Misuse of photography; when the law SHOULD win

[usayit]

If one person is in hearing shot of that "N" word and is offended by it, causes alarm to them, it now is not free speech, that's how simple it is. It just became a crime.

Please specify specific events, cases, or point me to the law stating so. Point me to something??? If it were already illegal then why was the NYC council blocked from making it a law in NYC??

Name calling is not considered illegal! If so, we've got a whole middle school of kids that should be in jail.

The only limitations to free speech that comes to mind immediately is when someone threatens to kill someone or cause harm.

 

[Jeffm73]

When did so many of us become this paranoid about our kids? When did the simple act of pointing a camera at a kid become a menacing threat? How does the simple act of taking a photo of a kid become a bad thing and something to be feared.

You can thank the media for that. It seems that ethics went right out the window with the birth of 24 hour news networks trying to one up each other.
Stories are now so sensationalized, that they almost become half truths.

 

[usayit]

definitely ethics are out the window... not just media. There was a time that we looked up to CEOs as an important honest, hardworking individual that was intrusted with the well being of a corporation. Now? eh? many are no different from petty crooks.

Also the world itself is a lot smaller with the internet and news channels.

A single terrible event.. like a bridge falling for example.. suddenly the entire nation is scared that ALL our bridges are going to fall. ( I think the news here locally suddenly named 3 major bridged throughways that were supposedly now unsafe. )

If a mass murder occurs in a quiet neighborhood in Dallas Texas, suddenly everyone from Maine to Washington are suspicious of their neighbors.

I think the media and news has gone through an explosion of technology recently. News.. terrible news travels fast. It will take a while until the general public is used to that fact.

 

[glaston]

"Thought Crime" is a pre-cursor to a totalitarian state.

I don't agree with the thoughts these people have, but I don't support thought police ideology either.

Next thing you know, people are being charged for speaking out against political policies since that 'could' lead to civil disobedience or political agitation.

Then nobody is safe except those who keep quiet and just accept whatever comes at them.

 

[table1349]

Please specify specific events, cases, or point me to the law stating so. Point me to something??? If it were already illegal then why was the NYC council blocked from making it a law in NYC??

Name calling is not considered illegal! If so, we've got a whole middle school of kids that should be in jail.

The only limitations to free speech that comes to mind immediately is when someone threatens to kill someone or cause harm.

Lawful Regulation on Speech

Obscenity. Speech defined as obscenity is outside the boundaries of First Amendment protection. As defined by Miller v. California, obscenity is speech that (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, to appeal to the prurient interest; (2) depicts or describes in a patently offensive manner specifically defined sexual conduct; and (3) lacks as a whole serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The definition of obscenity, developed in 1973, focuses on a local "community standard," and has proven to be the crux of litigation surrounding internet censorship cases, which by their nature cannot depend upon local community standards. Further information is available at EPIC's COPA Litigation Page.

Fighting Words. Speech likely to provoke an average listener to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of peace, falls outside the protection of the First Amendment because the words have no important role in the marketplace of ideas the freedom of speech is designed to promote. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

Commercial Speech. Commercial speech, which was warranted no protection by the Court until 1980 inCentral Hudson Gas & Electric, is now protected under an intermediate level of scrutiny because the motivation to market goods and services is believed sufficient to overcome any chill caused by government regulation. The government can ban deceptive or illegal commercial speech; any other regulation must be supported by a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions, regulations in proportion to that interest, and a limitation on expression designed carefully to achieve the state's goal.

Incitement ("clear and present danger"). The government can regulate speech that is intended and likely to incite "imminent lawless action," or where the speech presents a "clear and present danger" to the security of the nation. Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Relevant case law: ​

• Schenck v. United States. Upholding defendants' convictions under the Espionage Act for distribution of anti-war materials during World War I because even "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

Time Place and Manner. Content-neutral regulation of the time, place, or manner of speech that does not interfere with the message being delivered and leaves open adequate alternative channels of communication is permissible.

Libel/Slander. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that expansive libel protection chills speech because speakers will be less likely to publish if they can be punished merely for being wrong. Therefore, the First Amendment requires public officials and public figures prove "actual malice" (knowing or reckless disregard for the truth of the statement). Public figures include those with fame, notoriety, and those who have injected themselves into the public debate on an issue. However, in Gertz v. Welch, the Court limited this expansive protection to public figure, not public causes: a publisher of defamatory statements about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure may not claim protection against liability for defamation on the ground that the statements concern an issue of public or general interest. Private figures must prove that a statement is false, and that the speaker engaged in some degree of negligence (mere falsity of the statement is insufficient). Laws vary state to state.

Relevant case law: ​

• Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort of outrage (intentional infliction of emotional distress) without proving actual malice.

Here is a good start:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/
​

 

[usayit]

Sheesh.. drop it already. How many people you know got thrown in jail for calling someone else a name...

---
Miller vs California:
---------
He was found guilty by a California state court of having violated California Penal Code 311.2 (a), a misdemeanor, by knowingly distributing obscene material.

Limits distributing of obscene material. Not really applicable to name calling.

------
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.
----------------

This is the closest to being applicable... BUT... never actually sustained in recent time.

"Since Chaplinsky was handed down, the Court has never sustained a conviction for "fighting words" in expression directed at a public official." http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Chaplinsky_v_NH

So good luck pulling this one in this day and time.


The name calling itself is not considered illegal unless you can prove the "fighting" portion of the "fighting words".

-----
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
---------------------------
Limits deceptive commercial advertising. Not applicable

-------
Brandenburg v. Ohio
---------------------
"It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."

This means that you have to first demonstrate that intent to incite imminent lawless action.

----------
Schenck v. United States
----------------------
Limits speach with the intent to intice insubordination in the US Military. Not applicable

----------
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
-----------------------
"The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity."

You have to prove that the intent was to spread false information that implies truth to harm the reputation of individual.


-------------
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
----------
"actual malice" standard for press reporting about public figure to be libel

Again not applicable.


The pure action of calling someone a name isn't illegal. It is the intention precedes the action.


You can do better than just simply googling...


Back to the topic in the OP. The link you provided actually has some information that are important to the topic being discussed. (in case you forgot... Mr. Mclellan)

"Supreme Court Considers Internet Censorship Law" which relates to COPA. Do a wikipedia search on COPA for some easier reading. You will find that the courts have struck down this law numerous times:

* .. ruling that it was too broad in using "community standards" as part of the definition of harmful materials.
*..this time finding that it would hinder protected speech among adults

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

* On March 22, 2007, U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr. once again struck down the Child Online Protection Act,[7] finding the law facially violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Reed issued an order permanently enjoining the government from enforcing COPA, commenting that "perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.

The Judged said it better than I have by stating that we will do the minors of this country harm by limiting their First Amendment "protections" even in the name of protecting them.

As I said, I want my son to enjoy the Freedom of Speech.

 

[1JP]

Sheesh.. drop it already. How many people you know got thrown in jail for calling someone else a name...

Thanks Gry...I figured he was well versed with the use of the Internet and he could have found it himself.

Drop it already? Stop asking for it. I know of lots of occasions where people were arrested for Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct. Too many to list.

 

[The_Traveler]

I know of lots of occasions where people were arrested for Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct. Too many to list.

you need to hang out with a better crowd.

 

[usayit]

and google harder.

none of the cut and pasting he did actually showed cases that fall under breach of peace or disorderly conduct.

Both are considered weak "catch-all'' used by police... neither include strict name-calling without proof of intent to incite other "unacceptable" conduct.

Simply saying "comon.. take off your bra and shirt" to a drunk girl in public can result in a disorderly conduct charge.

I'd take The_traveler's advice and find a better crowd...


Wasn't this thread about McClellan?

 

[danalec99]

Wasn't this thread about McClellan?

Yup and they dropped the charges against him!

 

[usayit]

Yup and they dropped the charges against him!

.." judge who issued the order failed to set a hearing to argue its merits and had not given the 45-year-old transient proper notice."

Grrr.... That judge really screwed up.