- 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 2:56 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 11/23/25 at 2:56 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
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.
Hank - for the love of god know when to quit - idiot
Show everyone on this board and in this thread the specific language in Vandenburg used by SCOTUS and copied by Minnesota as it specifically relates to what the statute says (we will all wait for you to prove us wrong)
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.
Specifically as it relates to "reasonable grounds that it will tend to alarm others" as making that a crime
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 2:59 pm
2
Posted on 11/23/25 at 3:11 pm to dafif
You can’t specifically codify exactly which situations constitutes unprotected speech other than the test given by the Supreme Court.
Does it meet the test? It depends. In one case telling someone they are a Nagger is protected. In another, it’s not.
The main problem is even if you prevail as a defendant, you still got arrested and now have to spend money and time to fight it. That’s why it can be really dumb to have Court convene on the street with cops.
Does it meet the test? It depends. In one case telling someone they are a Nagger is protected. In another, it’s not.
The main problem is even if you prevail as a defendant, you still got arrested and now have to spend money and time to fight it. That’s why it can be really dumb to have Court convene on the street with cops.
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 11/23/25 at 3:11 pm to dafif
The ruling in Brandenburg is that a state cannot outlaw inflammatory speech unless the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The Minnesota statute adapts basically the same test when it outlaws "offensive, obscene or abusive language" when the speaker knows (or has reason to know) that his language will "provoke an assault or breach of the peace."
The parallel seems pretty obvious, on both important points ... that the speaker knows of should know that his speech will produce criminal behavior. But you are correct on one point. While the analysis is the same, the Minnesota statute pre-dates Brandenburg by a couple of years.
The Minnesota statute adapts basically the same test when it outlaws "offensive, obscene or abusive language" when the speaker knows (or has reason to know) that his language will "provoke an assault or breach of the peace."
The parallel seems pretty obvious, on both important points ... that the speaker knows of should know that his speech will produce criminal behavior. But you are correct on one point. While the analysis is the same, the Minnesota statute pre-dates Brandenburg by a couple of years.
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 11/23/25 at 3:13 pm to Jbird
quote:
Relentless alter
Its Hank
Posted on 11/23/25 at 4:21 pm to Azkiger
I'm obviously a Trump supporter but that woman in Alabama shouldn't have been charged. Ultimately she will win and the city will have to give a payout to a deranged liberal. All because a cop bent out of shape by a cartoonish dick costume. Far worse has been done and ruled protected speech.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 5:45 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Specifically as it relates to "reasonable grounds that it will tend to alarm others" as making that a crime
You keep changing the words in the law which is set forth above
The test is reasonable grounds that it will tend to alarm
That test is so unconstitutionally vague as to be a joke and it is nowhere in the Vandenburg opinion
The above words are in the statute and you know it but keep changing because you cannot justify- just give up already
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 11/23/25 at 6:53 pm to tbranfLSU
quote:
Rap music isn't conduct.
Playing music loudly is you dumbass
Posted on 11/23/25 at 6:57 pm to dafif
quote:
- just give up already
Ain't happening.... did you see his username? Relentless.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:16 pm to dafif
quote:Jesus H. Christ, you are ... challenged.
dafif
Here is my SUMMARY of the relevant parts of the statute, from above:
quote:Statutory language is notoriously difficult for a layman to read, so I did change the order a bit to make it more readable, versus the statute:
The Minnesota statute adapts basically the same test (as the SCOTUS case) when it outlaws "offensive, obscene or abusive language" when the speaker knows (or has reason to know) that his language will "provoke an assault or breach of the peace."
quote:My summary just made the statute more readable for a layperson. As anyone literate can see, the italicized, boldface and underscored language is identical in the summary and in the statute. As I demonstrated above, the language in the statute conveys EXACTLY the same concepts as the SCOTUS case.
Section 609.72
Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
Do you actually READ the English language?
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 7:18 pm
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:28 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Using commonly used language that is celebrated in song and comedy would not be grounds to know or be reasonable grounds to know that it would cause a disturbance.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:48 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
whether the word was used in a manner calculated or likely to cause a brawl, etcetera.
This is the hill you want to die on?
Posted on 11/23/25 at 8:09 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
JFC - you are an obnoxious retard
Again - you refuse to use legal statutory analysis
Address my point you dolt - you understand the legal significance of the word "OR" in the language
That means it is a statutory violation if the language will "tend to" "alarm" "Anger" OR "disturb"
That is an offense.
It may also be aviolation if it will provoke an assault or breach but the first part makes it unconstitutionally vague and infringes
Again tell everyone on this board you are not a lawyer and know nothing about statutory construction
Again - you refuse to use legal statutory analysis
Address my point you dolt - you understand the legal significance of the word "OR" in the language
That means it is a statutory violation if the language will "tend to" "alarm" "Anger" OR "disturb"
That is an offense.
It may also be aviolation if it will provoke an assault or breach but the first part makes it unconstitutionally vague and infringes
Again tell everyone on this board you are not a lawyer and know nothing about statutory construction
Posted on 11/23/25 at 8:15 pm to NPComb
quote:I am not dying on a hill. I am trying to educate the ignorant.quote:This is the hill you want to die on?
whether the word was used in a manner calculated or likely to cause a brawl, etcetera.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 8:21 pm to dafif
quote:OR "provoke an assault or breach of the peace."
it is a statutory violation if the language will "tend to" "alarm" "Anger" OR "disturb"
No one is asserting that the violation in this case arises from the language you keep quoting, but rather under the language that you keep EXCLUDING.
quote:No, it does not.
It may also be a violation if it will provoke an assault or breach but the first part makes it unconstitutionally vague and infringes
Just give it up. First, you made that silly argument that I had changed the language of the statute. When shown that I had used the EXACT language of the statute, you now pivot to this equally-silly non-severability argument. Severability has been an element of Constitutional analysis for two centuries.
Please stick to painting houses or digging ditches or whatever it is that you do for a living. Statutory interpretation is clearly not your forte.
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 8:38 pm
Posted on 11/23/25 at 8:33 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
No one is asserting that the violation in this case arises from the language you keep quoting, but rather under the language that you keep EXCLUDING.
God you are stupid - the first part is unconstitutional that makes the law unconstitutional
You are trying to thread a stupid needle and explain when the actual words are not allowed under the law.
Whether you assert that the part does not apply you have to admit - finally- that it is the law and is in the statute
So tell everyone that your legal training is such that the words "tend to alarm anger or disturb" is not constitutionally protected speech
Go ahead say that! Please!
quote:
Statutory interpretation is clearly not your forte.
As an aside - been doing this for 40 yrs so I have a pretty good understanding of statutory construction Hank.
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 8:39 pm
Posted on 11/23/25 at 8:40 pm to dafif
quote:Of course those other words are part of the statute, but they are not the OPERATIVE part of the statute vis-a-vis this case, so I have ignored them as being irrelevant to the discussion.
Whether you assert that the part does not apply you have to admit - finally- that it is the law and is in the statute
quote:Clearly not.
been doing this for 40 yrs so I have a pretty good understanding of statutory construction
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 11/23/25 at 8:54 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Seriously - you are arguing that the statute has unconstitutional language but it is not the PART that applies - ha ha
So if they charged them with using the word retard because it is offensive would you argue that is constitutional?
So if they charged them with using the word retard because it is offensive would you argue that is constitutional?
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News