Racist Cop or Racist Prof?
07-30-2009, 08:51 AM
#61
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
"overturned" means that the supreme court overturned a lower courts ruling.... maybe you should read the briefs before you say they are poor examples because i took them from several different articles on protected/unprotected speech...
i even considdered bring up Max v. blueberry king but then i figured you really wouldn't take it seriously.
true, but as i estabalished (seriously, go read the decisions not just the aggregated posts here... im not trying to be a dick) you can be arrested for verbally assaulting a police officer (or anyone for that matter).
so, if he was using the utterances as dismissal (ex: "why dont you go outside and play hide and go **** yourself") or in a mocking manner versus an attempt to instigate violence then a different standard is applied.
important because it defines what incitement to violence actually is. is the anarchist cookbook in itself dangerous? no. is a crazy person with a copy dangerous? possibly... so is the speech protected?
i think thats a pretty good example.
"libelous publications and even verbal challenges to police officers have come to enjoy some constitutional protection."
that's not exactly that standard you are trying to claim it is. which is also why i want to hear the recording. my argument is, "libelous publications and verbal challenges" is a far cry a direct attempt to incite violence. there is a pretty big gray area in there.
I'm not trying to be right. i'm trying to convince you to think beyond what you know. see the last two responses. yes i'm a condescending *******, this is the internet. no apologies for that, sorry 
i even considdered bring up Max v. blueberry king but then i figured you really wouldn't take it seriously.
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
You'd like to hear the recordings? What for? The federal judge's conclusion is right there in front of you -- hearing his tone of voice won't change his decision.
so, if he was using the utterances as dismissal (ex: "why dont you go outside and play hide and go **** yourself") or in a mocking manner versus an attempt to instigate violence then a different standard is applied.
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
As for your examples:
Each one of those is a case of "incitement to violence." Rice v. Paladin Press, for example, is a case of someone publishing a how-to book on being a hit man. That is a far cry from the framework of this discussion, which revolves around insulting an officer's mother.
Each one of those is a case of "incitement to violence." Rice v. Paladin Press, for example, is a case of someone publishing a how-to book on being a hit man. That is a far cry from the framework of this discussion, which revolves around insulting an officer's mother.
i think thats a pretty good example.
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
As for Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), he was arrested because of local statutes against insulting people in public places:
Of course, if you did a little more research on that case (a very important case, actually), you would have seen this:
The case I listed was decided in 1990 by a federal appeals judge, the Chaplinsky case was in 1942 by the supreme court. Take note of the italicized text in the above quote.
Of course, if you did a little more research on that case (a very important case, actually), you would have seen this:
The case I listed was decided in 1990 by a federal appeals judge, the Chaplinsky case was in 1942 by the supreme court. Take note of the italicized text in the above quote.
that's not exactly that standard you are trying to claim it is. which is also why i want to hear the recording. my argument is, "libelous publications and verbal challenges" is a far cry a direct attempt to incite violence. there is a pretty big gray area in there.
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
"It would seem you don't know very much about federal judges." I think I've said this to you before: don't be so intent on being right all the time. Life isn't that black and white.
07-30-2009, 11:51 AM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Legal precedent in this country is an oft-changing and nebulous thing. What the supreme court upholds in 1942 may be overlooked by a federal circuit judge in 1990 -- or even overlooked by the supreme court itself, because most things are looked at on a case-by-case basis.
My point in all of this was to show you that saying that "insults are not protected speech" is an inaccurate generalization, because there have been times where it was considered protected speech. That's all.
And using the internet or anonymity as an excuse for being condescending or an ******* is weak. Oftentimes it is associated with people who feel repressed or somehow impotent in "real life." That may not apply to you--chances are it's just because you're young--but I suggest keeping that in mind in the future.
Last edited by saqwarrior; 07-30-2009 at 11:55 AM.
07-30-2009, 11:59 AM
#64
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
And using the internet or anonymity as an excuse for being condescending or an ******* is weak. Oftentimes it is associated with people who feel repressed or somehow impotent in "real life." That may not apply to you--chances are it's just because you're young--but I suggest keeping that in mind in the future.
I think the two of you would make great friends.
07-30-2009, 12:08 PM
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
07-30-2009, 12:53 PM
#66
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
Apparently you missed the part where I didn't say you were wrong or that I was right, just that I don't know that I completely agree with you. I'm not the one that needs to think "beyond what [I] know." :P
Legal precedent in this country is an oft-changing and nebulous thing. What the supreme court upholds in 1942 may be overlooked by a federal circuit judge in 1990 -- or even overlooked by the supreme court itself, because most things are looked at on a case-by-case basis.
My point in all of this was to show you that saying that "insults are not protected speech" is an inaccurate generalization, because there have been times where it was considered protected speech. That's all.
Legal precedent in this country is an oft-changing and nebulous thing. What the supreme court upholds in 1942 may be overlooked by a federal circuit judge in 1990 -- or even overlooked by the supreme court itself, because most things are looked at on a case-by-case basis.
My point in all of this was to show you that saying that "insults are not protected speech" is an inaccurate generalization, because there have been times where it was considered protected speech. That's all.
however, this is not a case where an officer followed someone for no reason, initiated a stop, and as a result arrested someone...
the officer responded to a call for a possible burglary. was confronted by a man who became "verbose" with him...
flip the coin... what if it had been a robbery and the officer had simply left. lets assume gates was home. we could be crucifying the very same officer for failing to arrest someone for doing the exact same thing... personally, i would hope PO's would always choose to air on the side of caution.
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
And using the internet or anonymity as an excuse for being condescending or an ******* is weak. Oftentimes it is associated with people who feel repressed or somehow impotent in "real life." That may not apply to you--chances are it's just because you're young--but I suggest keeping that in mind in the future.
pot, kettle, black, senior.
pot, kettle, black.
Last edited by Irrational X; 07-30-2009 at 12:55 PM. Reason: wrong verb
07-30-2009, 02:11 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
judicial discretion is not what this situation is about though. its about determining whether or not the officer acted appropriately in this situation. while lower courts and the USSC have chiseled away the blanket decision on "fightin' words" by applying the test differently under certain circumstances. These decisions don't contradict previous rulings but offer clarification for judges ruling on the multitude of possible conflicts that can arise under the law...
however, this is not a case where an officer followed someone for no reason, initiated a stop, and as a result arrested someone...
the officer responded to a call for a possible burglary. was confronted by a man who became "verbose" with him...
flip the coin... what if it had been a robbery and the officer had simply left. lets assume gates was home. we could be crucifying the very same officer for failing to arrest someone for doing the exact same thing... personally, i would hope PO's would always choose to air on the side of caution.
however, this is not a case where an officer followed someone for no reason, initiated a stop, and as a result arrested someone...
the officer responded to a call for a possible burglary. was confronted by a man who became "verbose" with him...
flip the coin... what if it had been a robbery and the officer had simply left. lets assume gates was home. we could be crucifying the very same officer for failing to arrest someone for doing the exact same thing... personally, i would hope PO's would always choose to air on the side of caution.
actually its cause i work in IT... but i'm like this in real life too, always have been. i find it funny that while condemning me for being aggressive towards other posters (you in this case) you yourself resort to the same tried and true tactic of dismissal based on perceived mental capacity/state and/or age.
pot, kettle, black, senior. pot, kettle, black.
pot, kettle, black, senior.
pot, kettle, black.In short, go find someone else to argue with so you can prove how you're right.
07-30-2009, 03:52 PM
#71
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
easily half of what i posted was strait copy and paste from the articles i was reading.
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
Nice try, but I didn't dismiss you or your argument, I was trying to be nice to you by saying that you don't act the way you do because you're impotent and insecure, but because you're young. And your IT excuse doesn't fly either -- I've been an IT/Ops professional for close to 15 years.
In short, go find someone else to argue with so you can prove how you're right.
In short, go find someone else to argue with so you can prove how you're right.
great, so youre in IT... and youre a saint. i'm not. i have never tried to claim that i am not an ******* or a douche. however, you are equally as guilty here...
...its just funnier because you are allot more high and mighty about it.
07-30-2009, 04:31 PM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
You're not a judge, lawyer or a constitutional scholar, and your job working in IT gives you no special insight, so your opinion of legal rulings is as valid as my own. I provided you a case where the judge explicitly stated that insults that are a representation of disapproval of the police are protected speech (1990), and you cited the fighting words doctrine (1942). Both are clearly valid, and you continue to make excuses to validate your own position (there is no recording of Duran's insults--and you have the audacity to tell me that I didn't read what I cited). That's a-ok with me.
And just to be clear: I never said I was a saint. If I was, I wouldn't be annoyed with your behavior -- and when I was 24, I was worse than you.
EDIT: This is a highly edited version of what I originally wrote because I'm tired of arguing over something so ****ing meaningless.
And just to be clear: I never said I was a saint. If I was, I wouldn't be annoyed with your behavior -- and when I was 24, I was worse than you.
EDIT: This is a highly edited version of what I originally wrote because I'm tired of arguing over something so ****ing meaningless.
Last edited by saqwarrior; 07-30-2009 at 05:00 PM.
07-30-2009, 04:55 PM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words -- read the "Post-Chaplinsky" sub-section.
07-31-2009, 08:47 AM
#75
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
I provided you a case where the judge explicitly stated that insults that are a representation of disapproval of the police are protected speech (1990), and you cited the fighting words doctrine (1942)
Originally Posted by Locricchio v. richards
At the time of Locricchio's arrest, it was clearly established that statutes criminalizing speech do not violate the First Amendment if they are narrowly drawn to penalize only speech "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation." See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 574 (1942) (applying this standard in a case involving speech directed at a police officer). Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent also had clearly established that the First Amendment protects verbal criticism, challenges, and profanity directed at police officers unless the speech constitutes "fighting words." See City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 455, 465-67 (1987) (striking down as overbroad city ordinance that prohibited "oppos[ing], molest[ing], abus[ing] or interrupt[ing] any policeman in the execution of his duty"); Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 132-34 (1974) (striking down as overbroad a city ordinance making it unlawful "wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty"); Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372, 1377-78 (9th Cir.1990) (police officer's stop of a car from which defendant was making obscene gestures and yelling profanities was unlawful; defendant's actions were protected by First Amendment).
[...]
First Amendment required the application of a heightened "fighting words" standard to abusive speech directed at police officers. Id. at 1314-18; cf. City of Houston, 482 U.S. at 462 (noting that Justice Powell's concurrence in Lewis, 415 U.S. at 135, suggested that the fighting words exception might require a narrower application in cases involving speech directed at police officers, because officers' training would make them "less likely to respond belligerently to 'fighting words' "). The court therefore held that abusive speech directed at a police officer loses First Amendment protection only when speech that would constitute fighting words if directed at a member of the public also is accompanied by "outrageous conduct."
[...]
First Amendment required the application of a heightened "fighting words" standard to abusive speech directed at police officers. Id. at 1314-18; cf. City of Houston, 482 U.S. at 462 (noting that Justice Powell's concurrence in Lewis, 415 U.S. at 135, suggested that the fighting words exception might require a narrower application in cases involving speech directed at police officers, because officers' training would make them "less likely to respond belligerently to 'fighting words' "). The court therefore held that abusive speech directed at a police officer loses First Amendment protection only when speech that would constitute fighting words if directed at a member of the public also is accompanied by "outrageous conduct."
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
Both are clearly valid, and you continue to make excuses to validate your own position (there is no recording of Duran's insults--and you have the audacity to tell me that I didn't read what I cited). That's a-ok with me.
"I'm up with a gentleman who says he resides here. He's uncooperative. Keep the cars coming."- Sgt. James Crowley
ps- have fun in another thread then i guess?
