Lucky...

Brevity and punctuation are overrated.

See, with intelligent discourse, you would then post what I wrote and show how errant it is by showing supporting ev. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[36] and incitement to riot.[37] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[38] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[39] See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989). In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[40] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[41] You're welcome, no problem. Are you straightened out yet?

That's Americans at their best. "I support your right to Free Speech as long as you don't say anything that pisses ME off." There's your assholes. No, the assholes are: go ahead and say what you want, if it incites riots, so what? If people die, so what? Absolute free speech is more important than civil order. Actually, we don't have absolute free speech. There are limits. And yes, having minimal limits on free speech is much more important than absolute total civil order. But I do enjoy your postings in this thread. They continue to provide evidence of your attitude that you can say whatever you want but if somebody says something you don't like they have to STFU. BTW, the word "nigger" comes from the Latin "niger" (black) and French "nigre" (black). >> And yes, having minimal limits on free speech is much more important than absolute total civil order. Really? Civil order is at a higher premium, isn't it? >> Actually, we don't have absolute free speech. There are limits. Of course, that was my point. >> But I do enjoy your postings in this thread. They continue to provide evidence of your attitude that you can say whatever you want but if somebody says something you don't like they have to STFU. I'm not telling anyone to STFU, I just abhore their, "my diddy told me it ws that way mentality." >> BTW, the word "nigger" comes from the Latin "niger" (black) and French "nigre" (black). Fair enough, but as I referred, the usage in the US is based upon slavery and general black oppression.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/...e=13&DocType=ARS 3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or Are you done denying yet?

AZ has disorderly conduct statutes: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02904.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS 13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person: 1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or 2. Makes unreasonable noise; or 3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or 4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or 5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or 6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor.

Oh really? In fact it is, you could infer a hate speech, hate crimes aggravation from the racial slur, whereas fire is not protected. Me thinks you don't take that to a prosecutor/jury. Right and it's all based upon what an ass said that started the mess. Again, take that to a jury and see how they buy your BS that you call a group of blacks, niggers and you had no idea a fight would break out, then it would turn to a riot, etc. Rots a ruck. They would just arrest all and let the DA/CA sort it out. If you think you would be in the clear - free speech - have a good one. If a riot ensued, it would be discretion, but I bet people would be hauled in and charges filed. The 1st is way misunderstood as a blank check to say you want, when you want and where you want.

Inciting means to provoke, not advocate, that's more of a conspiracy definition, counselor. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inciting http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advocate The legal defs and appellate renderings may slightly differ from dictionary defs, but usually statute tends to be more confining than less. Conspiracy means that you agree with another person that a crime should happen, advocate is right there, so you're trying to morph advocate into incite and away from conspire; I disagree. Inciting is often individual and w/o premeditation, advocate/conspire must have both elements. Nice try, use it on a layperson next time. BTW, counselor, inciting is too, it's call disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, etc. I'm against speech that a reasonable person would believe would cause a riot or disorder. Which is why I don't do it, I won't cite a riot. I will reffer to Republicans as having a Nazi agenda, as a metaphor - never got in a fight yet. Also, last I checked, Repubs weren't part of hate crime protection; quit diff calling a Repub a Nazi over calling a black person a N*****. Perhaps you look at it as the same, but, er, that's right, you're not a Republican, you're an indep - I almost forgot. The people purveying the hate speech are the liable ones. Again, at a tea bagger ralley, there are no protected people if the conversation stays taxes, political parties, etc. When garbage baggers start calling people fags and niggers then they have crossed protected lines both ways. There is a double-standard, but in case yoiu missed history, us whites have fucked over American Indians, blacks, etc. But I don't advocate blacks defaming people due to being white, I view it as the same as the opposite party's behavior.

Amazing you couldn't see I was referring to this: Here we I use it as a very bad metaphor to describe Republicans, there they produced it. I see, run from the issue and bring back an old post I clearly stated was an errant cite right from the start. I guess you're done with this issue and are creating the ultimate strawman. See, if I said that to you or returned the volley, I would be banned. These rules things are soooo hard for me to understand, it must be me. Now that I've once again addressed all of your babble, see if you can address some of what you avoided: As for Hoover policies killing xxx number of Americans, I already agreed that the source was a quick look and likely high. They used census data which really isn't reliable to determine deaths since the Republican kingdom was so horrible that people fled to go to places like the USSR. (1) Basically tho, for you and for Republicans, the number isn't important, dead Americans during the GD, Katrina, etc are not the issue, it's how taxes are spent. (2)The Nazi Republican machine wants all asset left with and/or given to the elite for use in military operations to kill people and leave the few in a position of luxury; dead Americans are just, as the Great Republican Timothy McVeigh would say: collateral damage. (3)So my point was made regardless of the actual number, affirmed by you here being more worried about the actual number than the fact that there was widespread suffering at the hands of, you guessed it, a Republican. Address those, or not as you won't.

That's Americans at their best. "I support your right to Free Speech as long as you don't say anything that pisses ME off." There's your assholes. No, the assholes are: go ahead and say what you want, if it incites riots, so what? If people die, so what? Absolute free speech is more important than civil order. I would venture that the person responsible for the riot is the person who actually starts acting violently. Somebody saying something you abhor doesn't give you the right to do whatever the fuck you want. If you only have the freedom to say things that everybody already agrees with, you don't really have "free" speech. Also, I highly agree with what lawrocket said about keeping the bigots out in the open. It makes it easier to counter their arguments and takes away their ability to argue from the position of "they're trying to shut me up because they know I'm right and they can't defeat my clearly superior arguments." That's a question for the jury. If you get charged with disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, etc for running off, you leave the judgment to a jury in cases where there is no clear statute covering every little behavior. >>> If you only have the freedom to say things that everybody already agrees with, you don't really have "free" speech. We don't. Again, yelling fire in a crowded theatre is disorderly if there is no fire and people can die. Do you think that person, if caught would face charges? Of course they would if you could prove they did so with malice or at least without the belief there was a fire. Go call a judge a douchbag, hell, publish outside the courtroom that a judge is an idiot and see how your free speech works out. And it's not about, "freedom to say things that everybody already agrees with" it's about not inciting people by intentionally using language that would forseeably, to a reasonable person, incite disorder. >>> It makes it easier to counter their arguments and takes away their ability to argue from the position of "they're trying to shut me up because they know I'm right and they can't defeat my clearly superior arguments." That's akin to paranoia. Not allowing certain speech to avoid civil disorder is overtly obvious, look at the Watts riots, Rodney King, etc. It doesn't take a whole lot of language to incite a riot and the way prosecution works, do you think they would miss a chance to pounce?

Cite, please - never heard of anyone getting arrested for that. Here's my entire statement, I will put the assertion into context: Really? KKK fools get shut down all the time with their anti-black message. Where do you their ideals derrived? Also, where did the word, "N*****" come from? Wasn't it used a lot and/or derrived as we know it from the slavery days? Why can't we use it in open speech w/o citing a riot? Why is it not allowed and an arrest be made for disorderly conduct if a fool started using it openly on teh streets or at work, etc? I now see why you don't like analogies. I guess it's regional perhaps, the neck states probably use it as normal dialogue. As for the N-bomb being codified illegal, there is no statute that would cover every single word, but if the use of any defamatory language leads to disorder, the neck purveying that would be arrested. It's purely discretionary, but using the word is inherently disorderly, esp in the context to which we are referring. Lenny Bruce, a commedian was in the 1960's: http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Nigger_Nigger_Nigger.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce But here's folks from a neck state org using the word recently: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/20/90772/rep-john-lewis-charges-protesters.html At the same time, there are hate statutes that EXTREMELY aggravate crimes if that langauge is used, which isn't the same as illegalizing that language, but it is close. Probably every jurisdiction by now has hate crime statutes. So there it is, it is codified via general disorderly conduct, WHICH IS WHAT I STATED INITIALLY, not explicitly. If you use it in a workplace, that employer would have to conform, fire, etc or be charged with allowing a, "hostile workplace."

That's Americans at their best. "I support your right to Free Speech as long as you don't say anything that pisses ME off." There's your assholes. No, the assholes are: go ahead and say what you want, if it incites riots, so what? If people die, so what? Absolute free speech is more important than civil order.

Fixed that for you - but it's still sorta different - you never *DID* prove your claim about Hoover killing...what was it? 12 million? No fix, that was your assertion represented as mine. How did we go from Republican metaphors to a diff old argument? As for Hoover policies killing xxx number of Americans, I already agreed that the source was a quick look and likely high. They used census data which really isn't reliable to determine deaths since the Republican kingdom was so horrible that people fled to go to places like the USSR. Basically tho, for you and for Republicans, the number isn't important, dead Americans during the GD, Katrina, etc are not the issue, it's how taxes are spent. The Nazi Republican machine wants all asset left with and/or given to the elite for use in military operations to kill people and leave the few in a position of luxury; dead Americans are just, as the Great Republican Timothy McVeigh would say: collateral damage. So my point was made regardless of the actual number, affirmed by you here being more worried about the actual number than the fact that there was widespread suffering at the hands of, you guessed it, a Republican.

I think he's taken a beating here in this thread, he's trying to gracefully back away.

NO, many/most Tea Baggers are anti-Dem, anti-Obama, pro-racist. These guys weren't around or vocal when GWB was running the debt 5T, so their motive is obviously anti-Dem.

I know, it's not as if a simple thing as a jury verdict could cause a riot that kileld 53 people or anything . I agree, speech before life You're correct. So ban jury verdicts! They may be insensitive. So any juror who participates in reaching a verdict shall be guilty of a felony. How dare those jurors cause all those deaths? There should be a law that bans "not guilty" verdicts - they may cause riots. I guess I coul;d have expected that, but my point was taht if a jury verdict can cause that kind of riot then a KKK rally could too. Resting on our laurals isn't worth all that.

Or making "I have a gun" illegal to say in a bank? Let's ban cops from saying it, too. When it comes to the reception of a teller, the diff is nill. They hear, "gun" they think robbery; let's not be semantic here. I would abscond . Nazi has a diff meanign here than in Germany. If I ever go to Germany I would not use that language and I would not bring my Nazi-era coins. To compare what happens here and to what happens there is ridiculous. With that logic we wouldn't be preemptive and drunk driving would only be a crime in an accident occurred while drunk. Many laws are based upon potentials.

That was addressed in Loving v Virginia 1968, counselor. Marrying is hardly simple free speech, lousy comparison. It's not self-centered, and with the civil rights marches in the 1960's, we have an obviously discriminated group trying to gain equality vs the KKK a bunch of racist pigs trying to relive the gool ole days to them. Point is, as unfair as it may seem, a black man can say, "N*****" all day in public whereas I cannot if I wanted to. As well, it's not just about the parties, innocent bystanders could be get hurt/killed with a riot caused by idiots claiming to be excercizing free speech, so it's about public good as well and where rights end and protections begin. Only if they are Republican congresspeople. Of course not, but your examplke is waaaay off base to free speech. Spitting on anyone isn't expression, unless it's wanted by the recipient.

what about a simple joke about a bomb while waiting for your flight? You and Lucky should know better than to use the stinky examples you've each used. Stinky! I'll see you two after class. They're awsome examples of the meaningless 1st.

Congratulations, you are on the same side as Belgian

I know, it's not as if a simple thing as a jury verdict could cause a riot that kileld 53 people or anything . I agree, speech before life

I guess the legal term that matters here is: FORSEEABLE. Is it forseeable that denying the holocaust or dropping the N-bomb in the US would likely end up with a riot? Of course it is, trherefore it s/b a crime and a tort. Many are denied permits, just as a permit to deny the Holocaust in Germany, Austria, etc would be denied summarily as a matter of law. So I see we agree, if there is a permit then you can do it and it's protected. Here are examples: http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2010-02-06/story/ku_klux_klan_denied_permit_to_rally_at_nahunta_city_hall http://peanutpolitics-keith.blogspot.com/2010/02/ku-klux-klan-denied-permit-to-rally-in.html http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2010-02-06/kkk-denied-permit-south-georgia-rally?page=1&v=1265460826 There are more, but this speech is so sensitive that they often get turned down, meaning their speech is not protected as it violates other's civil rights. Glad we agree.

It's sad that since you cannot make an argument that you must PA. what's ironic, is that in that sentence, you're attacking the poster, not the contents of his post. I point out his PA only response, then I go on to post all kinds of arguments. I see yours is only to address people, not issues as well. ________________________________________________ GDP going from a a 'shrinkage' from -6.4% to +5.6% is growth, don't know how that isn't. The recovery IS the change from shrinkage to + growth; how is that difficult for you to grasp? The market has constantly grown from a low of 6500 to > 11000; how is that not growth? It's sad that since you cannot make an argument that you must PA. Oh, fundamentals like supply and demand or fundamental indexes like the DJIA, NASDAQ, S&P, Unemp via the BLS, GDP per the BEA / Dept of Commerce. I think I am. Agreed, the DJIA is just a part of the macro-picture. When has the economy done well as the DJIA has substantially shrunk? Never than I can think of. The DJIA has done well as the economy has sucked, but in order for the economy to do well, the market must lead. So just because the market is doing well doesn't automatically mean the economy will do well, but in fascist capitalism we must restore the very rich before the rest can do well. Yes, I know, we need to cut taxes. Of course it hasb't been repaired, your hero sat back with rose-colored glasses thinking all was well, mine has taken measures to repair this with + results. But as fickle as the politics are, the best we can get is a little relief in a Democracy with presidents turning over as such often intervals. Take your party with that fascist pig fucking things up badly, thne his successor trying in small form to fix things; basically 12 years of hell, then 8 years of relief with Clinton, then 8 years of more hell with your hero. So to look for permanent change is optimistic, esp with on eside really bad at math and history chanting, "It's not fair." Hell, even Andrew Jackson dropped the debt to 0 or to 75M, I've read both and believe the latter. Either way, he fixed and some othe ryahoos fucked it all up. So to look for a permanent fix is to not understand politics. Obama has given us relief. No but it has to stay in the toilet that your hero stacked with shit in order to prove you and yours right. You and yours are being proven wrong everyday, from teh party who gave us, 'you guys are just whiners about this economy.' So were you pissed with Eisenhower too? Taxes were left in the 90%'s during his time; was he a redistributionist? Taxes are now in the 35% top brkt, Obama wants to bring them to 40% and you act like that's high. Talk about whiners where is McCains's foul-mouthed aid now? To compare Obama's policies to Carl Marx other than as a metaphor is a joke. As for industries, the auto industry was about to fail, our #5 product, that would kill our limited manuf base if we let it fall. And your hero appropriated and dolled out about 1/2 the bank bailout money, some 300Bish has been recovered under Obama, so you point falls flat again. Glad you can speak for them, it isn;t as many as you think. Furthermore, the ones that are pissed are pissed at the banks for being irresponsible. Not to mention the hypocrites that are part of the foreclosure mess that bitch at TARP. They would also bitch if Obama watched us roll into the GD II as your hero was doing. _______________________________________________ Care to address any issues, or just here to troll?

Very poor comparisons. Both of your examples are illegal because of the immediate results that can be expected. A person claiming the holocaust never occurred is expressing their views and opinions. Right and a subsequent riot would never outbreak by descedents of the Holocaust survivors . Would saying Licoln was wrong with the Emancipation Proclamation while in downtown Detriot be a cause of a riot? Would it incite civil unrest? Sure, therefore it's not protected but disorderly conduct. Sorry you don't personally like it, but that is the way it is.

You use it as a metaphor, not we. Don't include everyone in your little name calling game, lucky. I have friends from both major parties and I'm not so big an asshole that I would refer to any of them as Nazis or insinuate they would approve of atrocities the Nazis committed. It's a metaphor, meaning that most R's and R ideology is basically asshole in that it subscribes a mere part of the Nazi Party, not the whole thing or it would be litteral, which I never mean it that way. Of course some idiotic R's consider their calling the D's, Communists as litteral and that is as dumb as calling the R's littertally Nazis.

More great examples. The greater good of society outweighs a person's right to free speech.