|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
United StatesThe fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [that] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
[edit] Chaplinsky decisionChaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that
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 or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. |
Can I get some fries with my freedom please?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And in other (largely unreported) London news, a white teenager was chased by a gang of black men, who slit his throat outside his parents house. But, don't worry, police have reassured the public that there is absolutely nothing racial about this attack:
On Saturday Det Ch Insp John MacDonald said Mr O'Shea had been chased by a group of black males.
On Sunday he said: "We are keeping an open mind regarding the motive for the attack, however, I wish to reinforce the family's position that there is nothing to suggest Danny's murder is racially motivated."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16022192
One wonders if the police would be so quick to rule out a racial motive if the races of the victim and perpetrators were reversed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne's article wrote: |
| We do not know why such a terrible thing happened, but what we do know is that this is not racially motivated as Danny was a popular boy with friends from all cultural backgrounds. |
They have no idea why it happened. But it couldn't have been racially motivated... because the victim had friends from several cultural backgrounds.
Therefore, if the KKK lynches a black man who was popular and had friends from many cultural backgrounds, the lynching was not racially motivated.
I think it's interesting that murderers in the UK don't have to worry about their victims killing them or the State killing them. And I find it interesting that, if a group of knife-wielding men decide to kill your child in the UK, no one can really do anything to stop them. But I guess the right to bear arms is slightly off-topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| They have no idea why it happened. But it couldn't have been racially motivated... because the victim had friends from several cultural backgrounds. |
A totally illogical statement, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one who noticed. The Metropolitan Police will go out of there way to make sure any black-on-white violence is not seen as 'racially motivated'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ribena
Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| bigverne's article wrote: |
| We do not know why such a terrible thing happened, but what we do know is that this is not racially motivated as Danny was a popular boy with friends from all cultural backgrounds. |
They have no idea why it happened. But it couldn't have been racially motivated... because the victim had friends from several cultural backgrounds.
Therefore, if the KKK lynches a black man who was popular and had friends from many cultural backgrounds, the lynching was not racially motivated.
I think it's interesting that murderers in the UK don't have to worry about their victims killing them or the State killing them. And I find it interesting that, if a group of knife-wielding men decide to kill your child in the UK, no one can really do anything to stop them. But I guess the right to bear arms is slightly off-topic. |
Well how do you plan to stop them, they are hardly going to pop round to parents to tell them in advance what they are planning.
| Quote: |
| A totally illogical statement, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one who noticed. The Metropolitan Police will go out of there way to make sure any black-on-white violence is not seen as 'racially motivated'. |
Of course they will especially considering this Stephen Lawrence stuff is in the media again and they are going to get a battering at the trial for being "instituationally racist" or whatever they were accused of. As it stands most of the murders in London are black-on-black gang violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ribena wrote: |
Well how do you plan to stop them, they are hardly going to pop round to parents to tell them in advance what they are planning. |
I meant if the parent were aware of it, particularly if it were occurring near their home, as in this case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ribena
Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Ribena wrote: |
Well how do you plan to stop them, they are hardly going to pop round to parents to tell them in advance what they are planning. |
I meant if the parent were aware of it, particularly if it were occurring near their home, as in this case. |
Why would they be aware of it? You are allowed within the law to use reasonable force to protect your family/home (so says Call Me Dave Cameron). As far as people having guns, if guns were allowed South-East London would look even more like a nuclear wasteland than it already does. (Sorry to Greenwich for your unfortunate association with the rest of SE London). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:42 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Similar thing happened on a bus while I was in London. Similar crowd reaction. Guy got shouted down and shown the door by the driver at the next stop.
Here's the video if it hasn't been posted already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJQmqFv_bvc
A few points:
1) Rosa Parks did absolutely nothing that could be contrived into a parallel here, so the whole civil rights argument rings hollow.
2) The overall reaction and response here was, in my opinion, respectably subdued. The black woman's argument was NOT that others are lazy. She simply said she was doing a job others might not do. Twist that as you like.
3) I don't really think, though, that the woman has done anything punishable. I don't think making crass statements on public transportation is a crime, but the hearing will establish that, no? So, it's a bit uppity for posters to be starting threads like this before any kind of conviction. I think you have the right to do it, but it's ugly in a way, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:44 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
and almost forgot:
4) Whoever you are, children ought not be involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Emma West will spend Christmas behind bars for 'her own safety' according to news reports.
Meanwhile, in other news:
A gang of Muslim women who attacked a passer-by in a city centre walked free from court after a judge heard they were �not used to being drunk� because of their religion.
The group � three sisters and a cousin � allegedly screamed �kill the white slag� as they set upon Rhea Page as she waited for a taxi with her boyfriend.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why is our own govt selling us down river? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
Why is our own govt selling us down river? |
Because you already sold all your friends down the river and now you're the last one left?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| The Floating World wrote: |
Why is our own govt selling us down river? |
Because you already sold all your friends down the river and now you're the last one left?
|
Eh? Care to give us all the juicy detailed explaination of your in depth analasys there Juilius?
I'll bet it's real top brow thought going on under there! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ribena wrote: |
Why would they be aware of it? You are allowed within the law to use reasonable force to protect your family/home (so says Call Me Dave Cameron). As far as people having guns, if guns were allowed South-East London would look even more like a nuclear wasteland than it already does. (Sorry to Greenwich for your unfortunate association with the rest of SE London). |
I don't know about you, but I don't think I could take on one experienced brawler, much less a group. Do the people in South-East London have no sense of self-preservation, or is there some other reason you think guns would make things worse? I certainly wouldn't want to get shot trying to mug someone, and I get the impression that others feel the same way.
Anywho, that's enough derailing this poor thread for me. I hope Britain comes to its senses. The pressurized and biased the racial discussion is, the more unpleasant incidents will occur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
