|
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 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:09 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's harassment, there's hate-speech, there's trying to incite riots, there's breaking noise ordinances but I've never heard of anything called verbal assault. Admittedly, I'm not a legal expert (nor do I want to be) but they haven't done this one on Law and Order, have they?
Last edited by wannago on Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Too bad we don't have a lawyer here. Now I want an answer on this issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| dulouz wrote: |
| The Nazis worked within the confines of the law. The citizens didn't. |
Not if they actually did commit verbal assault. I'm having a devil of a time finding a straightforward definition, though. |
Why couldn't your good citizens have responded in kind? Why did they have to celebrate their violence toward persons and property? Enablers like you make me sick. Do you think they would have spared you were you there? |
Your comments towards me are ridiculous. Read the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago, your childish insutls add nothing to the thread. Any useful comments wlcome, but so far you've added nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| wannago, your childish insutls add nothing to the thread. Any useful comments wlcome, but so far you've added nothing. |
WTF are you talking about? Now, if you would just give us a definition of "verbal assault" please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FYI: Not for stance, just to affirm that verbal assault laws do exist. The last is from a Columbus, Ohio case.
| Quote: |
| ACLU cooperating attorney Richard Landau said the lawsuit would "challenge the rules of student conduct under which Alex [Smith] was charged and suspended, as well as the state authorizing statute which renders 'verbal assaults' a violation for which suspension and expulsion may be used as a form of discipline." |
From statutory law in Georgia, I believe.
| Quote: |
20-2-751.5.
(a)(1) Each student code of conduct shall contain provisions that
address the following conduct of students during school hours and
at school related functions, in a manner that is appropriate to
the age of the student:
(A) Verbal assault of teachers, administrators, and other school
personnel;
(B) Physical assault or battery of teachers, administrators, and
other school personnel;
(C) Disrespectful conduct toward teachers, administrators, and
other school personnel;
(D) Verbal assault of other students;
(E) Physical assault or battery of other students;
(F) Disrespectful conduct toward other students; and
(G) Verbal assault of, physical assault or battery of, and
disrespectful conduct toward persons attending school related
functions. |
| Quote: |
414 U.S. 2
PLUMMER v. CITY OF COLUMBUS
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY
No. 72-6897.
Decided October 15, 1973
The Ohio Supreme Court erred in finding no constitutional infirmity in the lower court's holding that a city ordinance punishing abuse of another by using menacing, insulting, slanderous, or profane language might constitutionally reach appellant's use of "fighting words," where the ordinance, as construed by the Ohio courts, is facially unconstitutional because it may be applied to punish not only unprotected but also protected speech. Even though a law may be valid as applied to the conduct charged against a particular defendant, he may raise its vagueness or unconstitutional overbreadth as applied to others, and, if the law is found deficient in one of these respects, it may not be applied to him either, absent a satisfactory limiting construction.
Reversed.
PER CURIAM.
The Court of Appeals of Franklin County, Ohio, in an unreported opinion, affirmed appellant's conviction of violating Columbus City Code 2327.03, which provides: "No person shall abuse another by using menacing, insulting, slanderous, or profane language." The Ohio Supreme Court, in an unreported order, sua sponte dismissed appellant's appeal to that court "for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein." We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and reverse.
On December 11, 1972, we held that Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972), required the reversal of a previous action of the Ohio Supreme Court that dismissed an appeal from a conviction under 2327.03. Cason v. City of Columbus, 409 U.S. 1053 . Section 2327.03 punishes only spoken words and, as construed by the Ohio courts, is facially unconstitutional because not limited [414 U.S. 2, 3] in application "to punish only unprotected speech" but is "susceptible of application to protected expression." Gooding v. Wilson, supra, at 522. In that circumstance, the Ohio Supreme Court erred when it found no constitutional infirmity in the holding of the Court of Appeals of Franklin County that the ordinance might constitutionally reach appellant's conduct because "the words as used by the [appellant] are in the nature of `fighting words' and thereby fall within that limit of conduct proscribed by the ordinance . . . ." For "`[a]lthough [the ordinance] may be neither vague, overbroad, nor otherwise invalid as applied to the conduct charged against a particular defendant, he is permitted to raise its vagueness or unconstitutional overbreadth as applied to others. And if the law is found deficient in one of these respects, it may not be applied to him either, until and unless a satisfactory limiting construction is placed on the [ordinance]. The [ordinance], in effect, is stricken down on its face. . . .'" Id., at 521.
Reversed.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN dissent for the reasons expressed in MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S dissenting opinion in Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 534 (1972), and in the dissenting statement in Cason v. City of Columbus, 409 U.S. 1053 (1972).
MR. JUSTICE POWELL, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST concurs, dissenting.
Appellant is a Columbus cab driver. He had a female fare in his cab who had requested to be taken to a certain address. When he passed this address, the fare complained and - according to the statement of the trial court - the cab driver's response was "a series of absolutely [414 U.S. 2, 4] vulgar, suggestive and abhorrent, sexually-oriented statements."
I would sustain appellant's conviction for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U.S. 901, 906 (1972). As stated therein:
"[A] verbal assault on an unwilling audience [or an individual] may be so grossly offensive and emotionally disturbing as to be the proper subject of criminal proscription, whether under a statute denominating it disorderly conduct, or, more accurately, a public nuisance."
The Columbus City Code was certainly sufficiently explicit to inform appellant that his verbal assault on a female passenger in his cab was "menacing and insulting." As a wrong of this character does not fall within the protection of the First Amendment, the overbreadth doctrine is not applicable. See Model Penal Code, 250.2 (1) (a) and (b) (Proposed Official Draft 1962); see also Williams v. District of Columbia, 136 U.S. App. D.C. 56, 64, 419 F.2d 638, 646 (1969). [414 U.S. 2, 5] |
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| wannago, your childish insutls add nothing to the thread. Any useful comments wlcome, but so far you've added nothing. |
WTF are you talking about? Now, if you would just give us a definition of "verbal assault" please. |
| Quote: |
| Remember, just because a liberal "feels" something doesn't make it so. |
Ridiculous and pointless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| wannago, your childish insutls add nothing to the thread. Any useful comments wlcome, but so far you've added nothing. |
WTF are you talking about? Now, if you would just give us a definition of "verbal assault" please. |
| Quote: |
| Remember, just because a liberal "feels" something doesn't make it so. |
Ridiculous and pointless. |
And truer words were never spoken. You should heed them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
FYI: Not for stance, just to affirm that verbal assault laws do exist. The last is from a Columbus, Ohio case.
| Quote: |
| ACLU cooperating attorney Richard Landau said the lawsuit would "challenge the rules of student conduct under which Alex [Smith] was charged and suspended, as well as the state authorizing statute which renders 'verbal assaults' a violation for which suspension and expulsion may be used as a form of discipline." |
| Quote: |
20-2-751.5.
(a)(1) Each student code of conduct shall contain provisions that
address the following conduct of students during school hours and
at school related functions, in a manner that is appropriate to
the age of the student:
(A) Verbal assault of teachers, administrators, and other school
personnel;
(B) Physical assault or battery of teachers, administrators, and
other school personnel;
(C) Disrespectful conduct toward teachers, administrators, and
other school personnel;
(D) Verbal assault of other students;
(E) Physical assault or battery of other students;
(F) Disrespectful conduct toward other students; and
(G) Verbal assault of, physical assault or battery of, and
disrespectful conduct toward persons attending school related
functions. |
| Quote: |
414 U.S. 2
PLUMMER v. CITY OF COLUMBUS
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY
No. 72-6897.
Decided October 15, 1973
The Ohio Supreme Court erred in finding no constitutional infirmity in the lower court's holding that a city ordinance punishing abuse of another by using menacing, insulting, slanderous, or profane language might constitutionally reach appellant's use of "fighting words," where the ordinance, as construed by the Ohio courts, is facially unconstitutional because it may be applied to punish not only unprotected but also protected speech. Even though a law may be valid as applied to the conduct charged against a particular defendant, he may raise its vagueness or unconstitutional overbreadth as applied to others, and, if the law is found deficient in one of these respects, it may not be applied to him either, absent a satisfactory limiting construction.
Reversed.
PER CURIAM.
The Court of Appeals of Franklin County, Ohio, in an unreported opinion, affirmed appellant's conviction of violating Columbus City Code 2327.03, which provides: "No person shall abuse another by using menacing, insulting, slanderous, or profane language." The Ohio Supreme Court, in an unreported order, sua sponte dismissed appellant's appeal to that court "for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein." We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and reverse.
On December 11, 1972, we held that Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972), required the reversal of a previous action of the Ohio Supreme Court that dismissed an appeal from a conviction under 2327.03. Cason v. City of Columbus, 409 U.S. 1053 . Section 2327.03 punishes only spoken words and, as construed by the Ohio courts, is facially unconstitutional because not limited [414 U.S. 2, 3] in application "to punish only unprotected speech" but is "susceptible of application to protected expression." Gooding v. Wilson, supra, at 522. In that circumstance, the Ohio Supreme Court erred when it found no constitutional infirmity in the holding of the Court of Appeals of Franklin County that the ordinance might constitutionally reach appellant's conduct because "the words as used by the [appellant] are in the nature of `fighting words' and thereby fall within that limit of conduct proscribed by the ordinance . . . ." For "`[a]lthough [the ordinance] may be neither vague, overbroad, nor otherwise invalid as applied to the conduct charged against a particular defendant, he is permitted to raise its vagueness or unconstitutional overbreadth as applied to others. And if the law is found deficient in one of these respects, it may not be applied to him either, until and unless a satisfactory limiting construction is placed on the [ordinance]. The [ordinance], in effect, is stricken down on its face. . . .'" Id., at 521.
Reversed.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN dissent for the reasons expressed in MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S dissenting opinion in Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 534 (1972), and in the dissenting statement in Cason v. City of Columbus, 409 U.S. 1053 (1972).
MR. JUSTICE POWELL, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST concurs, dissenting.
Appellant is a Columbus cab driver. He had a female fare in his cab who had requested to be taken to a certain address. When he passed this address, the fare complained and - according to the statement of the trial court - the cab driver's response was "a series of absolutely [414 U.S. 2, 4] vulgar, suggestive and abhorrent, sexually-oriented statements."
I would sustain appellant's conviction for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U.S. 901, 906 (1972). As stated therein:
"[A] verbal assault on an unwilling audience [or an individual] may be so grossly offensive and emotionally disturbing as to be the proper subject of criminal proscription, whether under a statute denominating it disorderly conduct, or, more accurately, a public nuisance."
The Columbus City Code was certainly sufficiently explicit to inform appellant that his verbal assault on a female passenger in his cab was "menacing and insulting." As a wrong of this character does not fall within the protection of the First Amendment, the overbreadth doctrine is not applicable. See Model Penal Code, 250.2 (1) (a) and (b) (Proposed Official Draft 1962); see also Williams v. District of Columbia, 136 U.S. App. D.C. 56, 64, 419 F.2d 638, 646 (1969). [414 U.S. 2, 5] |
|
Would you please provide the links for these. Somehow, I don't think we're getting the whole picture with what you provided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| wannago, your childish insutls add nothing to the thread. Any useful comments wlcome, but so far you've added nothing. |
WTF are you talking about? Now, if you would just give us a definition of "verbal assault" please. |
| Quote: |
| Remember, just because a liberal "feels" something doesn't make it so. |
Ridiculous and pointless. |
And truer words were never spoken. You should heed them. |
I have been responding to a news report, posted IN this thread, that stated the supremacists were insutling the residents. Further, since I was not a witness I have made my statements conditional. Finally, you stated, quite incorrectly, that "verbal assault" does not exist, when it does.
These facts make your statements 100% false, thus baiting and nothing more. Enough on this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Would you please provide the links for these. Somehow, I don't think we're getting the whole picture with what you provided. |
There is no "whole picture" to see. These are posted only to refute your contention that verbal assault statutes are a figment of my imagination. They are not posted as support for or against either side of the issue under discussion.
Google is there if you want it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| Would you please provide the links for these. Somehow, I don't think we're getting the whole picture with what you provided. |
There is no "whole picture" to see. These are posted only to refute your contention that verbal assault statutes are a figment of my imagination. They are not posted as support for or against either side of the issue under discussion.
Google is there if you want it. |
That's what I thought. Since you will not provide proof that what you posted as a quote actually exists, then we have no other choice but to conclude these "quotes" are lies and that you are a liar or, at the very least, you are not giving us the whole truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are some interesting issues raised by this incident, particularly given the erosion of personal freedoms in the United States under the Patriot Act.
First, is hateful and/or insulting speech in public protected?
Second, should it be?
Third, if it is agreed that verbal assault is a phenomenon worthy of a statute, how does one decide where the line is to be drawn?
Fourth, given number three, in a case such as this where the group's underlying philosophies may be well known and are antagonistic, if not violently inclined, toward the population they are among, should that be considered in determining the threshhold for a criminal level of "verbal assault?" That is, if a supremacist goes into a neighborhood with African Americans or others of color shouting ethnic slurs and taunts, is that enough to qualify for verbal assault given the underlying beliefs and stated policies of that group? Or, would they still need to actually threaten harm? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey, efltrainer, did you even read the "quotes" that you posted? According to what you posted "verbal assault" only exists inside schools, not on the streets of Toledo. If you read the "quotes" you posted, the part about Columbus, Ohio, if I'm reading it right, is a DISSENTING opinion to the Supreme Court's ruling that the city's ordinance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Therefore, outside of schools, there is NO verbal assault, according to your uncited quotes. |
|
| 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
