First Amendment - Montana

[Wildtree]

Found out about it this morning on my way to work....

Very much like it.

HELENA -- Using ethnic slurs and other "fighting words" to harass people is not Constitutionally-protected speech, even if directed from inside a vehicle at a pedestrian where the possibility of a physical altercation is minimal, the Montana Supreme Court said Tuesday.

http://www.krtv.com/news/montana-sup...ds-for-ticket/

appears, the first amendment does in fact have it's limitations, and they start a lot earlier as some ppl believe...

[Xargoth6634]

I don't like first amendment limitations. How are you going to determine what crosses the line? Case by case?

[Deleted]

Well, better start using intelligent words to harass people. Can't see the problem here.

[Wildtree]

I don't like first amendment limitations. How are you going to determine what crosses the line? Case by case?

Simple....
Your freedom ends where it interferes with the next persons freedom..
That makes insult automatically a no go...

[Zhangfei]

I don't like first amendment limitations. How are you going to determine what crosses the line? Case by case?

Take it to court like you do for other crimes?

[Masark]

Not a new thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapli..._New_Hampshire

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Simple....
Your freedom ends where it interferes with the next persons freedom..
That makes insult automatically a no go...

Eh, I honestly think it's a pointless ruling. We just need to call out blatant racism where it is. I don't support racism or those that insult others but I think it's better to not even restrict the First Amendment(In this context mind you).

[Wildtree]

Not a new thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapli..._New_Hampshire

People just forget about it. Purposely one might think.

I wanna be an asshole, my constitution gives me the right to be one...
Well, not quite.. And that I consider a good thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Eh, I honestly think it's a pointless ruling. We just need to call out blatant racism where it is. I don't support racism or those that insult others but I think it's better to not even restrict the First Amendment(In this context mind you).

I see what you mean
But if people can be punished for such acting, wouldn't you think that the wrong behavior would decline over time?

[Spectral]

How are you going to determine what crosses the line? Case by case?

Precedent and legal consensus. A judge will generally make that determination on a case by case basis as needed though. If the prosecuted disagrees, they can appeal.

[tss]

Simple....
Your freedom ends where it interferes with the next persons freedom..
That makes insult automatically a no go...

Insults don't infringe on anyone's freedom.

You don't have the right to not be offended.

[Pwellzor]

Insults don't infringe on anyone's freedom.

You don't have the right to not be offended.

Verbally abusing someone is a little different than passively offending someone. An adult was verbally abusing a 13 year old girl.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I see what you mean
But if people can be punished for such acting, wouldn't you think that the wrong behavior would decline over time?

In some ways yes. Unfortunately even those that are punished don't always change. I'm not saying to kill them but even limiting speech wouldn't help. The law(The limitation of free speech) has good intent but it's not a good idea.

[Zhangfei]

Insults don't infringe on anyone's freedom.

You don't have the right to not be offended.

But you do have the right to not be harmed, and emotional harm exists.

[Agoonga]

I hate racists more than I hate this law.

[alexkeren]

Eh, I honestly think it's a pointless ruling. We just need to call out blatant racism where it is. I don't support racism or those that insult others but I think it's better to not even restrict the First Amendment(In this context mind you).

Except racist speech isn't the only kind of unprotected speech, and it's not racism when people of the same race throw the terms back and forth at each other like in the Montana case.

- - - Updated - - -

Insults don't infringe on anyone's freedom.

You don't have the right to not be offended.

Incorrect. You've had two cases listed already in this thread that says you are.

[chewie49]

Simple....
Your freedom ends where it interferes with the next persons freedom..
That makes insult automatically a no go...

most people take criticism as an insult

[truckboattruck]

"new america"

show me the arrest records of perps yelling "cracka" out a car window in 6 months
or this is one more brick in the road towards a diversitycentric failed state

[Kraenen]

Simple....
Your freedom ends where it interferes with the next persons freedom..
That makes insult automatically a no go...

how is an insult interfering with someone else's personal freedom?

[Agoonga]

most people take criticism as an insult

Calling a child a beaner is not constructive criticism.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Calling a child a beaner is not constructive criticism.

Well of course it isn't constructive.