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

I think I would go to court for my hearing and play every song in the last five years that has used that word and make the court enter a ruling that the word itself is not offensive as a matter of law

It would create quite the conundrum

quote:

---

The question is whether the word was used in a manner calculated or likely to cause a brawl, etcetera.

---

Only if you accept that black people are inherently violent creatures unable to control their outbursts if the wrong (white) person uses a particular word that, in fact, in itself, is not offensive to the black community as proven by their constant usage of it.

quote:

---

RelentlessAnalysis

---

Are you trying to make US law look stupid?

quote:

---

Only if you accept that black people are inherently … unable to control their outbursts if the wrong (white) person uses a particular word

Some are, and some are not. Hence the need for a finder of fact.

---

You do realize you are infantilizing an entire race, right?

If I were black, I'd find that offensive.

quote:

---

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.

---

True, but inciting imminent violence is not part of the statute she is being charged under. It is a clearly unconstitutional statute on its face. I know most states have similar statutes. They are all clearly unconstitutional if they don’t have an inciting violence element.

quote:

---

Only if you accept that black people are inherently … unable to control their outbursts if the wrong (white) person uses a particular word

quote:

---

Some are, and some are not. Hence the need for a finder of fact.

---

You do realize you are infantilizing an entire race, right?

---

No, I am not. As I clearly stated.

In any ethnic group, some people are immature little bitches who cannot control their emotions, and some are not.

We see the same here, every day.

quote:

---

Is it your contention that under the United States Constitution and the first amendment that the exact same word used via a black person versus a white person one is chargeable as a criminal offense and one is not?

---

No.

My contention is that, independent of race, the Minnesota statute presents a fact question as to whether ANY utterance will constitute a violation ... dependent upon whether it will (among other things) "provoke an assault or breach of the peace."

Let's look at the statute under which she was charged:

quote:

---

609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

Subdivision 1.Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:

(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or

(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

---

The word itself is not the problem. The context in which it is used presents the problem.

quote:

---

inciting imminent violence is not part of the statute she is being charged under

---

See the preceding post.

Am I looking at the wrong statute? Because it clearly says otherwise when referencing provocation of an assault or breach of the peace.

I suspect that the specific language of the statute was picked right out of Brandenburg v Ohio, in an effort to comply with it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

---

Can apply to any insult.

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

Amazing you're here defending this but pretending someone donning a dick and balls costume is protected speech.

---

Different states. Different laws. But it is a fact question in either instance, which is why we have trials.

My personal thoughts? One was clearly political speech, and the other was not. My interpretation is that the First Amendment guarantee of free speech was intended to apply exclusively to political speech. Yes, I think that matters.