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.
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.
Good for him.
This is stupid. I actually read the article and watched the video... jail time for THAT? Damn American ninnies.
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:
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.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.
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.
Last edited by Torq; 2012-11-30 at 06:43 PM.
But it should mean it, in my opinion.The term "freedom of speech" does not literary mean you can say anything...
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."
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
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.
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,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.Originally Posted by Miller Test
The third one is incredibly subjective. Why should its value towards the humanities count as a point towards it being acceptable?
Not free speech.child pornography laws,
This one I can kind of understand.speech that incites imminent lawless action,
This depends on context. Such limits do not exist to nearly a degree on the internet, for example.and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising.
Grossly outdated and the internet demonstrates that daily.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),
That would be threats, which if made the person should be arrested based on an evaluation on whether they actually mean them.protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words),
Okay.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).
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.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).
Objectively define "obscene".To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
Outrageous. Should change.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).
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.
See above.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).
is that really how you solve your problems?
---------- Post added 2012-11-30 at 07:53 PM ----------
There are good reasons for freedom of speech that trump the censorship movement and those who try to equate words with a fist.
This is so misleading. He does not go to jail for mocking the little girl. He goes to jail for threatening her mother.
Surely that has been said.
From the information given, this guy sounds like he got what he deserved. Hopefully he stops harassing that family.
Bailey, who works as a truck driver, was charged twice. He was originally charged for aggravated menacing, a misdemeanor of the first degree. In this charge, the victim was Knight, an incident she says took place the same day as the bus stop scene.
Bailey, she said, “was swinging a tow chain on his porch, saying he was going to choke me until I stopped twitching. I sent my kids with my mother-in-law to leave with them. My husband called the sheriff.”
In Ohio, a menacing charge is a misdemeanor fourth degree, which carries a maximum of 30 days in jail.
OP could not have posted a worse version of the case. Even the one I linked is just as misleading in the title, but at least it has the real reason for the jail time.
Last edited by Roose; 2012-12-01 at 02:21 AM.
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.
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, defamation, incitement, incitement to riot or imminent lawless action, fighting words, 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.
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?
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.