re: So now MN is arresting white people for hurting feelings

quote:

---

This is a clear violation of her First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects the worst of speech. You can face social consequences for your speech but you should never face any consequences from the government.

---

It is more complex than that.

Speech is NOT protected by the First Amendment if it is intended and likely to produce imminent violence or other lawless action. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

The theory of this prosecution seems to be that the woman in question knew that her speech was likely to incite violence or other lawless action.

quote:

---

Caucasians aren't thin skinned nor thick skulled enough to get het up over disparaging racial remarks. Never have been, never will be.

---

In your world, no one has ever been punched in the face for calling someone a Wop or a Mick or a Spic?

Your world sounds like a nice place. Where is it located?

quote:

---

You aren’t smart. You aren’t special.

---

Or pretty.

Isn't that what Goran Visnjic said to break-up with Maura Tierney on e.r.?

quote:

---

quote:

---

It bars behavior intended or likely to incite violence or criminal behavior

---

Why would this language incite violence?

---

Because some people are well-known to be fragile and to react with anger and/or violence to certain insulting language.

You can call me a Mick all day, and I will just chuckle and shake my head. Not everyone shares my level of equanimity.

Good luck proving that was her intention. She didn't do it unprovoked. Her property was stolen and the guy was acting a fool.

quote:

---

You can call me a Mick all day, and I will just chuckle and shake my head.

---

Same for someone calling me the N-word.

quote:

---

Not everyone shares my level of equanimity.

---

I agree, but we’re not responsible for them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not everyone shares my level of equanimity.

---

I agree, but we’re not responsible for them.

---

Both the Minnesota statute and Brandenburg v. Ohio seem to say otherwise.

Calling someone a Nagger is not necessarily in and of itself considered fighting words. There are a host of factors to consider if it’s protected free speech or not.

And even if it’s not protected speech given the factors, it’s still criminal for someone to commit battery on you for saying it. It’s not permission to strike someone. Course a certain demographic believes it’s ok to do it.

quote:

---

Speech is NOT protected by the First Amendment if it is intended and likely to produce imminent violence or other lawless action. See Brandenburg v. Ohio. The theory of this prosecution seems to be that the woman in question knew that her speech was likely to incite violence or other lawless action.

---

Are you implying black peoples can't control themselves, and as a default resort to violence over a six letter word? That they are reasonably expected and entitled to throw hands over two syllables?

Interesting theory...

quote:

---

In Minnesota, disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor offense involving activities like brawling, fighting, disturbing a lawful assembly, or engaging in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or language.

---

Has a black person ever been charged for saying that word in Minnesota?