CA penal code sectioin 415:
Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment and fine:
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight. (2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.
-Spray
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
What Houle did could be interpreted as a favour. She's on foreign ground, she has an agenda, she was given a warning - this is to her benefit. There are people gunning for her. She has a history of saying things that would open herself up to either charges of hate crimes or libel. I know the difference and so do you.
You're trying to draw the argument into your field of expertise by being pedantic. She made no statements, so arguing over the technicality of what was never said is pointless. I'm sure you know that charges, lawsuits are often brought ad hoc, yes? The crime can fit the mood. That was the point of my bringing up the background of the place she was supposed to speak.
The boxed area concerning the Chaplinsky decision in my book tells me that what the wackos do would meet the criteria. "These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" would certainly describe telling mourning family members "thank god for dead soldiers."
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
The boxed area concerning the Chaplinsky decision in my book tells me that what the wackos do would meet the criteria. "These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" would certainly describe telling mourning family members "thank god for dead soldiers."
This is a civil case (and not a criminal case involving censorship or prosecution for a hate crime). But it involves the same people and a similar fact pattern. Maybe the Court will allow the recovery of civil remedies for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on a grieving family.
It is one thing to suppress or censor speech. It is another to hold someone liable in civil court for the things that are said (libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, making me listen to a John Tesh album).
As you might imagine, this "scooter sissy" has been following the case all along & how SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. I'm pretty confident that they'll find in favor of LCPL Snyder's family for basically the same reasons that I have already laid out. And I think a quick search of Youtube videos on that group would reveal that their words are not only very likely to cause a fight/riot, they have done exactly that (loved the van getting pelted with rocks!).
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
88 wrote:If you've been following the case, the you should recognize this quote:
"Judges defending the Constitution 'must sometimes share [their] foxhole with scoundrels of every sort, but to abandon the post because of the poor company is to sell freedom cheaply. It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in the controversies involving not very nice people.'"
Notwithstanding how hateful the Westboro group is, I think the U.S. Supreme Court will affirm the 4th Circuit's decision. The ACLU is representing the Westboro defendants, you know.
I heard the daughter of the head idiot interviewed last week & she made it sound like she was going to argue the case. But I would have a hard time believing that a p/i attoney like I think she is would be qualified to argue before SCOTUS.
And that quote is bullshit justification for a wrong decision. In principle it's correct, but just because someone is taking a contrarian view doesn't automatically make them right or justified.
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
This really has nothing to do with Canada. It was a typical college full of libtards making the protest. We've got plenty of those right here in the US. Some protests succeed, some don't'
I think the westboro shitstains should be free to spout their pathetic bullshit. I also think the authorities should look the other way when the mob decides to string their sorry asses from the nearest tree.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
smackaholic wrote:I think the westboro shitstains should be free to spout their pathetic bullshit. I also think the authorities should look the other way when the mob decides to string their sorry asses from the nearest tree.
While it certainly doesn't follow the letter-of-the-law, I agree.
I don't think what they're saying and doing should be stifled, regardless how utterly distasteful I find it... which scores a 10 on the Distasteful Meter.
You can't legislate class and respect.
And I doubt they'd let me serve on a jury if someone went upside the lot of them... it would be decided before we ever heard testimony... Not Guilty.
88 wrote: Yes, it is plausible that Houle could have been doing her a favor (or favour). But more likely, he was trying to shape the content of her speech via a thinly veiled threat of criminal prosecution
I honestly don't get how you came to that. When I first read the story, I thought Houle was just being smug. Like telling a child not to play in traffic. He's talking down to her for the sake of being a smart-ass, he and his peers probably got a laugh out it.
