Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Pornography, public intoxication, building codes... there are some exceptions. They have nothing to do with your "wondering if".

The answer to your "wondering if" is no. Free speech rights are well established.

 

[jimbob]

What about my hypothetical statue, which is an accurate model of your house and grounds with accurate models of your children having been decapitated in their bedroom?

I would say that was a threat.

 

[quadraginta]

Pornography, public intoxication, building codes... there are some exceptions. They have nothing to do with your "wondering if".

The answer to your "wondering if" is no. Free speech rights are well established.

Perhaps not so clear cut as you suggest.

A full-sized, accurate, detailed replica of Michelangelo's David ... foreskin and all.

Placed on private property, which also happens to be the front yard of someone's home across the street from an elementary school.

How do you suppose the owner's free speech rights would fare in the average sleepy southern community? (Or northern, eastern, or western one, for that matter?)

It would be difficult to argue that it is pornographic. Or drunk. Doubt that building codes apply. (Unless they were crafted specifically to target that statue.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps not so clear cut as you suggest.

A full-sized, accurate, detailed replica of Michelangelo's David ... foreskin and all.

Placed on private property, which also happens to be the front yard of someone's home across the street from an elementary school.

How do you suppose the owner's free speech rights would fare in the average sleepy southern community? (Or northern, eastern, or western one, for that matter?)

It would be difficult to argue that it is pornographic. Or drunk. Doubt that building codes apply. (Unless they were crafted specifically to target that statue.)

That doesn't contradict what I said.

 

[quadraginta]

That doesn't contradict what I said.

Not pornography, not public intoxication, doesn't violate building codes.

Do you think a community would be unable to to get it removed from public view in front of the elementary school because it was on private property?

 

[Stacko]

Charlottesville PD really dropped the ball on this.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/...ce.html?referer=https://t.co/9Np2jwMAfr?amp=1

How was he not arrested when he fired his weapon?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Thermal]

Pornography, public intoxication, building codes... there are some exceptions. They have nothing to do with your "wondering if".

The answer to your "wondering if" is no. Free speech rights are well established.

I see. So you claim that the Court's current interpretation of the Constitution is... what, immutable and perfect as is? Black and white and unassailable, is it?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I see. So you claim that the Court's current interpretation of the Constitution is... what, immutable and perfect as is? Black and white and unassailable, is it?

It is an extremely good predictor of how well your fighting words argument would go before getting blasted to smithereens. It doesn't have to be more than that for this discussion.

You can argue the current interpretation is wrong. I do that all the time. But I don't act like the court is going to hear my argument and start a cinematic slow clap.

 

[Meadmaker]

Charlottesville PD really dropped the ball on this.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/...ce.html?referer=https://t.co/9Np2jwMAfr?amp=1

How was he not arrested when he fired his weapon?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

According to the introduction of the clip you posted, he was in custody Saturday.

They apparently decided that arresting him at that moment would create a hazard, which seems like a wise decision.

I wonder if they arrested the dude with the improvised flamethrower.

 

[Meadmaker]

What about my hypothetical statue, which is an accurate model of your house and grounds with accurate models of your children having been decapitated in their bedroom?

I would say that was a threat.

At some point, that's where we have to rely on judges and juries. We can't write a set of words into a statute that precisely defines what is and is not a threat, so much so that it is beyond the bounds of free speech. At some point, human judgement that considers the specific context of the exact act has to be used.

Judges can just issue guidelines that they want to be applied to that judgement, and in America, they have basically said that you have to have actual, reasonable, fear that the expression in question indicates an actual threat to your safety.

 

[Thermal]

It is an extremely good predictor of how well your fighting words argument would go before getting blasted to smithereens.

Or perhaps reevaluated. Courts do that sometimes, I hear.

It doesn't have to be more than that for this discussion.

This discussion can only contain current interpretations? Thank you for your moderation of the thread.

You can argue the current interpretation is wrong. I do that all the time. But I don't act like the court is going to hear my argument and start a cinematic slow clap.

That's nice to hear that you don't act that way. Neither do I. Nor am I really presenting an argument. Must a discussion contain an argument, Mr. Moderator?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Or perhaps reevaluated. Courts do that sometimes, I hear.

That is not enough to entertain a fantasy.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

According to the introduction of the clip you posted, he was in custody Saturday.

They apparently decided that arresting him at that moment would create a hazard, which seems like a wise decision.

No. It was a careless and dangerous decision. The man fired his weapon in public, among a crowd, at another person in a show of deadly force that was clearly meant as a threat to the life his target. That he fired it at the ground is not an excuse. Ricochets are a very real danger.

I have no doubt that a black person would have been shot right then and there, due to the undeniable danger he clearly showed himself to be to the public.

Instead, they let him wander off into a crowd of people.

Stupid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not pornography, not public intoxication, doesn't violate building codes.

Do you think a community would be unable to to get it removed from public view in front of the elementary school because it was on private property?

I think they would be able to get a pornographic display removed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see. So you claim that the Court's current interpretation of the Constitution is... what, immutable and perfect as is? Black and white and unassailable, is it?

This post makes no sense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

According to the introduction of the clip you posted, he was in custody Saturday.

They apparently decided that arresting him at that moment would create a hazard, which seems like a wise decision.

I wonder if they arrested the dude with the improvised flamethrower.

I hope they didn't wait too long given he posed a danger of shooting someone.

 

[Stacko]

No. It was a careless and dangerous decision. The man fired his weapon in public, among a crowd, at another person in a show of deadly force that was clearly meant as a threat to the life his target. That he fired it at the ground is not an excuse. Ricochets are a very real danger.

I have no doubt that a black person would have been shot right then and there, due to the undeniable danger he clearly showed himself to be to the public.

Instead, they let him wander off into a crowd of people.

Stupid.

Thankfully the mayor has ordered an independent review of the police (non) response to the white nationalists.

Charlottesville’s government will establish an independent review board to assess the city’s preparation and response to the Aug. 12 Unite the Right rally—a response generally understood to have been inadequate. After a closed session on Thursday, City Councilor Kathy Galvin said the board would be announced within a day, but no other details were made immediately available.*

 

[Meadmaker]

No. It was a careless and dangerous decision. The man fired his weapon in public, among a crowd, at another person in a show of deadly force that was clearly meant as a threat to the life his target. That he fired it at the ground is not an excuse. Ricochets are a very real danger.

I have no doubt that a black person would have been shot right then and there, due to the undeniable danger he clearly showed himself to be to the public.

Instead, they let him wander off into a crowd of people.

Stupid.

They arrested him, so it seems like they must have done something.

Immediately after he fired his shot, which was clearly a warning shot directed toward another person who was using a deadly weapon at the time, he put away his gun. The police saw that, and made a decision to not intervene right at that moment, but wait until there was some safety. I don't know how long they waited, but we didn't read about a shootout. We didn't read about people scattering due to an active shooter situation. Considering what else could have happened, things turned out pretty well this time.

People are quick to criticize the police, but they really are in a difficult position. They had a crowd filled with crazy people, armed to the teeth due to Virginia's strong 2nd amendment support (in case anyone thinks that's a good idea, just contemplate the sheer number of firearms available in that crowd in Charlottesville) and they managed to make an arrest of an armed man without incident. That's not bad.

There are investigations ongoing to find out what they might have also done wrong and what to do next time, but their actions at this specific moment captured on that video turned out ok. That's got to count for something.

 

[dudalb]

Sorry, but if somebody is pulling a gun in that situation,and you are the police, you move in on him,period. The Police blew it here.

 

[jimbob]

Sorry, but if somebody is pulling a gun in that situation,and you are the police, you move in on him,period. The Police blew it here.

Yes.