What do you mean I can't yell anti-gay profanity?

[MillCreek]

https://helenair.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/helena-man-pleads-guilty-in-dispute-over-trump-biden-flags/article_2aa9f908-7bf5-5f5c-8dc4-53ff8f5ec613.html

What is the world coming to when you can't even call your neighbor queer and yell profanity at him for an anti-Trump flag without getting arrested and fined for it? In Montana, no less. 

[Fly320s]

I can't tell.  Are you being sarcastic?

[WLJ]

So let me get this straight........ I better stop there

[MillCreek]

I can't tell.  Are you being sarcastic?

I am. I applaud the prosecution of the miscreant.

[Fly320s]

I am. I applaud the prosecution of the miscreant.

Would you still applaud if the miscreant had yelled "ahole" instead of "fag?"

Which insults would be OK in your opinion? 

Edit:  I wrote   a s s hole, but the software "fixed" it. 

[kgbsquirrel]

https://helenair.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/helena-man-pleads-guilty-in-dispute-over-trump-biden-flags/article_2aa9f908-7bf5-5f5c-8dc4-53ff8f5ec613.html

What is the world coming to when you can't even call your neighbor queer and yell profanity at him for an anti-Trump flag without getting arrested and fined for it? In Montana, no less. 

I see you don't believe in the 1st amendment.  Thank you for clearing that up for us.

[cordex]

MillCreek,

Do you believe all people who are profane, oafish, and rude should be prosecuted?  Or just ones you disagree with politically?

[MillCreek]

^^^As has been established by numerous appellate court decisions, the First Amendment is not unlimited, and hate speech is generally not protected.  Thanks for clearing up for us your understanding of Constitutional law.

[MillCreek]

MillCreek,

Do you believe all people who are profane, oafish, and rude should be prosecuted?  Or just ones you disagree with politically?

No. But when it crosses the line into hate speech , I have no problem with prosecution.  If I call you a ignorant cracker red neck, I am being rude or hate speech? I think that is rude. But if I call you a Nazi who wants to round up and gas all disabled people, I think that goes into hate speech territory. Case law can be ambiguous on this.

[Fly320s]

^^^As has been established by numerous appellate court decisions, the First Amendment is not unlimited, and hate speech is generally not protected.  Thanks for clearing up for us your understanding of Constitutional law.

The problem with the law is that it defines such speech as "hate speech."  Why is "fag" considered hate speech, but "redneck" isn't?  Is "honky" hate speech?

In certain conversations calling someone "*let's not go there*" is completely acceptable, but in other conversations it is hate speech.  Why?  Does the definition change based on who is saying it?

There shouldn't even be a legal definition of "hate speech."  All speech should be treated equally.  An insult is an insult.  We already have enough laws to cover libel, slander, inciting a riot, and similar speech-induced problems.  Creating a special category for a few, select words goes against the idea of freedom of speech.

[cordex]

No. But when it crosses the line into hate speech , I have no problem with prosecution.

Interesting.  Is hate speech a legal term in the US?  I was not under the impression that it was.

The only thing I can think of that this might fall under would be the "fighting words" exception, but that seems like a stretch to me.

If I call you a ignorant cracker red neck, I am being rude or hate speech? I think that is rude. But if I call you a Nazi who wants to round up and gas all disabled people, I think that goes into hate speech territory. Case law can be ambiguous on this.

Why would you say that calling someone an offensive term for their race okay, but calling someone an offensive term for their sexual orientation not?
Wouldn't the Nazi thing be more of an issue of libel than hate speech?  Unless, of course, it was true.

If the roles had been reversed in this situation and the gay man had disparagingly called the Trump guy a "breeder" or similar disparaging term for straight person would you have been equally on board with prosecution?

[MillCreek]

https://legaldictionary.net/hate-speech/  Here is a good basic discorse on hate speech, and it lists some of the important Constutional cases.

[Boomhauer]

I really don’t give a damn what the courts say, venturing down this road of legally defining and restricting nebulous “hate speech” is a bad idea.

[cordex]

https://legaldictionary.net/hate-speech/  Here is a good basic discorse on hate speech, and it lists some of the important Constutional cases.

Did you read your link before posting it?  It doesn't support your assertions in the slightest.

[Perd Hapley]

I really don’t give a damn what the courts say, venturing down this road of legally defining and restricting nebulous “hate speech” is a bad idea.

Pretty much.

Millcreek, given that "cracker" is considered to be a disparaging term for a white person, the same way "*Not nice word for gay men*" is a disparaging term for a homosexual, the distinction you're attempting to draw is very strange, indeed. Stranger still, now that anti-white racism is considered acceptable or even mandatory in elite circles. Even though there were anti-white riots in every large city in America last year.

Oh, our forum software censors that other f word, but not cracker. Even though fa**ot is also a perfectly legitimate term for a type of food.

[Lennyjoe]

Don’t the British still call a cigarette a fag?

[kgbsquirrel]

No. But when it crosses the line into hate speech , I have no problem with prosecution.  If I call you a ignorant cracker red neck, I am being rude or hate speech? I think that is rude. But if I call you a Nazi who wants to round up and gas all disabled people, I think that goes into hate speech territory. Case law can be ambiguous on this.

"Hate speech" is political correctness under threat of prosecution.  It is an affront to personal liberty.

The tyranny you espouse has no place here.

[kgbsquirrel]

Don’t the British still call a cigarette a fag?

Yes.  Phag and phaggot are Latin for literally "stick" and "a bundle of sticks."

[230RN]

What is the world coming to when you can't even call your neighbor queer and yell profanity at him for an anti-Trump flag without getting arrested and fined for it? In Montana, no less. 

Look!
Up in the sky!
Is it a bird?
Is it a plane?

No, it's Wisecrackman!

[Ron]

Blaspheme laws never went away. The country just adopted new gods.

Do not curse or blaspheme your gods and rulers in America 2.0.

First you were commanded to tolerate, now you must affirm your support, soon you will be commanded to demonstrate.

Hate speech 

[MillCreek]

I was interested to see this article in the local paper this morning:

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/soup-nazi-joke-is-no-longer-funny-a-restaurateur-learns/

[cordex]

I found the video.  Challans was absolutely rude, boorish, confrontational, and a jerk.  Not a neighbor I'd want.

Mielke was calm, polite, level-headed and defused the situation by separating himself from it.  He did flub an opportunity as quoted in the posted article.

Mielke, 36, who is gay, acknowledged Challans’ apology and said the fine was reasonable

“It seems the issue is resolved and that is fantastic,” he said.

Would have been so much better if he'd said "fabulous" instead of "fantastic."

All that said, Challans did not appear to do anything that crossed out of the realm of Constitutionally protected speech.  If he had the money to burn or a friendly attorney I bet he could have easily had that conviction overturned, but it would have cost a whole lot more than $200.  Unlike back when groups like the ACLU would defend nasty people because they respected a principle that more free speech was good even if it was ugly, today that view has been largely displaced by the view that "if it hurts the feelings of just one person (that I deem worthy of protection), then it should be illegal!"  That sort of limits the opportunities for pro-bono defense against bad laws like this.

I'm pretty sure that despite his sarcastic send up of kgb's understanding of Constitutional law and the fact that his much greater training in the subject ought to give him the tools to know better, MillCreek's position on hate speech is in outright contradiction not merely with the Constitution, but Supreme Court rulings as well - including the very cases referenced in the link he posted.  I can find absolutely no legal definition of hate speech in US law, and as I mentioned before "fighting words" would be the only possible exception that could apply here which would be quite a stretch and certainly not an interpretation evenly applied.

My impression is that MillCreek's perspective on this is influenced more by emotion than by either legal understanding or principle.  It was amusing that when giving examples of what he would consider hate speech he explicitly dismisses an anti-white epithet as not hate speech.

[MillCreek]

https://www.seattle.gov/police/need-help/hate-crimes-and-bias-crimes

I cannot find examples of anti-white epithets being charged as a hate crime or used as a hate speech enhancement in sentencing.  One would argue that the law should apply equally to that, yet I cannot find examples.

[MechAg94]

Look!
Up in the sky!
Is it a bird?
Is it a plane?

No, it's Wisecrackman!

https://youtu.be/omPJV-hWBTg?t=90
How Joker Should Have Ended

The reference is actually about a minute after that link starts.

[Boomhauer]

https://www.seattle.gov/police/need-help/hate-crimes-and-bias-crimes

I cannot find examples of anti-white epithets being charged as a hate crime or used as a hate speech enhancement in sentencing.  One would argue that the law should apply equally to that, yet I cannot find examples.

And do you think that is by accident or happenstance?

Look at all the insanity spewed forth by the left over the last few years and how they twist literally everything into “hate speech” and then ask yourself if giving those *expletive deleted*ing nuts the power to bring the legal system against their targets is a good idea.