Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Conservatives are only for free speech, if it's the fig leaf to insult and harass Lefts, Liberals, Feminists, any group they hate.

[Cope]

https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...ce/4655757001/

Kentucky Senate passes a bill to criminalize insulting the police. This law likely wouldn't stand in a court. I thought conservatives were all.about free speech.

It's referring to fighting words which are not protected by the First Amendment:

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct in the second degree when in a public place and with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or wantonly creating a risk thereof, he:

(e) Accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.

SB211

I assume there is some convention that the word "he" can apply to females too, otherwise they would be exempt from this bill.

[mishkin]

Have you underlined that section because it is especially ridiculous?

Armored (also legally) snowflakes

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.

Its obviously an attempt to justify police violence. I can already see it: "Those black provoked me with gesture and "Black lives matters, ESPECIALLY FOR YOU COPS !?!" slogans to crush his head with my baton. He should be sentenced for my psychological pain."

[Cope]

Have you underlined that section because it is especially ridiculous?

Armored (also legally) snowflakes

The underlined portion likely makes the subsection being discussed constitutional as per the conventions regarding so-called fighting words. Inciting an immediate breach of the peace has never been protected by the First Amendment. More info.

[Vanoi]

It's referring to fighting words which are not protected by the First Amendment:



I assume there is some convention that the word "he" can apply to females too, otherwise they would be exempt from this bill.

Fighting words aren't actually illegal they just aren't protected speech.

However insulting a police officer a vague term. What if the insult isn't a so called fighting word?

Obvious violation of free speech rights. You can't criminalize speech such as simply insulting somebody.

[Vanoi]

But it is good to know that the leftists are not ignorant lying pathetic hypocrites and in their desire to eliminate free speech will defend this law...

No comment on the law? Come on Infidel. You and other conservatives rant about free speech all the time. Why aren't you condemning this law?

[Cope]

Fighting words aren't actually illegal they just aren't protected speech.

However insulting a police officer a vague term. What if the insult isn't a so called fighting word?

Obvious violation of free speech rights. You can't criminalize speech such as simply insulting somebody.

If it isn't a fighting word, then I don't immediately see how it would create "a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person".

[Vanoi]

If it isn't a fighting word, then I don't immediately see how it would create "a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person".

I can insult you and provoke you simply by saying your bad at your job. The number of ways to insult somebody without resorting to so called "fighting words" is vast.

I also suggest you bother to read about fighting words under US law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/figh...%20the%20peace.

.In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination

Fighting words once again are not illegal speech.

[Cope]

I can insult you and provoke you simply by saying your bad at your job. The number of ways to insult somebody without resorting to so called "fighting words" is vast.

Insults which do not constitute (in effect) fighting words are not criminalized by this law. See again the phrasing regarding "a direct tendency to provoke a violent response".

I also suggest you bother to read about fighting words under US law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/figh...%20the%20peace.

Fighting words once again are not illegal speech.

At no point was it claimed that fighting words were illegal in and of themselves. If they were, this bill - which effectively seeks to outlaw fighting words in a very particular context - would serve no purpose.

[Twilight Esker]

At this rate I don't think conservatism nor the party around it have much coherence about their identity. Although the same could be said for US politics in general.

[Vanoi]

Insults which do not constitute (in effect) fighting words are not criminalized by this law. See again the phrasing regarding "a direct tendency to provoke a violent response"

Still illegal. Words that simply provoke are not enough.

words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Unless those words cause an immediate breach of peace or injury it's not illegal.

At no point was it claimed that fighting words were illegal in and of themselves. If they were, this bill - which effectively seeks to outlaw fighting words in a very particular context - would serve no purpose.

You miss the point though. This bill criminalizes speech such as fighting words. And yet under law fighting words are not illegal and using them even if they provoke someone is not necessarily illegal under US speech laws.

This law is blatant government overreach into speech and a violation of the First Amendment.

[Cope]

Still illegal. Words that simply provoke are not enough.


Unless those words cause an immediate breach of peace or injury it's not illegal.



You miss the point though. This bill criminalizes speech such as fighting words. And yet under law fighting words are not illegal and using them even if they provoke someone is not necessarily illegal under US speech laws.

This law is blatant government overreach into speech and a violation of the First Amendment.

The claim that SB211 (which attempts to criminalize fighting words in a specific context) "is a blatant violation of the First Amendment" has already been contradicted by your own acknowledgement that fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment.

[Vanoi]

The claim that SB211 (which attempts to criminalize fighting words in a specific context) "is a blatant violation of the First Amendment" has already been contradicted by your own acknowledgement that fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment.

Jesus Christ.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/figh...%20the%20peace

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.

My source says fighting words ARE protected speech.

[Cope]

Jesus Christ.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/figh...%20the%20peace

My source says fighting words ARE protected speech.

No it doesn't. It discusses an exception to the rule - an exception which is not violated by the bill being discussed. I advise you to pay attention to your own post.

Fighting words aren't actually illegal they just aren't protected speech.

[Vanoi]

No it doesn't. It discusses an exception to the rule - an exception which is not violated by the bill being discussed. I advise you to pay attention to your own post.

I never once claimed fighting words were protected words in all circumstances. Even then speech being unprotected by the Constitution doesn't make it illegal in the first place.

Nothing in the Kentucky bill allows any exceptions. If you insult a police officer in a way that provokes him you run afoul of the law.

And yet as my source states clearly fighting words (which by legal definition can provoke injury or immediate breach of peace) are protected speech in some circumstances. The Kentucky bill bans insults that provoke in any circumstance. Thus Kentucky's law is illegal and goes against current legal precedent regarding fight words and their use.

[Cope]

I never once claimed fighting words were protected words in all circumstances. Even then speech being unprotected by the Constitution doesn't make it illegal in the first place.

Nothing in the Kentucky bill allows any exceptions. If you insult a police officer in a way that provokes him you run afoul of the law.

And yet as my source states clearly fighting words (which by legal definition can provoke injury of immediate breach of peace) are protected speech in some circumstances. The Kentucky bill bans insults that provoke in any circumstance. Thus Kentucky's law is illegal and goes against current legal precedent regarding fight words and their use.

Exceptions of this type are unlikely to invalidate the legislation itself, only specific prosecutions where the exception applies (supposing the defense can argue it). If exceptions are provided for in superior law, it isn't necessary for the bill to specifically accommodate them since they apply by default.

Secondly, the bill does not ban insults which provoke violence "in any circumstances". There are a variety of conditions which must be met.

[Vanoi]

Exceptions of this type are unlikely to invalidate the legislation itself, only specific prosecutions where the exception applies (supposing the defense can argue it). If exceptions are provided for in superior law, it isn't necessary for the bill to specifically accommodate them since they apply by default.

I bolded the important bit you said. What are you basing this claim on? Because you definitely haven't cited legal precedent on why this law won't run afoul of free speech laws.

[Cope]

I bolded the important bit you said. What are you basing this claim on? Because you definitely haven't cited legal precedent on why this law won't run afoul of free speech laws.

I cited a page explaining, with reference to case law, why fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment. This is why the legislation is unlikely to be considered unconstitutional. That some speech can fall into several categories (some protected, others not) does not necessarily invalidate any law regulating the unprotected speech; it means only that the defense can defer to superior law where appropriate.

[Vanoi]

I cited a page explaining, with reference to case law, why fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment. This is why the legislation is unlikely to be considered unconstitutional. That some speech can fall into several categories (some protected, others not) does not necessarily invalidate any law regulating the unprotected speech; it means only that the defense can defer to superior law where appropriate.

And my source says it is. And nothing you cited indicates this law would be allowed to stand even if it violates Constitutional law. If the Kentucky law runs afoul of that, it's unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if fighting words aren't protected speech in most circumstances.

The point is does this law violate a person's Constitutional rights. Since this law does ban any use of words that provoke a police officer. Considering you are very much allowed to use words that provoke legally in the US, this law is unconstitutional.