Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

[sturg33]

How were they impeding someone's education?

You have a right to say mean things in this country.

You do it on here every day

[sturg33]

Yall have yet to explain how police arresting someone for "shouting a racist slur" isn't a violation of first amendment.

You keep saying stuff like they are stopping someone from getting their education. Which is not true.

You're literally justifying arresting people for saying mean things.

This thread became a reality in less than a year. And it's what happens when society (almost always leftists) work to silence opposing viewpoints

[thethe]

Paranoid

Free speech isnt being eliminated. Just for anyone right of progressive.

[Krgrecw]

Holy ****. Shaq just proved he has the biggest balls in the nba
"One of our best values here in America is free speech,” O’Neal said on TNT. “We're allowed to say what we want to say, and we’re allowed to speak out on injustices, and that's just how it goes. And if people don’t understand that, that’s something they have to deal with.”

[nsacpi]

Bravo Shaq

[Runnin]

Bravo Shaq

Good for him. The NBA shouldn't take their orders from China.

What did Chuck say?

[striker42]

I'll weigh in on the Connecticut controversy. I'm going to approach this as objectively as possible. I'm a barred attorney and took an entire class in law school on the first amendment taught by a professor who clerked for O'Connor. Also, first amendment law is something of a interest of mine.

First, that Connecticut statute is almost certainly unconstitutional. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-37 states "Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor."

That statute is unconstitutional on its face. First, this is a content based restriction. The content of the speech being ridicule on the basis of certain classes is being regulated. If I stand in the same location and say vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate, I've not violated the statute. So this is a content based regulation.

Content based regulations of speech are subject to strict scrutiny. This means they are presumptively invalid. In order for the statute to be upheld, the State would need to show that this statute was narrowly tailored to address a compelling governmental interest. It's an extremely difficult burden. The State could argue the law is there to protect certain protected classes from harassment and intimidation. The problem is a statute could be written to only apply to cases of harassment and intimidation (and actually have been written as there are CT statutes addressing those as well). Since this is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling governmental interest, it is unconstitutional.

I suspect the prosecutor will drop the charges but even then you might end up with the ACLU suing on this statute.

For those on this board defending this statute and its use, I offer this fact pattern. Suppose you're on the campus of the University of Connecticut and the campus Catholic group is having a Cardinal come give a speech. You decide to protest due to your anger over the Catholic Church abuse scandal. So you create a sign that says "Catholics like little boys" and protest. You've just violated that statute.

As for whether this instance amounted to harassment, that's a fact specific analysis. I've not looked too much into it but my understanding is that it was these idiots talking to each other in an empty parking lot. If that's true, it's not harassment. There would need to be other facts we don't know about. There are certain requirements for speech to rise to the level of harassment. Simply saying something that is deeply insulting to someone else is not harassment.

Next, the University itself would also be severely limited in the actions it could take against these students. The school is under the same restrictions against content based regulations of speech. They can put reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. So a student shouting racial slurs in class could be punished by the school. A student using the same racial slurs in the campus quad could not.

Ultimately, without additional facts, what these idiots did is probably protected by the first amendment and that statute is definitely invalid.

[mqt]

'Face charges of ridicule on account of race, color, or creed'

I’d probably wait to see if charges are filed and if they’re found guilty before sounding this particular alarm.

Edited to add: I agree, though. This shouldn’t be illegal, and it’d be concerning if the police and courts follow through on these charges.

[Carp]

Yall have yet to explain how police arresting someone for "shouting a racist slur" isn't a violation of first amendment.

You keep saying stuff like they are stopping someone from getting their education. Which is not true.

You're literally justifying arresting people for saying mean things.

This thread became a reality in less than a year. And it's what happens when society (almost always leftists) work to silence opposing viewpoints

I'd say at the very least it seems it would be disturbing the peace. Multiple people shouting racist slurs in a parking lot in the dark at a public school certainly seems like a completely valid reason for a charge of disturbing the peace.

Now, granted, that's not what they were charged with. I'm not exactly sure why they weren't simply charged with disturbing the peace. But certainly, you don't have the right to go around shouting racial slurs wherever you please. Law has been established and has precedent for such actions. So please stop with this nonsense that you have the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, without legal consequence.

Conneticut Breach of Peace statute:

(a)(a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person’s property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, “public place” means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.(1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person’s property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, “public place” means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.

[nsacpi]

I'll weigh in on the Connecticut controversy. I'm going to approach this as objectively as possible. I'm a barred attorney and took an entire class in law school on the first amendment taught by a professor who clerked for O'Connor. Also, first amendment law is something of a interest of mine.

First, that Connecticut statute is almost certainly unconstitutional. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-37 states "Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor."

That statute is unconstitutional on its face. First, this is a content based restriction. The content of the speech being ridicule on the basis of certain classes is being regulated. If I stand in the same location and say vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate, I've not violated the statute. So this is a content based regulation.

Content based regulations of speech are subject to strict scrutiny. This means they are presumptively invalid. In order for the statute to be upheld, the State would need to show that this statute was narrowly tailored to address a compelling governmental interest. It's an extremely difficult burden. The State could argue the law is there to protect certain protected classes from harassment and intimidation. The problem is a statute could be written to only apply to cases of harassment and intimidation (and actually have been written as there are CT statutes addressing those as well). Since this is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling governmental interest, it is unconstitutional.

I suspect the prosecutor will drop the charges but even then you might end up with the ACLU suing on this statute.

For those on this board defending this statute and its use, I offer this fact pattern. Suppose you're on the campus of the University of Connecticut and the campus Catholic group is having a Cardinal come give a speech. You decide to protest due to your anger over the Catholic Church abuse scandal. So you create a sign that says "Catholics like little boys" and protest. You've just violated that statute.

As for whether this instance amounted to harassment, that's a fact specific analysis. I've not looked too much into it but my understanding is that it was these idiots talking to each other in an empty parking lot. If that's true, it's not harassment. There would need to be other facts we don't know about. There are certain requirements for speech to rise to the level of harassment. Simply saying something that is deeply insulting to someone else is not harassment.

Next, the University itself would also be severely limited in the actions it could take against these students. The school is under the same restrictions against content based regulations of speech. They can put reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. So a student shouting racial slurs in class could be punished by the school. A student using the same racial slurs in the campus quad could not.

Ultimately, without additional facts, what these idiots did is probably protected by the first amendment and that statute is definitely invalid.

thanks for sharing the information...I agree with your analysis...with one caveat...if minority students are subjected to a racial harassment campaign on school property (whether it be the classroom, a dorm, the quad, or a parking lot) I believe the school would be within its rights to expel the offenders...failure to address the harm caused by this "speech" would potentially open up the school to legal jeopardy

[striker42]

thanks for sharing the information...I agree with your analysis...with one caveat...if minority students are subjected to a racial harassment campaign on school property (whether it be the classroom, a dorm, the quad, or a parking lot) I believe the school would be within its rights to expel the offenders...failure to address the harm caused by this "speech" would potentially open up the school to legal jeopardy

The problem is the balancing act the school has to do. As long as the speech doesn't rise to the level of harassment and its done pursuant to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, there's just not much the school can do. It is doubly difficult in areas that are considered traditional public forums such as quads.

The conduct has to rise to the level of harassment or intimidation which are high bars. So if I shout some horrible thing with racial slurs in it once in a campus green space, that's probably going to be protected speech. If I stake out areas you go and have multiple incidents of shouting these horrible things around you, that course of conduct can show an intent to harass which is not protected even though each individual incident may have been.

[nsacpi]

The problem is the balancing act the school has to do. As long as the speech doesn't rise to the level of harassment and its done pursuant to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, there's just not much the school can do. It is doubly difficult in areas that are considered traditional public forums such as quads.

The conduct has to rise to the level of harassment or intimidation which are high bars. So if I shout some horrible thing with racial slurs in it once in a campus green space, that's probably going to be protected speech. If I stake out areas you go and have multiple incidents of shouting these horrible things around you, that course of conduct can show an intent to harass which is not protected even though each individual incident may have been.

right...the fact pattern is important...although there is an interesting case in Ohio where a college was held liable for damages caused to a third party's reputation by the behavior of its students...schools ignore stuff like this at their peril...I could easily see a situation where minority students would sue the school and win for the school's failure to ensure they could pursue their education without this sort of abuse

[striker42]

right...the fact pattern is important...although there is an interesting case in Ohio where a college was held liable for damages caused to a third party's reputation by the behavior of its students...schools ignore stuff like this at their peril...I could easily see a situation where minority students would sue the school and win for the school's failure to ensure they could pursue their education without this sort of abuse

If stopping harassment would result in infringing upon someone's constitutional rights, there can't be any liability for the harassment. So ignoring it is probably not the right move. Investigating it and determining if there's any action that can be taken that is constitutional is the correct thing to do.

[goldfly]

Holy ****. Shaq just proved he has the biggest balls in the nba
"One of our best values here in America is free speech,” O’Neal said on TNT. “We're allowed to say what we want to say, and we’re allowed to speak out on injustices, and that's just how it goes. And if people don’t understand that, that’s something they have to deal with.”

he's not in the nba

and he's right. i don't know why you are shocked by that though

[goldfly]

imagine thinking you love freedom so much

that you think you are being persecuted if you aren't allowed to yell racial **** at racial minorities going to get an education

[thethe]

imagine thinking you love freedom so much

that you think you are being persecuted if you aren't allowed to yell racial **** at racial minorities going to get an education

How is that not free speech?

[goldfly]

How is that not free speech?

how is yelling fire in a movie theatre not free speech?


imagine thinking making a hostile environment for others should be protected as free speech

[thethe]

how is yelling fire in a movie theatre not free speech?


imagine thinking making a hostile environment for others should be protected as free speech

What is the present danger to the lives of the persecuted students as a result of screaming racists comments?

[striker42]

imagine thinking you love freedom so much

that you think you are being persecuted if you aren't allowed to yell racial **** at racial minorities going to get an education

Who do you trust to determine what speech content is worthy of protection?

[goldfly]

What is the present danger to the lives of the persecuted students as a result of screaming racists comments?

what a weird battle to fight for

but i'm seriously not sure if you are being serious

cause i would guess you obviously don't know the struggle of minorities in this country and what has happened to them to get the same opportunities afforded to others

if you're dumb enough to try to make that your argument