- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So now MN is arresting white people for hurting feelings
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:09 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:09 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Let's take a constitutional analysis of this
Is it in any way your position that this is even remotely constitutional??
quote:
609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT. Subdivision 1.Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm,others
is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor: or (3) engages in offensive,language tending reasonably to alarm, others.
Is it in any way your position that this is even remotely constitutional??
1
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:21 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
My personal thoughts? One was clearly political speech, and the other was not.
So I can draw frick Biden on my dick and start waving it around in public?
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:24 pm to dafif
quote:Absolutely.
Is it in any way your position that this is even remotely constitutional??
I suggest that you review Brandenburg v. Ohio.
The language of the Minnesota statute was pulled DIRECTLY from Brandenburg.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:28 pm to Azkiger
quote:Don't get me involved in YOUR fetishes.quote:So I can draw frick Biden on my dick and start waving it around in public?
My personal thoughts? One was clearly political speech, and the other was not.
But you would have a better chance of beating the "public indecency" rap with the Biden graffiti than without it. At least you would be able to present a Constitutional argument.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:29 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
That's what I thought.
Woman would be charged with exposure if it were up to me
Woman would be charged with exposure if it were up to me
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:33 pm to hogcard1964
quote:Even more than that...
As long as they apply this evenly, I have no problem with it. That goes for any disparaging remarks made about Caucasian people by blacks.
In Homewood, AL turning onto Green Spings/ HWY 31 last week. For the rest who read this -- this is a Mason Dixon line for upscale/ getto.
Car pulls up next to me, black rapping driver, playing it loud... I counted the N word 4 times in my 45 sec wait.
I am sick that the Black community has been allowed to weaponize a word, to the point of ruining reputations, employment, etc. But is allowed to say it themselves, out loud and proud.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:39 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
The strategy of the non-violent civil rights movement was to be draw a violent response from opponents.
Even if that was not the strategy it was clear that much of the speech emanating from the movement was drawing a violent response.
It seems the view you are advocating would support efforts at the time to ban such speech and imprison the people who used that speech.
Even if that was not the strategy it was clear that much of the speech emanating from the movement was drawing a violent response.
It seems the view you are advocating would support efforts at the time to ban such speech and imprison the people who used that speech.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:40 pm to Azkiger
quote:What about this guy?quote:That's what I thought. Woman would be charged with exposure if it were up to me
you would have a better chance of beating the "public indecency" rap with the Biden graffiti (written on your penis) than without it. At least you would be able to present a Constitutional argument.
I don't see much difference between a 16-foot penis drawing demeaning Biden and a penis costume demeaning Trump. Both are protected political speech.
Do I wish that both "protesters" would display a bit more gentility? Yes.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:43 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
What about this guy?
Unless it's at a private event, which judging by the fencing it might be, arrest his arse too.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:46 pm to JimEverett
quote:I am not "advocating" anything. Just interpreting a Minnesota statute.
It seems the view you are advocating would support efforts at the time to ban such speech and imprison the people who used that speech.
But you do raise an interesting question.
Is there a difference between inciting a riot to showcase unconstitutional racial repression in the 1950s and 1960s and inciting a riot today just because you are a racist a-hole?
I'll have to think on that one, but my first thought is that many of the Civil Rights protesters KNEW that they were breaking the law and were willing to go to jail and to otherwise accept the consequences in order to draw attention to the problem. I doubt the same can be said for the playground mom.
Does that distinction matter in this analysis? Again, I need to think on it.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 1:47 pm to Azkiger
quote:It was a Little League game.
Unless it's at a private event, which judging by the fencing it might be, arrest his arse too.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 2:00 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Hank is bleeding all over this thread. This girl is going to get paid as she should.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 2:02 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
It was a Little League game.
Were the police called?
What did they do?
If they made him take it down how much do you disagree with their decision?
Posted on 11/23/25 at 2:06 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
You are an absolute idiot and a liar
Here is the direct syllabus from Vandenburg
Minnesota statute is not even close to
You are either sfp alter (hank) or wannabe with this crap made up bs
ETA also it was struck down
Eta again - we now know you are not a lawyer so quit pretending you know the law
Here is the direct syllabus from Vandenburg
quote:
Decided June 9, 1969 395 U.S. 444 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Syllabus Appellant, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for "advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and for "voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
Minnesota statute is not even close to
You are either sfp alter (hank) or wannabe with this crap made up bs
ETA also it was struck down
quote:
Held: Since the statute, by its words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, it falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, overruled.
Eta again - we now know you are not a lawyer so quit pretending you know the law
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 11/23/25 at 2:19 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I am not "advocating" anything. Just interpreting a Minnesota statute.
I thought you were advocating for the constitutionality of the Minnesota statute as applied to this case, my bad.
quote:
Is there a difference between inciting a riot to showcase unconstitutional racial repression in the 1950s and 1960s and inciting a riot today just because you are a racist a-hole?
I don't think the civil rights analogy nor the Minnesota case are possible examples of an incitement exception - rather they would possibly fall under the "fighting words" exception.
The difference is that the minnesota defendant used an "offensive" word while the protestors did not. That is why the intent of the protests would be important. The protester intended to provoke violence. I do not think Minnesota woman did.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 2:27 pm to Azkiger
quote:He was charged and initially banned from the local parks. He eventually prevailed on First Amendment grounds.quote:Were the police called? What did they do?
It was a Little League game.
quote:As I said, I feel that his sign and the penis suit both represented protected speech under the First Amendment.
If they made him take it down how much do you disagree with their decision?
I also feel that both showed poor taste and that there were better ways to make their respective points.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 2:33 pm to dafif
quote:Just ... wow.
dafif
There is so much fail in your post that I barely know where to begin.
The language in the Minnesota statute did not come from the unconstitutional Ohio statute which was challenged in Brandenburg. The MN statutory language was an adaptation of the RULING in Brandenburg, which struck DOWN that Ohio statute.
SMH, alot.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 2:34 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Relentless alter
Posted on 11/23/25 at 2:35 pm to Jbird
quote:
Relentless alter
Relentless Hank.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 2:36 pm to TDTOM
Amazing fake assed people.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News