This is what happens when "LIBERALS" don't get what they want.
NYU professor curses NYPD cops for not beating the hell out of right wing guest speak
- Thread starter ClimateSanity
- Start date
Guns, knives, and bombs may soon be another avenue these Loons may choose to pursue. This is chaos and Anarchy at its best. This kind of "Professor" is teaching the future leadership of our nation.
This reminds me of one of those later, "Planet of the Apes" movies, where the Apes take over the streets and eventually, humanity.
If Hillary had won, we wouldn't be going through this form of terrorism. Conservatives are far less capable of behaving like these "Troglodytes." Thank God these "types" didn't take control of our country, through Clinton and her frenzied ilk.
These "people" are clamoring for Socialism. They are the "True Fascists." This is how the Nazi party started.
You said ape. Racist.
Sometimes.
I can recall a time or two giving someone a hefty slap for getting in my face and screaming obscenities at me.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Erm, no, they have no credibility because the nutcase who founded that crackpot organization was himself found guilty of misappropriating research to fuel his own homosexual fixated agenda. It's why "Dr" Paul Cameron was booted out of the APA. It's a far right wingnut outfit and zero else.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
serves 'em right for getting that close
they were prolly spitting on you too
they're anti-Christian and pro-homo
of course a liberal like town loves them
Yes, and no. This is what happens when hate and bigotry get what they want.
Yep.
Their vain cries of tolerance and peace are quickly turned to hate, bigotry, and unlawful destruction.
Right now it is mostly one-sided with the Trump haters taking to the streets.
When the other side decides they have been pushed enough and it's time to retaliate in droves, then it's going to get really ugly.
Well, "not protected" is a little different from your earlier:
Neither are right. Rather, no right is absolute. You are not free to defame without consequence. You are not free to lie without recourse. And you're not free of the foreseeable response to words so charged as to render the reasonable man unreasonable in reaction. While narrow in application (and narrowing over years) the Court is correct in its assertion:
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...
— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
I'd suggest you review the standard and historic applications. It's not about delicate or hypersensitive sensibilities.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i'm simply amazed at the foolishness of the liberal mind :dizzy:
Boy Art, you must be hitting the pink Chablis a bit harder tonight than usual, as the article that Climate Sanity posted was about Focus on the Family (FOTC), not the Family Research Council.
To add insult to injury, Dr. Paul Cameron is the founder of the Family Research Institute, Tony Perkins runs the Family Research Council.
Back to LGBTQ training school for you.
Where I'm rarely surprised when you use a lack of honest information as the basis for an equally worthless expression of your personal problems.
The fighting words doctrine wasn't a liberal one. It was affirmed in the case I noted by a unanimous 9-0 vote of the Court, Conservative and Liberal alike confirming a tradition that had no party allegiance. The narrowing I noted has taken some of the strength out of it. Until recently, it would have been a defense for someone moved by the destruction of an American flag to take action against the person desecrating it.
Most relatively recently it gained some attention when Conservative Justice Alito asserted Westboro's conduct constituted an invitation to protected and foreseeable response, but the larger Court differed, holding the course on the words being personally aimed.
In other words, you can say, "Blank the U.S.!" to a soldier without his being able to utilized the doctrine, but if you said, "Blank you, baby killer!" to him he'd have some protection for the beating you received shortly thereafter.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i don't see any point in reading past your retarded attempts to attack me
just like your retarded friend artie
if only you had some substance to contribute to this board :nono:
Said the doofus whose entire post was:
Anyway, I noted you didn't know what you were talking about and were using any ol excuse to say something about/to me.
Then I educated you in the actual foundation of the doctrine, which you avoided as likely because you'd have to attempt the substantive to do it as for the stated reason that you felt attacked for being called on a demonstrably ignorant attack bit.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That was just the "Same to you, buddy" preceding the substantive support for its particulars and on the actual point you didn't appear to understand:
The fighting words doctrine wasn't a liberal one. It was affirmed in the case I noted by a unanimous 9-0 vote of the Court, Conservative and Liberal alike confirming a tradition that had no party allegiance. The narrowing I noted has taken some of the strength out of it. Until recently, it would have been a defense for someone moved by the destruction of an American flag to take action against the person desecrating it.
Most relatively recently it gained some attention when Conservative Justice Alito asserted Westboro's conduct constituted an invitation to protected and foreseeable response, but the larger Court differed, holding the course on the words being personally aimed.
In other words, you can say, "Blank the U.S.!" to a soldier without his being able to utilized the doctrine, but if you said, "Blank you, baby killer!" to him he'd have some protection for the beating you received shortly thereafter.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
...it was just the same response you're going to get for your silliness