Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by vkou 3202 days ago
If I were black, or Jewish, they would be direct threats of violence against me. A reasonable person would be expected to react violently to them. The sole purpose of that speech is eliciting a violent reaction from the recipient.

This is not a theoretical problem. There have been ~50 hate killings in the US this year. (And we haven't even had a mass shooting.)
2 comments
Karunamon 3202 days ago
"fighting words" is a legal doctrine, not a personal one. It's not for you or I to define any more than you or I can define "murder".
link
vkou 3201 days ago
It recognizes that there exists speech so reprehensible, that it cannot be tolerated in civilized society, and cannot, and should protected.

Where judges chose to draw the bar is incidental to the fact that this exception exists. That they chose to draw it where they did is a legal question, not a moral one.

link
Karunamon 3200 days ago
Where judges chose to draw the bar is incidental to the fact that this exception exists.

The fact that judges draw the bar rather than you are me is critically important to prevent abuse. Innumerable boorish people would consider calling out their behavior to be "fighting words".

link
KGIII 3202 days ago
They have to be credible, specific, and actionable.
link