Kill off the FCC

[Contumacious]

The ruling, had anyone actually taken the time to look it over, had multiple citations at the bottom, which do say that first amendment rights are fairly limited-

The First Federal Case which dealt with obscenity was :

ROSEN v. UNITED STATES., 16 S. Ct. 434, 161 U.S. 29 (U.S. 01/27/1896)

The court stated therein that "The defendant knew from the indictment itself what paper or publication would be offered by the government in evidence, and that the prosecution would insist that the pictures of females displayed in that paper were obscene, lewd, and lascivious."

That was what the court did when it charged the jury that "the test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter is to deprave and corrupt the morals of those whose minds are open to such influence and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall." "Would it," the court said, "suggest or convey lewd thoughts and lascivious thoughts to the young and inexperienced?"

There were NO footnotes. There were no claims that the material was somehow exempted from First Amendment protection, There were no claims that the Federal Courts had Constitutional jurisdiction to consider federal indictments concerning obscenity.

The jurisdiction was USURPED because the fucking judges were religionists.

.

 

[JD_2B]

Censorship encompasses more than just that like say banning books which is indeed unconstitutional.


Your Supreme Court ruling dealt with profanity over broadcast, not with hate speech or giving the other side a chance to speak.

The ruling, had anyone actually taken the time to look it over, had multiple citations at the bottom,

Over 250, which one dealt with hate speech? ctrl +f 'hate ' brought up nothing so it clearly doesn't label which court case dealt with hate speech so I ask you again to cite legal precedent.
A libertarian who advocates censorship? Sure.
Pick one. Libertarian or moderate, you can't be both.

Not everyone is an extremist like you. One can be a pro gun democrat, a pro life republican, and AHH yes- a Pro Censorship of Profanity, obscenity, hate speech, etc, libertarian.

And perhaps you should have tried Ctrl+F = Fighting words..

You just refuse to cite it.

Whatever.

According to your own words you haven't given me case law just case law that supposedly references the legal decision I'm looking for.

OK.. Suuure.

Yes because flaming will somehow make me see your point.

And what is this that you are doing? You have been trolling my posts for how many pages, now?? One is entitled a release after all this!

Am I not allowed to contest you on only some points?

Just contesting me on ANY points, using the sources I give you, would be good.

When did the founding fathers, say that?

Thomas Jefferson wrote "No government ought to be without censors & where the press is free, no one ever will," in a letter to George Washington

Also Remember, - Some things are not understood outright by short minded browsing of literature, but are concluded from VAST reading..

The Founding Fathers Speak Out on God, Religion and the First Amendment

Thomas Jefferson's Letters on Liberty and Religion

Thomas Jefferson. . . thinking for myself"

----- To Hopkinson, 1789

I am not a federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction, is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.

"This formidable censor of the public functionaries, by arraigning them at the tribunal of public opinion, produces reform peaceably, which must otherwise be done by revolution. It is also the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man and improving him as a rational, moral, and social being." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:489

"I think an editor should be independent, that is, of personal influence, and not be moved from his opinions on the mere authority of any individual. But, with respect to the general opinion of the political section with which he habitually accords, his duty seems very like that of a member of Congress. Some of these indeed think that independence requires them to follow always their own opinion, without respect for that of others. This has never been my opinion, nor my practice, when I have been of that or any other body. Differing on a particular question from those whom I knew to be of the same political principles with myself, and with whom I generally thought and acted, a consciousness of the fallibility of the human mind, and of my own in particular, with a respect for the accumulated judgment of my friends, has induced me to suspect erroneous impressions in myself, to suppose my own opinion wrong, and to act with them on theirs." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811. ME 13:49

"To demand the censors of public measures to be given up for punishment is to renew the demand of the wolves in the fable, that the sheep should give up their dogs as hostages of the peace and confidence established between them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1794.

And you can't be challenged to back up assertions without name calling.

Look I asked you for precedent for hate speech and you haven't even given me the name of a case.

I have, you just decided to only search certain words "hate" and "speech",

Thus, offensive but nonobscene words and portrayals dealing with sex and excretion may be regulated when the expression plays no role or a minimal role in the exposition of ideas.
Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50, 63–73 (1976) (plurality opinion); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 317–19 (1977) (Justice Stevens dissenting); Carey v. Population Services Int., 431 U.S. 678, 716 (1977) (Justice Stevens concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 744–48 (1978) (plurality opinion); Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 80, 83 (1981) (Justice Stevens concurring in judgment); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 781 (1982) (Justice Stevens concurring in judgment); R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 112 Ct. 2538, 2564 (1992) (Justice Stevens concurring in the judgment).

The fact that government may proscribe areas of speech such as obscenity, defamation, or fighting words does not mean that these areas “may be made the vehicles for content discrimination unrelated to their distinctly proscribable content. . . . [G]overnment may proscribe libel; but it may not make the further content discrimination of proscribing only libel critical of the government.” Id. at 2543.

Nice try but no I believe in giving free speech even to people I disagree with. It's what free speech means.

You can't censor me anyways. This board seems to leave a lot of user-judgment in terms of profanity and such. What was the point to saying that you wouldn't censor me?

And even if we did, that is COMPLETELY beside the point, because if the FCC was obliterated, then so would censoring, and with it, parental controls. The parental controls on a TV set, would only be the TV media broadcaster's controls. The point is, if I don't trust the media ALREADY, even under the FCC legislation (yeah they go ahead and take the hits and pay the fines, if it is worth it to them, sure they do), and they are then having these fines and restrictions banished from the map of justice, then what fucking good are V-Chips, in the end? No good. Having a V-Chip with no FCC to place requirements and limitations on ratings, is like not having a V-chip at all.

You do know you can block individual channels right?

Not everyone can. I used to have a TV with a DIAL. Imagine that.. Yeah many people still have these. Most of them are older than 40, and on a limited income, now, but the fact that MODERN technology can do it, does not mean that everyone has that technology.

Oh and rating systems that are not maintained by the government can work fine too. The ratings used for video games and movies are maintained and assigned by the respective industries, not by the government. Interestingly neither rating system carries any weight in government, you can legally sell 17+ rated games or tickets to an R rated movie to a minor and yet theatre and game store franchises choose not to.

Thats my point- I already do not trust the companies who rate the stuff, the ones who do. There is a checks and balances system that comes with this, though.. It is not entirely up to the producers- the industries do have censors that have to maintain an ethical balance.

Besides, I do not subscribe to "robotic parenting", either.. I am the parent. I am the registered voter, and if I have to be the only person who gives a rats ass what is said or showed on television or on the radio, then you can bet your ass I am going to let my voice be known. Not on some crap ass message board, though. NOOOO Thats not how to let your representatives know you are concerned.. I write letters through Email. If you dont like something, you are FREE (by the First Amendment) to do the same. =)

Yes because if you don't like something it's very libertarian to demand the government forcefully put a stop to it. Or you could try complaining to the stations.

Just like Jefferson OBVIOUSLY would???

I suggest you pick up a few more books, and work a little harder on your freedom to think for yourself for a while, before coming to someone like me and trying to debunk the original meaning of the Constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

Again, you failed to read the decisions..

Screw you, then. Why waste my time with someone who is just here to be a troll?

You obviously don't have a very good understanding of either the First Amendment or obscenity. .

Correct.

Neither is she a Libertarian.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

.

 

[JD_2B]

Again, you failed to read the decisions..

Screw you, then. Why waste my time with someone who is just here to be a troll?

You obviously don't have a very good understanding of either the First Amendment or obscenity. .

Correct.

Neither is she a Libertarian.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

.

I guess neither was Thomas Jefferson, then...

"No inference is here intended that the laws provided by the State against false and defamatory publications should not be enforced; he who has time renders a service to public morals and public tranquility in reforming these abuses by the salutary coercions of the law." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381

"I deplore... the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them... These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief... This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit." --Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:46

"Our printers raven on the agonies of their victims, as wolves do on the blood of the lamb." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1811. ME 13:59

"These people [i.e., the printers] think they have a right to everything, however secret or sacred." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1815. ME 14:345

"Our newspapers, for the most part, present only the caricatures of disaffected minds. Indeed, the abuses of the freedom of the press here have been carried to a length never before known or borne by any civilized nation." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Pictet, 1803. ME 10:357

Thomas Jefferson- The Libertarian Party's Messiah.. Even though the libertarian party does not seem to want to see this founder's overall view of things, lol..

Libertarian party home pages, linking TJ's quotes..

Welcome to LPNH.ORG

Thomas Jefferson | Libertarian Party of Dallas County


YES I am a fucking Libertarian. So was Jefferson. You have to be OPEN to all truth, just just the shit you want to pick and choose from as being truthful.

 

[Contumacious]

YES I am a fucking Libertarian.

Again, you have never done any fucking nor are you a Libertarian.

While it is true that Jefferson did not like what the media was reporting about him he never advocated any pretexts to censor the media:

"During the course of [my] administration [as President], and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:380

.

 

[JD_2B]

YES I am a fucking Libertarian.

Again, you have never done any fucking nor are you a Libertarian.

Actually I fucked for 4 hours yesterday.. Not that you would understand anything of that magnitude.. And yes I am a Libertarian, and no I am not going to argue this with you. I am a registered Libertarian, pro gun, pro choice, pro freedom. Fuck off, if you cant get that through your little pea brain.

While it is true that Jefferson did not like what the media was reporting about him he never advocated any pretexts to censor the media:

"During the course of [my] administration [as President], and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:380

.

Oh for GOODNESS SAKES read what you fucking write before you post it, moron.

"History may distort truth, and will distort it for a time, by the superior efforts at justification of those who are conscious of needing it most." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:442

"The public... say so from all quarters... that they wish to hear reason instead of disgusting blackguardism." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1799. ME 10:98

"I have from the beginning determined to submit myself as the subject on whom may be proved the impotency of a free press in a country like ours against those who conduct themselves honestly and enter into no intrigue. I admit at the same time that restraining the press to truth, as the present laws do, is the only way of making it useful. But I have thought necessary first to prove it can never be dangerous." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1808.

"Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2nd, Probabilities. 3rd, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The second would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The third and fourth should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:225

Now why don't you go hump Ron Paul's leg some more before you try to proclaim that you have ANY understanding WHATSOEVER of the law, and its meaningfulness to society, from the view of the Founding Fathers.

 

[Father Time]

The ruling, had anyone actually taken the time to look it over, had multiple citations at the bottom,

Over 250, which one dealt with hate speech? ctrl +f 'hate ' brought up nothing so it clearly doesn't label which court case dealt with hate speech so I ask you again to cite legal precedent.
A libertarian who advocates censorship? Sure.
Pick one. Libertarian or moderate, you can't be both.

Not everyone is an extremist like you. One can be a pro gun democrat, a pro life republican, and AHH yes- a Pro Censorship of Profanity, obscenity, hate speech, etc, libertarian.

And perhaps you should have tried Ctrl+F = Fighting words..

OK, ... it didn't find anything, so I wonder if you actually did. ctrl+f fight brought back one thing
"In that climate, broadcast is fighting the perception that its tastes are lagging behind those of a media-saturated culture whose mores have grown more permissive."

Anyway I actually looked up the precedent for fighting words

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

That's not the same as hate speech.

Fighting words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK.. Suuure.

Yeah you haven't given me the name of a supreme court decision that supports your cause (so you haven't given me case law) you just keep claiming that a completely different decision supposedly references it. After all these post you could've just put so and so vs. so and so yet you haven't. I wonder why.

Jefferson didn't write the constitution that was Madison, although Jefferson also said.

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.

"Printing presses shall be subject to no other restraint than liableness to legal prosecution for false facts printed and published." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft of Virginia Constitution, 1783. ME 2:298, Papers 6:304

So I don't think he ment censors to be government appointed censors. Perhaps the word censor had a different meaning in the late 18th century.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Freedom of the Press

Criticizing newspapers is not the same thing as saying 'we should not give them free press'.

"I have, you just decided to only search certain words "hate" and "speech", "

Well gee I was looking for precedent for hate speech so it seemed like a good idea.

 

[Contumacious]

YES I am a fucking Libertarian.

Again, you have never done any fucking nor are you a Libertarian.

Actually I fucked for 4 hours yesterday..

Bwahahahahahahaha


You so funny.


Strap-ons and dildos don't count.

While it is true that Jefferson did not like what the media was reporting about him he never advocated any pretexts to censor the media:

"During the course of [my] administration [as President], and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:380

.

Oh for GOODNESS SAKES read what you fucking write before you post it, moron.

Now why don't you go hump Ron Paul's leg some more before you try to proclaim that you have ANY understanding WHATSOEVER of the law, and its meaningfulness to society, from the view of the Founding Fathers.

How many laws were enacted during the Jefferson administration restricting the media?

.

 

[JD_2B]

Over 250, which one dealt with hate speech? ctrl +f 'hate ' brought up nothing so it clearly doesn't label which court case dealt with hate speech so I ask you again to cite legal precedent.
A libertarian who advocates censorship? Sure.
Pick one. Libertarian or moderate, you can't be both.

Not everyone is an extremist like you. One can be a pro gun democrat, a pro life republican, and AHH yes- a Pro Censorship of Profanity, obscenity, hate speech, etc, libertarian.

And perhaps you should have tried Ctrl+F = Fighting words..

OK, ... it didn't find anything, so I wonder if you actually did. ctrl+f fight brought back one thing
"In that climate, broadcast is fighting the perception that its tastes are lagging behind those of a media-saturated culture whose mores have grown more permissive."

Anyway I actually looked up the precedent for fighting words

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

That's not the same as hate speech.

Fighting words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.. Where anyone can post anything at any time..

PS- When I said hate speech, I meant it broadly, not narrowly.. =)

OK.. Suuure.

Yeah you haven't given me the name of a supreme court decision that supports your cause (so you haven't given me case law) you just keep claiming that a completely different decision supposedly references it. After all these post you could've just put so and so vs. so and so yet you haven't. I wonder why.

Jefferson didn't write the constitution that was Madison, although Jefferson also said.

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.

"Printing presses shall be subject to no other restraint than liableness to legal prosecution for false facts printed and published." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft of Virginia Constitution, 1783. ME 2:298, Papers 6:304

So I don't think he ment censors to be government appointed censors. Perhaps the word censor had a different meaning in the late 18th century.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Freedom of the Press

Criticizing newspapers is not the same thing as saying 'we should not give them free press'.

"I have, you just decided to only search certain words "hate" and "speech", "

Well gee I was looking for precedent for hate speech so it seemed like a good idea.

He also said a number of other things (which, again, I also posted) that you conveniently disregarded.. I guess ignorance really is bliss..

 

[Father Time]

Since you don't like wikipedia

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

hey it has the same quote as wikipedia

 

[JD_2B]

Since you don't like wikipedia

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

hey it has the same quote as wikipedia

LOL!!

So your own case citation includes an AFFIRMATION against hate speech???

Appellant, a member of the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses, was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, Section 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire: 'No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.'

The complaint charged that appellant 'with force and arms, in a certain public place in said city of Rochester, to wit, on the public sidewalk on the easterly side of Wakefield Street, near unto the entrance of the City Hall, did unlawfully repeat, the words following, addressed to the complainant, that is to say, 'You are a God damned racketeer' and 'a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists' the same being offensive, derisive and annoying words and names'.

Upon appeal there was a trial de novo of appellant before a jury in the Superior Court. He was found guilty and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 91 N.H. 310, 18 A.2d 754.

Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. 2 There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention [315 U.S. 568, 572] and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. 3 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. 4 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. 5 '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.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 , 310 S., 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 128 A.L.R. 1352.

A statute punishing verbal acts, carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression, is not too vague for a criminal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 277 , 35 S.Ct. 383, 384.8

Nor can we say that the application of the statute to the facts disclosed by the record substantially or unreasonably impinges upon the privilege of free speech. Argument is unnecessary to demonstrate that the appellations 'damn racketeer' and 'damn Fascist' are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.

Affirmed.

Dude, I told you before, anyways- I used the term hate speech loosely- And if the words enlarged and in red do not convey hate speech to you, I don't know what will. =)

RSACi - Registration - Definitions

Definitions for RSACi Language Questions

GUIDING PRINCIPLE
The construction of a list of every word, action, innuendo, and gesture that a reasonable person would consider as crude, slang, profane or explicit is a never-ending task. Times change. Words change. Gestures change. New street slang is constantly evolving. Language considered inoffensive in one culture may be considered vulgar in another culture. It is therefore your responsibility to properly interpret and classify any slang, profanity or vulgarity according to the usage in the title and the general category definitions below. Words or expressions in the title that fit a definition or categorization, but do not appear on a word list, should be treated as if they do appear on the list.

CONTAIN
The inclusion of specific content in any form or manner, including but not limited to printed words, written descriptions, oral recitations, and other audio sounds.

CRUDE LANGUAGE; EXPLICIT SEXUAL REFERENCES
Crude references, direct or indirect to intercourse: Fuck, bugger, mother-fucker, cock-sucker, penis-breath. Crude references to genitalia: prick, cock, pussy, twat, ****. Explicit street slang for intercourse or genitalia.

EXTREME HATE SPEECH
The combination of vulgar language with hate speech or epithets; advocating violence or harm against a person or group.

HATE SPEECH
Any portrayal (words, speech, pictures, etc.) which strongly denigrates, defames, or otherwise devalues a person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, or disability is considered to be hate speech. Any use of an epithet is considered hate speech. Any description of one of these groups or group members that uses strong language, crude language, explicit sexual references, or obscene gestures is considered hate speech.

EPITHET
A disparaging or abusive word or phrase used in the place of the name of any person or group. There are many examples of slang terms which, in any given historical period, function almost exclusively as epithets: e.g., honky, ******, coon, ****, greaser, chink, slant, faggot, etc. In addition, sometimes a word which is not in and of itself an epithet functions as one because of context. For example, in some contexts the word "pig" may be used in place of "police officer," thus becoming an epithet. In other contexts, and at different times, the word "monkey" has been used as an epithet to refer to individuals of Asian descent and to individuals of African descent.

OBSCENE GESTURES
Any visual or described gestures, body movements, such as flipping the bird, mooning, non-verbal indications of sexual insult, etc., indicating any of the above. Any visual or described innuendo, euphemisms, street slang, double-entendre for any of the above.

STRONG LANGUAGE
Strong, but not crude, language for genitalia: asshole, butthole, dork, dong, pecker, schlong, dick. Strong language for bodily functions or elimination: Shit, piss, cum, asswipe, buttwipe. Strong language for sexual functions or intercourse: jerk-off, balling, shtupping, screwing, boffing, cumming.. References to genitalia used in a sexual setting including the use of penis, vagina, rectum, semen.

PROFANITY
To treat something regarded as sacred with abuse, irreverence, or contempt. to use the name of a deity with contempt or as a curse.

MODERATE EXPLETIVES
The words bastard and bitch (when used as epithets rather than biological terms), son-of-a-bitch, turd, crap.

MILD EXPLETIVES
The words hell and damn, ass and horse's ass, BUT NOT asshole, assface, asswipe; butthead and buttface BUT NOT butthole and buttwipe.

NON-SEXUAL ANATOMICAL REFERENCES
Words such as penis, vagina, rectum, semen used in a non-sexual context.

MILD TERMS FOR BODY FUNCTIONS
Words such as piss and poop not used in a sexual context.

SLANG
No profanity, expletives, vulgar gestures, innuendo, double-entendre, vulgar street slang other than listed below.

A. Inoffensive slang: darn, drat, golly, gosh, dang, rats, sheesh, geeze, gee wiz.
B. Screw to indicate cheated or harmed, BUT NOT screw in any sexual context.
C. Butt to indicate one's rear end as in "get your butt out of here, or "I'm going to paddle your butt," or "he fell on his butt.," BUT NOT butthead, butthole, buttface, buttwipe, etc.
D. Ass when referring to the animal, but not "Horse's ass."
E. Dork used in a non-sexual context as in, "He's a dork."
F. Sucks used in a non-sexual contest as in, "That sucks," or "He sucks."

 

[Father Time]

That statue is not entirely up to date, profanity is protected speech (such as the slogan 'fuck the draft', see Cohen v. California) and nyc wanted to ban the word ****** but because it could've had first amendment issues they had to gut it to the point where it had no teeth.

epithets do not incite violence they are just offensive and as Supreme Justice Brennan said in Texas vs. Johnson (the case overturning the law on flag burning)

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

TEXAS V. JOHNSON, 491 U. S. 397 (1989) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Now if you notice he has actual case law cited to back up his claims which I've had to do for you

Anyway defining hate speech broadly in such a way is dishonest, not everything that you would consider hate speech is banned.

 

[JD_2B]

That statue is not entirely up to date, profanity is protected speech (such as the slogan 'fuck the draft', see Cohen v. California) and nyc wanted to ban the word ****** but because it could've had first amendment issues they had to gut it to the point where it had no teeth.

epithets do not incite violence they are just offensive and as Supreme Justice Brennan said in Texas vs. Johnson (the case overturning the law on flag burning)

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

TEXAS V. JOHNSON, 491 U. S. 397 (1989) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Now if you notice he has actual case law cited to back up his claims which I've had to do for you

Anyway defining hate speech broadly in such a way is dishonest, not everything that you would consider hate speech is banned.

You are both being overly narrow minded and TOTALLY not looking at anything I post, not reading, and only doing Control + F to do your retarded keyword searches..

OF COURSE you would not see the point to the posts I have made, EVEN when I spell this whole thing out to you in black and white.

I have a degree.. In Paralegal.

Read the red highlighted part of your own post. And so that you can't misconstrue or change it..

may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

The idea itself.. can be offensive or disagreeable. Like, a person can say "Guys who use Control F to try to understand the meat of a supreme court decision, do not show intellect in doing so, but instead only show their severe lack of comprehension skills. These guys are just moronic, as a rule." Now that may be offensive or disagreeable by you, but it is protected for me to say that..
BUT if I said it like this "These two guys are both retards, based on their incoherent postings, and I think they should both be shot down!" - THAT is NOT protected speech.. It is protected that my opinion of you is that you are retarded, yes.. I can call you that. I can NOT sit here and use words that incite violence. That is hate speech.

You lost. Get over it.

 

[Steerpike]

1 It is protected that my opinion of you is that you are retarded, yes.. I can call you that. I can NOT sit here and use words that incite violence. That is hate speech.

This is an oversimplification and isn't entirely correct. In fact the example you gave would likely be protected. It merely advocates the idea of violence at some undefined future time, and there is no threat of an imminent occurrence of that violence.

The State can regulate this kind of speech if it both incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce that imminent lawless action. Words that incite violence can very well be protected speech.

 

[Father Time]

That statue is not entirely up to date, profanity is protected speech (such as the slogan 'fuck the draft', see Cohen v. California) and nyc wanted to ban the word ****** but because it could've had first amendment issues they had to gut it to the point where it had no teeth.

epithets do not incite violence they are just offensive and as Supreme Justice Brennan said in Texas vs. Johnson (the case overturning the law on flag burning)

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

TEXAS V. JOHNSON, 491 U. S. 397 (1989) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Now if you notice he has actual case law cited to back up his claims which I've had to do for you

Anyway defining hate speech broadly in such a way is dishonest, not everything that you would consider hate speech is banned.

You are both being overly narrow minded and TOTALLY not looking at anything I post, not reading, and only doing Control + F to do your retarded keyword searches..

OF COURSE you would not see the point to the posts I have made, EVEN when I spell this whole thing out to you in black and white.

I have a degree.. In Paralegal.

Read the red highlighted part of your own post. And so that you can't misconstrue or change it..

may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

The idea itself.. can be offensive or disagreeable. Like, a person can say "Guys who use Control F to try to understand the meat of a supreme court decision, do not show intellect in doing so, but instead only show their severe lack of comprehension skills. These guys are just moronic, as a rule." Now that may be offensive or disagreeable by you, but it is protected for me to say that..
BUT if I said it like this "These two guys are both retards, based on their incoherent postings, and I think they should both be shot down!" - THAT is NOT protected speech.. It is protected that my opinion of you is that you are retarded, yes.. I can call you that. I can NOT sit here and use words that incite violence. That is hate speech.

You lost. Get over it.

Yes and if someone were to shout something like "All Blacks/Jews/Whites/Muslims are evil backwards swine." that would be protected and I betcha that'd be considered hate speech. Also statements like "People who tell people to search a document for precedent when they so obviously haven't done so themselves are fucking idiots." are protected

If you're using a broad definition of hate speech to include inciting violence (which isn't protected speech) as well as something similar to the statement above then it's dishonest to say hate speech isn't protected speech since some of it is.

And you still have to cite sources no matter what degree you have (or are studying).

 

[Father Time]

1 It is protected that my opinion of you is that you are retarded, yes.. I can call you that. I can NOT sit here and use words that incite violence. That is hate speech.

This is an oversimplification and isn't entirely correct. In fact the example you gave would likely be protected. It merely advocates the idea of violence at some undefined future time, and there is no threat of an imminent occurrence of that violence.

The State can regulate this kind of speech if it both incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce that imminent lawless action. Words that incite violence can very well be protected speech.

You know for a supposed paralegal she's not showing a whole lot of law to back her statements up.

 

[Contumacious]

1 It is protected that my opinion of you is that you are retarded, yes.. I can call you that. I can NOT sit here and use words that incite violence. That is hate speech.

This is an oversimplification and isn't entirely correct. In fact the example you gave would likely be protected. It merely advocates the idea of violence at some undefined future time, and there is no threat of an imminent occurrence of that violence.

The State can regulate this kind of speech if it both incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce that imminent lawless action. Words that incite violence can very well be protected speech.

You know for a supposed paralegal she's not showing a whole lot of law to back her statements up.

Well , the Texas vs. Johnson is a good case. The principle announced there is solid.

The problem is that the principle is not applied consistently ; they are always looking for pretexts to exclude material from 1st Amendment protection.

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

TEXAS V. JOHNSON, 491 U. S. 397 (1989) --

.

 

[Steerpike]

This is an oversimplification and isn't entirely correct. In fact the example you gave would likely be protected. It merely advocates the idea of violence at some undefined future time, and there is no threat of an imminent occurrence of that violence.

The State can regulate this kind of speech if it both incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce that imminent lawless action. Words that incite violence can very well be protected speech.

You know for a supposed paralegal she's not showing a whole lot of law to back her statements up.

Well, unless you practice in this area it is difficult to keep up on even for an attorney. I've been practicing law for 10 years, and I have cases in this area. Plus I've taught Constitutional Law, and will doing so again next fall.

The thing about an issue like this is that you have to look at the broad view, because the case law has evolved over time. A single case here or there won't give you the complete picture, and it won't tell you how the legal tests are trending.

 

[JD_2B]

1 It is protected that my opinion of you is that you are retarded, yes.. I can call you that. I can NOT sit here and use words that incite violence. That is hate speech.

This is an oversimplification and isn't entirely correct. In fact the example you gave would likely be protected. It merely advocates the idea of violence at some undefined future time, and there is no threat of an imminent occurrence of that violence.

The State can regulate this kind of speech if it both incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce that imminent lawless action. Words that incite violence can very well be protected speech.

You know for a supposed paralegal she's not showing a whole lot of law to back her statements up.

Bull. I gave y'all plenty of first amendment case law.. You and your idiot friend Cont just do one of these "control + F" searches of the page of ONE term, and that is all. You just do not have the BALLS to read through and look at the quoted cases and text that I included early on in this thread, either. Try looking through the Cornell law database for "profanity" and other words like "excrement" and such.

As I said before, the law is ever evolving in this subject matter, because language is also changing. We allow words like "fudge" and "damn" and "hell" and even images of bare butts, and all kinds of stuff now that was not allowed before. This is because society as a whole is more open to foul language to be used in common practice.

CERTAIN words are not going to be allowed, though- and that is always how it should be, to avoid a detriment to society. One can express their opinions without making the opinion into some kind of X-Rated freak show that would cause even Howard Stern to blush. It is not necessary to use all that profane language and obscene imagery to express one's views. As a result, the first amendment does not protect that kind of speech or expression. Draw a picture and tape it to your wall in your home somewhere.. it does not belong on any publicly viewed airways. There is simply no justification for it.

 

[Contumacious]

As a result, the first amendment does not protect that kind of speech or expression. .

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyQWoVWPizg"]For your listening pleasure: Ms Barbra Streisand[/ame]