Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[sadhatter]

I'm not so sure. If Confederate statuary is viewed as advocating blacks being in chains as property, that would be insulting to a protected group, and unprotected, no? I get why this is not the current view, but I think it toes the line more than is generally acknowledged.

I find tabloids insulting, how do I get them banned?

 

[sadhatter]

It isn't given that liberal democracy is good.

Name a better society.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Name a better society.

Better is relative. If person X has reached the conclusion that dictatorship is better, then North Korea is superior to any liberal democracy.

 

[quadraginta]

#1, I don't know where you are getting the idea that something that is insulting to a protected racial group is unprotected as "fighting words." That simply isn't true.

#2 RE: the highlighted: The fact that a form of speech could be interpreted one way is not sufficient to cause it to be unprotected.

"I was only joking."

 

[trustbutverify]

You know... I've actually run across far more cries for killing white people than I have for killing any other races.

Of course you've run across far more calls for white genocide than genocide for other ethnicities. Of course you have.

 

[dudalb]

Sophistry.

A picture is worth a thousand words - a solid object even more so.

THIS.

 

[trustbutverify]

You know, folks like Sharpton are much better than you assume. look at the past decade or two.

I don't know about "people like Sharpton", but Sharpton himself is a despicable fraud.

 

[dudalb]

“They have no allegiance to liberal democracy”: an expert on antifa explains the group

You think that makes antifa look good??????

 

[dudalb]

I don't know about "people like Sharpton", but Sharpton himself is a despicable fraud.

Not to mention bigot, as his comments on Jews and Asians show.
Remember his more or less approving of attacking Asian shopowners to drive them out of certain neighborhoods?

 

[jimbob]

New footage of police doing nothing when shots were fiired at counter-protesters

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/...ce.html?referer=https://t.co/Y40fEhQI4K?amp=1

 

[LSSBB]

Nice cliche, but SCOTUS decisions disagree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funny. What does research say? Such as here, for example.

 

[Thermal]

The fact they limited it to a liability is related with the peculiars of the case. No lawyer read that supreme Court decision and thought there is wiggle room on this issue outside of liability.

From Wikipedia

Right. The 'special protection' afforded to WBC was due to their claimed religious beliefs. I don't think a Confederate monuments advocate claims such solid protection.

 

[Thermal]

Scalia was a clown, Period.

One with socio-polital clout as Justice, tho.

These monuments were mostly meant to be insults directed at black people, in particular. Tear them down.

Agreed. Insults and particularly threats.

 

[Thermal]

Once again you come full circle back to ignoring the free speech/private property aspect that is my point.

No need to waste more of my time with this dodge of the issue.

Okay, maybe I am missing your point. You repeatedly tell me to address it, and I believe I have, but would you be so kind as to clarify what the hell you are talking about? Without cryptic Jesus Loves You references, if you please. Reeeeaaally didn't see what that has to do with anything.

 

[Thermal]

But what makes you right and the person who would want the same done for the Jesus sign wrong?

If we are going to say feelings matter who gets to decide who's feelings don't?

I find tabloids insulting, how do I get them banned?

Both comments, same answer. Black people are a protected group, as noted upthread. You personally, and what you personally are offended by, are not. Dig?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay, maybe I am missing your point. You repeatedly tell me to address it, and I believe I have, but would you be so kind as to clarify what the hell you are talking about? Without cryptic Jesus Loves You references, if you please. Reeeeaaally didn't see what that has to do with anything.

With the exception of building codes, a person has a right to free speech on their private property, including putting up offensive statues or signs.

The only statues in question here are ones honoring the Confederacy placed on public property because these statues represent racism.

Why do you include statues on private property?

 

[Thermal]

With the exception of building codes, a person has a right to free speech on their private property, including putting up offensive statues or signs.

The only statues in question here are ones honoring the Confederacy placed on public property because these statues represent racism.

Why do you include statues on private property?

Thanks for the clarification. I am including those on private property which are in public view because of a comment upthread which touched on decency issues for private displays in public view. For example, if you perform consensual sex acts on your front lawn in a suburb, you do not have the protection your comments assume. Being in public view limits some expression. I am wondering if this can be extended to broader issues, like insulting or threatening imagery to a protected class: the public display, although on private property, might violate the rights of others.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Right. The 'special protection' afforded to WBC was due to their claimed religious beliefs. I don't think a Confederate monuments advocate claims such solid protection.

The piece I quoted by roberts said the how and where provided the special protection. He didn't say the who or what.

 

[Thermal]

The piece I quoted by roberts said the how and where provided the special protection. He didn't say the who or what.

...Right....but Snyder v Phelps was regarding liability for emotional distress, and found that WBC was a protected group and as such had protected speech. That is still not the issue with Confederate monuments.

 

[BobTheCoward]

...Right....but Snyder v Phelps was regarding liability for emotional distress, and found that WBC was a protected group and as such had protected speech. That is still not the issue with Confederate monuments.

A) it doesn't matter if it was for tort. I am most certain the court would rely on it in a criminal case.

B) I'm equally confident that the protected status would be recognized for any public political statement.