these particular actions are considered especially detestable.
Interesting comment, Jaymie.
It makes me wonder about your mental stability.
I am part black , if thats what your asking . Although litterbugs are horrible I would not treat it as a hate crime.
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.
A right means you don't get arrested for exercising it.
