x
Click to expand

herecomesjohnny

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/07/2011
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#371
Highest Content Rank:#1646
Highest Comment Rank:#31
Content Thumbs: 4639 total,  5420 ,  781
Comment Thumbs: 75735 total,  92180 ,  16445
Content Level Progress: 73% (73/100)
Level 145 Content: Faptastic → Level 146 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 65.6% (656/1000)
Level 371 Comments: Immortal → Level 372 Comments: Immortal
Subscribers:6
Content Views:89203
Times Content Favorited:469 times
Total Comments Made:46902
FJ Points:15269

latest user's comments

#78 - There is no universal definition for obscenity or for a lot of…  [+] (9 new replies) 06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered -1
User avatar #82 - thelastamerican (06/24/2015) [-]
So, what... a bunch of people in black robes are going to sit behind a desk and tell me what you and I can and can not say?

The supreme Court game themselves that power. It was not granted to them by the constitution. There is a mode for altering the constitution IN the constitution. But WE have let them have this power. We didn't have to, but we did. Because it suited us. And now we have a group of people who can alter the constitution, or 'interpret' it in any way they choose, and we'll let them because as a society we're too brainwashed to realize that they've hijacked the law of the land for their own ends.

User avatar #90 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
Well, yes, one could even say USSC jurisprudence is above State or federal law in the kelsen pyramid of norms.

If you want to discuss the system itself, then I have no notable opinion on american federalism. However, studying law, you often notice how much more competent Supreme Court justices are in their juridical reasoning. It's intricate, and academic, and often hard to understand from an average joe's point of view, but their level of reasoning is much more solid and hermetic than senators' or representatives', with praiseworthy technicity. The caricature of idiotic politicians never applies for the Supreme Court.

Of course, they were appointed by the POTUS so contest their power how you want.
User avatar #94 - thelastamerican (06/24/2015) [-]
Personally, I would like to see some of their decisions challenged by actually forcing a convention of the states. Really though, the founding documents are severely flawed, and it would probably be prudent to go over them and really flesh them out. Give them some sort of substance, and backing.

Decisions on what the constitution 'intended to say' should not be made by a handful of people. Especially when those decisions are going to effect hundreds of millions of people.
User avatar #97 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
I'm sorry, english isn't my native language, what do you mean by convention of the States?
User avatar #101 - thelastamerican (06/24/2015) [-]
Well, basically, all the states hold elections, (or find another way of choosing) to choose who they think would write a pretty good government model. Not law, but a governmental framework.

These people all get together and lock themselves in a room for a month, a year, two years... however long it takes. Their task is to take the original constitution and bill of rights and decide what needs to be changed, what needs to be expanded, and what needs to be added. Who gets what powers, and how to keep any one group of people from taking too much power, and making themselves kings.

It will never happen, because almost all of the people living here are too busy clinging to what we've got, and not considering how incredibly broken it is. In most cases it's fine, but in some cases the (supreme court for instance) we see one branch grabbing a power they were not assigned, and no one even blinked.
User avatar #102 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
sounds like a historical relic of a procedure.
User avatar #105 - thelastamerican (06/24/2015) [-]
It is one of the procedures designed to alter the constitution. But the US hasn't been opperating on the constitution or the bill of rights for the last decade. In times of emergency the people in charge are allowed to suspend any part of the constitution that gets in their way. If you check the US has officially been in a 'state of emergency' for the last several decades. They don't have to follow what is written, and they know it. The problem is most of the people that live here don't know it.

What language do you regularly speak?
User avatar #130 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
french, but I don't only reason in codified law or anything, I spent a year with a class of commonwealth law.
User avatar #131 - thelastamerican (06/24/2015) [-]
I really despised the law classes I took. I'm glad I don't want to be a lawyer or judge or something.
#42 - >implying i'd have anything other than a clean shave  [+] (1 new reply) 06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered +6
#43 - theseqceeman (06/24/2015) [-]
>implying commies dont all have mustaches
#37 - dude, please, i looked it up already, but thanks  [+] (5 new replies) 06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered +1
#38 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Well I did too but I would like to reference my defense to support my claims.
User avatar #50 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
The remaining, unmodified terms make clear that the ordinance applies only to "fighting words" that insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."

actually reading the cases might help. this was declared in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
yes the terms they had before were a slippery slope, they are fixed and what this guy is doing is illegal and wrong.
#53 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Which part are you on again. The sign is offensive but is protected. The comment he made afterword "Communist Faggot" is protected...please be more specific.
User avatar #56 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
The sign is not protected it is a personal attack/insult that is intended to provoke violence. that meets all the criteria for "fighting words" declared in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
this guy should have gone to prison for his this. it is very illegal.
#184 - Rascal (06/24/2015) [-]
The likely-hood of injury while in prison raises exponentially compared to not being in jail.

You are inspiring Violence and possibly Death by wanting to send him somewhere filled with both.

You should be sent to jail for your "Fighting Words"
#34 - If you're curious I can look it up: in 2011 the Supreme Court …  [+] (7 new replies) 06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered +2
#36 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
This is in the state of Arizona. I am from America and do know my Bill of Rights which are the first ten Amendments. I did the favor of looking up the 2011 ruiling but would like to state that Post-Chaplinksy they have narrowed down what consitutes as prohibited speech such as the Street vs New york in 1969 that allows the burning or destruction of the US flag and is protected in free speech, also in Cohen v Californa 1971 it allowed Cohen to wear a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft" which in turned caused it to be covered under the 1st admendment. Gooding V Wilson and Lewis V New Orleans 1972 and 1974 respectively protects the person to curse at Police officers citing that the ordinances were unconstitutionally overboard. The next one is another good one is the 1992 case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul which the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words.

Argument I think we are both going against here would be Incitment vs Fighting words which has all to subtle lines with really hard to judge jurisdiction.
User avatar #37 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
dude, please, i looked it up already, but thanks

#38 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Well I did too but I would like to reference my defense to support my claims.
User avatar #50 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
The remaining, unmodified terms make clear that the ordinance applies only to "fighting words" that insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."

actually reading the cases might help. this was declared in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
yes the terms they had before were a slippery slope, they are fixed and what this guy is doing is illegal and wrong.
#53 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Which part are you on again. The sign is offensive but is protected. The comment he made afterword "Communist Faggot" is protected...please be more specific.
User avatar #56 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
The sign is not protected it is a personal attack/insult that is intended to provoke violence. that meets all the criteria for "fighting words" declared in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
this guy should have gone to prison for his this. it is very illegal.
#184 - Rascal (06/24/2015) [-]
The likely-hood of injury while in prison raises exponentially compared to not being in jail.

You are inspiring Violence and possibly Death by wanting to send him somewhere filled with both.

You should be sent to jail for your "Fighting Words"
#31 - not* 06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered 0
#30 - I'd like to agree but it's not a right conclusion you're drawi…  [+] (10 new replies) 06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered +2
#32 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
SO what you are saying is that me calling someone a communist faggot is not insult but instead fighting words? Also what constitutes as obscenity in state law or federal law outside of the FCC regulations. From the way the guy says it in this pre-text he is insulting the guy but not provoking.
User avatar #34 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
If you're curious I can look it up: in 2011 the Supreme Court ruling on the fighting words doctrine admitted personal injury as not protected by the first amendment (this was in a case in which the westboro baptist church got acquitted for not fulfilling the "personal" criteria). It's up to a judge to decide whether or not "you communist faggot" is a personal verbal injury.

As to your second question, I'm not an american student -I just studied the american bill of rights as a class-, so I never learned jurisprudence of each state. Also, I have no idea what state this is in.
#36 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
This is in the state of Arizona. I am from America and do know my Bill of Rights which are the first ten Amendments. I did the favor of looking up the 2011 ruiling but would like to state that Post-Chaplinksy they have narrowed down what consitutes as prohibited speech such as the Street vs New york in 1969 that allows the burning or destruction of the US flag and is protected in free speech, also in Cohen v Californa 1971 it allowed Cohen to wear a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft" which in turned caused it to be covered under the 1st admendment. Gooding V Wilson and Lewis V New Orleans 1972 and 1974 respectively protects the person to curse at Police officers citing that the ordinances were unconstitutionally overboard. The next one is another good one is the 1992 case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul which the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words.

Argument I think we are both going against here would be Incitment vs Fighting words which has all to subtle lines with really hard to judge jurisdiction.
User avatar #37 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
dude, please, i looked it up already, but thanks

#38 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Well I did too but I would like to reference my defense to support my claims.
User avatar #50 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
The remaining, unmodified terms make clear that the ordinance applies only to "fighting words" that insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."

actually reading the cases might help. this was declared in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
yes the terms they had before were a slippery slope, they are fixed and what this guy is doing is illegal and wrong.
#53 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Which part are you on again. The sign is offensive but is protected. The comment he made afterword "Communist Faggot" is protected...please be more specific.
User avatar #56 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
The sign is not protected it is a personal attack/insult that is intended to provoke violence. that meets all the criteria for "fighting words" declared in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
this guy should have gone to prison for his this. it is very illegal.
#184 - Rascal (06/24/2015) [-]
The likely-hood of injury while in prison raises exponentially compared to not being in jail.

You are inspiring Violence and possibly Death by wanting to send him somewhere filled with both.

You should be sent to jail for your "Fighting Words"
User avatar #31 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
not*
#15 - hurray for literally just repeating the comment under.  [+] (1 new reply) 06/24/2015 on The ending made it... 0
#36 - Rascal (06/24/2015) [-]
You didn't literally repeat the same comment.
#14 - well where i'm from a **** ton of black people are cari…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/24/2015 on The ending made it... +1
User avatar #15 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
hurray for literally just repeating the comment under.
#36 - Rascal (06/24/2015) [-]
You didn't literally repeat the same comment.
#15 - >terminator "let's erase everything" genysuss … 06/24/2015 on Please Be Good +2
#2 - Thank god you won't have to give it to Felicia Day, poor twin.  [+] (1 new reply) 06/24/2015 on The First Person to Have Twins 0
#3 - junkiejunkmcjunk (06/24/2015) [-]
#20 - *sure it could be considered hate speech but the syllogism wou…  [+] (12 new replies) 06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered 0
#29 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Trying to determine if they are fighting words or not. Lose interpretation there. And unless you are counting communist or faggot to be an obscenity. The guy is protected by the 1st amendment as long as he does not start a fight and abstains from using general curse words. Again the guy would have to be prosecuted to have this actually be in effect and considering the Westboro Baptist church has gotten away with worse shit said and protected under free speech then there is not much of a case against this guy.
User avatar #30 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
I'd like to agree but it's not a right conclusion you're drawing there. There are autonomous jurudical definitions for certain terms that someone who doesn't read case law wouldn't grasp, in this case obscenity and fighting words. Fighting words are non synonymous to an invitation to fight. In law, the Supreme Court has a precise definition.

The rest is up to a judge to apply the miller vs california test, the chaplinsky test, everything mentioned above, and it's up to him or her.

Of course, a lot of judgments differ from USSC jurisprudence and don't make it in front of them at all.
#32 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
SO what you are saying is that me calling someone a communist faggot is not insult but instead fighting words? Also what constitutes as obscenity in state law or federal law outside of the FCC regulations. From the way the guy says it in this pre-text he is insulting the guy but not provoking.
User avatar #34 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
If you're curious I can look it up: in 2011 the Supreme Court ruling on the fighting words doctrine admitted personal injury as not protected by the first amendment (this was in a case in which the westboro baptist church got acquitted for not fulfilling the "personal" criteria). It's up to a judge to decide whether or not "you communist faggot" is a personal verbal injury.

As to your second question, I'm not an american student -I just studied the american bill of rights as a class-, so I never learned jurisprudence of each state. Also, I have no idea what state this is in.
#36 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
This is in the state of Arizona. I am from America and do know my Bill of Rights which are the first ten Amendments. I did the favor of looking up the 2011 ruiling but would like to state that Post-Chaplinksy they have narrowed down what consitutes as prohibited speech such as the Street vs New york in 1969 that allows the burning or destruction of the US flag and is protected in free speech, also in Cohen v Californa 1971 it allowed Cohen to wear a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft" which in turned caused it to be covered under the 1st admendment. Gooding V Wilson and Lewis V New Orleans 1972 and 1974 respectively protects the person to curse at Police officers citing that the ordinances were unconstitutionally overboard. The next one is another good one is the 1992 case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul which the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words.

Argument I think we are both going against here would be Incitment vs Fighting words which has all to subtle lines with really hard to judge jurisdiction.
User avatar #37 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
dude, please, i looked it up already, but thanks

#38 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Well I did too but I would like to reference my defense to support my claims.
User avatar #50 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
The remaining, unmodified terms make clear that the ordinance applies only to "fighting words" that insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."

actually reading the cases might help. this was declared in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
yes the terms they had before were a slippery slope, they are fixed and what this guy is doing is illegal and wrong.
#53 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Which part are you on again. The sign is offensive but is protected. The comment he made afterword "Communist Faggot" is protected...please be more specific.
User avatar #56 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
The sign is not protected it is a personal attack/insult that is intended to provoke violence. that meets all the criteria for "fighting words" declared in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
this guy should have gone to prison for his this. it is very illegal.
#184 - Rascal (06/24/2015) [-]
The likely-hood of injury while in prison raises exponentially compared to not being in jail.

You are inspiring Violence and possibly Death by wanting to send him somewhere filled with both.

You should be sent to jail for your "Fighting Words"
User avatar #31 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
not*
#19 - Sorry to say, but that guy isn't protected by the 1st. …  [+] (42 new replies) 06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered +101
User avatar #390 - garymuthafuknoak (06/25/2015) [-]
..... whoever said he was from the United States
User avatar #374 - saxtasticnick (06/25/2015) [-]
I was looking for a comment like this, thank god. It has become quite clear that people don't seem to have much of an idea what kind of speech the 1st amendment actually protects.
User avatar #256 - garymotherfingoak (06/24/2015) [-]
User avatar #200 - godofcorndog (06/24/2015) [-]
Obscenity is determined per state. In their state, this may or may not be considered obscene or not.
User avatar #231 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
yeah it's mentioned down there somewhere
#178 - Rascal (06/24/2015) [-]
It is also unconstitutional to do consider it so.

Any government officials who follow along with such is advocating lawlessness by ignoring the over-riding document the united states of America was founded on and thus they are Traitors.

If we were in a REAL war, they would be sentenced to Death.
User avatar #171 - tenaciouslee (06/24/2015) [-]
Holy shit, we have our own lawxplain now!
User avatar #276 - lawxplain (06/24/2015) [-]
I thought I was the lawxplain
User avatar #176 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
uh...nah, that was just impulse, I don't wanna be the knowitall law guy.
User avatar #180 - tenaciouslee (06/24/2015) [-]
But you'd be the hero everyone deserves.
The shadow in the night.
The silent protector.
You'd be the Lawman!

nananananananananananananananana LAWMAN
Just kidding, my man, but unless you study law, how the hell would you know about those cases?
User avatar #186 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
i'm a law student (france so french law and EU law) and also studied english and american law this past year. I got my law school texts on my pc so whipping them out just takes a sec.
#164 - infinitereaper (06/24/2015) [-]
communist faggot
#163 - Rascal (06/24/2015) [-]
in other words kids. sure you have free speech but it does not give you the right to say fire in a public place
#162 - infinitereaper has deleted their comment.
User avatar #123 - ldnelson (06/24/2015) [-]
I don't think it fulfills the Brandenburg Test. Though it promotes lawless action there's nothing imminent about it. Just because you deserve something doesn't mean it will come soon or ever. He also isn't advocating for this "deserved" action to be carried out immediately. On top of that, his actions are also not "likely to incite or produce such action."

He's using it to make a political statement so he definitely does not fulfill the requirements of the Miller test for obscenity, though I agree he fulfills both the prurient interest and patently offensive requirement. Taken as a whole, however, his actions are inherently political, as is the statement he's making with his "protest."

Fighting words I'd have to think about but I'm about 60/40 agreeing with you. First thing that comes to my mind is Cohen v. California (1971) about the guy with the "Fuck the Draft" jacket. It seems analogous but if I remember correctly they ruled that no one could think the jacket was directed at them and therefore could not be considered "fighting words." Here you could argue that the sign constituted a direct/personal affront because it specifically says "you," targeting each person who reads the sign in a personal manner rather than simply making a statement for all to see.

The only thing I potentially see here are fighting words, but I will admit that I have a pretty broad interpretation of the First Amendment so take that as you will.
User avatar #71 - thelastamerican (06/24/2015) [-]
Hate speech. This is a fun way of saying, "certain opinions are no longer allowed in normal conversation, and we decide what those opinions are."

Define obscenity. Give me a list of words that are universally accepted as obscenity. I refute the idea of obscenity. Anything can be obscene given the right context and usage.

Fighting words.... I just can't.... fighting words should not even be a legal concept. Shouldn't even be considered even shaky legal grounds.

The first amendment is what it is. If someone wants to change that definition to be more complex, and fit more situations, there is a process for that. Until they actually change the law of the land though, I support the right of this man to stand on the street holding that sign. I may hate him for it, but his rights as s citizen should not be fucked with.
User avatar #78 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
There is no universal definition for obscenity or for a lot of concepts, most usually every country (or, in federal countries, even States) has autonomous notions. Hell, the definition between such simple words such as "civil" create complicated international law disorders. In fact, one of the benefits of leaving the definition of terms to case law is the practicality of renewing it.

Furthermore, Supreme Court rulings and the selective incorporation of amendments IS the process for elaborating the "definition of the 1st amendment" (although I'm not sure I grasp what that is supposed to mean precisely).

Hope I helped
User avatar #82 - thelastamerican (06/24/2015) [-]
So, what... a bunch of people in black robes are going to sit behind a desk and tell me what you and I can and can not say?

The supreme Court game themselves that power. It was not granted to them by the constitution. There is a mode for altering the constitution IN the constitution. But WE have let them have this power. We didn't have to, but we did. Because it suited us. And now we have a group of people who can alter the constitution, or 'interpret' it in any way they choose, and we'll let them because as a society we're too brainwashed to realize that they've hijacked the law of the land for their own ends.

User avatar #90 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
Well, yes, one could even say USSC jurisprudence is above State or federal law in the kelsen pyramid of norms.

If you want to discuss the system itself, then I have no notable opinion on american federalism. However, studying law, you often notice how much more competent Supreme Court justices are in their juridical reasoning. It's intricate, and academic, and often hard to understand from an average joe's point of view, but their level of reasoning is much more solid and hermetic than senators' or representatives', with praiseworthy technicity. The caricature of idiotic politicians never applies for the Supreme Court.

Of course, they were appointed by the POTUS so contest their power how you want.
User avatar #94 - thelastamerican (06/24/2015) [-]
Personally, I would like to see some of their decisions challenged by actually forcing a convention of the states. Really though, the founding documents are severely flawed, and it would probably be prudent to go over them and really flesh them out. Give them some sort of substance, and backing.

Decisions on what the constitution 'intended to say' should not be made by a handful of people. Especially when those decisions are going to effect hundreds of millions of people.
User avatar #97 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
I'm sorry, english isn't my native language, what do you mean by convention of the States?
User avatar #101 - thelastamerican (06/24/2015) [-]
Well, basically, all the states hold elections, (or find another way of choosing) to choose who they think would write a pretty good government model. Not law, but a governmental framework.

These people all get together and lock themselves in a room for a month, a year, two years... however long it takes. Their task is to take the original constitution and bill of rights and decide what needs to be changed, what needs to be expanded, and what needs to be added. Who gets what powers, and how to keep any one group of people from taking too much power, and making themselves kings.

It will never happen, because almost all of the people living here are too busy clinging to what we've got, and not considering how incredibly broken it is. In most cases it's fine, but in some cases the (supreme court for instance) we see one branch grabbing a power they were not assigned, and no one even blinked.
User avatar #102 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
sounds like a historical relic of a procedure.
User avatar #105 - thelastamerican (06/24/2015) [-]
It is one of the procedures designed to alter the constitution. But the US hasn't been opperating on the constitution or the bill of rights for the last decade. In times of emergency the people in charge are allowed to suspend any part of the constitution that gets in their way. If you check the US has officially been in a 'state of emergency' for the last several decades. They don't have to follow what is written, and they know it. The problem is most of the people that live here don't know it.

What language do you regularly speak?
User avatar #130 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
french, but I don't only reason in codified law or anything, I spent a year with a class of commonwealth law.
User avatar #131 - thelastamerican (06/24/2015) [-]
I really despised the law classes I took. I'm glad I don't want to be a lawyer or judge or something.
#40 - theseqceeman (06/24/2015) [-]
this took me longer than id like to admit
#42 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
>implying i'd have anything other than a clean shave
#43 - theseqceeman (06/24/2015) [-]
>implying commies dont all have mustaches
User avatar #20 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
*sure it could be considered hate speech but the syllogism wouldn't necessarily be useful here.
#29 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Trying to determine if they are fighting words or not. Lose interpretation there. And unless you are counting communist or faggot to be an obscenity. The guy is protected by the 1st amendment as long as he does not start a fight and abstains from using general curse words. Again the guy would have to be prosecuted to have this actually be in effect and considering the Westboro Baptist church has gotten away with worse shit said and protected under free speech then there is not much of a case against this guy.
User avatar #30 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
I'd like to agree but it's not a right conclusion you're drawing there. There are autonomous jurudical definitions for certain terms that someone who doesn't read case law wouldn't grasp, in this case obscenity and fighting words. Fighting words are non synonymous to an invitation to fight. In law, the Supreme Court has a precise definition.

The rest is up to a judge to apply the miller vs california test, the chaplinsky test, everything mentioned above, and it's up to him or her.

Of course, a lot of judgments differ from USSC jurisprudence and don't make it in front of them at all.
#32 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
SO what you are saying is that me calling someone a communist faggot is not insult but instead fighting words? Also what constitutes as obscenity in state law or federal law outside of the FCC regulations. From the way the guy says it in this pre-text he is insulting the guy but not provoking.
User avatar #34 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
If you're curious I can look it up: in 2011 the Supreme Court ruling on the fighting words doctrine admitted personal injury as not protected by the first amendment (this was in a case in which the westboro baptist church got acquitted for not fulfilling the "personal" criteria). It's up to a judge to decide whether or not "you communist faggot" is a personal verbal injury.

As to your second question, I'm not an american student -I just studied the american bill of rights as a class-, so I never learned jurisprudence of each state. Also, I have no idea what state this is in.
#36 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
This is in the state of Arizona. I am from America and do know my Bill of Rights which are the first ten Amendments. I did the favor of looking up the 2011 ruiling but would like to state that Post-Chaplinksy they have narrowed down what consitutes as prohibited speech such as the Street vs New york in 1969 that allows the burning or destruction of the US flag and is protected in free speech, also in Cohen v Californa 1971 it allowed Cohen to wear a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft" which in turned caused it to be covered under the 1st admendment. Gooding V Wilson and Lewis V New Orleans 1972 and 1974 respectively protects the person to curse at Police officers citing that the ordinances were unconstitutionally overboard. The next one is another good one is the 1992 case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul which the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words.

Argument I think we are both going against here would be Incitment vs Fighting words which has all to subtle lines with really hard to judge jurisdiction.
User avatar #37 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
dude, please, i looked it up already, but thanks

#38 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Well I did too but I would like to reference my defense to support my claims.
User avatar #50 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
The remaining, unmodified terms make clear that the ordinance applies only to "fighting words" that insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."

actually reading the cases might help. this was declared in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
yes the terms they had before were a slippery slope, they are fixed and what this guy is doing is illegal and wrong.
#53 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
Which part are you on again. The sign is offensive but is protected. The comment he made afterword "Communist Faggot" is protected...please be more specific.
User avatar #56 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
The sign is not protected it is a personal attack/insult that is intended to provoke violence. that meets all the criteria for "fighting words" declared in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
this guy should have gone to prison for his this. it is very illegal.
#184 - Rascal (06/24/2015) [-]
The likely-hood of injury while in prison raises exponentially compared to not being in jail.

You are inspiring Violence and possibly Death by wanting to send him somewhere filled with both.

You should be sent to jail for your "Fighting Words"
User avatar #31 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
not*
#36 - graphics don't matter unless I want them to 06/24/2015 on Batman AK looks worse on PC... +1
#23 - But the tweet speaks truth. Men get abused and there's no reas… 06/24/2015 on List 0
#5 - I think she's confusing good/bad with responsible/irresponsible. 06/24/2015 on its true 0
#4 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 06/24/2015 on An Endangered Species +8
#12 - bobbymcbobington Comment deleted by herecomesjohnny
#4 - i used to be the star of a nineties teeeeeveee showwww 06/24/2015 on I Spy +2
#33 - that feeling leaves after a while when you realize the progres…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/24/2015 on workout routine to start... 0
User avatar #44 - xtrmbragnrytz (06/24/2015) [-]
I don't mind having a bit of a belly (fat shit may have been exaggerating). But i feel that im making small progresses, so that's what im willing to take, Balancing a job, sleeps schedule social life and love for games is more important to me than having a ripped out 6 pack.
#14 - isn't 'everything should be free' closer to tolstoism than anarchy? 06/24/2015 on Damn Commies. 0
#1160698 - nice, not bad 06/24/2015 on Anime & Manga - anime... 0
#33 - >le paul thomas anderson meme 06/24/2015 on Need a movie to watch?... 0
#12 - holy **** lmao 06/24/2015 on We need more of this in... 0
#30 - only forum dwellers and image board lurkers really care about … 06/24/2015 on trying to get the pipboy... +2
#16 - King of Bhutan looks like a star from a 1990's hong kong actio…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/24/2015 on Stunning photographs of the... +4
#19 - Rascal (06/24/2015) [-]
i swear i seen that king's face in some comics or cartoon somewhere not too long ago
User avatar #17 - bobbydahobo (06/24/2015) [-]
That's DRAGON King to you!
#6 - Comment deleted 06/24/2015 on /k/ please stop +2

Comments(2895):

[ 2895 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1901 - herecomesjohnny (06/01/2014) [+] (56 replies)
stickied by herecomesjohnny
haibane renmei wallpaper 1
#3302 - desacabose ONLINE (23 hours ago) [-]
Splatoon Music - Final Boss (Squid Sisters) >tfw no full playthrough of Splatoon
User avatar #3303 to #3302 - herecomesjohnny (16 hours ago) [-]
that silent hill ending is soooo good holy ****
this is what silent hill 1's story should have been, man. Like I told you, horror needs to be personal

**** , complicated grief disorder is soo fitting for a silent hill game
User avatar #3299 - desacabose ONLINE (07/01/2015) [-]
I wish Liam had gotten the ice ending
User avatar #3300 to #3299 - herecomesjohnny (07/01/2015) [-]
they're ******* done already? jesus, short gae
User avatar #3301 to #3300 - desacabose ONLINE (07/01/2015) [-]
Good game though
#3298 to #3297 - herecomesjohnny (06/30/2015) [-]
i take your terminator and i raise you one duck dynasty
#3279 - desacabose ONLINE (06/26/2015) [-]
The entire design of the game just went almost fully towards the ending I think Liam deserves.
I don't know if I should be butthurt because the game toyed with my emotions or not
User avatar #3280 to #3279 - herecomesjohnny (06/26/2015) [-]
>the girl is clearly the most guilty
wow, liam, you can't expect a girl fleeing from sexual assault to read every sign and stop at every stoplight.
User avatar #3282 to #3280 - desacabose ONLINE (06/26/2015) [-]
Also I'm pretty sure the only reason Liam didn't stare at Lisa in the bathroom was because he didn't see her
User avatar #3283 to #3282 - herecomesjohnny (06/26/2015) [-]
what? lisa was creeping at the guy in the bathroom?
User avatar #3284 to #3283 - desacabose ONLINE (06/26/2015) [-]
There's a mirror in the bathroom, you can look at her changing if you wanna
User avatar #3285 to #3284 - herecomesjohnny (06/26/2015) [-]
does she still say the "you make me feel safe" line after? cause that'd be ******* wow
User avatar #3286 to #3285 - desacabose ONLINE (06/26/2015) [-]
Lisa says she saw him looking, but she takes this as a compliment.
Or
Lisa attempts to kick him out and tells him he should have been "better behaved", but suddenly feels ill.
#3287 to #3286 - herecomesjohnny (06/26/2015) [-]
that's neat, why didn't people like shattered memories again? **** has been very cool so far
User avatar #3290 to #3287 - desacabose ONLINE (06/26/2015) [-]
Then again people who's name rhymes with malexmanerkurns like Homecoming, so maybe people are just cray
User avatar #3288 to #3287 - desacabose ONLINE (06/26/2015) [-]
Because it's not a silent hill game
User avatar #3291 to #3289 - desacabose ONLINE (06/26/2015) [-]
It's true though, imagine if Federation Force had been announced as a new IP. People just want Silent Hill repeated over and over again, whenever a company announces changes to a game's formula there's always a huge backlash
User avatar #3292 to #3291 - herecomesjohnny (06/26/2015) [-]
well connections between silent hill games are very loose anyway, silent hill 2 detaches totally from sh1's plots and themes
User avatar #3294 to #3292 - desacabose ONLINE (06/26/2015) [-]
What happened to all of your anons
#3293 to #3292 - desacabose ONLINE (06/26/2015) [-]
And people hated it when it first came out because of that
User avatar #3295 to #3293 - herecomesjohnny (06/26/2015) [-]
I got 4 of 'em right now.

Even though I think making horror games personal and with subconscious **** is the best move possible. By the way from a wikipedia page, sh1's plot seems a little...awful.
User avatar #3296 to #3295 - desacabose ONLINE (06/26/2015) [-]
Nah man
User avatar #3281 to #3280 - desacabose ONLINE (06/26/2015) [-]
At least we know Pat and Matt aren't cray
User avatar #3274 - superchrischan (06/25/2015) [-]
you're a neato guy
User avatar #3278 to #3277 - herecomesjohnny (06/25/2015) [-]
if i take the compliment will you die?
User avatar #3270 - desacabose ONLINE (06/24/2015) [-]
Shattered Memories is making me super butthurt
User avatar #3272 to #3270 - herecomesjohnny (06/24/2015) [-]
really? i'm liking it
#3273 to #3272 - desacabose ONLINE (06/24/2015) [-]
The butthurt is because of the designs based on his psych profile
User avatar #3271 to #3270 - desacabose ONLINE (06/24/2015) [-]
I wonder if Liam has played Book of Memories
User avatar #3266 - desacabose ONLINE (06/23/2015) [-]
Place your bets on the ending they'll get
User avatar #3267 to #3266 - herecomesjohnny (06/23/2015) [-]
>implying i have a wii u

I wonder if Pat'll steer Liam towards the ending he wants, that ginger walrus.
#3268 to #3267 - desacabose ONLINE (06/23/2015) [-]
>implying you shouldn't have a Wii U

The way Michelle Valdez looks already gave me the ending they'll probably get

Matt also apparently likes to look at sexy posters
User avatar #3269 to #3268 - herecomesjohnny (06/23/2015) [-]
told ya man, no space for a tv in my ****** student studio, it's tragic
based matt, salt of the earth
User avatar #3265 - desacabose ONLINE (06/23/2015) [-]
The amount of retardation I witnessed in Shattered Memories Part 4 at the shadow puzzle is too hype
User avatar #3260 - yeorgh ONLINE (06/22/2015) [-]
User avatar #3261 to #3260 - herecomesjohnny (06/22/2015) [-]
didn't we already read chap.39?
User avatar #3262 to #3261 - yeorgh ONLINE (06/22/2015) [-]
Yes but we didn't have 38, and two chapters in a week is a good sign.
#3263 to #3262 - herecomesjohnny (06/22/2015) [-]
it's happening!
User avatar #3258 to #3256 - herecomesjohnny (06/20/2015) [-]
hey apparently there's a 25 min gameplay vid of the new deus ex

eidos is going balls

to

the

wall
User avatar #3257 to #3256 - herecomesjohnny (06/19/2015) [-]
this game looks hella
User avatar #3254 - desacabose ONLINE (06/19/2015) [-]
I actually kind of like the OST for Retribution
#3255 to #3254 - herecomesjohnny (06/19/2015) [-]
i'll try not to judge

but damn
User avatar #3239 - desacabose ONLINE (06/07/2015) [-]
God ******* dammit they're not doing the chalice dungeons
User avatar #3240 to #3239 - herecomesjohnny (06/07/2015) [-]
aw it's already over? i felt like they had a quarter left or something
User avatar #3242 to #3240 - desacabose ONLINE (06/07/2015) [-]
At least there is still the DLC
like the dlc for evil within
#3243 to #3242 - herecomesjohnny (06/07/2015) [-]
yeah oh boy how sad we won't see the evil within dlc, truly terrible
yeah oh boy how sad we won't see the evil within dlc, truly terrible
User avatar #3244 to #3243 - desacabose ONLINE (06/07/2015) [-]
That means we probably won't see bloodborne DLC
User avatar #3245 to #3244 - herecomesjohnny (06/07/2015) [-]
not necessarily. Remember the revengeance dlc?
User avatar #3246 to #3245 - desacabose ONLINE (06/07/2015) [-]
They didn't have to replay Raiden side story gaiden second hand Jetwolf to play the DLC though
User avatar #3247 to #3246 - herecomesjohnny (06/07/2015) [-]
shut up raiden was a metal jaw jesus
User avatar #3248 to #3247 - desacabose ONLINE (06/07/2015) [-]
It's true though, there's a selection screen at the main menu of Icantotallyspellthisgeance
User avatar #3249 to #3248 - herecomesjohnny (06/07/2015) [-]
sure, but in any case they enjoyed bloodborne so much i doubt they'll skip it. Wanna bet?
User avatar #3250 to #3249 - desacabose ONLINE (06/07/2015) [-]
I bet nothing on something
User avatar #3251 to #3250 - herecomesjohnny (06/07/2015) [-]
and the race is on!
User avatar #3252 to #3251 - desacabose ONLINE (06/07/2015) [-]
Gotta hold out hope woolie will do an LP of Demon's and Dark with Pat
#3241 to #3240 - desacabose ONLINE (06/07/2015) [-]
They would if they did the stuff they didn't do
#3236 - desacabose ONLINE (06/02/2015) [-]
They best be swapping out their gems for the better ones they have
User avatar #3238 to #3236 - herecomesjohnny (06/07/2015) [-]
I think Bloodborne is demoralizing Pat. Using a bug to win against a Hunter, what a shaaaaaame
User avatar #3237 to #3236 - herecomesjohnny (06/02/2015) [-]
they didn't attack the scary white bitch, well ****
User avatar #3226 - desacabose ONLINE (05/29/2015) [-]
I really hope they do the chalice dungeons
or the Defiled chalice dungeons
Most the defied chalice dungeons
User avatar #3230 to #3226 - herecomesjohnny (05/30/2015) [-]
you gonna get d4 pc? w-we could save the franchise man...
User avatar #3232 to #3230 - desacabose ONLINE (05/30/2015) [-]
It was always too late
User avatar #3233 to #3232 - herecomesjohnny (05/30/2015) [-]
don't be nuclear, don't be wild, man
User avatar #3234 to #3233 - desacabose ONLINE (05/30/2015) [-]
But I'm already deep inside the abandoned child
User avatar #3235 to #3234 - herecomesjohnny (05/30/2015) [-]
RULES OF NATURE

TA DA DA, DA DAAAAAAA, DA, DA DAAAAA, DADADAAAAAADADADAAAAAAAA
User avatar #3231 to #3230 - desacabose ONLINE (05/30/2015) [-]
It's too late
User avatar #3227 to #3226 - herecomesjohnny (05/30/2015) [-]
my profile is finally empty :'c
User avatar #3228 to #3227 - desacabose ONLINE (05/30/2015) [-]
There's like 3 anons though
User avatar #3229 to #3228 - herecomesjohnny (05/30/2015) [-]
i want woolie to go back to the doll dress
#3218 - desacabose ONLINE (05/15/2015) [-]
Why didn't we listen to Kojima
User avatar #3219 to #3218 - herecomesjohnny (05/21/2015) [-]
mobile games tho
User avatar #3217 - desacabose ONLINE (05/01/2015) [-]
Pat
Master of rolling
#3215 - Rascal (04/30/2015) [-]
How you doing
User avatar #3216 to #3205 - herecomesjohnny (05/01/2015) [-]
my girlfriend just broke up with me. I think I'm gonna just ******* watch RE to think about something else.
User avatar #3207 to #3206 - desacabose ONLINE (04/30/2015) [-]
Pat did this
User avatar #3208 to #3207 - herecomesjohnny (04/30/2015) [-]
you're ******* with me
User avatar #3209 to #3208 - desacabose ONLINE (04/30/2015) [-]
Watch the news RE:R 2 episode
User avatar #3210 to #3209 - herecomesjohnny (04/30/2015) [-]
man I don't watch revelayatons, I can't watch that AND mkx AND bloodborne right now
User avatar #3212 to #3210 - desacabose ONLINE (04/30/2015) [-]
At least they finally figured out Bloodborne has a devil trigger
User avatar #3213 to #3212 - herecomesjohnny (04/30/2015) [-]
a what now
User avatar #3214 to #3213 - desacabose ONLINE (04/30/2015) [-]
Bloodborne straight up has a devil trigger
User avatar #3211 to #3210 - desacabose ONLINE (04/30/2015) [-]
Gotta watch RE, MK, and BB as they come out
User avatar #3200 - desacabose ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
I need them to do playthroughs of the other Souls games
User avatar #3201 to #3200 - desacabose ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
You and your anons
User avatar #3202 to #3201 - herecomesjohnny (04/28/2015) [-]
No anons today -___- now I miss them

I want to see woolie do a warrior playthrough and see what happens
User avatar #3203 to #3202 - desacabose ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
Really I just want me a Demon's Souls LP
User avatar #3204 to #3203 - herecomesjohnny (04/28/2015) [-]
sure me too. But mostly to see how it's like and bother to keep watching.
[ 2895 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)