Posted on Dec 2, 2016
Can a bully claim "freedom of speech" to say what they want?
9.65K
89
49
6
6
0
Posted in these groups: 
Hazing
Hazing
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 14
12
12
0
I would say yes.
Yes, you do have the right to say whatever you want BUT (and this is something many people don't seem to understand) having that right does not protect you from the consequences of what you say. For example, you can say anything you want on RP or any other social media site as it's your right BUT you can't scream "freedom of speech" when you get smacked in the face by the banhammer because of something you said. To recap, is freedom of speech protected? Absolutely. Does that freedom protect you from the consequences of what you say? Nope.
SSG Shavonde Chase SN Greg Wright SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
Yes, you do have the right to say whatever you want BUT (and this is something many people don't seem to understand) having that right does not protect you from the consequences of what you say. For example, you can say anything you want on RP or any other social media site as it's your right BUT you can't scream "freedom of speech" when you get smacked in the face by the banhammer because of something you said. To recap, is freedom of speech protected? Absolutely. Does that freedom protect you from the consequences of what you say? Nope.
SSG Shavonde Chase SN Greg Wright SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
(12)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
Cpl Craig Marton - Yep, but let anyone else mess with one of You I'll bet then You defend each other !
(2)
(0)
Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay
Cpl Craig Marton - That appears to be the response in a Warner Bros. cartoon. What is the logical, mature response?
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
It's funny that you posted this around the same time I posted my thread about free speech (You were first! I'm not implying anything other than a genuine sense of humor!). Anyway, to answer you, no. Bully-speech is NOT protected. The ONLY form of speech that is protected, is protected from GOVERNMENTAL interference. Schools can restrict your speech. Rallypoint can restrict your speech. -I- can restrict your speech in my house. Only the government cannot.
(7)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
1LT William Clardy - Fighting words are NOT protected. They are specifically excluded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.
(1)
(0)
MSG Jay Jackson
Good point, but you have the right to march down the street, if you are the KKK, Communist Party or BLM. That link has some good info like this:
The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[3] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.
In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.
The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[3] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.
In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
You are technically correct, SN Greg Wright. I was sloppy in not making clear that I meant most speech which people would consider fighting words is still protected speech. Heck, even an invitation to indulge in consensual battery ("Do you want to fight?") is not restricted, and it's hard to think of more "fighting" words than that.
I would also point out that the Chaplinsky decision, in which the Supreme Court laid out exemptions for speech unworthy of protection, was written in 1942 and later decisions have reversed or (in abject servitude to stare decisis) severely limited the range of restrictions which were declared Constitutional in the early, dark days of World War 2. You probably (hopefully?) learned back in school about how the Court reversed its Gobitis decision (which, like Chaplinsky, involved wascally Jehovah's Witnesses upsetting good citizens with their abnormal behavior) in 1943 with its decision in Barnette (yet more Jehovah's Witnesses).
I would also point out that the Chaplinsky decision, in which the Supreme Court laid out exemptions for speech unworthy of protection, was written in 1942 and later decisions have reversed or (in abject servitude to stare decisis) severely limited the range of restrictions which were declared Constitutional in the early, dark days of World War 2. You probably (hopefully?) learned back in school about how the Court reversed its Gobitis decision (which, like Chaplinsky, involved wascally Jehovah's Witnesses upsetting good citizens with their abnormal behavior) in 1943 with its decision in Barnette (yet more Jehovah's Witnesses).
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
The definition of bully has grown prodigiously. Mean spirited people who say and do things to others, that won't or can't retaliate, can claim free speech all they want. They may be correct sometimes. But who cares. Free speech can have consequences if you bully the wrong person for sport. People who bully tend to be in control of the situation before belittling the other person. It's easy to bully on a blog site, but not so easy standing eye to eye with someone who will extract a pound of flesh for nasty, hurtful words.
(6)
(0)
Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay
Bullying appears to me to be the immature response to Fear or Frustration. The solution would be education, information, empathy, patience and Faith in your fellow man to achieve a nonviolent, respectful solution.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google