recent examples in media spin

[Scouts Honor]

the three stooges have assured us that this isn't possible

 

[Scouts Honor]

the three stooges have assured us that this isn't possible

 

[Scouts Honor]

12 hours ago, 1032004 said:

“Speech is not violence.  Violence is violence.”

-Charlie Kirk

i agree. she needs to know this

 

[jross]

15 hours ago, 1032004 said:

“Speech is not violence.  Violence is violence.”

-Charlie Kirk

 

Anyone with a tiny understanding of human nature knows that attending an emotionally charged political rally of thousands of opponents to loudly protest is a high-risk, provocative act.  

The court once defined "fighting words" as those that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."  The test was what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average recipient to fight.  This changed because the violent retort could get out of hand and because we no longer have a shared common intelligence.

Blake presents herself as the type of person belonging to the group that champions words are violence...

 

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, jross said:

 

Anyone with a tiny understanding of human nature

 

does this describe any of the 3 stooges? 

[Doublehalf]

22 hours ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

They acted obsessively bad and were wrong to throw punches. But case in point she instigated, if not for her actions there would be no wrongful reaction . If you think it is Fascism,  you cannot think rationally.

You are really going to dislike this but your logic here is justifying things like what happened to Charlie Kirk...

If you just said-  no matter what she said or instigated, violent retaliation is wrong full stop, then all would be settled. But saying physical harm was wrong but she had it coming because of things she said can be used to justify all political violence.

[jross]

Not serious...  Dead attempt given the scale of response obviously matters, not to mention Blake was protesting at someone else's event versus Kirk being an invited speaker at his own event.

Edited 20 hours ago by jross

[1032004]

3 hours ago, jross said:

 

Anyone with a tiny understanding of human nature knows that attending an emotionally charged political rally of thousands of opponents to loudly protest is a high-risk, provocative act.  

The court once defined "fighting words" as those that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."  The test was what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average recipient to fight.  This changed because the violent retort could get out of hand and because we no longer have a shared common intelligence.

Blake presents herself as the type of person belonging to the group that champions words are violence...

 

Even based on the “once defined” ruling, my understanding is that would almost certainly only apply to Trump himself being justified in fighting, as he was the one the “fighting words” were directed at.  Not his cult followers.

[jross]

35 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Even based on the “once defined” ruling, my understanding is that would almost certainly only apply to Trump himself being justified in fighting, as he was the one the “fighting words” were directed at.  Not his cult followers.

What this does is establish that the law defined fighting words, and a court case literally uses “fascist” as an example of words said to a person that could qualify. There is a long history of crowds responding to the Blakes of the past in this way and much worse. It doesn’t make it for the crowd to assault Blake.  

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, Doublehalf said:

You are really going to dislike this but your logic here is justifying things like what happened to Charlie Kirk...

If you just said-  no matter what she said or instigated, violent retaliation is wrong full stop, then all would be settled. But saying physical harm was wrong but she had it coming because of things she said can be used to justify all political violence.

its funny though

kirk was killed and the left was all for it.

and still is

however, they can't believe that this person was attacked, if indeed she was

 

i haven't watched.. i refuse to really watch obese blue hairs in action

[Scouts Honor]

lol

mr nonsense detail on the job

 

[Gene Mills Fan]

2 hours ago, Doublehalf said:

You are really going to dislike this but your logic here is justifying things like what happened to Charlie Kirk...

If you just said-  no matter what she said or instigated, violent retaliation is wrong full stop, then all would be settled. But saying physical harm was wrong but she had it coming because of things she said can be used to justify all political violence.

This is the legal precedent.

Law Differentiates the instigator from the responder. this is what I said

 In legal, political, and interpersonal contexts, this distinction helps ensure accountability for the party who created the problem, while still allowing for fair evaluation of the responder’s actions.

In short: The instigator is to blame when they are the clear originator of the conflict and the responder’s actions are a reaction to that initiation, not the cause of it

[Doublehalf]

6 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

This is the legal precedent.

Law Differentiates the instigator from the responder. this is what I said

 In legal, political, and interpersonal contexts, this distinction helps ensure accountability for the party who created the problem, while still allowing for fair evaluation of the responder’s actions.

In short: The instigator is to blame when they are the clear originator of the conflict and the responder’s actions are a reaction to that initiation, not the cause of it

How does the law apply to someone protesting at a political event exercising their free speech? 

[Gene Mills Fan]

1 minute ago, Doublehalf said:

How does the law apply to someone protesting at a political event exercising their free speech? 

You must peacefully protest. Not get up and shout to interrupt a speech going on.  No convention allows shouting over speakers. You go to too many comedy shows.

[1032004]

15 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

This is the legal precedent.

Law Differentiates the instigator from the responder. this is what I said

 In legal, political, and interpersonal contexts, this distinction helps ensure accountability for the party who created the problem, while still allowing for fair evaluation of the responder’s actions.

In short: The instigator is to blame when they are the clear originator of the conflict and the responder’s actions are a reaction to that initiation, not the cause of it

Current law says someone yelling is “to blame” if they are physically assaulted as a result of words?  Links?

[Doublehalf]

22 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

You must peacefully protest. Not get up and shout to interrupt a speech going on.  No convention allows shouting over speakers. You go to too many comedy shows.

Can you enlighten us with what the appropriate decibel level is to protest at? Can you show us in the law where it says those that are protesting must do it quietly?
 

and to clarify, anyone who raises their voice at a political event is not doing so peacefully? Or just the ones the crowd doesn't agree with?

[Doublehalf]

30 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

You must peacefully protest. Not get up and shout to interrupt a speech going on.  No convention allows shouting over speakers. You go to too many comedy shows.

If the person shouting a non-threatening political phrase is then physically assaulted by members of the crowd, the legal situation changes significantly—but not necessarily for the person who was shouting.

In the United States, the First Amendment generally protects peaceful political expression. It does not give other attendees the right to physically assault someone because they disagree with what that person says.

There are three separate legal questions:

1. Was the person shouting committing an offense?
2. Did the members of the crowd commit a crime by assaulting that person?
3. Could the event organizers or security personnel be legally responsible for what happened?

These questions must be assessed independently.

1. Could the crowd members be arrested?

Yes. Depending on the circumstances, people who physically attack the heckler could face assault charges.

In New York, for example, a person may commit third-degree assault by intentionally causing physical injury to another person. The precise charge depends on the injuries, the person’s conduct, and other circumstances.

The fact that the victim interrupted a political speech does not, by itself, justify physically attacking them.

2. Could the person who was assaulted defend themselves?

Generally, yes.

Under New York Penal Law § 35.15, a person may use physical force when and to the extent they reasonably believe it is necessary to defend themselves against another person’s imminent use of unlawful physical force, subject to statutory limitations.

For example:

• If someone punches the heckler, the heckler may be justified in using reasonable force to defend themselves.
• If several people attack the heckler, the threat posed by the group is relevant to what defensive force may be reasonable.
• If the attacker retreats and the danger ends, retaliating against them generally would not qualify as self-defense.

The law does not require someone to passively accept an assault. However, the right to defend oneself is not an unlimited right to retaliate.

3. Could the heckler be arrested too?

Potentially, but being assaulted does not automatically make the heckler guilty of a crime.

Police would need to consider the heckler’s conduct separately from the crowd’s conduct.

For example, if the person shouted a single non-threatening phrase and was immediately attacked, that fact alone would not establish that the heckler committed a crime.

States' disorderly-conduct statute requires specific elements, including the requisite intent or recklessness and qualifying conduct. Merely annoying people or expressing an unpopular political opinion is not sufficient by itself.

[jross]

^^^ Yes.  The heckler could be charged with a misdemanor by law.  
 

Quote

(A) No person, with purpose to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, shall do either of the following:

(1) Do any act which obstructs or interferes with the due conduct of such meeting, procession, or gathering;

(2) Make any utterance, gesture, or display which outrages the sensibilities of the group.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disturbing a lawful meeting. Except as otherwise provided in this division, disturbing a lawful meeting is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. Disturbing a lawful meeting is a misdemeanor of the first degree if either of the following applies: (...if religious worship...)

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2917.12

[1032004]

12 minutes ago, jross said:

^^^ Yes.  The heckler could be charged with a misdemanor by law.  
 

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2917.12

lol why you gotta be so dishonest?  This is totally irrelevant to whether or not this person is “to blame for” (to quote @Gene Mills Fan) being assaulted.

[jross]

Be real.  Blake isn’t legally to blame for being assaulted but she is absolutely responsible for the situation that produced it.  If she was not there recklessly instigating the fellas wouldn’t have been assaulting her or anyone else.

She did commit a misdemeanor regardless of whether she is charged.  That doesn’t mean she can be assaulted.

 

Edited 10 hours ago by jross

[1032004]

2 minutes ago, jross said:

Be real.  Blake isn’t legally to blame for being assaulted but she is absolutely responsible for the situation that produced it.  If she was not there recklessly instigating the fellas wouldn’t have been assaulting her or anyone else.

 

Cool, so same can be said for MAGA trolls at anti-ICE rallies, women’s sporting events, drag shows, etc?

[Scouts Honor]

15 hours ago, Doublehalf said:

How does the law apply to someone protesting at a political event exercising their free speech? 

so why are counter protestors arrested at a protest march? 

[Scouts Honor]

15 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Current law says someone yelling is “to blame” if they are physically assaulted as a result of words?  Links?

the left believes charlie kirk deserved to die for his words.

is that better or worse 

[Scouts Honor]

8 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Cool, so same can be said for MAGA trolls at anti-ICE rallies, women’s sporting events, drag shows, etc?

it's pretty common yes, for them to be attacked or arrested 

[Doublehalf]

22 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

the left believes charlie kirk deserved to die for his words.

is that better or worse 

They don't... Were there bots and dumb people on twitter saying that? Sure, does that encompass an entire political party? Emphatically no.

Stop peddling lies.