Why the 'c' word shouldn't be used!
shimi
diamente
slurs? see what happens when white people in charge? they assume that
Asians are evil and gangbangers while the whites are innocents.
The parents could sue the school, police, the white kids, and others for
leading up to their sons' suicide.
"shimi" <jens...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PyDd7.123380$Cy.17...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
Stem-Cell-Junky
in another school, one better suited to his abilities. otoh, being called
gook, or for that matter, "honkey" is not an excuse to attack somebody.
That's still excessive force.
"shimi" <jens...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PyDd7.123380$Cy.17...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
diamente
"Stem-Cell-Junky" <usenet_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GQJd7.4380$tg.21...@typhoon2.gnilink.net...
Stem-Cell-Junky
"diamente" <goodar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WwJd7.8265$9V.110...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> it bugs me. How come the white kid didn't get punished for using racial
> slurs? see what happens when white people in charge?
what should the punishment have been? lunch detention? suspension? Where
do you draw the line between acceptable teenage rowdy behavior and behavior
deemed unacceptable for a student Loi's age?
what proof do you have that a staff led by asians or asian americans would
have done any better in handling this "unprecedented" situation?
>they assume that
> Asians are evil and gangbangers while the whites are innocents.
>
> The parents could sue the school, police, the white kids, and others for
> leading up to their sons' suicide.
on what charges could the kids, who are minors, be sued? what if anything
could they possibly have to pay with? i could see suing the school based
on the fact that Loi's special educational needs weren't addressed...if you
could find a similar white or black child whose needs were handled
appropriately, you'd really have a case.
Stem-Cell-Junky
> but legally, those words are classified as fighting words.
please cite the AZ law that you are referring to. Thanks.
Long John Smith
> "diamente" <goodar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:WwJd7.8265$9V.110...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > it bugs me. How come the white kid didn't get punished for using racial
> > slurs? see what happens when white people in charge?
>
> what should the punishment have been? lunch detention? suspension? Where
> do you draw the line between acceptable teenage rowdy behavior and behavior
> deemed unacceptable for a student Loi's age?
The punishment should be : ship their white sisters over to the Ghetto
and let the brothers enjoy
Spe...@rosedonuts.com
diamente wrote:
>
> it bugs me. How come the white kid didn't get punished for using racial
> slurs? see what happens when white people in charge? they assume that
> Asians are evil and gangbangers while the whites are innocents.
>
> The parents could sue the school, police, the white kids, and others for
> leading up to their sons' suicide.
The boy's parents should sue the school and the white kids. Any Asian
American kid growing up in the 80's could probably sympathize with Loi's
case. Racial taunts and all.
Sperry
N Khan
<Spe...@RoseDonuts.com> wrote in message
news:3B786A0E...@RoseDonuts.com...
A lot needs to be done!
diamente
committed is called hate crime. They are punishable to jails, fines, etc.
What bugs me is that even punishment as minuscule as detention, call to
parents or suspension weren't imposed on them.
<snip>
With Asians in charge, I am sure those prepretrators would not have gotten
off as easily.
diamente
slander, fighting words aren't protected.
"Stem-Cell-Junky" <usenet_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dKd7.4514$tg.21...@typhoon2.gnilink.net...
KarmaFuzzz
>The 1st amendment in US Constitution protects free speech but speech such as
>slander, fighting words aren't protected.
there is no such thing as fighting words. it's just an excuse cowards use to
justify their own misbehavior.
diamente
http://u6.mit.edu/activities/safe/legal/cohen-v-california.1
"KarmaFuzzz" <karma...@aol.commoosfart> wrote in message
news:20010814081731...@nso-fz.aol.com...
Drydem
Actually, there is a term called "fighting words" However, the judicial
test to determine whether words constitute "fighting words" requires
precedence to show that the "words" are meant and do inflict
harm and are historical cause for disruption...
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,
Brandenburg v. Ohio
etc
http://www.spectacle.org/freespch/musm/fight.html
http://simr02.si.ehu.es/FileRoom/documents/Cases/65chaplinsky.html
http://www.projo.com/words/tip1216.htm
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/9909/343.htm
"Fighting Words" are defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as limiting
the 1st Amendment. The utterance of "Fighting Words" are said to
[1] inflict injury or [2] tend to incite an immediate breach of
the peace." With respect to threats/Harassment - it needs
to be shown that immediate threat of physical harm wrt to the
utterance of the words. It's primary use is for legal defense
and for law enforcers to justify an arrest.
For example...
One of the arguments against a ban on "fighting word" on the
usenet is that because the usenet is virtual there is no
immediate physical threat to anyone. That is a racist poster
could not physically harmed by any other poster ( emotional
distress doesnot count ) and that racist themselves
are in no danger of being harmed ( that is no physical
disturbance of the peace, and virtual disturbance of the
usenet is permissible ). The exception are if a poster threaten
a named real/physical person/institution/property - at that
point the threat is deemed real harassment/fighting words/
blackmailing/libel all become real possible violations.
N Khan
"Drydem" <walte...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8a523498.0108...@posting.google.com...
> karma...@aol.commoosfart (KarmaFuzzz) wrote in message
news:<20010814081731...@nso-fz.aol.com>...
> > "diamente" <goodar...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > >The 1st amendment in US Constitution protects free speech but speech
such as
> > >slander, fighting words aren't protected.
> >
> >
> > there is no such thing as fighting words. it's just an excuse cowards
use to
> > justify their own misbehavior.
>
>
> Actually, there is a term called "fighting words" However, the judicial
> test to determine whether words constitute "fighting words" requires
> precedence to show that the "words" are meant and do inflict
> harm and are historical cause for disruption...
>
>
--"To hide is to live, to run is to escape, to fight is to die"--
Drydem
That's normal.
Most American citizens don't know the details of the
1st Amendment -- let alone have a functional knowledge of
our Constitution. (9_9) Constitutional law rarely comes
up in our daily life nor is it that interesting to most
folk (-_-) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
KarmaFuzzz
>karma...@aol.commoosfart (KarmaFuzzz) wrote:
>> "diamente" <goodar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >The 1st amendment in US Constitution protects free speech but speech such
>> >as slander, fighting words aren't protected.
>> there is no such thing as fighting words. it's just an excuse cowards use
>> to justify their own misbehavior.
>
>Actually, there is a term called "fighting words" However, the judicial
>test to determine whether words constitute "fighting words" requires
>precedence to show that the "words" are meant and do inflict
>harm and are historical cause for disruption...
but that only applies when they are used in a threatening manner; it's the
context rather than the actual words that's important. someone could say "how'd
you like a muffin?" in a threatening manner, and it would fall under the class
of "fighting words" while a little girl skipping rope saying every epithet
under the sun. so diamente's claim that "chink" is automatically fighting words
is false, and to use the utterance of it as justification for attacking someone
_is_ just a pathetic excuse (especially since chink still has non-epithet
applications, although it's usually easier to say dent).
also, it should be noted that the supreme court that made the initial ruling in
this case is the same court that ruled the internment of japanese americans was
perfectly kosher, so let's also remember that just because the supreme court
says something is right doesn't make it so in the long run.
Drydem
> walte...@my-deja.com (Drydem) writes:
> >karma...@aol.commoosfart (KarmaFuzzz) wrote:
> >> "diamente" <goodar...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> >The 1st amendment in US Constitution protects free speech but speech such
> >> >as slander, fighting words aren't protected.
>
> >> there is no such thing as fighting words. it's just an excuse cowards use
> >> to justify their own misbehavior.
> >
> >Actually, there is a term called "fighting words" However, the judicial
> >test to determine whether words constitute "fighting words" requires
> >precedence to show that the "words" are meant and do inflict
> >harm and are historical cause for disruption...
>
> but that only applies when they are used in a threatening manner;
> it's the context rather than the actual words that's important.
> someone could say "how'd you like a muffin?" in a threatening
> manner,
Are those Muffins set to stun or to kill? :-P
Cholestrol laden muffins can kill you. :-)
Technically, fighting words requires that the vocalization
of the words portends harm or a true threat of harm to the
victum - context is very important here.
> and it would fall under the class
> of "fighting words" while a little girl
> skipping rope saying every epithet
> under the sun.
One of the examples when I was studying this ...
A anti-jewish Nazi Rally held in a Jewish
neighbor in Chicago, Illinois caused a fight when
when jewish residents attack the Nazi group. Jewish
residents ( some who are survivors of the holocaust)
become enraged and attack the Nazis group. The Jews
assert that the Nazis were disturbing the peace and
uttering "fighting words." The police are brought
in nobody is dead but there are some bruises and
abrasions - so the police don't charge anyone.
But they tell the Nazis to go somewhere else.
The Nazis assert their 1st amendment right and
go on a second rally in the jewish neighbor hood.
The police are there - and fighting breaks out
this time people are armed and we get a few
broken bones and bloodied faces. The police
don't have enough men to protect the Nazis
group and eventually some are seriously hurt.
The Nazis are suing the Jewish residents who
attacked them - the defendents are claiming self
defense and arguing that the use of "fighting
words" provoke them to attack.
> so diamente's claim that "chink" is automatically
> fighting words is false, and to use the utterance
> of it as justification for attacking someone
> _is_ just a pathetic excuse (especially since
> chink still has non-epithet applications, although
> it's usually easier to say dent).
No word is automatically a fighting word.
AFAIK a "fighting word" is termed so because it can
cause problems in certain situations and it is within
the context of public disturbances/order that it is
used. A "fighting word" by itself is insufficient
ot cause a public disturbance - however, the courts
realize it can be a contributing necessary component
disturbing the public peace.
> also, it should be noted that the supreme court that
> made the initial ruling in this case is the same
> court that ruled the internment of japanese americans
> was perfectly kosher, so let's also remember that
> just because the supreme court says something is
> right doesn't make it so in the long run.
non sequitar.
The only thing that matters is whether there is a
court decision is overturned or reinterprets the ruling.