CDZ Why Are Cross Burnings Protected Under the First Amendment?

[hjmick]

Cross-burning with the intent to intimidate is not protected by the First Amendment.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

1.that's just you -it's your HATE filled, bigoted, racist OPINION only
2. it's a hate crime if you do it on someone else's property
3. blacks commit hate crimes at TWICE the rate of whites
4. again AGAIN--you people concentrate on what's not a real problem instead of the real problems like black murder/crime rates and low grad rates

For at least the 10th time Harmonica, when did you graduate and what fields are your degrees in? I would just about bet that my 20 year old niece has more degrees than you do.

As far as my opinion, at least it's based on an educated interpretation of our constitution, laws and case law. And believe it or not (as I'm sure you won't), I am paid good money for my "professional opinion".

Don't be stupid.

very childish of you
..I KNOW my nieces graduated high school--a lot better than you

It may have been a childish response but it's 100% the truth.

And I'm not talking about your nieces, I'm talking about you. Nor am I referring to high school diplomas, my niece already has a college degree and she's not even 21 yet.

Have you seen this before?:

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.​

​

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair"​

Why is your focus continuously on the couple of million or so of black Americans who are in the criminal justice system versus the 35+ million who are not and who are doing fine with or without a diploma or degree? What is it exactly that prevents you from being able to focus on anything positive when it comes to black people?

Well, I am glad that your niece that you tout so proudly is doing well. Too bad her aunt didn't provide a good example. WTF does her education have to do with you anyway. Moron

Well I guess you don't read very well either do you...

Harmonica is constantly denigrating black people as criminals and for having lower graduation rates, yet he himself has no room to talk (go ahead, ask him).

What makes you think I haven't provided my niece with a good example? Oh wait you've already created some stereotypical image of who I am in your mind, right?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

1.that's just you -it's your HATE filled, bigoted, racist OPINION only
2. it's a hate crime if you do it on someone else's property
3. blacks commit hate crimes at TWICE the rate of whites
4. again AGAIN--you people concentrate on what's not a real problem instead of the real problems like black murder/crime rates and low grad rates

For at least the 10th time Harmonica, when did you graduate and what fields are your degrees in? I would just about bet that my 20 year old niece has more degrees than you do.

As far as my opinion, at least it's based on an educated interpretation of our constitution, laws and case law. And believe it or not (as I'm sure you won't), I am paid good money for my "professional opinion".

Don't be stupid.

very childish of you
..I KNOW my nieces graduated high school--a lot better than you

It may have been a childish response but it's 100% the truth.

And I'm not talking about your nieces, I'm talking about you. Nor am I referring to high school diplomas, my niece already has a college degree and she's not even 21 yet.

Have you seen this before?:

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.​

​

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair"​

Why is your focus continuously on the couple of million or so of black Americans who are in the criminal justice system versus the 35+ million who are not and who are doing fine with or without a diploma or degree? What is it exactly that prevents you from being able to focus on anything positive when it comes to black people?

Well, I am glad that your niece that you tout so proudly is doing well. Too bad her aunt didn't provide a good example. WTF does her education have to do with you anyway. Moron

Well I guess you don't read very well either do you...

Harmonica is constantly denigrating black people as criminals and for having lower graduation rates, yet he himself has no room to talk (go ahead, ask him).

What makes you think I haven't provided my niece with a good example? Oh wait you've already created some stereotypical image of who I am in your mind, right?

No I have just read your long-winded misinformed posts and most that I have read have mentioned your niece's accomplishments like that is somehow relevant to something and I have come to the conclusion that you are just an old windbag.

Well I haven't seen you disprove anything I've posted and no one is making you read them.

My niece's accomplishments are very relevant if for no other reason than it sticks a pin in Harmonica's droning on about black's low graduation rates and criminal records:

88% of Blacks Have a High School Diploma, 26% a Bachelor’s Degree​

Jennifer Cheeseman Day​

June 10, 2020

About 90% of the U.S. population has graduated high school, a dramatic improvement in educational attainment that began when compulsory education was adopted by every state a century ago.
But the most striking social shift is the shrinking of the high school attainment gap between Blacks and the national average.

In 1940, when the U.S. Census Bureau started asking about educational attainment, only 7% of Blacks had a high school education, compared with 24% for the nation as a whole.

College attainment has also increased, though not as dramatically, and the progress of the Black population has been considerable in the context of rising college education overall.

In recent years, Black educational attainment has been much closer to the national average and today, 88% of Blacks or African Americans have a high school diploma, just shy of the national average, according to census data released last month from the Current Population Survey.
This analysis of educational data does not include people who categorize themselves as Black in combination with another race. It focuses on those who identify themselves as “Black alone.”
Universal compulsory education is a major reason for skyrocketing high school attainment but demographic momentum also plays a role. As older and less educated generations are replaced by more educated youth, the nation’s educational attainment rises.

Black High School Attainment Nearly on Par With National Average​

 

[emilynghiem]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

If you are burning something in an unsafe manner, no that is not protected. Cities and neighborhoods have local ordinances to prevent fire hazards, so this varies from place to place.

If you trespass on private property to burn something, again that is not protected free speech.

If you are burning something at a performance or a protest, that is part of free speech, but again, you still cannot violate basic safety policies.

Regardless if you are burning flags, books, crosses or political symbols, you have "free speech" but have to respect local rules so you don't violate any fire codes or other criminal laws or ordinances on public safety.

 

[Thoth001]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

You have race on the brain and the MSM is controlling you by making you think everyone is racist. Watch out their is a racist hiding out around the corner, waiting for you.

Do you know why cross burnings are protected under the first amendment? Or why anyone would find them objectionable?

Do you not believe in the first amendment?

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[IM2]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

Yes there were definitely elements of white supremacy involved in those times. I just don’t think the first amendment and principles of freedom of speech had anything to do with WS. As time went by and we saw how slavery and then Jim crow developed, we could see how speech could be used to oppress minorities then yes it became justified to regulate speech through law. There is a line though that defines what is lawful expression and unlawful.

No....our government wasn't started on the basis of White Supremacy...which is why in our Declaration of Independence it stated "All Men are Created Equal."

The democrat party, the party of slavery and jim crow laws used race as an excuse to keep human beings as slaves..... race is still used by he democrat party to this day as a weapon and a shield....

Yes it was. Words written on paper by slaveowners don't mean anything. We keep getting told how democrats are the party of racism by people who today are members of a party that defends the confederacy. The only people using race as a weapon or sheild is the republican party.

Many of our heralded founding fathers owned slaves. Out of the 55 so-called founders, 26 owned slaves and one owned a slave ship. The slave owners were:

Richard Bassett (DE), Jacob Broom (DE), John Dickinson (DE), George Read (DE),William Houstoun (GA), William Few (GA), William Samuel Johnson (CT), Daniel Carroll (MD), Luther Martin (MD), John Francis Mercer (MD), Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (MD), William Livingston (NJ), William Blount (NC), William Richardson Davie (NC), Alexander Martin (NC), Richard Dobbs Spaight (NC), Pierce Butler (SC), Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC), Charles Pinckney (SC), John Rutledge (SC), John Blair (VA), James Madison (VA), George Mason (VA), Edmund Randolph (VA), George Washington (VA), George Wythe (VA), Robert Morris (PA)*.

*Robert Morris owned a slave ship. So while he didn’t own slaves, he was a prime participant in the industry.

We are on President number 46 as of this writing. Out of these 46 presidents, it is a fact that 12 of them owned slaves. That’s more than ONE FOURTH of our presidents. Ten of the twelve owned slaves while in office. While many want to make this so clean and easy, I am not going to do that. It must be understood that presidents of this country conducted the business of slavery in the white house. They owned slaves in the white house. They beat their slaves in the white house. They bought and sold slaves from the white house. The ten slave owners while in the white house were:

Our nations “father” George Washington owned over 300 slaves. Thomas Jefferson owned 600 slaves. His slave mistress even had children by him. Think about that each time you see a black person with the last name Jefferson. James Madison owned more than 100 slaves. James Monroe owned 75 slaves. Andrew Jackson owned 200 slaves. Martin Van Buren owned 1 slave. I guess he would be considered a nice and humane slave owner. After all, he could have owned 600. William Henry Harrison owned 11 slaves. John Tyler owned 70 slaves. James K. Polk owned 25 slaves. Zachary Taylor owned about 150 slaves. These 10 men owned slaves as duly elected presidents of the United States.

So yes, this nation was founded based on the belief in white supremacy.

 

[IM2]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

1.that's just you -it's your HATE filled, bigoted, racist OPINION only
2. it's a hate crime if you do it on someone else's property
3. blacks commit hate crimes at TWICE the rate of whites
4. again AGAIN--you people concentrate on what's not a real problem instead of the real problems like black murder/crime rates and low grad rates

For at least the 10th time Harmonica, when did you graduate and what fields are your degrees in? I would just about bet that my 20 year old niece has more degrees than you do.

As far as my opinion, at least it's based on an educated interpretation of our constitution, laws and case law. And believe it or not (as I'm sure you won't), I am paid good money for my "professional opinion".

Don't be stupid.

very childish of you
..I KNOW my nieces graduated high school--a lot better than you

It may have been a childish response but it's 100% the truth.

And I'm not talking about your nieces, I'm talking about you. Nor am I referring to high school diplomas, my niece already has a college degree and she's not even 21 yet.

Have you seen this before?:

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.​

​

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair"​

Why is your focus continuously on the couple of million or so of black Americans who are in the criminal justice system versus the 35+ million who are not and who are doing fine with or without a diploma or degree? What is it exactly that prevents you from being able to focus on anything positive when it comes to black people?

Well, I am glad that your niece that you tout so proudly is doing well. Too bad her aunt didn't provide a good example. WTF does her education have to do with you anyway. Moron

Well I guess you don't read very well either do you...

Harmonica is constantly denigrating black people as criminals and for having lower graduation rates, yet he himself has no room to talk (go ahead, ask him).

What makes you think I haven't provided my niece with a good example? Oh wait you've already created some stereotypical image of who I am in your mind, right?

No I have just read your long-winded misinformed posts and most that I have read have mentioned your niece's accomplishments like that is somehow relevant to something and I have come to the conclusion that you are just an old windbag.

Newsvine is not misinformed. Your stating that does not make her misinformed. So you need to present credible evidence other than a white mans hot air to show how she is misinformed.

 

[IM2]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

You know what white supremacy is. Gaslighting gets you nowhere.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

I'm sure that if I Googled the term it would say something like "a belief that the white race is superior to the all other races" although my thoughts of the definition don't include just beliefs but include policies, laws, procedures, etc. based upon the belief of white superiority.

Or more succinctly, it looks like this:

"...This is from the beginning (Texas Declaration of Secession 1845)​

​

She [the state of Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time​

...​

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. ​

​

This is what they determined​

"No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect": The Dred Scott Decision​

​

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued what is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court opinion ever. He noted that the question before the Court was whether African Americans are citizens of the United States and thus able to file suit in federal court. His analysis of that issue is couched in abjectly racist language:​

​

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.​

And today the Supreme Court has ruled that even when policies are unfair or adversely impact black lives, it's just too bad (I don't have this citation at my fingertips but I'm sure someone can locate it) ​

A theoretical question Lives that Matter​

I who went to high school back in the 1970s was forced under desegregation law that took our school that was in the top 10 percent in the state acedemically

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

I'm sure that if I Googled the term it would say something like "a belief that the white race is superior to the all other races" although my thoughts of the definition don't include just beliefs but include policies, laws, procedures, etc. based upon the belief of white superiority.

Or more succinctly, it looks like this:

"...This is from the beginning (Texas Declaration of Secession 1845)​

​

She [the state of Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time​

...​

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. ​

​

This is what they determined​

"No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect": The Dred Scott Decision​

​

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued what is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court opinion ever. He noted that the question before the Court was whether African Americans are citizens of the United States and thus able to file suit in federal court. His analysis of that issue is couched in abjectly racist language:​

​

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.​

And today the Supreme Court has ruled that even when policies are unfair or adversely impact black lives, it's just too bad (I don't have this citation at my fingertips but I'm sure someone can locate it) ​

A theoretical question Lives that Matter​

Let me see if i can get you a real good description of White Supremacy.



Master race - Wikipedia

Master race - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The master race (German: Herrenrasse, also referred to as Herrenvolk (listen (help·info)) "master people") is a concept in Nazi ideology in which the putative Nordic or Aryan races, predominant among Germans and other northern European peoples, are deemed the highest in racial hierarchy.

So it was a Socialist who decided that all other races were not deemed worthy and he wanted to create a master race where only blond blue eyed people were it. Now where did Hitler get the idea of a master race?
Planned Parenthood Confesses That Margaret Sanger Was a Racist (blacknews.com)

“The early Church put an end to such evils as gladiator contest and infanticide.” Margaret Sanger stated, “The most merciful thing a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” We have allowed the foundations to be removed and we have forgotten the dream but “truth crushed to earth shall rise again.”
I am also sure that Black Lives Matter will demand that Hillary Clinton and Nancy Polosi return the Margaret Sanger Award immediately since it has been admitted through careful research of Margaret Sanger’s history the documented bigotry and racism! Its what we would expect from Black Lives Matter, right?

Yet you guys would vote for Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, those that are for Black Infanticide. Shame on you for being traitors to your race...

Oh yeah, that big switch the Progressive/Marxists told you about? Didnt happen as we see how the left loves to kill black babies and is honored for it.

 

[IM2]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

I'm sure that if I Googled the term it would say something like "a belief that the white race is superior to the all other races" although my thoughts of the definition don't include just beliefs but include policies, laws, procedures, etc. based upon the belief of white superiority.

Or more succinctly, it looks like this:

"...This is from the beginning (Texas Declaration of Secession 1845)​

​

She [the state of Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time​

...​

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. ​

​

This is what they determined​

"No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect": The Dred Scott Decision​

​

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued what is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court opinion ever. He noted that the question before the Court was whether African Americans are citizens of the United States and thus able to file suit in federal court. His analysis of that issue is couched in abjectly racist language:​

​

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.​

And today the Supreme Court has ruled that even when policies are unfair or adversely impact black lives, it's just too bad (I don't have this citation at my fingertips but I'm sure someone can locate it) ​

A theoretical question Lives that Matter​

I who went to high school back in the 1970s was forced under desegregation law that took our school that was in the top 10 percent in the state acedemically

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

I'm sure that if I Googled the term it would say something like "a belief that the white race is superior to the all other races" although my thoughts of the definition don't include just beliefs but include policies, laws, procedures, etc. based upon the belief of white superiority.

Or more succinctly, it looks like this:

"...This is from the beginning (Texas Declaration of Secession 1845)​

​

She [the state of Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time​

...​

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. ​

​

This is what they determined​

"No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect": The Dred Scott Decision​

​

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued what is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court opinion ever. He noted that the question before the Court was whether African Americans are citizens of the United States and thus able to file suit in federal court. His analysis of that issue is couched in abjectly racist language:​

​

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.​

And today the Supreme Court has ruled that even when policies are unfair or adversely impact black lives, it's just too bad (I don't have this citation at my fingertips but I'm sure someone can locate it) ​

A theoretical question Lives that Matter​

Let me see if i can get you a real good description of White Supremacy.


Master race - Wikipedia

Master race - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The master race (German: Herrenrasse, also referred to as Herrenvolk (listen (help·info)) "master people") is a concept in Nazi ideology in which the putative Nordic or Aryan races, predominant among Germans and other northern European peoples, are deemed the highest in racial hierarchy.

So it was a Socialist who decided that all other races were not deemed worthy and he wanted to create a master race where only blond blue eyed people were it. Now where did Hitler get the idea of a master race?
Planned Parenthood Confesses That Margaret Sanger Was a Racist (blacknews.com)

“The early Church put an end to such evils as gladiator contest and infanticide.” Margaret Sanger stated, “The most merciful thing a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” We have allowed the foundations to be removed and we have forgotten the dream but “truth crushed to earth shall rise again.”
I am also sure that Black Lives Matter will demand that Hillary Clinton and Nancy Polosi return the Margaret Sanger Award immediately since it has been admitted through careful research of Margaret Sanger’s history the documented bigotry and racism! Its what we would expect from Black Lives Matter, right?

Yet you guys would vote for Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, those that are for Black Infanticide. Shame on you for being traitors to your race...

Oh yeah, that big switch the Progressive/Marxists told you about? Didnt happen as we see how the left loves to kill black babies and is honored for it.

You know what white supremacy is. No one needs to waste time giving you a definition. I went to school in the 70's too and your school was forced to desegregate because your district was practicing racial discrimination.

 

[IM2]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

You know what white supremacy is. Gaslighting gets you nowhere.

No i dont, i was in the military where peoples actions spoke words , not color of the skin. Why do you hate Martin Luther King Jr. so much?

You do know what white supremacy is and you don't know anything about King. Your use of that one sentence is a tired tactic used by racists. Here's some he spoke about a month before a white man murdered him:



Those like you don't seem to remember words like this.

 

[IM2]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

You know what white supremacy is. Gaslighting gets you nowhere.

Why did you vote for a guy who called blacks "super predators"?

I voted for a man who did not get a lawsuit put on him for racial discriminarion against blacks, who advocated for the death penalty for 5 innocent black/hispanic kids and still does, who pushed birtherism, called mexicans rapists and ,urderers, called black run nations shitholes, attacked black athletes for peacefully protesting against injustice while whites could beat police with that same flag, who consistently attacked women of color and told 4 American women of color to go back where they came from, who worked to reduce and weakened civil rights, took white supremacist groups off the terrorist watch list and invented a fake Black Identity Extremist group to harrass and arrest blacks protesting racism, ended consent decrees so police could continue murdering unarmed blacks, ended racial awareness training in federal agencies claiming that was unamericsn and published a 1776 Report to revise history to excuse slavery and white racism.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

Is burning The United States Flag free speech?

 

[Slade3200]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

You know what white supremacy is. Gaslighting gets you nowhere.

No i dont, i was in the military where peoples actions spoke words , not color of the skin. Why do you hate Martin Luther King Jr. so much?

You do know what white supremacy is and you don't know anything about King. Your use of that one sentence is a tired tactic used by racists. Here's some he spoke about a month before a white man murdered him:



Those like you don't seem to remember words like this.

I’m not a racist so why would I use racists tactics to explain my interpretations of the constitution and our history?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

You have race on the brain and the MSM is controlling you by making you think everyone is racist. Watch out their is a racist hiding out around the corner, waiting for you.

Do you know why cross burnings are protected under the first amendment? Or why anyone would find them objectionable?

Do you not believe in the first amendment?

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

I am familiar with the first amendment sure, but my question has more to do with why an injurious activity would be allowed by claiming it is protected speech or expression under the first amendment.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

I'm sure that if I Googled the term it would say something like "a belief that the white race is superior to the all other races" although my thoughts of the definition don't include just beliefs but include policies, laws, procedures, etc. based upon the belief of white superiority.

Or more succinctly, it looks like this:

"...This is from the beginning (Texas Declaration of Secession 1845)​

​

She [the state of Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time​

...​

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. ​

​

This is what they determined​

"No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect": The Dred Scott Decision​

​

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued what is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court opinion ever. He noted that the question before the Court was whether African Americans are citizens of the United States and thus able to file suit in federal court. His analysis of that issue is couched in abjectly racist language:​

​

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.​

And today the Supreme Court has ruled that even when policies are unfair or adversely impact black lives, it's just too bad (I don't have this citation at my fingertips but I'm sure someone can locate it) ​

A theoretical question Lives that Matter​

I who went to high school back in the 1970s was forced under desegregation law that took our school that was in the top 10 percent in the state acedemically

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

I'm sure that if I Googled the term it would say something like "a belief that the white race is superior to the all other races" although my thoughts of the definition don't include just beliefs but include policies, laws, procedures, etc. based upon the belief of white superiority.

Or more succinctly, it looks like this:

"...This is from the beginning (Texas Declaration of Secession 1845)​

​

She [the state of Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time​

...​

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. ​

​

This is what they determined​

"No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect": The Dred Scott Decision​

​

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued what is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court opinion ever. He noted that the question before the Court was whether African Americans are citizens of the United States and thus able to file suit in federal court. His analysis of that issue is couched in abjectly racist language:​

​

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.​

And today the Supreme Court has ruled that even when policies are unfair or adversely impact black lives, it's just too bad (I don't have this citation at my fingertips but I'm sure someone can locate it) ​

A theoretical question Lives that Matter​

Let me see if i can get you a real good description of White Supremacy.


Master race - Wikipedia

Master race - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The master race (German: Herrenrasse, also referred to as Herrenvolk (listen (help·info)) "master people") is a concept in Nazi ideology in which the putative Nordic or Aryan races, predominant among Germans and other northern European peoples, are deemed the highest in racial hierarchy.

So it was a Socialist who decided that all other races were not deemed worthy and he wanted to create a master race where only blond blue eyed people were it. Now where did Hitler get the idea of a master race?
Planned Parenthood Confesses That Margaret Sanger Was a Racist (blacknews.com)

“The early Church put an end to such evils as gladiator contest and infanticide.” Margaret Sanger stated, “The most merciful thing a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” We have allowed the foundations to be removed and we have forgotten the dream but “truth crushed to earth shall rise again.”
I am also sure that Black Lives Matter will demand that Hillary Clinton and Nancy Polosi return the Margaret Sanger Award immediately since it has been admitted through careful research of Margaret Sanger’s history the documented bigotry and racism! Its what we would expect from Black Lives Matter, right?

Yet you guys would vote for Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, those that are for Black Infanticide. Shame on you for being traitors to your race...

Oh yeah, that big switch the Progressive/Marxists told you about? Didnt happen as we see how the left loves to kill black babies and is honored for it.

I asked you if we could discuss this without the Dems versus repubs but that seems to be an impossibility for you.

I you want to discuss abortion then create your own thread because I'm not interested in the misguided opinions of white people pretending to care about black babies being aborted.

By the way, one of the most ignorant things a person can state is to accuse someone of being a "traitor to their race" since there is no such thing.

 

[themirrorthief]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

we must protect poor little totally innocent black people from the big bad white man they fear so much

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

1.that's just you -it's your HATE filled, bigoted, racist OPINION only
2. it's a hate crime if you do it on someone else's property
3. blacks commit hate crimes at TWICE the rate of whites
4. again AGAIN--you people concentrate on what's not a real problem instead of the real problems like black murder/crime rates and low grad rates

For at least the 10th time Harmonica, when did you graduate and what fields are your degrees in? I would just about bet that my 20 year old niece has more degrees than you do.

As far as my opinion, at least it's based on an educated interpretation of our constitution, laws and case law. And believe it or not (as I'm sure you won't), I am paid good money for my "professional opinion".

Don't be stupid.

very childish of you
..I KNOW my nieces graduated high school--a lot better than you

It may have been a childish response but it's 100% the truth.

And I'm not talking about your nieces, I'm talking about you. Nor am I referring to high school diplomas, my niece already has a college degree and she's not even 21 yet.

Have you seen this before?:

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.​

​

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair"​

Why is your focus continuously on the couple of million or so of black Americans who are in the criminal justice system versus the 35+ million who are not and who are doing fine with or without a diploma or degree? What is it exactly that prevents you from being able to focus on anything positive when it comes to black people?

Well, I am glad that your niece that you tout so proudly is doing well. Too bad her aunt didn't provide a good example. WTF does her education have to do with you anyway. Moron

Well I guess you don't read very well either do you...

Harmonica is constantly denigrating black people as criminals and for having lower graduation rates, yet he himself has no room to talk (go ahead, ask him).

What makes you think I haven't provided my niece with a good example? Oh wait you've already created some stereotypical image of who I am in your mind, right?

no denigration--FACTS
''no room to talk''--hahahhahahahahahahhahah

Well then ante up and put your money where your mouth is. I'm game, what about you?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

Is burning The United States Flag free speech?

SCOTUS has deemed it so. I believe it falls under "freedom of expression".

 

[Papageorgio]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

I agree, as ugly as it is, it is protected and needs to remain protected. When it is done we need to use our first amendment rights to speak out against and condemn such actions.