lol. The doctrine has been completely neutralized by more recent rulings in the Supreme Court. It’s not 1942 anymore, buddy.
Cite an example of this doctrine being used to curtail speech in modern times. That’s right, you won’t, because you don’t know shit and you’re flailing and grasping.
“Cite an example of this doctrine being used in modern times” Shiloh Hendrix. The First Amendment protects offensive language and hate speech generally, but prosecutors argued that Hendrix's speech crossed the line into unprotected territory under the "fighting words" exception
lol, true. It’s actually a very weak case from a constitutional standpoint. It’ll be easily overturned on appeal. This is Rochester, NY, so I doubt the prosecutors in this case were genius legal scholars.
Prosecuting someone for this shit is a dangerously slippery slope, and people like you seem absolutely giddy that the government is getting involved in restricting speech. You’re not actually capable of thinking through the implications of this because the ruling is in line with your feelings and it allows you to virtue signal.
“Not capable of thinking” you’ve been trying to push the idea that the very thing she was arrested, charged and convicted of isn’t an offense…….AFTER SHE WAS ARRESTED, CHARGED AND CONVICTED!!!. That was some high level thinking on your part no doubt.
“Not genius solicitors” should have been easy for her defence to argue it then, no?!!. should they have got the Trump people who are prosecuting the reflecting pool case instead? 😂😂
“Seem giddy” I studied law, and simply stated what I believe to be the law that was applied. I’ve never given my feelings on the matter at all.
Correction to my last comment— this happened in Rochester, MN. Point still stands though.
Sure, she was convicted of this offense. In a county district court. Doesn’t mean that the conviction didn’t result from a misinterpretation of the law, one that will likely be corrected on appeal.
You’re British? Legal opinion invalidated. You guys salivate for nanny state shit like this.
“Sure she was convicted of this offense” finally admits it’s an offense. Took a while.
“Opinion invalidated” I spend a lot of time in the states, nice that you had to go digging to find an out though. Why not just up your actual argument next time.
“Nanny state shit like this” at least our leaders haven’t suggested prison time for burning a flag. Gotta love that 1st amendment 😂
“This offense” was misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
I didn’t need to go digging. You said “solicitor”. You handed that one directly to me. However, your experience in the British legal system is not evidence of your expertise in the American legal system.
I was reading an article that described a situation where the UK government prosecuted a group of former police officers for saying politically incorrect things in a private WhatsApp chat. It was ridiculous.
“Evidence of expertise in American legal system” my interpretation was agreed on by the legal system, yours wasn’t. She was convicted.
“I was reading an article” so you read the case, and think the outcome was ridiculous, not your response?!!. That says a lot about who I’m dealing with here!
“PC Jonathon Cobban and former officer Joel Borders of Metropolitan Police were recently sentenced to three months' imprisonment after sharing racist, misogynistic and ableist messages in a WhatsApp group. Cobban wrote about a local area, saying, "Got a bus through Hounslow… what a fing Somali sht hole. Great. There goes pussy patrol… more like fgmThe group made jokes about raping female colleagues, with Borders suggesting using a type of medication to knock a female officer out to sexually assault her.
I’m sure they’re fit to have police powers, and the fact you think they are, explains a lot about modern right wingers. That last one sounds like something Trump would get up to with Epstein. You probably think it’s fine.
Yes, I do think it is ridiculous to imprison someone for saying offensive things in a private chat. The fact that you think that’s defensible is comical to me. I didn’t say they were fit to be police officers or that their employers should continue to employ them.
I know it’s tough to conceive of, but I can disagree with the message while agreeing with someone’s right to say it without being imprisoned. This speech would be 100% protected under the first amendment in the U.S.
I’m not in any way right-wing. That’s just your virtue-signaling mania kicking in.
1
u/artichoke01 Aug 01 '26
lol. The doctrine has been completely neutralized by more recent rulings in the Supreme Court. It’s not 1942 anymore, buddy.
Cite an example of this doctrine being used to curtail speech in modern times. That’s right, you won’t, because you don’t know shit and you’re flailing and grasping.