Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oregon high court protects racist, homophobic speech
Seattle Times ^ | 8/15/08 | William McCall

Posted on 08/15/2008 9:57:38 AM PDT by LibWhacker

Yelling homophobic or racist names is free speech protected by the Oregon Constitution if the insults don't lead to violence. In a unanimous ruling...

The Associated Press

PORTLAND — Yelling homophobic or racist names is free speech protected by the Oregon Constitution if the insults don't lead to violence.

(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: barneyfrank; court; firstamendment; freespeech; homosexualagenada; lawsuit; oregon; presidentobama; protected; ruling; speech
Sorry if this AP article isn't permitted. I'm genuinely confused about what is and what is not allowed. I see a lot of AP articles that were posted days ago but were never pulled... So I'm thinking that if I excerpt it severely enough, it might be okay???

If I'm wrong about that, please yank this thread like it's a naughty puppy on the heirloom carpet. And a zillion apologies. I won't do it again! Thanks.

1 posted on 08/15/2008 9:57:39 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Pretty sure the AP embargo has been lifted, as long as the article is heavily excerpted, which I think you're fine on.

Far as the article goes...much as I hate racist and homophobic speech the Oregon High Court got it right. It's protected until it represents or causes a clear and present danger.

2 posted on 08/15/2008 10:00:45 AM PDT by Domandred (McCain's 'R' is a typo that has never been corrected)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

AP excerpts are permitted again.


3 posted on 08/15/2008 10:02:25 AM PDT by weegee (Hi there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

In a unanimous ruling........there’s a surprise..........


4 posted on 08/15/2008 10:02:33 AM PDT by Red Badger (All that carbon in all that oil and coal was once in the atmosphere. We're just putting it back.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Will this ruling mean that the MMM (Nation of Islam) cannot urge violence against the “white devils”? Does this mean that “Behead those who insult Islam” banners will be criminal?


5 posted on 08/15/2008 10:03:28 AM PDT by weegee (Hi there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

“As long as the insult doesn’t lead to violence”

So as long as the guy you are calling queer doesn’t punch you you are not in trouble. If he comes over and slaps your face then you go to jail, whether he follows you or not isn’t mentioned.

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm...


6 posted on 08/15/2008 10:04:51 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

“Homophobia”

FEAR of homosexuals.

Doesn’t exist.


7 posted on 08/15/2008 10:05:47 AM PDT by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Johnson responded by calling them insulting names using amplified sound equipment.

LOL

8 posted on 08/15/2008 10:06:41 AM PDT by B Knotts (Calvin Coolidge Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I may not support any haterful speech but according to our constitution liking to hear something isn’t part of the right. This ruling is spot on and I would hope that if congress ever decided to take up hate speech that they would be shot down in a heartbeat by the SC!


9 posted on 08/15/2008 10:06:57 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Good to know that Obama’s black liberation theology is still protected speech.


10 posted on 08/15/2008 10:07:46 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

It’s a good decision if we can express opposition to the politically correct agenda.

Does everyone know that people like Dr. Dobson from “Focus on the Family” and Dr. Laura Schlessinger have been censored in Canada because of their alleged “hate” speech in opposing the homosexual agenda? Our freedom of speech may be limited in the future if that attitude seeps south of the border. Glad to see a court case such as this re-affirming our right to speak in opposition to the politically correct agenda. And that simply speaking out doesn’t mean that it’s inciting violence.


11 posted on 08/15/2008 10:08:16 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Oh, that’s right! There is the kind of speech that advocates violence vs. the kind that (intentionally or not) provokes or elicits violence, like calling a white guy the ‘W’ word. Now that you mention it, I don’t know what kind the court is referring to.


12 posted on 08/15/2008 10:09:43 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

Equating racism with disgust of perverted behavior is a clever ploy which has elevated and marketed a group representing the #1 vector of human diseases on the planet. I guarantee you the black people do not appreciate this disgusting comparison.

Male homosexuals have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS, syphilis, drug-resistant gonorrhea, entamoeba histolytica, chlamydia, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex I&II, Chancroid, Drug Resistant TB, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis non A & B, just to name a few. The press, of course, never discusses the CDC facts, but if you want to look for yourself the information is in the scientific literature. More than any other segment of society, the homosexuals are costing us billions in medical care and are a staggering threat to public health.


13 posted on 08/15/2008 10:13:16 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Yep, good point. Is there any other kind of criminal activity where A can get charged for B’s crime?


14 posted on 08/15/2008 10:14:09 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Free speech is free information. I'd rather have individuals free to broadcast their views in public, rather than concentrated and unchallenged in secret fever swamps. You cannot legislate away words and thoughts, or control their spread - you can only build a facade to give the illusion that society is bereft of the sociopolitical bogeymen of the day. The line between the evil (those who promote AND understand speech codes) and the deluded is blurry.

For the evil, pushes toward criminalization of unpopular thoughts and speech are merely the crowbars these collectivists use to pry their way into yet another domain of the individual, a necessary step for the progression of consummate tyranny.

15 posted on 08/15/2008 10:15:53 AM PDT by M203M4 (True Universal Suffrage: Pets of dead illegal-immigrant felons voting Democrat (twice))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
"And that simply speaking out doesn’t mean that it’s inciting violence."

I agree completely with the ruling, but what I was thinking is that if you didn't like what someone was saying you could go over and hit him, claiming what he said caused you to strike out.

Now couple that with protesters who would gladly trade theirs for yours in jail at a one to one ratio if they think they would get a sympathetic judge to hear the case (Think S.F. judge)

I am just wondering if people can't use the inciting violence rule to intentionally shut people up as a tactic is what crossed my mind.

16 posted on 08/15/2008 10:18:26 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
So did I read this correctly? If I lived in Oregon and I was walking/riding down the road and some homosexual yelled come here you _________ and I'll kick your a** . If I went over and kicked his a** he would go to jail.

Is that the correct interpretation?

17 posted on 08/15/2008 10:21:32 AM PDT by onlylewis (libs want a two class system, one rich one poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Does this mean I can call a spade a spade again?

/smirk


18 posted on 08/15/2008 10:25:34 AM PDT by Adder (typical bitter white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Yelling homophobic or racist names is free speech protected by the Oregon Constitution if the insults don't lead to violence.

Wow!!! This is historic!

Coincidentally, the US Constitution has a SIMILAR provision - it's called the First Amendment, AKA Freedom of Speech!!

19 posted on 08/15/2008 10:30:18 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onlylewis

Must be. Either that or the court is saying straight white men must control themselves at all times and not lose their temper, because they are neurologically capable of it. Whereas irrational, neurologically deficient minorities aren’t.

Can’t imagine...


20 posted on 08/15/2008 10:31:39 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

Either speech is free or it is controlled; no middle ground can long exist.


21 posted on 08/15/2008 10:37:38 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
So the next time I am driving thru a city in Oregon minding my own business and some thug calls me whitey and threatens me with bodily harm I can react in like manner.

Then he/she can be put in jail. Sounds like purely good rationale to me.

22 posted on 08/15/2008 10:39:37 AM PDT by onlylewis (libs want a two class system, one rich one poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
Looking at the article, it says:
In the opinion by Justice W. Michael Gillette, the court noted that, despite the epithets, Johnson "did not verbally threaten the woman with violence and no actual violence took place."
So I'm inferring that the court's position is you can yell out "Look at that A-hole" as long as you don't say "Hey, look at that A-hole, let's beat him up!". I.e., you can call somebody names as long as the speech does not threaten or imply a desire for you or others to commit violence against them

Which means that carrying posters saying "Behead those who insult Islam" would still be actionable, if you had a police dept with any guts

23 posted on 08/15/2008 10:43:13 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
If he comes over and slaps your face then you go to jail, whether he follows you or not isn’t mentioned.

What if he prances over and scratches your eyes out?

24 posted on 08/15/2008 10:59:50 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

*snicker*

Yeah, much more likely in most cases.


25 posted on 08/15/2008 11:02:40 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Domandred
Far as the article goes...much as I hate racist and homophobic speech the Oregon High Court got it right. It's protected until it represents or causes a clear and present danger.

This ruling is unfortunate, because it will only empower additional fraudulent claims.

The zinger is "causes.'

A 10 moonbats are verbally insulted by a single "racist or homophobe" and one moonbat is attacked by one of the other moonbats as a result of inflamed passions, the hate crime would apply.
The physical chargeable result must be by the verbal assailant, not by an uncontrollable third party.

26 posted on 08/15/2008 2:34:20 PM PDT by Publius6961 (You're Government, it's not your money, and you never have to show a profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...
Ping!
27 posted on 08/17/2008 1:47:15 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile hasn't been updated since Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson