[alignItems]

The reactionary, populist, view is that we must defend free speech at all costs. This is not actually the constitutional law in the USA, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This quote from a SCOTUS ruling summarises it really well [1]:

“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

[justbaker]

This is not a US case btw.

Freedom of speech is (nearly) black and white. We cannot feel free to express our speech even if others find it offensive. If we do restrict it, that is not freedom.

[michaelmrose]

You would do well to read the other cases concerning offensive speech that have passed over the near 80 years since that case. Fighting words now requires qualifications like

"produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil" and “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

In subsequent cases even literally burning a cross on your lawn wasn't deemed "fighting words"

The doctrine is very nearly hallow. So hallow that should I yell in your face I'm going to get you alignItems! I shall have to add right now with the candlestick so it should qualify!

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/959/fighting-wo...

[thakoppno]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this issue lately and can’t really figure out what the legal standard is. Has anyone in the US recently been convicted of a crime that is purely speech?

[michaelmrose]

Me less than 10 years ago. Police harassed and stalked me walking miles home from my job at Walmart in the early morning hours dressed in khakis and a dress shirt looking like an obvious member of the criminal element. I was stopped repeatedly each time made to wait while they "run my ID" to discover that I still don't have a warrant out.

On the last occasion where this happened after they brought back my ID I asked if I was good to leave. They said yes. As I walked away I said "fuck off then" from 20 ft away walking away at a normal pace. Arrested for I shit you not using a swear word on a public highway with the pretext for the stop being that they were "looking for someone who looked like me". When I didn't show up at home and they didn't let me call my wife my wife first called hospitals then organized a search fearing that I had gotten hit by a car and was dead in some ditch.

At trial I pointed out what the law is. Judge basically said he could do what he pleased but I could appeal if he didn't like it. I got the form for the appeal wherein it gave 3 lines I said "see attached" and stapled a substantial document describing why their statute which made it a crime to swear on the road and its application was unconstitutional.

They dropped it for lack of activity. I declared victory. Moved out of state over a year later. They basically chose to deny my appeal after I left despite the clear and obvious nature of the law. This is in a state that didn't require a judge to have a high school diploma as recently as the late 90s.

It's difficult to raise a legal issue when you can't afford to spend thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer or travel back and forth because your . In America there are no unalianable rights just however many rights are actually in your price range. This is exactly the moment when I realized I hate this country.

[thakoppno]

That’s infuriating. I don’t know what to tell you except I’m sorry that happened to you.

[mdoms]

Can you explain in as much detail as possible why US constitutional law is relevant to this case?

[alignItems]

1) Many comments here are explicitly or implicitly contrasting the UK with the US.

2) British judges can and do cite rulings of the US Supreme Court.

[mdoms]

Just take the L.