Gates, Crowley, racism, and Obama

[teatech]

There doesn't have to be a threat. And that's a pre-Patriot Act fact.

Doesn't matter though, he wasn't arrested for what he said, as mentioned by RC and others.

You know, he should have been charged for hate speech, much as KKK & neo-Nazi members are. It's all about fairness right tea?

Since when have the KKK and neo-Nazis been arrested for what they said?

[Guisslapp]

non-threatening words. What is so hard to grasp about that? The founding fathers of this country included freedom of speech in the first amendment to protect the very speech Gates used. It wasn't speech to be proud of but nonetheless it is protected. Didn't you learn anything in Civics?

If that is what your high school civics teacher told you they are wrong. That is not what the founding father's intended. Remember, they chose to protect FoS by prohibiting CONGRESS from passing laws abriding the FoS (it is plain as day if you just read the first amendment). Now, many years later the 14th Amendment was passed (not by the founding fathers) and many years after that judges found a way to use the 14th amendment to apply the 1st Amendment to the states as well.

I am fine with applying the 1st Amendment (and others) to the states. However, if you think that the 1st amendment protects all non-threatening words, you are just wrong.

[Guisslapp]

Here is what the Supreme Court has to say about it (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire):
"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances.FN2 There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention *572 and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.FN3 These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.FN4 It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.FN5 ‘Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.’ Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309, 310, 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352."

[teatech]

Here is what the Supreme Court has to say about it (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire):
"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances.FN2 There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention *572 and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.FN3 These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.FN4 It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.FN5 ‘Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.’ Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309, 310, 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352."

You're just like a dog that chases its tail. We have discussed this. Your definition of threat and my definition of threat are different. Lying on someone is a "threat" to a person because it can cause injury to person's character, freedom so forth. 1st amendment does not protect that. Now tell me how Gates' language was a threat to Crowley. I'm very interested to see what you can dream up now.

[Guisslapp]

You're just like a dog that chases its tail. We have discussed this. Your definition of threat and my definition of threat are different. Lying on someone is a "threat" to a person because it can cause injury to person's character, freedom so forth. 1st amendment does not protect that. Now tell me how Gates' language was a threat to Crowley. I'm very interested to see what you can dream up now.

If you want to create a lexicon that only you understand, suit yourself. Did Gates accuse Crowley of racism?

[Guisslapp]

You're just like a dog that chases its tail.

Oh, yeah, and you are like the stubborn turd that won't go down the drain.

[teatech]

If you want to create a lexicon that only you understand, suit yourself. Did Gates accuse Crowley of racism?

Yeah, so? It's not like he was trying to convince Crowley's boss or employer.

I accuse you of being an anarchist nutt job. Should I get arrested too?

[Guisslapp]

Yeah, so? It's not like he was trying to convince Crowley's boss or employer.

I accuse you of being an anarchist nutt job. Should I get arrested too?

Lying on someone is a "threat" to a person because it can cause injury to person's character, freedom so forth.

So because Gates' calling Crowley a racist might injure Crowley's character and reputation to those that heard the accusation, then you agree that Crowley's language was a "threat" and therefore not protected by the 1st Amendment?

Who is the one chasing his tail now?

[JuBru]

Since when have the KKK and neo-Nazis been arrested for what they said?

Since it became taboo to be a part of them socially. (I'm not talking about their legal rallies, though).



Tea, just admit you're wrong on all points and know nothing of what your talking about.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Yeah, so? It's not like he was trying to convince Crowley's boss or employer.

I accuse you of being an anarchist nutt job. Should I get arrested too?

You're just like a dog that chases its tail. We have discussed this. Your definition of threat and my definition of threat are different. Lying on someone is a "threat" to a person because it can cause injury to person's character, freedom so forth. 1st amendment does not protect that. Now tell me how Gates' language was a threat to Crowley. I'm very interested to see what you can dream up now.

Oh, yeah, and you are like the stubborn turd that won't go down the drain.

Classic!

[TYLERTECHSAS]

'I supported him. I voted for him. I will not again'...



COP SAYS OBAMA LOST HER VOTE

[FriscoDog]

The other thing that still amazes me about this whole thing is all of the people who have said that Crowley was doing racial profiling... That cracks me up. These people are clueless...

[JuBru]

Watching MSNBC right now... How the hell does a guy like Chris Matthews have a job? I think teatech may actually be Mr. Matthews.

Anyway, here is why I'm watching that crap. All the following links are essentially the same.
msnbc mccotter
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/27/...er-resolution/
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...president.html
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/rep...ze_to_cambrid/
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009...ze-to-crowley/


Also seen Obama's 2nd speech on this issue. He said more of the same, no way was it an apology or nothing.

I would still go to the White House.

[saltydawg]

Well, the police were not doing racial profiling. Obama stepped into a pile of dog shit and is trying to wipe it off his shoe while at the same time appearing not to.

Anyway, he is still young and learning.

[Guisslapp]

Well, the police were not doing racial profiling. Obama stepped into a pile of dog shit and is trying to wipe it off his shoe while at the same time appearing not to.

Anyway, he is still young and learning.

Now he is about to patronize us with a "teaching lesson" even though the real lesson to be learned is the mistake that he made - drawing conclusions and expressing opinions without knowing all the facts. We will see if he has the balls to even make a "teaching lesson" out of Crowley's assumption that racial prejudice affected his treatment. I doubt he will touch that one.