Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
... LastLast
  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    That "chick" was a minor when the offense occurred. We don't usually apply the same laws to minors that we do to adults.

    This idiot, on the other hand... Well, he'll just get a month to reflect on the merits of being an asshole.
    I mean the one with the 20yo football player, not the one with the little girl. Afaik, in US when you are 16 you are deemed responsible enough to be allowed to drive a car, so I don't understand why you shouldn't be also liable for your other actions.

  2. #222
    I am Murloc! SirRobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    5,801
    http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x17831...disabled-child

    Meh... He was an asshole and it was up to the judge to sentence him. Maybe he'll learn, maybe he won't. At least he is being held accountable for his behavior.
    Last edited by SirRobin; 2012-11-30 at 04:07 PM.
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  3. #223
    There is no doubt this guy is a jackass, but we're now saying that because he acted like a jackass we're going to place a burned on the tax payer buy housing him in jail for a month and then once he's lost his job and has to find new work we're going to again pay additional funds in welfare.

    Seems a more appropriate sentence would have been something within community service and victim empathy classes. Putting him in jail doesn't solve the problem and creates a LOT of financial stress that really we could do without.

  4. #224

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by obixcx View Post
    the Term Freedom of speech does not literary mean you can say anything, it has its limits: sorry lazy.. just gonna paste an example in here

    Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.

    Freedom of speech includes the right:

    Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
    West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

    Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
    Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

    To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

    To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

    To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
    Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

    To engage in symbolic speech, e.g., burning the flag in protest.
    Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).


    Freedom of speech does not include the right:


    To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

    To make or distribute obscene materials.
    Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

    To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
    United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

    To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
    Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

    Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
    Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

    Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
    Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

    Not one of those examples fits with the case of bullying. If he threatened to physically harm the mother, yes that's suggesting harm and worthy of jail; but mocking the disabled girl shouldn't be punishable by jail time.

  6. #226
    This is stupid. I actually read the article and watched the video... jail time for THAT? Damn American ninnies.

  7. #227
    Oddly enough, he claimed it was in retaliation for insults that had been directed at him/his son by members of the family he was "bullying."

    Seems like there were two sides to this story. That, and I find it highly suspect that the mother "just happened" to have her camera ready for filming. Seems like she was waiting for something to be done so she could escalate it to the next level.

    People are so fucking petty. It's stupid.

    God, the whole thing is bogus. Here's an interesting excerpt:

    Fitzsimmons said Bailey also wrote an apology to the girl, which was not required by the judge.

    Tricia Knight said she would read it to her daughter, adding “I know he doesn’t mean it. I know it’s crap.”

    Her husband echoed her sentiments, calling Bailey’s apology hollow. Still, he said he and his wife were “pretty happy” with the judge’s ruling.
    The story also mentions that this has been an ongoing thing. Sounds to me like the Knights decided they wanted to up the ante, baited the guy by calling his kid names, and then caught his reaction on video. Now they're playing the "oh poor us, he's so mean" card; which is basically just exploiting their own daughter for revenge.

    I like the persistent "high-and-mighty" attitude from the mom, too, like she's actually trying to raise awareness. She's not. If this has been something that's been back and forth for some time, she's just as guilty of "bullying" as this guy and his son. Except she's the one who's going to stoop to exploiting that to try to "get back" at this guy.

    Fucking pathetic.
    Last edited by Torq; 2012-11-30 at 06:43 PM.

  8. #228
    The term "freedom of speech" does not literary mean you can say anything...
    But it should mean it, in my opinion.

  9. #229
    I don't understand people at all anymore? Why would anyone make fun on a handicapped child like that? What purpose does it serve? When I see people do things like this it makes me really hate the human race at times. I feel bad for the son because he does not know any better by being brought up by this "father figure."


    WOW Armory Link

  10. #230
    I guess comedians should be jailed too, considering they make fun of people as a living. Watch out Josh Blue, you are going to serve jail time and a fine for making fun of yourself!
    to: preposition; used as a function word to indicate position, connection, extent, relation ~ too: adverb; also, very, excessively, so

  11. #231
    It seems that a lot of people are confused as to what he's being charged with and why he went to jail.

    The disorderly conduct charge is for the mocking, as evidenced in the video. This could be subjective and likely alone wouldn't have sent him to jail, although this would be up to the judge.

    He also has a menacing charge for threatening to choke her with a chain. If anyone cites the first amendment as a reason he should be allowed to threaten someone should go take some criminology classes down at their local community college. Threats are taken seriously when reported by most law enforcement bureaus. This threat is likely the reason that he saw any jail time.

  12. #232
    Epic! Skavau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    England, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,671
    Quote Originally Posted by obixcx View Post
    the Term Freedom of speech does not literary mean you can say anything, it has its limits: sorry lazy.. just gonna paste an example in here

    Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted.
    It is and yet "advocacy of unpopular ideas" is always on the fringe if you allow people to contact the police over content they don't like. It is whether you like it or not a slippery slope towards that when you insist that certain speech deemed hateful or obscene. You invest power in the citizenry to report things they personally consider offensive, obscene, insulting, bullying then you give them much power to censor others. A law based on emotivism.

    The biggest threat to freedom of speech in the Western world is not governments necessarily but ourselves and the complacency of governments to go along with it.

    There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity,
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller Test
    The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts:

    Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
    Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
    Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
    This Miller test appears grossly outdated and if followed the potential for causing censorship itself. The usage of the word "prurient" here seems especially comical given what it means. Indeed, the first two parts seem almost entirely vested in whether the speech is too sexually offensive. Seems bizarre to censor on those grounds. (How often is speech deemed offensive ever actually about sexuality?). This shows it ages given when it was done.

    The third one is incredibly subjective. Why should its value towards the humanities count as a point towards it being acceptable?

    child pornography laws,
    Not free speech.

    speech that incites imminent lawless action,
    This one I can kind of understand.

    and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising.
    This depends on context. Such limits do not exist to nearly a degree on the internet, for example.

    Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent),
    Grossly outdated and the internet demonstrates that daily.

    protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words),
    That would be threats, which if made the person should be arrested based on an evaluation on whether they actually mean them.

    Freedom of speech includes the right:

    Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
    West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

    Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
    Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

    To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

    To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

    To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
    Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

    To engage in symbolic speech, e.g., burning the flag in protest.
    Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
    Okay.

    Freedom of speech does not include the right:

    To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
    I suspect that if you just shouted fire in a crowded theater you'd be banned from the theater. If you made it a consistent thing then you'd get arrested. People bring that tired old example up too often.


    To make or distribute obscene materials.
    Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
    Objectively define "obscene".

    To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
    United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
    Outrageous. Should change.

    To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
    Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
    ??

    Read it on Wikipedia, this one seems to specifically refer to school policy and not free speech per se. Schools can run their own newspapers how they like.

    Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
    Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
    See above.

    Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
    Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
    See above.

  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by coolkingler1 View Post
    Deserved, doesn't matter if it isn't illegal to me

    He should be beaten to a limp for that.
    how is that going to solve anything?

    is that really how you solve your problems?

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-30 at 07:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Hraklea View Post
    But it should mean it, in my opinion.
    Not only in your opinion but in the opinions of many others. But arguments ad populum are besides the point.

    There are good reasons for freedom of speech that trump the censorship movement and those who try to equate words with a fist.

  14. #234

  15. #235
    The Patient
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by Selkinor View Post
    This is stupid. I actually read the article and watched the video... jail time for THAT? Damn American ninnies.
    Read the entire article. Damn people that don't read the entire article and links given in the said article.

    In another link it appears that the said man threatened to choke a woman with a chain. That does warrant jail time.

  16. #236
    Huh....the man certainly is an asshat, but a simple solution here would have been a baseball bat (or an arrow) to the knee so *he* walks like the handicapped child. A bit of a stretch if there is anything illegal going on based on the video alone as I didn't read the article but I don't feel bad at all, the man is a douchebag.

  17. #237
    Pandaren Monk Mukki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    ANC! ANC! ANC!
    Posts
    1,910
    With all due respect, I don't think you understand United States free speech at all.
    First and foremost, the constitution is a set of rules for the government, not for the people. It says what government is and isn't allowed to do.
    Now as far as article 19 goes, this event falls under none of what you described. Furthermore, from your own wikipedia link (lol),

    In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several common law exceptions including obscenity,[88][89] defamation,[88][89] incitement,[89] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[88][89] fighting words,[88] fraud, speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright), and speech integral to criminal conduct.


    Obscenity and copyright as far as I'm aware are relatively recent additions, but mocking is none of the above. If you disagree I hope you never become a judge.

    Also, some research you might want to do on article 19.
    http://www.article19.org/pages/en/limitations.html

  18. #238
    The Insane Trassk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Having beers with Dorothy
    Posts
    17,623
    The way I see it is this.

    We live a society of poor morals, even when we know we have the capacity to do better.

    If a guy came up to me in the street and called me a fag, I'd react in kind and not take shit from him, meaning I am not vulnerable and able to defend myself from his attack.

    If a man take the piss out of the vulnerable man or woman who can't answer back and defend themselves, then he's a god dam coward and should be thrown in jail to teach him some humility.

    Targeting weak, vulnerable people is a sick act by cowardly people, they don't deserve anything less then punishment for it, how are they meant to learn?

  19. #239
    I do not think its a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of the speech would be indirect shouting. He specifically targeted the girl. It becomes a interpersonal communication. He was harrassing her, which is punishable by law.

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by artemishunter1 View Post
    I do not think its a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of the speech would be indirect shouting. He specifically targeted the girl. It becomes a interpersonal communication. He was harrassing her, which is punishable by law.
    Exactly, I think this is what a few people are missing. If it had been someone talking to another person in a bar who is overheard making fun of children with CP or even a comedian doing it on stage people may take offence but it's not really a criminal matter. The fact that this was specifically targeted at one individual makes it much more than that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •