tern wrote:
Quote:

I believe myself a reasonable man

Boris, you are not a reasonable man, in fact you are the furthest from reasonable person I have ever encountered. Now you may disagree with my opinion, but I guarantee you, that if we took a poll here you would be voted thoroughly unreasonable.

You may really be deluded enough to think your opinions are reasonable or normal, but you will need to accept my assertion they are not, they are absolutely not. Just read through and tally the responses to your posts, does all those folks disagreeing with you not begin to give you the idea that your opinions are out of step with the majority?

Robin.

I believe myself a reasonable man

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
...
dtjcview, your link is irrelevant, because there was no "fighting words" situation. It's claimed that the offender intimidated someone, not that he provoked him to a fight because that someone found accusation offensive.

Also, I think that decision by the Supreme Court is a very bad one. The logic there is that your speech is protected unless someone wants to beat you up for it - then you're on your own. That's some very weird way to see protection, isn't it?

http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/strategies/sshlaw-3concepts/

It's relevant because the fighting words doctrine specifies that the words don't actually need to provoke a reaction - just that reasonable people believe that was the intent.

Tell you what. Walk around JC, call 100 people at random a "f@got" - or walk into a gay bar and do the same - then post the results here.

I believe myself a reasonable man and if someone called me "f@got" I wouldn't be offended. Like at all. Now, I understand that some people do find it offensive. E.g. in Russia where I'm from originally, the majority there is quite homophobic. So if in a Moscow street you insinuate that someone is gay, most likely he'd react with violence.

However, I don't think that our understanding of what "reasonable" person is should be based on bigots.

Second, more importantly, you missed the point. In order to be a fighting word, a reasonable person must think that it would provoke a violence not in some average bar somewhere, but in this specific situation. And that simply was not the case - in this case the target was intimidated, not triggered to fight.

Third, if you look at the original case where the doctrine was formulated, it was over a situation where some was arrested for calling another man "fascist". Now, honestly, would you be comfortable with an idea that you may be arrested and prosecuted for calling someone "fascist"? Do you want to may be look through the conversations on this forum and count how many times you have used some "fighting words"? Or did you mean that the doctrine should apply only to OTHER people, not you personally? How do you like them doctrines now?

Boris - I think you are a reasonably smart guy.

Perhaps (as I posted on other threads) - you have trouble with use of English, paraphrasing and comprehension. Until we can talk the same language we really can't have a debate. And to me - you're talking gibberish mostly.

When you start taking the trouble to make sense. Learn English. Properly. Perhaps me and others will give you the serious debate you crave.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
...
dtjcview, your link is irrelevant, because there was no "fighting words" situation. It's claimed that the offender intimidated someone, not that he provoked him to a fight because that someone found accusation offensive.

Also, I think that decision by the Supreme Court is a very bad one. The logic there is that your speech is protected unless someone wants to beat you up for it - then you're on your own. That's some very weird way to see protection, isn't it?

http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/strategies/sshlaw-3concepts/

It's relevant because the fighting words doctrine specifies that the words don't actually need to provoke a reaction - just that reasonable people believe that was the intent.

Tell you what. Walk around JC, call 100 people at random a "f@got" - or walk into a gay bar and do the same - then post the results here.

I believe myself a reasonable man and if someone called me "f@got" I wouldn't be offended. Like at all. Now, I understand that some people do find it offensive. E.g. in Russia where I'm from originally, the majority there is quite homophobic. So if in a Moscow street you insinuate that someone is gay, most likely he'd react with violence.

However, I don't think that our understanding of what "reasonable" person is should be based on bigots.

Second, more importantly, you missed the point. In order to be a fighting word, a reasonable person must think that it would provoke a violence not in some average bar somewhere, but in this specific situation. And that simply was not the case - in this case the target was intimidated, not triggered to fight.

Third, if you look at the original case where the doctrine was formulated, it was over a situation where some was arrested for calling another man "fascist". Now, honestly, would you be comfortable with an idea that you may be arrested and prosecuted for calling someone "fascist"? Do you want to may be look through the conversations on this forum and count how many times you have used some "fighting words"? Or did you mean that the doctrine should apply only to OTHER people, not you personally? How do you like them doctrines now?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
...
dtjcview, your link is irrelevant, because there was no "fighting words" situation. It's claimed that the offender intimidated someone, not that he provoked him to a fight because that someone found accusation offensive.

Also, I think that decision by the Supreme Court is a very bad one. The logic there is that your speech is protected unless someone wants to beat you up for it - then you're on your own. That's some very weird way to see protection, isn't it?

http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/strategies/sshlaw-3concepts/

It's relevant because the fighting words doctrine specifies that the words don't actually need to provoke a reaction - just that reasonable people believe that was the intent.

Tell you what. Walk around JC, call 100 people at random a "f@got" - or walk into a gay bar and do the same - then post the results here.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
So? I am getting similar explanations in some Russian forums on the web: "X was not charged because he was using the word, he was charged because he offended the office of President Putin!" Or "X was charged not for the words, but for destabilizing the country!" You guys, and I mean all of you, allways act as if you can hide what you are doing by cleverly naming it. It's always "extremism", or "offending the feelings of religious people", or "harassing and intimidating", or "spreading the offensive untruths about the Soviet Government", or whatnot.

This isn't "cleverly naming" anything man, the guy has been harassing and intimidating this person for 2 years and was starting to get physical. This isn't about your paranoid conspiracies of Obama turning the US into the Soviet Union. This is about a person being arrested for a pattern of harassment and intimidation against another person.

First, when you try to pretend that "harassment and intimidation" is not purely about speech, but it involves some "physical" component, it's a 100% false statement. As we can clearly see in the original article, "He is also charged with harassment for allegedly blocking the victim's path and stopping him". They key word there is "also". It means that there are two charges, one for the actual physical action, and one for pure speech.

Second, as I said before, you may try to call it "harassment and intimidation", but changing the name doesn't change the underlying fact that the person is being charged purely for speech that someone else found offensive.

Third, my "paranoid conspiracies" are neither here nor there. I'm not talking about something that I suspect may be happening behind the scenes or whatnot. I am telling you about the things that I observe. With my own very eyes. And with my own very eyes I see you do the same things that they do in Putin's Russia. That's all.

borisp wrote:
...
dtjcview, your link is irrelevant, because there was no "fighting words" situation. It's claimed that the offender intimidated someone, not that he provoked him to a fight because that someone found accusation offensive.

Also, I think that decision by the Supreme Court is a very bad one. The logic there is that your speech is protected unless someone wants to beat you up for it - then you're on your own. That's some very weird way to see protection, isn't it?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Calling someone a slur hundreds of timesover an extended period of time is not "pure speech." It is harassment. There is no serious First Amendment challenge here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S ... ords_and_offensive_speech

JPhurst wrote:
Calling someone a slur hundreds of timesover an extended period of time is not "pure speech." It is harassment. There is no serious First Amendment challenge here.

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
So? I am getting similar explanations in some Russian forums on the web: "X was not charged because he was using the word, he was charged because he offended the office of President Putin!" Or "X was charged not for the words, but for destabilizing the country!" You guys, and I mean all of you, allways act as if you can hide what you are doing by cleverly naming it. It's always "extremism", or "offending the feelings of religious people", or "harassing and intimidating", or "spreading the offensive untruths about the Soviet Government", or whatnot.

This isn't "cleverly naming" anything man, the guy has been harassing and intimidating this person for 2 years and was starting to get physical. This isn't about your paranoid conspiracies of Obama turning the US into the Soviet Union. This is about a person being arrested for a pattern of harassment and intimidation against another person.

borisp wrote:
So? I am getting similar explanations in some Russian forums on the web: "X was not charged because he was using the word, he was charged because he offended the office of President Putin!" Or "X was charged not for the words, but for destabilizing the country!" You guys, and I mean all of you, allways act as if you can hide what you are doing by cleverly naming it. It's always "extremism", or "offending the feelings of religious people", or "harassing and intimidating", or "spreading the offensive untruths about the Soviet Government", or whatnot.

JCMan8 wrote:
Boris, I don't understand the point of your posts.

Read what this guy did and his history. You act like he's some misunderstood oppressed guy, targeted for having an unpopular opinion. But that isn't the case.

You would be right if he harbored private hateful thiughts towards gay people and this is all he did. There are some in this country who (unintentionally) model themselves after the Thought Police. The mere fact that someone could live in America yet be uncomfortable with gay people/[insert sacred cow of the week] is NOT OK. The Thought Police say these people MUST conform their private thoughts to popular public opinion or "be lynched." I think you are acting like this is the case here but it isn't at all.

First and most important, this guy took his thoughts into action, in the real world. Specifically repeated harassment and threats of physical violence. Simply put he's a bully, of the lowest form, as I bet he tremendously physically outmatches his victim.

Second, he goes beyond a mere bully as he had some obsession with this guy's sexual orientation, something very personal to people. Rodriguez repeatedly followed him around town and kept harping on something that has nothing to do with him. Like someone else said, he probably has identity issues of his own.

Finally, we see he has a long history of disrespecting the rights of others, by breaking into their cars and stealing their property.

All of this makes it very clear that Mr. Rodriguez is a scumbag, a lowlife. He is the kind of trash that is better off removed from any society, American or Soviet. Stop trying to turn this into something it isn't.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:

I dunno man, there are daily flights on Aeroflot to Moscow out of JFK if you want to head back.

That was a so called "rhetorical question". It didn't require an answer.

And, just in case, the point of that question was that I don't want the Soviet Union to follow me here. Why would I want to go back to the place where at least 70% of the population are perfectly in sync with your thoughts on lynching?

caj11 wrote:

I dunno man, there are daily flights on Aeroflot to Moscow out of JFK if you want to head back.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
not sure if you bothered to read the article, but he wasn't charged because he was using the word, he was charged because he was harassing and intimidating someone over a long period of time.

So? I am getting similar explanations in some Russian forums on the web: "X was not charged because he was using the word, he was charged because he offended the office of President Putin!" Or "X was charged not for the words, but for destabilizing the country!" You guys, and I mean all of you, allways act as if you can hide what you are doing by cleverly naming it. It's always "extremism", or "offending the feelings of religious people", or "harassing and intimidating", or "spreading the offensive untruths about the Soviet Government", or whatnot.

Quote:

caj11 wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth. First of all, I wasn't the one who suggested Mr. Rodriguez should get a smack in the mouth in the first place.

That's neither here nor there. You endorced the idea of "public lynching", first here #11, then confirmed it here #13.
What's to put in your mouth? It's all there.

Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Second, I am not suggesting someone *should* commit a violent assault against the accused. I did suggest that the courts won't do very much about this and that a public lynching would serve the guy better.

I fail to see how proposing a public lynching may be interpreted as not a suggestion that someone should commut a violent assault. Do you actually know what "lynching" means?

Quote:

caj11 wrote:
regarding what you think is my "dream society" of violent assaults being the norm for when people dislike each others' views, aren't we already living in that society?

We may all be living in it, ut it is you who are actively building it. You are the force that drives the society that way.

Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Fourth, I don't believe in vigilantism all the time, but once in a while it fits the situation well.

Of course. There is no murderer, no thief, no totalitarian despot, no cheat, no liar who would believe in killing, stealing, terrorising, cheating and lying all the time. They all believe it is pemissible to them personally, when they really want it. But not to everyone. Not all the time.

Quote:

caj11 wrote:
It seems like YOU are placing a higher priority for going after people who are seeking to harm the scumbags of society and discourage them ... It seems like you are sticking up for the guy - do you know him?

Funny how earlier you were all indignant about how I put things in your mouth, trying to pretend that calling for lynching is not at all a call for an assault. And now looky here - you are actually attempting a personal attack by trying to attribute me an untoward motive!
Aren't we cute little slanderers? Yes, we are! Yes we are!

By the way, when you say things like that, it only means that in your world people don't defend other's rights if they disagree with their position. And that is one cowardly, hateful, ugly world, let me tell you.

Quote:

caj11 wrote:
I am merely suggesting that Mr. Rodriguez, having been arrested for breaking into peoples' cars and stealing their property a couple of years ago and now getting arrested for this, is clearly a waste of air and who cares if he gets lynched

And I am merely asking, what did I leave the Soviet Union for?

CatDog wrote:
not sure if you bothered to read the article, but he wasn't charged because he was using the word, he was charged because he was harassing and intimidating someone over a long period of time.

caj11 wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth. First of all, I wasn't the one who suggested Mr. Rodriguez should get a smack in the mouth in the first place.

caj11 wrote:
Second, I am not suggesting someone *should* commit a violent assault against the accused. I did suggest that the courts won't do very much about this and that a public lynching would serve the guy better.

caj11 wrote:
regarding what you think is my "dream society" of violent assaults being the norm for when people dislike each others' views, aren't we already living in that society?

caj11 wrote:
Fourth, I don't believe in vigilantism all the time, but once in a while it fits the situation well.

caj11 wrote:
It seems like YOU are placing a higher priority for going after people who are seeking to harm the scumbags of society and discourage them ... It seems like you are sticking up for the guy - do you know him?

caj11 wrote:
I am merely suggesting that Mr. Rodriguez, having been arrested for breaking into peoples' cars and stealing their property a couple of years ago and now getting arrested for this, is clearly a waste of air and who cares if he gets lynched

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Consumed wrote:
no what that jerk needs is a smack in the mouth.

people need to stand up for themselves and let others know ignorance of any kind will not be tolerated. you guys keep crossing your fingers hoping people will change overnight. it isnt gonna happen. only thing that stops bullies and people hell bent on making someone else's life miserable is to stand up to them. and f you have to. throw hands. its your life stand up for it

So, basically, your idea to deal with intolerance is to imprison those who don't recognize the rights of others to be different?

Why did I ever leave the Soviet Union I wonder.

bill wrote:
That wimp shoulda just responded in kind, I'm sure there are many nouns that would be appropriate for a man called Rodriguez.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:

Sounds good to me, in this day and age. The court probably won't punish this S.O.B. too much. But perhaps a public lynching will make him wish he was in prison.

So, in your opinion a lynching is a proper way to deal with intolerance.

Maybe not all the time, but in an instance like this, why not? I don't care to participate, but if this particular waste of air gets his ass kicked by a few of the victim's angry friends and sympathizers, I don't think too many people will be crying for Mr. Rodriguez, who has been arrested for other crimes before. He is a repeat offender who sounds un-reformable and all the court will ever do is toss him in jail for a couple days and require him to do some community service. Yeah, that will do a lot.

Ok, just so we're clear, you are suggesting that someone, not you, should commit a violent assault and battery on the accused.

Now, here is another question: imagine you live in a society of your dream where a violent assault is the norm for when people dislike each other views. How comfortable do you think you are going to be living in it?

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:

Sounds good to me, in this day and age. The court probably won't punish this S.O.B. too much. But perhaps a public lynching will make him wish he was in prison.

So, in your opinion a lynching is a proper way to deal with intolerance.

Maybe not all the time, but in an instance like this, why not? I don't care to participate, but if this particular waste of air gets his ass kicked by a few of the victim's angry friends and sympathizers, I don't think too many people will be crying for Mr. Rodriguez, who has been arrested for other crimes before. He is a repeat offender who sounds un-reformable and all the court will ever do is toss him in jail for a couple days and require him to do some community service. Yeah, that will do a lot.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:

Sounds good to me, in this day and age. The court probably won't punish this S.O.B. too much. But perhaps a public lynching will make him wish he was in prison.

So, in your opinion a lynching is a proper way to deal with intolerance.

caj11 wrote:

Sounds good to me, in this day and age. The court probably won't punish this S.O.B. too much. But perhaps a public lynching will make him wish he was in prison.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
[quote]Consumed wrote:
no what that jerk needs is a smack in the mouth.

people need to stand up for themselves and let others know ignorance of any kind will not be tolerated. you guys keep crossing your fingers hoping people will change overnight. it isnt gonna happen. only thing that stops bullies and people hell bent on making someone else's life miserable is to stand up to them. and f you have to. throw hands. its your life stand up for it

So, basically, your idea to deal with intolerance is to imprison those who don't recognize the rights of others to be different?

Why did I ever leave the Soviet Union I wonder.

No, his idea was to give the ignorant guy a smack in the mouth. Read the post.

corybraiterman wrote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Consumed wrote:
no what that jerk needs is a smack in the mouth.

people need to stand up for themselves and let others know ignorance of any kind will not be tolerated. you guys keep crossing your fingers hoping people will change overnight. it isnt gonna happen. only thing that stops bullies and people hell bent on making someone else's life miserable is to stand up to them. and f you have to. throw hands. its your life stand up for it

So, basically, your idea to deal with intolerance is to imprison those who don't recognize the rights of others to be different?

Why did I ever leave the Soviet Union I wonder.

No, his idea was to give the ignorant guy a smack in the mouth. Read the post.

corybraiterman wrote:
with hyperbolic bullshit posts like that...