why i have more than 1 name and constantly consider limiting x posts per name

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by Gordon Gekko, Apr 28, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Maverick74 to candletrader:
    the nonsense is all here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=31926

    i don't even agree with candle, but i can't stand restricted free speech and being paranoid because of Maverick74 types.

    way to go, Mav, you rule.... :-/
  2. damir00

    damir00 Guest

    is mav having a bad month or something? that's the second person he's gone off on in as many weeks...
  3. Maverdick needs to see a shrink...
  4. Maverick74


    Racist remarks is not covered under free speech moron. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Man, what are they teaching kids in social studies these days in school. Our public school system is a mess. Maybe It's just GG, I don't know.
  5. Really??

    How is it that the KKK and a miriad of other racist groups are legal? When I was growing up here in Chicago, I remember a huge uproar b/c the courts allowed the American Nazi party to march straight through Skokie with their message of an incomplete holocaust...

    Hate crimes, otherwise known as actions, as well as threats are not legal. Hate thoughts and speech are still legal as far as I know.
  6. Talk about beating a dead horse!

  7. Sounds like complete and utter bullshit, maverick. You want to tell me the case where the supreme court made this ruling?
  8. Maverick74


    The First Amendment forbids government from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Speech that threatens public safety or national security can be curbed, courts have ruled.

    In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "God dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas."

    Say, a white student stops a black student on campus and utters a racial slur. In that one-on-one confrontation, which could easily come to blows, the offending student could be disciplined under the "fighting words" doctrine for racial harassment.

    There you go. Game, set and match to Mav! Thanks for coming out. Let me know if you need a lawyer. Because if I were you, I would be suing that high school that gave you your diploma. They did a terrible job. I would demand a reparation.

    Are you sure you would score well on that Army intelligence test? LOL.
  9. Bahahaha!

    That's 'fighting words' you cretin! Not 'hate speech'.

    Let me know if you need a lawyer. Because if I were you, I would be suing that high school that gave you your diploma. They did a terrible job. I would demand a reparation.

    Lol, I really urge you to take your own advice here! (Or maybe sue your parents for pumping your ass so full of sunshine that you ignore your obvious shortcomings!)

  10. Maverick74


    Dude, re-read that post. That part about the hate speech was written by the supreme court, not me. LMAO!!!!

    The Supreme court ruled on hate speech. Are you illiterate too as well as dumb? My God man. The supreme court uses hate speech as a description of fighting words. Hahahahahaha.

    Get a clue man.

    Now hear is an example of speech that is protected by the first amendment. "You are a f*cking faggot!!!!!!!" See, that speech is protected by the first amendment. Racial slurs that incite violence are not. Hahahahahahah!!!!!!!
    #10     Apr 29, 2004
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.