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.
Title 4, § 8(d), United States Code (titled, "Respect for flag")-- "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel...."
Subsection (j)-- "No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform."
I know it says "should," so strictly speaking, it's not an arrestable offense. But still, wearing the flag as clothing shows a lack of respect for it. If you don't like the law, ask your Congressman to have it repealed.
That law cannot be enforced on a civilian in this country.
For good reason. It amounts to prior restraint and is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
There are all kinds of reasons why one might want to display a flag. Most are relatively benign, but there are a couple of reason that are unacceptable to me:
1. Rubbing people's noses in it, as if to say "your country is not as good as mine. Nyeah nyeah."
2. Implying that I am more patriotic than you are, and waving more and bigger flags to prove it. As in "If you love America, where is your flag lapel pin? Everybody else is wearing theirs."
fighting words
n. words intentionally directed toward another person which are so nasty and full of malice as to cause the hearer to suffer emotional distress or incite him/her to immediately retaliate physically (hit, stab, shoot, etc.). While such words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery, if they are threatening they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault.
No, you would be "normal" actually. And the courts have upheld the right to assault someone who used "fighting words" against you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
Yeah good luck with that argument in court. This isn't 1850 anymore, I'm afraid your knowledge of the law is seriously out of date.
I think you had better stop dispensing legal advice without a license online, because you are seriously wrong about a great many things...
Do YOU have a licence yourself? Was the fighting words issue from the 1850s era? Please let me know.
In 2004 I had three of my Soldier that got into an altercation with two other Soldiers. One of my Soldiers was attacked verbally and he responded with a punch. I went to our legal advisor, a lawyer, and we told him the situation. To me at that time I thought he was the aggressor and would be the one at fault. However, our lawyer said there was such a thing as "fighting words". He gave an example that he said was one of the most common ones. He said if a guy calls the wife of another guy a "*****" and the husband responds because of the fighting words that to some degree is like throwing a punch. I am not necessarily saying that fighting words would have the same degree of punishment that an punch either.
Also, I am not saying the physical aggressor would not be at fault in some form specially if he went to far on the response but in some cases fighting words can be a mitigating circumstance on a physical aggressor.
No, I am not a lawyer and do not have licence. I just say it is not as you claim it to be as far as I am concerned. My Soldier did get exonerated by the way. The other Soldier was the one who got disciplined.
Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, made several statements denouncing organized religion while distributing religious literature on a public street. Several citizens complained to the city marshal that Chaplinsky's message was offensive. The marshal informed the citizens that Chaplinsky was lawfully engaged but warned Chaplinsky that the crowd was getting restless. A disturbance subsequently occurred, and an officer on duty proceeded to escort Chaplinsky, without placing him under arrest, to the police station. En route, they encountered the city marshal, whereupon Chaplinsky proclaimed, "You are a God damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist." For these words, Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute prohibiting the use of offensive or annoying words when addressing another person in public. Claiming that the statute placed an unreasonable restraint on free speech, Chaplinsky appealed his conviction. Issue: The Court noted that freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, is a fundamental personal right and liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action (Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450). However, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the New Hampshire statute, which proscribed certain speech, in fact violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments Legal Basis for DecisionThe Court noted that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain "well-defined and narrowly limited" classes of speech that can be proscribed and regulated without constitutional problem. These include the "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words'." The Court defined fighting words as those words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Fighting words are excluded, the Court reasoned, because any benefit derived from their utterance is outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. The Court determined that the statute was constitutional. Finding that the epithets uttered by Chaplinsky were likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace, the Court ruled that Mr. Chaplinsky's words were unprotectable fighting words Quotable"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words - 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."
Notice the area I highlighted. That is not to say the aggressor could not be punished but the legal system does reconginze such thing as "fighting words".
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, made several statements denouncing organized religion while distributing religious literature on a public street. Several citizens complained to the city marshal that Chaplinsky's message was offensive. The marshal informed the citizens that Chaplinsky was lawfully engaged but warned Chaplinsky that the crowd was getting restless. A disturbance subsequently occurred, and an officer on duty proceeded to escort Chaplinsky, without placing him under arrest, to the police station. En route, they encountered the city marshal, whereupon Chaplinsky proclaimed, "You are a God damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist." For these words, Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute prohibiting the use of offensive or annoying words when addressing another person in public. Claiming that the statute placed an unreasonable restraint on free speech, Chaplinsky appealed his conviction. Issue: The Court noted that freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, is a fundamental personal right and liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action (Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450). However, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the New Hampshire statute, which proscribed certain speech, in fact violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments Legal Basis for DecisionThe Court noted that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain "well-defined and narrowly limited" classes of speech that can be proscribed and regulated without constitutional problem. These include the "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words'." The Court defined fighting words as those words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Fighting words are excluded, the Court reasoned, because any benefit derived from their utterance is outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. The Court determined that the statute was constitutional. Finding that the epithets uttered by Chaplinsky were likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace, the Court ruled that Mr. Chaplinsky's words were unprotectable fighting words Quotable"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words - 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."
Notice the area I highlighted. That is not to say the aggressor could not be punished but the legal system does reconginze such thing as "fighting words".
You have a great day.
El Amigo
That is a different issue altogether. Chaplinsky was a First Amendment case - dealing with the issue of whether the state can sancion "fighting words" or whether they are protected speech.
The case does not deal with verbal provocation as a criminal defense. Interestingly, since Chaplinsky the court has not overturned a conviction for assault or battery on the basis of verbal provocation.
Verbal provocation can be a mitigating factor in a civil tort case for battery, but it is not a defense to a criminal assault or battery charge. I know you gave an example from your military experience, but please understand that the rules are very different out in the civilian world.
Do YOU have a licence yourself? Was the fighting words issue from the 1850s era? Please let me know.
I picked 1850 randomly. Back in the old days courts would recognize "fighting words" as a common law defense against a battery charge. Most states have codified this out of the law and expressly say that verbal provocation cannot be a defense to a criminal charge of assault and battery. Other states just deal with it in jury instructions.
And yes I am a licensed attorney in the State of Florida.
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.
