Censoring Free Speech - New York Outlaws Common Terms

[Deleted User]

I liked your post because you made a valid point. Am I not allowed to like something even if you're criticizing or disagreeing with me? I'm not the type of person to get all butt hurt because someone simply disagrees with me. I value opposing points of view. I'm not closed off in some safe space. I can deal with shit..

Alright. I'll respect that. apologize, thought you were lost in the argument. I retract my previous statement.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

That's not actually true. It's a commonly misused metaphor which originates from Justice Holmes' opinion regarding Schenck v. United States. The decision has since been partially overturned in Brandenbur v. Ohio, the actual legal standard only concerns speech which is "directed to and can likely cause immediate lawless action". For instance, inciting a riot is a form of illegal speech. Calling law enforcement if you suspect a crime has been committed, be it federal or state, is not and should not be illegal. The actual concept of "shouting fire" was never binding law in any shape or form, what's actually illegal in such a case is deliberately causing a panic, on the same grounds as a false bomb threat would've been.

thank you for correcting me but ultimately still proving my original point. Which for the intents and purposes of this discussion you cant really say whatever the fuck you want. It has been this way for a long time.

 

[Deleted User]

As for the illegals, a lot of them come across illegally with no intention of following the laws and simply leeching off of society. Hell, one single person doing that is more than should be, let alone hundreds of thousands. Not every single illegal immigrant does this, but there's enough doing so that it's a problem. The fact that the first thing they do is commit a crime when they come into the country should speak loudly about their intentions.

If I'm expected to follow some law that says I can't simply state a simple phrase then people who are breaking into our country should also be held accountable for their actions. If you want to compare the severity of the crimes then costing taxpayers billions of dollars has a much harsher impact on society then simply saying a couple of words.

There's plenty of great things that immigrants bring our country, but they need to do it legally. Get in line just like everyone else and wait your turn. I've got no problem with immigrants as our county has been built by them, but if I'm expected to follow the law than I think other people should too.

So in regards to immigration. It's not just mexicans, which I bring up intentionally as well... I know someone who is racist in my life, and refers to mexicans as the illegals. When really it's to broad since illegals could be referring to all races. With a lot of these countries, they are going through a lot of issues to say the bare minimum that have deplorable conditions. Crime, gangs, war, economic failings/struggle. And part of it is the fact the states/ more specifically companies take advantage of this. In other not as well developed countries, or countries with a lack of a strong enough government to keep regulations, it's possible to truly pay something far under minimum wage, to the point that you may need to work absurd hours. I know in the animation industry that if a worker doesn't like the pay, the company will outsource that project to people in china or India or insert country here, and not get the same pay, but are so desperate, that they will accept it.

 

[BlackWizzard17]

Isn't that form of harrassment tho?
I don't think this should be illegal whatsoever, taking away bits and pieces of our freedom of speech is bad. We already have people who want to take away some of our rights to bare arms.

 

[yuyuyup]

The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters' speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.

Right, the 1992 ruling precisely made it clear that "fighting words" COULD BE PROPERLY REGULATED BY MUNICIPAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS. What is the original topic about? ROFLMAO I guess you didn't read what you told me that I didn't read. And in Snyder vs Phelps, they gave the thumbs UP to laws that protect funeral attendees from.............. From what, you tell me amigo, could it be... from the speech.... of the protesters..... ROFLMAO

 

[WD_GASTER2]

Isn't that form of harrassment tho?
I don't think this should be illegal whatsoever, taking away bits and pieces of our freedom of speech is bad. We already have people who want to take away some of our rights to bare arms.

This is a city mandate. One city has done this. I really would not worry too much about it. States like florida have some real stupid laws and nobody bats an eyelash.

 

[billapong]

So in regards to immigration. It's not just mexicans, which I bring up intentionally as well... I know someone who is racist in my life, and refers to mexicans as the illegals. When really it's to broad since illegals could be referring to all races. With a lot of these countries, they are going through a lot of issues to say the bare minimum that have deplorable conditions. Crime, gangs, war, economic failings/struggle. And part of it is the fact the states/ more specifically companies take advantage of this. In other not as well developed countries, or countries with a lack of a strong enough government to keep regulations, it's possible to truly pay something far under minimum wage, to the point that you may need to work absurd hours. I know in the animation industry that if a worker doesn't like the pay, the company will outsource that project to people in china or India or insert country here, and not get the same pay, but are so desperate, that they will accept it.

If we don't have laws and a process to identify the sort of people that are causing the crimes we'll be seeing more of the conditions that these places suffer here in the States. We're also not the World's keepers. We have own own problems. We take in as many people legally as we can help out, but just because you are living in poor conditions doesn't mean you can come here and use resources we could be using to help our own citizens in the same or worse situation. Asylum was meant for a very specific group of people in certain situations, which doesn't include someone who doesn't like where they live. I don't like where I live! What do I get?

Just because illegal immigrants are cheap labor and do jobs that various lazy Liberals don't want to do (like picking produce or landscaping) doesn't justify using them as modern day slaves. So you have the Liberals using the illegals for slave labor hoping to get votes. That's not always the case, because of lot of these illegals can't find or don't want jobs and end up just using public resources.

Just like not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans (most of them aren't from Mexico - a lot are actually from overseas) not all of them are leeches, but I'm addressing the leeches. If you came here illegally it must suck to not be able to legally work, but that's what you get for doing it illegally. We shouldn't be making laws to protect the illegals as that only makes more people think it's just fine. Liberal policies encourage people to take advantage of us (that's not to say there's some Conservative policies that contribute to people not entering in a legal port of entry).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This is a city mandate. One city has done this. I really would not worry too much about it. States like florida have some real stupid laws and nobody bats an eyelash.

It shouldn't be acceptable regardless of scope. It's the idea behind it that is the problem. I wasn't aware of "fighting words", but the law surrounding that is also bullshit.

 

[Foxi4]

thank you for correcting me but ultimately still proving my original point. Which for the intents and purposes of this discussion you cant really say whatever the fuck you want. It has been this way for a long time.

Well of course, we have laws that limit speech, or rather, define what free speech is, limiting it to forms of expression, redress of grievances and so on. There's a large range of statements that do not qualify as such, including libel and defamation, incitement and so on. The problem here is that the terms mentioned in the legislation are not normally classified as prohibited speech. The Constitution, or the law in general, is not designed to protect people from being offended - offensive speech must necessarily be permissible in order for speech to be free in aggregate. I object to the idea that speech should be banned strictly on the premise of "being offensive" or "derogatory" - being offensive isn't illegal, it's merely frowned upon. Besides, the idea of what is and is not offensive is nebulous, subjective and impossible to define. The law does not exist to protect people's feelings, it exists to protect their rights. Legislation like this legitimises bizarre oxymorons like "undocumented migrant" which make me personally sigh and shake my head. It's a weird form of Orwellian "newspeak" that we've been warned about in the past, and it never led to anything good. It's forced upon the public as opposed to developing naturally, I consider it a state intervention in language. The correct legal term is, and always has been, "illegal alien". Whether the term is used in a derogatory fashion or not is irrelevant to me - so long as the speech doesn't purposefully incite an immediate unlawful action, like for instance a lynching, it should be permissible. We might not like it, but I personally prefer bigots to advertise themselves as such. If all it takes for someone to assume that another person is an illegal alien is a turban or a slightly different shade of skin, they're the assholes. There are social penalties for this kind of behaviour, the state is overstepping its boundaries by effectively creating a thought crime policy. It's certainly an interesting subject with lots to unpack, I can understand both sides of the issue.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

the state is overstepping its boundaries by effectively creating a thought crime policy. It's certainly an interesting subject with lots to unpack, I can understand both sides of the issue.

correction. THE CITY of NY. not the state.

either way. disagree with you somewhat there because its ignoring what the intent of the law is here. regardless this would go in circles anyways. (you use this forum section for personal entertainment rather than to discuss substance and have gone on record to describe yourself as so. Not gonna engage with you on this for your entertainment .

Also i will see myself out. Pretty much said anything that would contribute to this topic anyways.

 

[morvoran]

What is the original topic about?

Hate speech, not "fighting words". Telling somebody to "go back to where they came from" is not a phrase that, legally, should incite violence.

And in Snyder vs Phelps, they gave the thumbs UP to laws that protect funeral attendees from.............. From what, you tell me amigo, could it be... from the speech.... of the protesters..... ROFLMAO

The majority gave the thumbs down that the federal government could intervene as they felt the local government's laws would suffice.
Just because somebody says something that you don't like, doesn't make it "fighting words" (or "hate speech" for that matter). What I was trying to highlight for you is that the local government can detain you for "fighting words" if applied to other local laws such as disorderly conduct, but you cannot be convicted for them alone as it is unconstitutional.

 

[Foxi4]

correction. THE CITY of NY. not the state.

either way. disagree with you somewhat there because its ignoring what the intent of the law is here. regardless this would go in circles anyways. (you use this forum section for personal entertainment rather than to discuss substance and have gone on record to describe yourself as so. Not gonna engage with you on this for your entertainment .

You misunderstand. I don't mean "the state" as in the State of New York, or "the state", as in the federal government. "The state" refers to a polity, as in the governing political body in context. The mayor of New York, as well as all of its employees, are de facto part of "the state" in that sense, they form the governing body in New York. Minor misunderstanding, so I figured I would post a correction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

EDIT: As for the entertainment value I draw from discussing politics, I always thought that was the primary drive behind exchanging information in the first place. The pursuit of knowledge is, in and out of itself, am entertaining venture. If you can also do it for sport, that's even better. In regards to the intent of the law, I'm not particularly interested in it, but we can't oscillate back and forth between caring about the intent of the law and caring about the effects of the law - we should probably agree to talk about the law as it is written to avoid misinterpretation - I've always been a textualist.

 

[Deleted User]

If we don't have laws and a process to identify the sort of people that are causing the crimes we'll be seeing more of the conditions that these places suffer here in the States. We're also not the World's keepers. We have own own problems. We take in as many people legally as we can help out, but just because you are living in poor conditions doesn't mean you can come here and use resources we could be using to help our own citizens in the same or worse situation. Asylum was meant for a very specific group of people in certain situations, which doesn't include someone who doesn't like where they live. I don't like where I live! What do I get?

Just because illegal immigrants are cheap labor and do jobs that various lazy Liberals don't want to do (like picking produce or landscaping) doesn't justify using them as modern day slaves. So you have the Liberals using the illegals for slave labor hoping to get votes. That's not always the case, because of lot of these illegals can't find or don't want jobs and end up just using public resources.

Just like not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans (most of them aren't from Mexico - a lot are actually from overseas) not all of them are leeches, but I'm addressing the leeches. If you came here illegally it must suck to not be able to legally work, but that's what you get for doing it illegally. We shouldn't be making laws to protect the illegals as that only makes more people think it's just fine. Liberal policies encourage people to take advantage of us (that's not to say there's some Conservative policies that contribute to people not entering in a legal port of entry).

Again, forgetting companies are opportunists again. Liberals and Conservatives have nothing to gain from the exploitation of this sort, unless of course you're someone who already does profit from that. And their conditions are far worse than ours. Being liberal or conservative does not speak to work ethic. Throwing criticism at something you also work in aka a job site doesn't always mean your lazy. HOWEVER getting back immigration. Your saying that immigrants that cross the border are ready to break more laws? What about people with work visas and forgot it expired? Does that mean the moment it expires or that they enter the country they are going to go stab a man, or mow people down? Most people leaving, entering the country illegally don't have malicious intent, they work out of desperation. Out of the fact that in their country they are more likely to get killed, or suffer more hardships. And keep in mind that if you have done something illegal or broke a rule. You want to hide it. That's human instinct. So if you came to the country illegally, you wouldn't want to draw attention to yourself. Which I'd imagine breaking laws would bring attention.

 

[Deleted User]

Why the fuck is there a "World News, Current Events & Politics" forum anyway? I come here for emu news and the first thing I see is shit like this. It's like every site can't help itself.

 

[Foxi4]

Why the fuck is there a "World News, Current Events & Politics" forum anyway? I come here for emu news and the first thing I see is shit like this. It's like every site can't help itself.

In a lot of ways it prevents the discussion of politics from spilling into other discussions unnecessarily. We're aware that not all users want to discuss politics, so we found it prudent to create a section explicitly dedicated to it in order to cater to the needs of the users who do. This way participation is elective. If you don't fancy it, there's no obligation to post in it - in fact, we offer functionality that allows you to hide any boards you're not actively interested in, as well as watch those that do interest you.

 

[billapong]

Again, forgetting companies are opportunists again. Liberals and Conservatives have nothing to gain from the exploitation of this sort, unless of course you're someone who already does profit from that. And their conditions are far worse than ours. Being liberal or conservative does not speak to work ethic. Throwing criticism at something you also work in aka a job site doesn't always mean your lazy. HOWEVER getting back immigration. Your saying that immigrants that cross the border are ready to break more laws? What about people with work visas and forgot it expired? Does that mean the moment it expires or that they enter the country they are going to go stab a man, or mow people down? Most people leaving, entering the country illegally don't have malicious intent, they work out of desperation. Out of the fact that in their country they are more likely to get killed, or suffer more hardships. And keep in mind that if you have done something illegal or broke a rule. You want to hide it. That's human instinct. So if you came to the country illegally, you wouldn't want to draw attention to yourself. Which I'd imagine breaking laws would bring attention.

Being a Liberal speaks a lot about your ethics. The essence of a Liberal (what they value) is a prime example of this. Companies do indeed gain from hiring illegal aliens and they should be penalized for doing so. I mentioned that immigrants come from overseas, these are usually Visa holders. I don't find much distinction between someone who crossed the border illegally or who overstayed their Visa.

If conditions are so bad in their own country then how do they afford to pay for a coyote to guide them into the country? The rates vary from $3,000 - $5,000. You're saying the average homeless person walking around San Francisco has that amount of money in their pockets? If someone is coming across the border seeking relief from economic hardships as is wearing nice clothes, a pair of Nike's and has more than $50 in their pocket that should be a red flag to anyone (that's a lot less than a homeless person is going to have in our own country).

I don't think that every single illegal alien is going to commit murder, but if you're hiding from the law then you're a criminal.

 

[yuyuyup]

Hate speech, not "fighting words". Telling somebody to "go back to where they came from" is not a phrase that, legally, should incite violence.

How on God's green earth does telling a random Hispanic to "go back to where you came from" not qualify as "fighting words," then what the hell DOES qualify as "fighting words" to you? Are you gonna walk up to the biggest, meanest random Hispanic you see and tell him to "go back to where you came from?" NO? Well why the hell not, seems like it would be a good test case, get someone else to record it though in case it doesn't go as you planned ROFLMAO

 

[billapong]

How on God's green earth does telling a random Hispanic to "go back to where you came from" not qualify as "fighting words," then what the hell DOES qualify as "fighting words" to you? Are you gonna walk up to the biggest, meanest random Hispanic you see and tell him to "go back to where you came from?" NO? Well why the hell not, seems like it would be a good test case, get someone else to record it though in case it doesn't go as you planned ROFLMAO

It depends on who you're talking to, the tone of your voice, your actual intent, where you're currently located, the setting, etc ... Just uttering the words "illegal alien" or "go back to where you came from" is not using hate speech, fighting words or is racist. Hell, regarding this phrase, Trump is being intentionally misquoted by Liberals as they leave out 1/3 of what he actually said and simply make it sound racist by using it out of context.

I don't find the phrase "I'm going to kick your ass" as any sort of prevalence to violence. Even if a random stranger came up to me and shouted that in my face (which, happens often around where I live) I'd just shrug it off (and usually just laugh at them). Liberals are picking words and using their own interpretation of them in means to control others. Like I said, Liberal hate speech is just words they personally dislike, not actual words used in a hateful manner.

 

[yuyuyup]

I don't find the phrase "I'm going to kick your ass" as any sort of prevalence to violence. Even if a random stranger came up to me and shouted that in my face "which, happens often around where I live" I'd just shrug it off.

I'm pretty sure you admitted you didn't know anything about the "fighting words" doctrine, I'm pretty sure you're not exactly an authority of what constitutes "fighting words" ROFLMAO

 

[Ericthegreat]

Oh, that could be used to house the homeless, give hungry kids food, clean up trash piles in liberal ran cities, and 119 billion other ways than to give it to people who aren't even citizens of this country.
Anything else????

The country could do all those things, have you ever noticed the budgets go up every year, yet we still don't pay for kids lunch's, and teachers still aren't paid close to well enough, and they won't be, every district steals all they can, the mexicans didn't change that. Not saying this is a republican issue, it's a government in general issue.

 

[billapong]

I'm pretty sure you admitted you didn't know anything about the "fighting words" doctrine, I'm pretty sure you're not exactly an authority of what constitutes "fighting words" ROFLMAO

As a person who gets into frequent scuffles I'm well versed in fighting words.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The country could do all those things, have you ever noticed the budgets go up every year, yet we still don't pay for kids lunch's, and teachers still aren't paid close to well enough, and they won't be, every district steals all they can, the mexicans didn't change that. Not saying this is a republican issue, it's a government in general issue.

I'm at the local Western Union waiting for you to wire me your savings (don't forget anything in your wallet).