Shia Labeouf is arrested... GOOD! He deserved it!

[Call Sign Chaos]

The guy actually was a Nazi he said "14 words," which is a coded Nazi reference to:

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

Ya **** that guy

So, to the Left,

"We must not secure a future for white children"

How's that going for you in the Democrat Party?

I'm not a leftist that doesn't mean I have to support Nazi pigs. I'm interested in a future for American children, race plays no factor.

 

[Conservative65]

Yup, when you are right, you are right.

Thing is this whining leftist piece of shit is just a whining left piece of shit.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

The problem the left has is that everyone not in the left mind meld is a nazi.

The guy actually was a Nazi he said "14 words," which is a coded Nazi reference to:

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

Ya **** that guy.

It's called free speech for a reason. You don't get to shut down free speech because you don't like the speech. There is not a need to protect speech that isn't offensive to anyone. You are free to express a contradictory viewpoint. You are not entitled to assault and attack people because you don't like what they say.

Now... I wasn't there and you weren't there. We have to rely on what others tell us was said. But it doesn't matter what was said, he has a right to say what he pleases in public just like you and I. You can disagree, you can be offended, you can speak your mind... you cannot assault.

Champlinsky V New Hampshire, fighting words exception.

 

[Boss]

The problem the left has is that everyone not in the left mind meld is a nazi.

The guy actually was a Nazi he said "14 words," which is a coded Nazi reference to:

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

Ya **** that guy.

It's called free speech for a reason. You don't get to shut down free speech because you don't like the speech. There is not a need to protect speech that isn't offensive to anyone. You are free to express a contradictory viewpoint. You are not entitled to assault and attack people because you don't like what they say.

Now... I wasn't there and you weren't there. We have to rely on what others tell us was said. But it doesn't matter what was said, he has a right to say what he pleases in public just like you and I. You can disagree, you can be offended, you can speak your mind... you cannot assault.

Champlinsky V New Hampshire, fighting words exception.

1) This would not qualify. Read the statute and the court ruling.

2) Even IF this qualified, the solution is not physical assault.

The case law you are citing is akin to the "fire in a crowded theater" argument. This is where your right to free speech breaches a very narrowly limited category of "lewd, offensive and profane" speech to which you are not entitled to publicly express. BUT... this does not justify physical assault.

Let's also be clear. "assault" can be verbal. You hear the term "assault and battery" ...this has defined meaning. "Battery" involves physical contact, and "assault" doesn't have to. You can assault someone with words. Perhaps LeBeouf would have been within his rights to call the police and charge his heckler with "verbal assault" before he took matters into his own hands, I don't know. Again, I wasn't there. What he DID was unacceptable and there is no justification under ANY law.

 

[Boss]

I'm not a leftist that doesn't mean I have to support Nazi pigs. I'm interested in a future for American children, race plays no factor.

And I am not a Nazi pig but I don't support physically assaulting people because you disagree with their opinions. It is shameful that I am being put in the position of having to defend someone I probably disagree with on many levels because some stupid lefty thinks he has the "right" to physically assault someone. YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT!

I may disagree with you, but I will fight to my death for your right to express your viewpoint. Case in point, I don't agree with Colin Kappernick. I would love nothing more than to punch the son of a ***** in his stupid face for disrespecting the national anthem. However, we live in a free society where people have the freedom to protest and I respect his right to do that, even though I totally disagree with him.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

The problem the left has is that everyone not in the left mind meld is a nazi.

The guy actually was a Nazi he said "14 words," which is a coded Nazi reference to:

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

Ya **** that guy.

It's called free speech for a reason. You don't get to shut down free speech because you don't like the speech. There is not a need to protect speech that isn't offensive to anyone. You are free to express a contradictory viewpoint. You are not entitled to assault and attack people because you don't like what they say.

Now... I wasn't there and you weren't there. We have to rely on what others tell us was said. But it doesn't matter what was said, he has a right to say what he pleases in public just like you and I. You can disagree, you can be offended, you can speak your mind... you cannot assault.

Champlinsky V New Hampshire, fighting words exception.

1) This would not qualify. Read the statute and the court ruling.

2) Even IF this qualified, the solution is not physical assault.

The case law you are citing is akin to the "fire in a crowded theater" argument. This is where your right to free speech breaches a very narrowly limited category of "lewd, offensive and profane" speech to which you are not entitled to publicly express. BUT... this does not justify physical assault.

Let's also be clear. "assault" can be verbal. You hear the term "assault and battery" ...this has defined meaning. "Battery" involves physical contact, and "assault" doesn't have to. You can assault someone with words. Perhaps LeBeouf would have been within his rights to call the police and charge his heckler with "verbal assault" before he took matters into his own hands, I don't know. Again, I wasn't there. What he DID was unacceptable and there is no justification under ANY law.

If spouting Nazi propaganda to a Jew doesn't fall under the fighting words exception then nothing does, I doubt a jury in the country would vote to convict even if Shia was a jack ass.

 

[Boss]

If spouting Nazi propaganda to a Jew doesn't fall under the fighting words exception then nothing does, I doubt a jury in the country would vote to convict even if Shia was a jack ass.

It doesn't matter, that's not the issue. Like I said, if LaBeouf had called the cops and filed charges, that argument might be valid. I don't think it would be in this case because you're jumping to the conclusion he was "espousing Nazi propaganda" and even then, that's not "lewd, vulgar and offensive" in the context of the "fighting words" doctrine. He chose to attack and assault the man instead. You can't do that under ANY circumstance, even IF the guy was guilty of the law you claim he broke.

This is not up to a jury, it's up to a judge. The judge will decide if "simple battery" took place and LaBeouf has no defense. Furthermore, he is also liable for punitive damages if the victim decides to sue him. You simply cannot physically attack someone you disagree with. The ONLY time that is even remotely acceptable is in self defense when you are being physically attacked.

 

[Mad Scientist]

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

You don't get to assault neo-nazis or anyone else and not have to face the consequences...especially in front of cameras. Shiat LeDouche is a moron.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Today, I found one of my leftarded friends on Facebook had posted this little diddy....

View attachment 109246

They are talking about the following incident:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/...ested-at-anti-trump-art-show-in-new-york.html

Detective Navarro said that the police were called after Mr. LaBeouf got into an argument with another man at the installation, pulled off the man’s scarf and, in the process, scratched his face. The man did not need to be hospitalized, the detective said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now... I don't know when the liberal left's crazy train departed the tracks but you don't get to physically assault people who you don't agree with politically. I don't give a damn if they are Nazi's or what. We don't tolerate this behavior in our society. We have freedom of speech and people can say whatever the hell they want to say in public unless they are endangering public safety. Even then, you do not have the right to physically assault them.

The radical left has gone OVER the edge. We've seen repeated incidents since the inauguration of Trump, of people being physically assaulted, punched, having their clothing snatched off, having signs ripped out of their hands, being spit on, etc. This is unacceptable in a civil society. You have the right to protest, you have the right to express your feelings, you DO NOT have the right to assault people. I know you are frustrated and angry but it's time to get your shit together before someone has to take action against you. This cannot be allowed to continue.

you are missing the best part

Trumpers showed up at the

Shia LaBeouf’s “He Will Not Divide Us”

in which the Trumpers far outnumbered the libtard group

--KEK

part 1

 

[jon_berzerk]

part 2



--KEK

 

[jon_berzerk]

complete with cigars and such

--LOL

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

part 2



--KEK

******* kooks.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

^ These guy hard on Shiat LeDouche.

 

[jon_berzerk]

yes the trumpers far outnumbered the leftist kooks

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Shiat did all that traveling in Asia and picked up their weird r
Cultish chanting they do.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Shiat did all that traveling in Asia and picked up their weird r
Cultish chanting they do.

the frikkin occupiers did that same wierd chanting

--LOL

and the repeat after me crap

mindless kooks

but what they dont like is to be confronted

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

If spouting Nazi propaganda to a Jew doesn't fall under the fighting words exception then nothing does, I doubt a jury in the country would vote to convict even if Shia was a jack ass.

It doesn't matter, that's not the issue. Like I said, if LaBeouf had called the cops and filed charges, that argument might be valid. I don't think it would be in this case because you're jumping to the conclusion he was "espousing Nazi propaganda" and even then, that's not "lewd, vulgar and offensive" in the context of the "fighting words" doctrine. He chose to attack and assault the man instead. You can't do that under ANY circumstance, even IF the guy was guilty of the law you claim he broke.

This is not up to a jury, it's up to a judge. The judge will decide if "simple battery" took place and LaBeouf has no defense. Furthermore, he is also liable for punitive damages if the victim decides to sue him. You simply cannot physically attack someone you disagree with. The ONLY time that is even remotely acceptable is in self defense when you are being physically attacked.

I never said Shia was legally in the clear but I dont really give a damn is a Nazi pos gets smacked around.

 

[Boss]

I never said Shia was legally in the clear but I dont really give a damn is a Nazi pos gets smacked around.

Good, then you won't give a damn when I knock your ******* block off for calling me a Nazi POS.... right?

What the hell is happening to you people? Have you all lost your collective goddamn minds or something? Why am I having to explain to you why it's important to protect your right to have a dissenting view? Do you believe YOU are the only ones entitled to that? Because, the world doesn't work that way, cupcake. What applies to me also applies to you and visa versa.