"fighting words" does not equal PROTECTED SPEECH

[law_bee]

I preface this by the fact I voted to keep Beeware.

members keep talking about protected speech but Beeware's antics are not protected speech under the constitution of GA or the US

Use of "fighting words" does not constitute protected speech under First and Fourteenth Amendments to Federal Constitution or under State Constitution. Const. Art. 1, § 1, Par. 5; O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39; U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">

"fighting words" are

3) Without provocation, uses to or of another person in such other person's
presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to
incite to an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a
matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used
to or of another person in such other person's presence, naturally tend to
provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called "fighting words";

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I hope that Beeware will be able to remain on stingtalk. He has been a longtime member and helped this place grow, HOWEVER ONLY IF HE CAN treat fellow members with the respect of say a (workplace environment, family member, or a local pub).

BECAUSE UNDERSTAND that if Beeware said the same thing to someone's face that he puts on this board that would be a LEGAL DEFENSE to that person punching Beeware in the mouth.

THAT IS THE LAW OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

 

[law_bee]

op·pro·bri·ous Pronunciation Key (-prbr-s)
adj.
Expressing contemptuous reproach; scornful or abusive:

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">

 

[Gold Rush]

If we followed these "rules" (not only on this board, but in "real-life", nobody would say anything to anybody !

 

[law_bee]

I disagree the important part is

under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person's presence, naturally tend to
provoke violent resentment

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">think about ALL the times you have heard people say they would love to punch Beeware out.

This is not a NORMAL reaction, yet we know these people to be rational but for their dealing w/ Beeware.

 

[pjjacket]

Aren't we all becoming self righteous? Beeware can be obnoxious BUT LET HIM VENT . I voted for him to stay on the board. There are some other fundi's on the board especially in the areas of reactionary politics and religious zealotry that I would like to challenge intellectually but I know they would not accept my arguements no matter how much on point. Also, my Mamma told me if I can't say anything nice then do not say anything.

Coaches the last time I looked are not deity's but are human beings. Free speech is American. I spent some time in a rice paddy defending the right but after some of the ninny posts I question if my time over there was beneficial to the American way.

Most of us bleed gold and white so let's unite. IMHO, Beeware does too. Accept his comments as possible food for thought and go on cheering for the JACKETS

 

[Dore-Dawg]

Originally posted by law_bee:
[QB

members keep talking about protected speech but Beeware's antics are not protected speech under the constitution of GA or the US

Use of "fighting words" does not constitute protected speech under First and Fourteenth Amendments to Federal Constitution or under State Constitution. Const. Art. 1, § 1, Par. 5; O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39; U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">

"fighting words" are

3) Without provocation, uses to or of another person in such other person's
presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to
incite to an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a
matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used
to or of another person in such other person's presence, naturally tend to
provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called "fighting words";

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I hope that Beeware will be able to remain on stingtalk. He has been a longtime member and helped this place grow, HOWEVER ONLY IF HE CAN treat fellow members with the respect of say a (workplace environment, family member, or a local pub).

I don't pretend to know everything BW has said on this board, but from what I've seen, his speech IS protected speech. Your own definition should give you a clue as to why.

No court that I'm aware of has ever held that typing on a message board is the equivalent of saying something to another person's face that is likely to incite a fight.

The whole purpose of this law is to discourage physical altercations. Now if BW said this to someone at the next GT football game, that might be a different story.

BW seems to me to be a tech fan who truly believes his opinions are correct, and he only wants what's best for the football program. Expressing these opinions should be fair game on this board.

Despite that this country's FIRST AMENDMENT to its Constitution grants individuals the privilege of free speech, many of you are all too quick to yank this privilege from anyone who has a dissenting opinion.

Of course, this is a private forum not governed by the First Amendment and the administrators can censor if they so choose, but I think free speech is a strength and not a weakness of this board.

 

[Herr Goldshields]

I agree Gold Rush. Broad phrases like "fighting words" used to rely on the good common sense of the men in our legal system. However, since identity politics, suit for profit, and a general environment in our society in which there seems to be no guiding culture or morality anymore, the common sense used to interpret these broad phrases is often in the capricious hands of judges who may have their own subjective agendas. If you want to take illogic far enough, you could say that just because I decided to slug you, no matter how innocuous your words were, a "breach of peace" was created; therefore, you had no right to say what you did.

 

[bellyseries]

Technician, again we agree.
I think, too, that encountering Beeware in person would pretty much eliminate the "fighting words" element. Communications on the net notoriously lack nuance; we're much more likely to "fill in the blanks" with a negative interpretation than we would be in person.
He has a sense of humor, drinks beer, and loves Tech. Wot the hell, he sounds like the perfect wife.

 

[bizzybee]

pjjacket, I just want to seize this opt. to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your time in the Service of our Country. That phrase, "...in the rice paddies" really makes all this other stuff so ridiculously superficial. I hope you and others are getting the "props" that were so cruelly denied you back then!

A grateful citizen!

 

[bellyseries]

bizzy's right. Thanks, pj.

 

[Goldtimer]

I'm sure you have a much better feel for how it is today, Law_Bee, but in the old days judges would rarely condone an assault based solely on word provocation, no matter what words were used.

On the other hand, they'd usually just throw fights following an exchange of words, "fighting" (where's the list?) or not, where only hands and no lethal weapons like guns, knives, pipes, etc. were used; right out of court, if they even made it into court. The overloaded legal system doesn't have time for them. (The exception being cases where one combatant was clearly much stronger than the other, such as a young man against a much older man, or a healthy man vs. an handicapped man or a woman who is not a combative macho type.)

Posters who attack (or even just habitually pester) other posters online usually do so assuming they'll never have to face the person. They use words and implications they'd never say face-to-face, and generally show a lack of common respect for the opinions of others. Some need a face-to-face encounter to help them realize their two worlds (behind-the-screen and face-to-face) are actually one and the same, and they are accountable (to the other person, at least) in both cases. And, they need to realize that they caused the hazzle, not the target of their attacks, and they are in control of whether the hazzle continues according to whether their annoying behavior continues.

This is well founded in Wild West common law (when there was no sheriff to run to most of the time) and is still recognized by most Americans as reasonable and occasionally necessary when the provocation is persistent.

And, almost anyone can be found when necessary.

 

[pjjacket]

Belly and Busy:

Thanks for your kind words. Don't usually bring this up except when I feel certain basic freedoms are being violated.