Georgia couple sentenced for terroristic threats towards children

[GaryA]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

No, it doesn't...

However, in the U.S.A. -- it does mean freedom from consequences for the speaking itself.

In other words, you cannot be condemned for simply "speaking your mind" about something...

If there is "nothing more serious" beyond that ( i.e. - threats on your life, etc. ), then there can / should be no consequences.

 

[Dude653]

So what if I went into Walmart just screaming obscenities at the top of my lungs? At what point does my freedom of speech become disorderly conduct?

 

[GaryA]

So what if I went into Walmart just screaming obscenities at the top of my lungs? At what point does my freedom of speech become disorderly conduct?

In this scenario, it is the disorderly conduct - and not the speech itself - that gets you into trouble.

You have to learn the difference if you are going to approach it from a 'legal' perspective.


The point is -- that you should not be "condemned" or "punished" simply based on what you said.

If you "disturb the peace", it is a different matter. And, even that should not necessarily get you into serious trouble. As a first-step measure in the above scenario, you may be asked to leave the store premises - which they can do legally because you are on their private property.

 

[Billyd]

So what if I went into Walmart just screaming obscenities at the top of my lungs? At what point does my freedom of speech become disorderly conduct?

When you stand on public property and shout obscenities at me it's freedom of speech. When you walk onto my property and shout obscenities at me you are trespassing and my dog don't like trespassers.

 

[Sirk]

When you stand on public property and shout obscenities at me it's freedom of speech. When you walk onto my property and shout obscenities at me you are trespassing and my dog don't like trespassers.

Sick em Fido!

 

[Laish]

countries...???

Oh --- perhaps you meant 'counties'...

Ha ha I can't spell. I tell ye I couldn't spell correctly
to save my life .
Blessings
Bill

 

[Magenta]

So what if I went into Walmart just screaming obscenities at the top of my lungs? At what point does my freedom of speech become disorderly conduct?

That is not just disorderly conduct, but evidence of deeper seated psychological problems that may necessitate medication and/or incarceration to correct.

 

[Smoke]

So what if I went into Walmart just screaming obscenities at the top of my lungs? At what point does my freedom of speech become disorderly conduct?

The US believes everyone has a fundamental right to peace and tranquility. When that is breached by someone screaming obscenities in a Walmart, he/she can be cited for disorderly conduct because there was a "breach of peace".

You can ask the question: Well, if someone is insulting you, isn't that a "breach of peace"? I think that is a fair question honestly, but our laws have double-standards sometimes. Take for example, a person murders a pregnant woman can/is charged would double homicide... yet, we allow abortion.

I personally don't like "disorderly conduct" because it's so extremely vague. If there was a person screaming obscenities, the business should have the authority to tell the guy to shut up or leave. If he doesn't, then cite the person with "disorderly conduct" and/or trespassing. We don't get ALL our freedoms on private property (Walmart is a private business). I mean, even in this very forum, we don't get the luxury of free speech because there are rules we need to abide by. It's the terms we agree to by using their service.

 

[GuessWho]

I searched on the internet to see what does the american law understand by freedom of speech and you are allowed to express your beliefs but in such way so that you don't incite at riot or violence.

So, even if you don't have a shotgun with you, you can't drive in a black neighborhood and yell all kind of stuff at people because you incite at violence and that isn't freedom of speech anymore.

 

[Sirk]

Where'd all the good people go?

 

[Smoke]

I searched on the internet to see what does the american law understand by freedom of speech and you are allowed to express your beliefs but in such way so that you don't incite at riot or violence.

So, even if you don't have a shotgun with you, you can't drive in a black neighborhood and yell all kind of stuff at people because you incite at violence and that isn't freedom of speech anymore.

Trump could say, "Let's make America great again!" and that is enough to "incite a riot or violence" to a lot of people (mostly liberals). Some might accuse him of using his free speech (Make America Great Again) to express extreme pride/nationalism which is counter to their sentiments. I'm not comparing this to the couple in the OP... if they did make threats, they should be in trouble. We agree there. But what I'm not sure you're understanding is that anyone can claim to be insulted, anyone can claim someone else incited violence...

insults ≠ threat
insults = offense
threat = offense
offense may or may not = threat
threat = objectively determined
insult ≠ objectively determined
offense = anyone can claim it

freedom of speech = free to insult, free to offend provided you make no threat

 

[GuessWho]

So you're not saying "freedom of speech should not cover insults?" If I don't understand, please clarify because I'm confused now.

As for your question of "how can anyone criticize someone for being black?" I can answer that. Because some people are extremely ignorant... but if we lock up everyone who is ignorant, then we would all be in prison with no one to guard us.

This discussion is tiring me. I responded to a specific comment, I wasn't talking in general about freedom of speech and insults, I was addressing a specific context where a certain behaviour is mistaken (in my opinion) with freedom of speech. I don't want to start all over again with it. Sorry.

I also did not say that you should put them in prison. I said their should be punishment for this behaviour (such as bullying some people because of their skin color) but I didn't say it should be prison.

Do you agree that this bullying is not freedom of speech and that it should be illegal? I don't care what the american law says, I care for your opinion. Because laws are made by people and therefore can be changed.

 

[Smoke]

This discussion is tiring me. I responded to a specific comment, I wasn't talking in general about freedom of speech and insults, I was addressing a specific context where a certain behaviour is mistaken (in my opinion) with freedom of speech. I don't want to start all over again with it. Sorry.

I also did not say that you should put them in prison. I said their should be punishment for this behaviour (such as bullying some people because of their skin color) but I didn't say it should be prison.

Do you agree that this bullying is not freedom of speech and that it should be illegal? I don't care what the american law says, I care for your opinion. Because laws are made by people and therefore can be changed.

What kind of punishment do you think they should impose?

I don't think the couple in the OP were just bullies though. If it's true they made threats, bully would be the wrong term I'd use to describe them.

It would have to be a case by case thing for me honestly. If you're asking for my opinion, I would need to know what was said/done to determine if it was free speech or harassment. If someone tries to leave a public area to avoid someone insulting them and that person follows him/her, I do think that is harassment.

 

[GuessWho]

Trump could say, "Let's make America great again!" and that is enough to "incite a riot or violence" to a lot of people (mostly liberals). Some might accuse him of using his free speech (Make America Great Again) to express extreme pride/nationalism which is counter to their sentiments.

.... the slogan "let's make America great again" is too ambiguous. I am talking about concrete situations where white supremacist don't have anything better to do with their afternoons than drive in black neighborhoods and annoy black people.

I'm not sure you're understanding is that anyone can claim to be insulted, anyone can claim someone else incited violence...

So what? That's why you have tribunals. They will decide who is right and who's wrong.

 

[GuessWho]

What kind of punishment do you think they should impose?

I don't know. The same punishemnt you receive for disturbance of the public tranquility...?

I don't think the couple in the OP were just bullies though. If it's true they made threats, bully would be the wrong term I'd use to describe them.

"roll eyes". No, they weren't just bullies. They were much more than that. They were judged as terrorists. As I said earlier, I don't want to start the discussion all over again. I will copy-paste wsblin'd comment and you tell me if the behaviour described as freedom of speech should be legal or not. Your opinion.

"Call em terrorists, so the next time a cracker drives by a black party and yells something that hurts peoples sensibilities we can fry em for terrorists acts, when in actuality they were just stupid and exercising their freedom of speech."

 

[Sully]

So what if I went into Walmart just screaming obscenities at the top of my lungs? At what point does my freedom of speech become disorderly conduct?

you mean like this?

[video=youtube;J5lmL2OBJ6E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5lmL2OBJ6E[/video]

 

[Dude653]

I don't know. The same punishemnt you receive for disturbance of the public tranquility...?



"roll eyes". No, they weren't just bullies. They were much more than that. They were judged as terrorists. As I said earlier, I don't want to start the discussion all over again. I will copy-paste wsblin'd comment and you tell me if the behaviour described as freedom of speech should be legal or not. Your opinion.

"Call em terrorists, so the next time a cracker drives by a black party and yells something that hurts peoples sensibilities we can fry em for terrorists acts, when in actuality they were just stupid and exercising their freedom of speech."

They had a shotgun and made threats

 

[wsblind]

I don't know. The same punishemnt you receive for disturbance of the public tranquility...?



"roll eyes". No, they weren't just bullies. They were much more than that. They were judged as terrorists. As I said earlier, I don't want to start the discussion all over again. I will copy-paste wsblin'd comment and you tell me if the behaviour described as freedom of speech should be legal or not. Your opinion.

"Call em terrorists, so the next time a cracker drives by a black party and yells something that hurts peoples sensibilities we can fry em for terrorists acts, when in actuality they were just stupid and exercising their freedom of speech."

OK. so, What kind of jail time should a person get for hurting my feelings?

If I offend someone, like witnessing Christ to an unbeliever, and hurt their sensibilities, what kind of fine or jail time should I get?

 

[GuessWho]

OK. so, What kind of jail time should a person get for hurting my feelings?

If I offend someone, like witnessing Christ to an unbeliever, and hurt their sensibilities, what kind of fine or jail time should I get?

Why won't anyone answer my question?

If you would constantly be witnessing to white supremacists and explain to them that by hating and bullying black people they are turning themselves into anti-christs and are working against the kingdom of God, if you would try to win them for Jesus Christ... than you should receive the Nobel prize for peace, society should built you a statue, but most importantly, you will have the highest honor that exist: you'll be called son of God (Matthew 5:9).

 

[Susanna]

OK. so, What kind of jail time should a person get for hurting my feelings?

If I offend someone, like witnessing Christ to an unbeliever, and hurt their sensibilities, what kind of fine or jail time should I get?

Just a reminder, Christ paid the ultimate price for that, so don't be slinging words like that around like mud.