Skip to comments.Oregon high court protects racist, homophobic speech
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 ...
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.
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.
AP excerpts are permitted again.
In a unanimous ruling........there’s a surprise..........
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?
“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...
FEAR of homosexuals.
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!
Good to know that Obama’s black liberation theology is still protected speech.
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.
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.
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.
Yep, good point. Is there any other kind of criminal activity where A can get charged for B’s crime?
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.
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.
Is that the correct interpretation?
Does this mean I can call a spade a spade again?
Wow!!! This is historic!
Coincidentally, the US Constitution has a SIMILAR provision - it's called the First Amendment, AKA Freedom of Speech!!
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.
Either speech is free or it is controlled; no middle ground can long exist.
Then he/she can be put in jail. Sounds like purely good rationale to me.
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
What if he prances over and scratches your eyes out?
Yeah, much more likely in most cases.
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.