Also as Remi said death threats are not constitutionally protected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
HeavenLeigh writes:
I find this interesting to reply to. There is a problem when you just do google searches and use quotes.
I have heard this argument, before, debated on the radio in depth, but not just as a Free Speech issue, but also a religious one as part of becoming a pastor.. Religious Bigotry protected by Free Speech, lead to the assault and arrest of the victim of religious persecution for exercising the Freedom to speak of God in a public place. A case from 1942, that has absolutely no bearing on Internet communications. This is why I was listening to the debate between two legal scholars, and one moderating was also religious. It is a case I recommend reading if in law school. I did after the program. Particularly in light of Christianity being banned in America's public places. Yes, The victim of the religious persecution, for using his freedom of speech won the case. Laughed out of court really unanimously 9/0 was the State. The quote you used, was written in condemning the defenses [State's] argument that an individuals religious missionary work constituted hate speech, and caused the riot that lead to the arrest of the victim.
This is the law, that was used in the case, and why it came up in your search. New Hampshire's Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place ... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name." as of 1942. I wonder how often this Law is Enforced today in New Hampshire, 2016. ZERO enforcement would be my bet. Everyone in public could be arrested at any moment. Curses are more common than thank-you's, when face to face with an annoyance caused by someone else. That court case you used, is worthy of it's very own thread about the Freedom of Religion because it was a case where a person was arrested by the State on the basis of an opposing religious view-point by the Sheriff. The Sheriff found the religion annoying thus against the law. No crime was committed by Chaplinsky. That was the ruling by the Supreme Court. It is a case that is more frequently used in court for religious discrimination cases against modern police officers.
. I could write a book about the case if inclined. and would love to be in the movie if someone else did.
So I'm not sure why your are using this case to claim a precedent for advocating censorship on the internet. If anything it really makes my case in two ways. Freedom of/from Religion, and the expression of that belief, People were very Christian in 1942. and behaved very different socially in day to day life. An outsider was noticed very quickly too once they spoke. Racism was not just a black issue in the 1940's. In this case it was an entire Protestant Christian faith and how they chose to speak about their God that was deemed illegal by a State Elected representative. (Brilliant timing on that case considering the elections in Bimboland, and the lack of laws. I think that is why this case is so fresh in my head ever since Remi first posted it and I had to be the executioner judge. It was like Telaphone was reading my mind. I've been trying to think of some lesson about tolerance in debate about sensitive subjects. Religious Freedom of Speech couldn't fit in any better right now, if I planned it that way.)
Freedom of Speech is a subjective situation that is unique to each individual.
Facebook has set a new standard of personal responsibility and Speech. People who disagree, will always find a way to express hate for an opposing idea just by making a new account and more hate. Modern people don't fear eternal Hell and Damnation like they did in the 1940's.
I can tell someone, "To take a long walk off a short pier," and by your standard [as outlined in the quoted post in it's entirety,]
that would be a death threat, too.(but) "If it was someone I knew I would take the comment in jest." That opens up a grey area of law so broad as to say there is anarchy. Maybe if I didn't spell it correctly it might get passed a language filter.
I find that a little worrisome to the concept of Free Speech, that existed in 1942, to the present, in modern people using the internet, anonymously. Enter Facebook Bullies, and trolls. to fill the void of hate. Now, you should have used This Link. Her's is a true modern case. A teen girl texting her suicidal boyfriend, " You need to do it." He did. Now she is charged with murder.
Was that a death threat? The net result was death. What were the rest of the text conversation, like? Read it, it is posted !!! Enough obviously for her, a child to be thrown in adult jail. Then Going to an Adult Court.
Think About: Where was her freedom of speech, and personal responsibility when a boyfriend died?
I bet she never even thought about it, and just wanted to break-up with a boy. She just did it like she was taught. Texting.
Should, "You need to do it." be added to the list of banned words?
It's a killer.
Just for fun, Let's take a look at the typical internet mentality of people casting judgement on this girl.
Doe eyed power seeker who had the ultimate toy boy who would kill himself for her ! She should fry--oooppps - can't this is Massachusetts !!!
I hate how they keep calling him her boyfriend. What girlfriend would want their "world" to kill them self.
Sick beeacch. Bet her parents thought she was a darling little angel. I knew mean girls like this. She is crying for herself, not because her friend killed himself. Sick, may she rot.
If men in a bar can get arrested and are charged/convicted for not stopping an attack on a woman by other men...then how is this different? She cheered him on and encouraged him just as the men in the bar did many years ago.
She is a sociopath! Not only did she urge him to do this but then afterwards she lapped up the attention from being the grieving girlfriend. She even created charity events for suicide in his name.
Her message to his mom afterwards>>> "You tried your hardest, I tried my hardest, everyone tried their hardest to save him. But he had his mind set on taking his life, there was nothing anyone could do to save him no matter how hard they tried."
She is one sick B****. If this had been my son..I would not want the law involved. I would kIll her myself!!
What a evil witch. Instead of maybe cluing in his parents or someone she tells him to do it. That kid was vulnerable and in a bad place and she helped him over the edge.
[and finally a sort of constructive comment, I had to look for.]
You guys are very weak minded if you think some 17 year old girl through text messages is somehow responsible here, give me a break.
If I was this kids parent I'd be heartbroken that I didn't realize my son was in distress.
The girl was/is 17, let's stop acting like teenage girls are forcing people to kill themselves, that's a ridiculous sentiment.
I couldn't tell if that last comment was serious or a joke. It could go ether way for me.
Something I would say with sarcasm, tequila, the right crowd and crazy punctuation.
I could make that sound viscous with my bitchy western drawl accent, three words of my own and sneer in 1942.
