• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Call Someone a "i love you", Get Two Years In Jail

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AmusedOne - "At any rate, obsenity laws are unconstitutional, and have never been enforceble. Hence, we still have adult theators, strip clubs, and porn shops. "

Sorry, but obscenity are very much constitutional. When was the last time you went to a strip show and saw intercourse on stage?

These EU politicians should read the novel "1984". Maybe they would see the evil of "thought police".




 


<<

<< HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH 🙂


<< Thankfully, in the US, freedom of speech covers offensive speech. >>


Well, yes and no.
You really need to stop saying unqualified statements. Only some forms of offensive speech are protected.
I refer you to both Chaplinsky and Paris Adult Theater.

here we go again 😀 >>



Oh good gawd, you have a hard on for me, don't you duffboy?

Chaplinsky was not about offensive speech so much as it was about provocation and a breach of peace. In other words, calling someone a "damn fascist" to their face with the intention of inciting a riot constitutes a breach of peace. Calling them a damn fascist in an editorial or some other forum is not.

Paris Adult Theater was about public obcenity in front of children, and was a case based on parental rights over the rights of businesses to make publically available obcene films. In short, it was more a zoning feud than a speech feud. The SC never said the content was illegal, only where and how it was presented. >>



As it turns out, I have a hard on for the truth. Let me tell you you are wrong.............again.
We are gonna look at Chaplinsky. When a case gets cert, you are not only looking at what freedoms are granted under the constitution, you are looking specifically at the law or ordinance that has questionably broken it. Now let's look at the New Hampshire law. Chapter 378 S2 "No person shall address anything offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by an offensive or derisive name..." Wow, looks like a question of "offensive speech" to me. In particular, this brand of "offensive speech" is branded as "fighting words" still offensive speech. Well now we have that under the statute, this is a case of "offensive speech" I will now quote the opinion of Justice Murphy who delivered the opinion of the Court. "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting..." Whichever way you wish to look at the case, the issue here was the speech of Chaplinsky. Per the holding of the Court, contrary to what you have said, freedom of speech DOES NOTcover all offensive speech.
 


<< Funny. As I was reading that page, a spaceship flew by and shot the article. Exactly what should happen to that law. Are you reading this Czar? The US Thought Police have nothing over the Euros. >>


Yes I read it, the law itself means well, just well... is a bit extreme. 2 years for racial comment.
The laws as they should be that this should apply to all media and public organasations. People should be allowed to say what they want but racial comments should not be allowed there either.

The article itself is rather biased against these laws but look at this.


<< Holocaust denial or "trivialisation" of Nazi atrocities would be banned, along with and participation in any group that promotes race hate. >>


Nothing wrong with stopping this. There are people out there who dont belive the holocaust happened and there are organisations that support this and they should be banned.

How I read from this is that no one can be sued for racial remarks but it just adds to other crimes. So if you assoult someone phisicly and the court finds that you did this becauese of racism the court could add a few months to your sentence because of that.



<< The proposals, which will require the unanimous backing of all 15 states, >>


Has to be approved first, this is not a law yet.



<< Leonello Gabrici, the Commission's judicial spokesman, denied that there was any intention of curbing political expression. "This totally respects free speech. It will be up to judges to decide where the balance lies" he said. >>



Think few people here read this actually.
 


<< perhaps its now time to conquer Europe. >>


Perhaps is time for Europe to take back what was theirs 😛 have to love stupid posts 😉
 


<<

<<

<< HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH 🙂


<< Thankfully, in the US, freedom of speech covers offensive speech. >>


Well, yes and no.
You really need to stop saying unqualified statements. Only some forms of offensive speech are protected.
I refer you to both Chaplinsky and Paris Adult Theater.

here we go again 😀 >>



Oh good gawd, you have a hard on for me, don't you duffboy?

Chaplinsky was not about offensive speech so much as it was about provocation and a breach of peace. In other words, calling someone a "damn fascist" to their face with the intention of inciting a riot constitutes a breach of peace. Calling them a damn fascist in an editorial or some other forum is not.

Paris Adult Theater was about public obcenity in front of children, and was a case based on parental rights over the rights of businesses to make publically available obcene films. In short, it was more a zoning feud than a speech feud. The SC never said the content was illegal, only where and how it was presented. >>



As it turns out, I have a hard on for the truth. Let me tell you you are wrong.............again.
We are gonna look at Chaplinsky. When a case gets cert, you are not only looking at what freedoms are granted under the constitution, you are looking specifically at the law or ordinance that has questionably broken it. Now let's look at the New Hampshire law. Chapter 378 S2 "No person shall address anything offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by an offensive or derisive name..." Wow, looks like a question of "offensive speech" to me. In particular, this brand of "offensive speech" is branded as "fighting words" still offensive speech. Well now we have that under the statute, this is a case of "offensive speech" I will now quote the opinion of Justice Murphy who delivered the opinion of the Court. "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting..." Whichever way you wish to look at the case, the issue here was the speech of Chaplinsky. Per the holding of the Court, contrary to what you have said, freedom of speech DOES NOTcover all offensive speech. >>



Gawd we REALLY need an eyeroll smiley.

You just proved my point, nothing more. The law simply is a breach of peace law. You CAN make the speech, so long as it's not in their face, causing a fight or riot, and a BREACH OF PEACE.

The speech is legal. Doing it with the intent of breaching the peace is not.

Here is Murphy's words:

On the authority of its earlier decisions, the state court declared that the statute's purpose was to preserve the public peace, no words being "forbidden except such as have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, the remark is addressed." [note 7] It was further said: "The word 'offensive' is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent are 'fighting words' when said without a disarming smile. . . . Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker--including 'classical fighting words', words in current use less 'classical' but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."

In other words, it's directly related to the breach of peace law on the books. The case was all about that, and nothing more.

Addressed: Is it constitutional to outlaw yelling insults in the face of another person in a public place.

NOT addressed, NOR found by the court: Are insults illegal?

So, no, Duffboy, this case does NOT mean that insults are not constitutionally protected. It only means that states have the right to keep the peace on city streets by outlawing the provocation of violence. It's the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater. Saying the word "fire" is not illegal. Using the word to incite panic is.

Insults to incite violence is illegal. Insults not directly breaching the peace are legal. The court addressed nothing else in this case, and couldn't, because nothing else but the local law was in front of them. Murphy was entitled to his dicta, but that's all it was, opinion that had no bearing on the case at hand.

The only one here who is wrong...again, is you.
 
OMG!! Duffboy, I just reread the opinion, and I find it illuminating how you took that Murphy quote out of context.

Here's the entire quote:

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention [572] and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.[note 3] These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting (you cut it off here) or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Incite an immediate BREACH OF PEACE. i.e., inciting a riot.

Gawd, Duffboy, have you no shame?
 
Holy crap, how many holes do I have to punch in your little logic ship before you understand it is sunk???
You can run circular arguments around this all you like, you are still wrong. I'll make it REAL simple for you.


<< Thankfully, in the US, freedom of speech covers offensive speech. >>


These are your words correct?
Ok, now however you wish to draw your lines, you must concede that it was the words or SPEECH of Chaplinsky that caused this. Correct? Or do you refute this too? Were it not for the verbal utterances that exited his mouth, there would have been no situation. We in agreement so far? Now, regardless of the intention of this speech, label it whatever you like, it was still granted no constitutional protection. So, what I have quoted you as saying, is incorrect. Dance around it if you like, but it was the words or ideas communicated by Chaplinsky that were not guaranteed protection. Therefore, your statement is false. You will see that I have NEVER said that no speech is protected. All I had to do was point to a single solitary instance where your statement does not hold up. I believe I have done this with no exception.
 


<< Holy crap, how many holes do I have to punch in your little logic ship before you understand it is sunk???
You can run circular arguments around this all you like, you are still wrong. I'll make it REAL simple for you.


<< Thankfully, in the US, freedom of speech covers offensive speech. >>


These are your words correct?
Ok, now however you wish to draw your lines, you must concede that it was the words or SPEECH of Chaplinsky that caused this. Correct? Or do you refute this too? Were it not for the verbal utterances that exited his mouth, there would have been no situation. We in agreement so far? Now, regardless of the intention of this speech, label it whatever you like, it was still granted no constitutional protection. So, what I have quoted you as saying, is incorrect. Dance around it if you like, but it was the words or ideas communicated by Chaplinsky that were not guaranteed protection. Therefore, your statement is false. You will see that I have NEVER said that no speech is protected. All I had to do was point to a single solitary instance where your statement does not hold up. I believe I have done this with no exception. >>



:::sigh:::

Offensive speech IS covered. Using it to incite a riot or breach the peace is not covered.

Stop while you're ahead, Duffboy.
 
One more thing for you, if

<< Thankfully, in the US, freedom of speech covers offensive speech. >>

, then please by all means justify libel within the context of your statement.
 


<< One more thing for you, if

<< Thankfully, in the US, freedom of speech covers offensive speech. >>

, then please by all means justify libel within the context of your statement. >>

Libel is more than offensive speech. Libel is false speech with intent to do harm to the person you're speaking against.


Edit: I sure wouldn't want you to defend me should you ever pass the bar.

Uh oh, is that a libelous statement? Not that Duffman would know...
 
Libel is untrue or unproven speech, spoken as fact, with the intent of harming another person's reputation. Libel is an action, acted out using speech.

It has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Keep reaching, Duffboy, you might come up with something, anything, to prove me wrong. (I doubt it, though...)

::: Pssst, your desperation is showing:::
 


<<

<< One more thing for you, if

<< Thankfully, in the US, freedom of speech covers offensive speech. >>

, then please by all means justify libel within the context of your statement. >>

Libel is more than offensive speech. Libel is false speech with intent to do harm to the person you're speaking against.


Edit: I sure wouldn't want you to defend me should you ever pass the bar.

Uh oh, is that a libelous statement? Not that Duffman would know... >>



Not at all true.

Pulled from webster

<< 2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression >>


If I know for a fact that you have herpes, (I am not insinuating that you do, just making an illustration) and I plaster up signs all over town saying that "BoberFett" has herpes, then that statement is 100% true. However, I am not granted protection for my act, or "speech" (communication of ideas). I can be held liable for libel. 🙂
 
well it's not approved and hopefully will be thrown out, although I don't have much faith in the politicians of the EU or the ones of my country. Actually I have none. While you americans are beating your chest about all that freedom maybe you can withdraw the law that you and the EU forced upon us that lets them freeze suspect terrorist funds without giving the accused any right to defend themselves.
 
The keyword in your definition Duffman is "unjustly". That's a rather subjective word which leaves a lot of wiggle room for juries.
 
In matter of tort law, unjust simply means that I have violated the privity of the relationship in which I garnered the information. ie. the information that I presented, although true, is not meant to be held in the public eye.
 
Unfortunately I don't have a copy of Black's. I'm assuming you have one Duffman. Would you be so kind as to post a Blacks definition of "libel" rather than Websters?
 
Scary stuff.... just one more step in the direction of a politically correct police state where everyone is perfectly free to say and think anything they want so long as it fits exactly with what the society and government have decreed as the 'correct' thought and speech.

Yipes.
 
I think it's meant to get more of a grip on the extremist right parties, which, contrary to the USA, could overtake a country in europe, as elections are very different compared to the USA.

in the USA you only have 2 parties, in europe, most countries have 10+ parties, which form coalitions to get a majority going, this has benefits, but also a big drawback. An extremist party can grow over the years and become bigger and bigger, up to the point they can overtake a country.

so basically there's 2 options, throw the poly-party system overboard and go to a 2, or a 1 party system, like in the USA, or in the USSR back in the days. Or, you restrict the rights to spread hate-propaganda by those extremist parties.

don't blow it out of proportion.

Aelus

 
Aelus

The trouble is deciding what constitutes hate speech. The founding fathers realized that the current power, whatever political persuasion it may be, has the power to deem any speech against them as "hateful". That's why the 1st Amendment exists. To protect the right of the citizenry to speak out against the government. Laws such as this are just steps toward control of other speech. Right now it may seem like a good idea to eliminate hate. But what happens 5-10 years down the road? Gotta think long term. Most people seem to lack that ability, unfortunately.
 
Very true Aelus, but I think this is not ment to stop them even though it can, I think its ment to stop organized racial groups like natzis(sp?). In its current form it will probably not be approved but it will be changed and will be approved later.

What this helps stopping those hate groups which are often supported by political right group extremists, is that it stops then from creating a common enemy based on race. Hitler gained support and power by creating an enemy and getting everyone else behind him wether they realy liked him or not, it gave him power. Same has Bush done, created a common enemy, which has gotten him over 90% approval rating and giving him more power than before.
 
Bober, yeah, i agree it's difficult to foresee what will happen, but it's still up to the judges to decide whether or not it's a real offence, and then what punishment is warranted for the offense, i doubt the maximum penalty will ever get used.

lets not forget that hitler was elected because he was allowed to mislead the mass into blaming other groups, that gave him a ton of votes.

there's 2 sides to it.

Aelus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top