It's against the law to offend people?

[buckeye45_73]

The leftwing is so crazy, they cant even listen to divergent viewpoints, wow these people are pathetic and beyond stupid.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Talk it up, kiddos.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Please quote the constitutional reference.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Please quote the constitutional reference.

Don't have to. The thread has to defend the OP, and it has not yet.

 

[Jackson]

The police officer was very nice. It's just a shame he was wrong. He will learn and probably have a long and successful career.

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

The line is drawn at threats, and words that risk an immidiate harm. Saying "I'm going to kill you" is not protected. Saying "I wish you were dead" is. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected, Yelling "I hate black people" at the Apollo is (although the ass kicking you get isn't government mandated, and should be expected).

Hurt feelings is not an actual threat, nor it is an incitement or cause of a panic situation that would cause actual harm.

 

[Jackson]

The leftwing is so crazy, they cant even listen to divergent viewpoints, wow these people are pathetic and beyond stupid.

YOu can't prove this officer is necessarily "left wing," just wrong.

 

[g5000]

No, it isn't against the law to offend people. The cops are wrong.

The guy who harassed the college kids is a raging asshole.

And that's pretty much all there is to it.

 

[Defiant1]

The officer appears to have the qualifications to be a Constitutional professor.

 

[OKTexas]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Please quote the constitutional reference.

Don't have to. The thread has to defend the OP, and it has not yet.

As usual you are full of it.
My bold
Reasoning
(7-3)

The majority of the Court, according to Justice William Brennan, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech.
In particular, the majority noted that the Texas law discriminated upon viewpoint, i.e., although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects, e.g., burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon viewpoint.

Facts and Case Summary - Texas v. Johnson

Any decent judge would throw this one out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good. We have just seen some solid analysis if not conclusive in itself and even some evidence.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Please quote the constitutional reference.

Don't have to. The thread has to defend the OP, and it has not yet.

Nonsense. You made an independent, concrete statement. Justify it, or enjoy the laughter directed at you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Please quote the constitutional reference.

Don't have to. The thread has to defend the OP, and it has not yet.

Nonsense. You made an independent, concrete statement. Justify it, or enjoy the laughter directed at you.

My statement was to generate an analysis and some evidence. Good on you who did that.

 

[jillian]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Please quote the constitutional reference.

the constitutional reference. have you read the case law? I doubt it. so you might want to start there, little boy.

and when you look at that caselaw, you'll find that freedom of speech is not limitless. for example, you can't slander someone.

is that a good enough start for your under-developed brain?

and you can say all of the idiotic things you want. that doesn't mean there aren't repercussions for being stupid.

 

[jillian]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Please quote the constitutional reference.

Don't have to. The thread has to defend the OP, and it has not yet.

Nonsense. You made an independent, concrete statement. Justify it, or enjoy the laughter directed at you.

you don't understand the issue, huh?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Please quote the constitutional reference.

the constitutional reference. have you read the case law? I doubt it. so you might want to start there, little boy.

and when you look at that caselaw, you'll find that freedom of speech is not limitless. for example, you can't slander someone.

There is a huge chasm between speech that causes direct harm, and speech that merely offends.

You may be offended if I carry a gun, but there is no crime unless I shoot you for some unjustifiable reason.

Case law does not amend the Constitution. Dred Scott immediately comes to mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Please quote the constitutional reference.

the constitutional reference. have you read the case law? I doubt it. so you might want to start there, little boy.

and when you look at that caselaw, you'll find that freedom of speech is not limitless. for example, you can't slander someone.

There is a huge chasm between speech that causes direct harm, and speech that merely offends.

You may be offended if I carry a gun, but there is no crime unless I shoot you for some unjustifiable reason.

Case law does not amend the Constitution. Dred Scott immediately comes to mind.

You really don't understand, do you?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Please quote the constitutional reference.

Don't have to. The thread has to defend the OP, and it has not yet.

Nonsense. You made an independent, concrete statement. Justify it, or enjoy the laughter directed at you.

you don't understand the issue, huh?

I understand it just fine. It's the amphibian thinking such as you people continually exhibit that perplexes me.

 

[OKTexas]

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Please quote the constitutional reference.

the constitutional reference. have you read the case law? I doubt it. so you might want to start there, little boy.

and when you look at that caselaw, you'll find that freedom of speech is not limitless. for example, you can't slander someone.

is that a good enough start for your under-developed brain?

and you can say all of the idiotic things you want. that doesn't mean there aren't repercussions for being stupid.

How about you do away with the straw men arguments and address what occurred in the video? Also see post #11 for a citation of case law.