YAAAASSS SLAY QUEEN! The debate is OVER!

who?

>>137667475
(((Hadid)))

but what do "fighting words" mean to progressives? Anything these days is considered micro aggression. There is no limit to it.

>>137667475
And then in subsequent cases this was further limited by, you guessed it, the Supreme Court. I had a literal argument with a retard today about this when he claimed there was a hate speech exception to 1st Amendment protections.

File: download (8).jpg (9KB, 264x191px)

9KB, 264x191px

It's nice to see some real legal scholars weigh in on this issue

>>137668133
This is exactly the problem. They will stretch the constitution and the law as far as it suits them, and then soon as anyone with a different ideology might oppose them, it's a 1 way ticket to victimizationville

>>137667475

I could tell this muzzie cunt, "hey, Gigi is a beautiful name." And she would probably flip her shit for some reason.

Liberals are offended by anything, they want non-liberals to be mute or dead.

Fuck em.

>>137668343
Mind going further into depth so I can use this logic as well?

>>137667475
So from here on out I consider terms like "white privilege," "white fragility," and "cisgender" to be fighting words.

>>137667475
alt left BTFO

>>137667689
She's part of a group of models and celebrities that are essentially HRC underlings.

Modern SCOTUS justices have already hinted that the Fighting Words thing is unconstitutional and unenforceable. thats why they don't cite it anymore.

Hell man, the "fighting words" case itself was about some fucker who got arrested for calling a cop a Fascist.

They ruled that it was OK for the cop to arrest the guy, because calling a cop a Fascist wasn't protected speech. Cause them's fightin words.

Its fake and its gay, and its old, from the 1940s. Fighting Words doctrine is done. Its over.

>>137667475

Another example that Trumpcuck /pol/fag unfuckable hate nerds will continue to be consumed by hate because NOBODY WILL FUCK THEM.

> SLAY NO PUSSY EVER TRUMPKEK YAAAASSSS

Is the secret to keeping people from being nazis buying them hookers? Chicks hate you because of your ugly souls dipshits, no haircut and polo is going to solve that.

Nazism & Alt-Right is like the playing D&D or Video games of 20 years ago. Its for complete fucking losers who have given up and just fleshlight themselves to interracial porn.

>>137670714
stop larping as plebbitors, it's vile

>>137669652
Sure, we had a few cases like in OP in which hate speech laws were found to be constitutional, but that started changing in the 60's.

>1969: in Brandenburg v. Ohio the Court ruled that a KKK member's speech was still protected under the 1st Amendment and created the "imminent danger" test.
It meant that speech must be directed towards inciting imminent lawless action AND is likely to incite or produce such action. Things have mostly stayed the same since then, but any subsequent cases have universally supported the protection of speech rather than it's censure.

>1992: in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul the Court ruled that a city ordinance that criminalized hate speech and expression as illegal.

This came to a head when a white gang burnt a cross in a black family's yard. The issue was that the city filed charges based on the content of the message, not it's mode. In the words of Scalia:

>The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey.

>2011: Snyder v. Phelps the Court ruled that the signs carried by the Westboro Baptist Church, while offensive, are still protected speech.

I had a retard today have the audacity to link me a wikipedia article on the subject claiming that it says right there that hate speech has an exception to protections, despite the very same article saying:

>Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.

He then insisted that the Fighting Words doctrine could be found in the Constitution. When I asked him to point it out to me, he pointed me to Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire which is fucking case law.

>>137667475
What exactly is she talking about? The guy driving his car into all those protesters? No shit that's not protected by the 1st amendment. Who on earth claimed it was?

>>137670714
Go have your period somewhere else please.

File: niggaplease.jpg (13KB, 250x347px)

13KB, 250x347px

>>137667475
Liberals in America are always "embarrassed" by stuff. The first place their minds go is to an image of enlightened Europeans tut-tutting us.