D
Deleted member 199
Guest
From the article:
Well that clears it up. Case closed then?
Well that clears it up. Case closed then?
Is Prince Harry right about our 1st amendment being bonkers?
- Thread starter Chew Toy McCoy
- Start date
U
User.168
Guest
.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 199
Guest
The article says she was wanted for "suspicion of racially abusing the pub doorman". Is verbal abuse actually a crime (there)? Or is it more nuanced - if she said something but hadn't made it physical (spitting is mentioned in the article, someone said pushing?) would it be "not a crime", but because she made it physical, the intent then comes into it - which is clearly racial.
We need a resident legal eagle to answer these things.
We need a resident legal eagle to answer these things.
D
Deleted member 199
Guest
I mean, the name I had in mind does have an "n", a "u" and a "t" in it. But it isn't "nut".
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Posts
- 7,341
Sometimes calling someone a racial slur in the USA is not protected speech, per a 1942 Supreme Court decision that has come to be known as "the fighting words exception". It amounts to saying that there are occasions where using a slur as a direct personal insult can be seen and should be assumed as incitement to violence. So that's one of the grey areas of the 1A protection of speech.
