"N-wording while white"
Also known as "disorderly conduct" --which is a crime, as Shiloh Hendrix can attest to.
Posted on 09/16/2025 5:20:06 PM PDT by DoodleBob
If You are allowed to have whatever unconstitutional rules you want within your space, and as the courts ruled, your home and business are the definition of your space, how does that affect abortion? There’s got to be more to it than that.
I’m gone for the night.
We are talking about the Constitution, not every ever conceivable human activity.
I can only tell you what the Courts have ruled as far as the Constitution goes. In your personal space, it does not apply if you don’t want it to. You can tell people they must be disarmed or what religion they can or cannot practice or what words they can use in your space.
It has to do with the idea that you are entering somebody else’s home or work place voluntarily. You don’t have to go into somebody’s home or work for somebody if you don’t like the conditions they place upon you. However, because you have chosen to enter somebody else’s space, you abide by their conditions as long as you are in their space.
The same goes for you if somebody voluntarily enters your space.
You got that right, for sure...
Pretty inarticulate comment
No - can’t yell fire in a crowded theater or any other public building with no fire happening. As one example.
The first amendment was not created to protect popular speech. So yes you can say any hateful thing you want but there may be consequences. Like your employer may not want you working for them or your church may not want you teaching Sunday school anymore. Etc.
You are correct.
“Hate Speech” is a made-up red herring of the last few decades, and should be removed from the vocabulary. All that matters is this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
You might summarize the First Amendment as “free speech shall not be abridged”. Then compare with the Second Amendment where the phrase “shall not be infringed” is used.
As Rush used to say “words have meanings” and those words could not be any more clear.
“Property rights.
The theater owner can throw the yeller out. It’s the owner’s property. His rules win.”
Hmmm... I think there are a few bakers who would disagree...
Just because the govt was wrong there doesn’t mean the property rights argument isn’t correct.
I’m just stating my understanding of what the supreme court has said. Because you are entering their home or business, you are willing to trade off your rights to be there in exchange for being able to enter because you don’t have to be there if you don’t want to.
It’s not absolute. They cannot subject you to unreasonable searches, for example. But they can restrict you on whether you will be allowed to use certain words or exercise certain religious practices or whether you can be armed in their home because you are choosing to enter their place.
Same goes for you. You can restrict, within reason, people when they are in your house or business and they can decide if they want to enter under the conditions you have set.
Here is more detail from Grok:
### Constitutional Framework
The U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, primarily restricts actions by the *government* (federal, state, or local), not private individuals or entities. This principle is known as the “state action doctrine,” which holds that constitutional protections like free speech, due process, or equal protection only apply when there’s significant government involvement in restricting those rights. On private property, owners aren’t “state actors,” so they can impose conditions on entry without directly violating the Constitution.
In short: By agreeing to enter (explicitly or implicitly), you’re consenting to the owner’s rules, waiving certain freedoms for the duration of your visit. These rules might limit rights like free speech (e.g., no campaigning) or the right to bear arms (e.g., no weapons), but they’re enforceable as private agreements, not constitutional infringements.
### Limits on Private Homeowners
For a private residence (assuming it’s the owner’s own home, not a rental), the homeowner has near-absolute control over who enters and under what conditions:
- **Broad Authority**: They can require you to remove shoes, refrain from recording video, avoid certain topics of conversation, or even limit group size to prevent “assembly.” Refusal means you can’t enter, and staying without permission could lead to trespass charges.
- **No Constitutional Limits**: Since it’s purely private, the Constitution doesn’t apply. Homeowners can exclude people for arbitrary reasons (e.g., “I don’t like your hat”), as long as it doesn’t involve illegal activity like threats.
- **Statutory Exceptions**: Rare, but federal fair housing laws could apply if the home is used for certain business (e.g., a bed-and-breakfast), prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, etc. State laws might add minor restrictions, like against excessive noise complaints.
### Limits on Business Owners
Businesses have similar leeway but face more regulations because many are “public accommodations” open to the general public:
- **Broad Authority**: Owners can set rules like “no phones,” “no loitering,” dress codes (e.g., no tank tops), or capacity limits. They can also ban weapons, require masks during health crises, or eject disruptive customers. These effectively limit rights like privacy (searches for bags) or assembly (no protests inside).
- **No Direct Constitutional Limits**: Private businesses aren’t bound by the First Amendment or other constitutional provisions unless the government is involved (e.g., a publicly funded utility). For example, a store can censor speech on its premises without violating free speech rights.
- **Statutory Exceptions**:
- **Anti-Discrimination Laws**: Under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, businesses like restaurants, hotels, theaters, and retail stores can’t refuse entry or service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Many states expand this to include sex, disability, age, or sexual orientation.
- **Other Protections**: Laws against discrimination in employment (Title VII) or housing don’t directly apply here, but general consumer protection laws might limit overly arbitrary rules.
- **Refusal of Service**: Allowed for neutral reasons (e.g., intoxication, theft history), but not for protected traits. Recent Supreme Court rulings have expanded business owners’ rights in “expressive” contexts, like refusing custom wedding cakes on religious grounds.
| Aspect | Private Home | Business (Public Accommodation) |
|————|———————|-————————————————|
| **Core Authority** | Full control; can exclude for any non-illegal reason | Full control, but must serve public fairly |
| **Examples of Restrictions** | No photos, no politics, no weapons | No recording, dress code, no disruptions |
| **Constitutional Application** | None (purely private) | None, unless state-involved |
| **Key Limits** | Minimal (e.g., no threats) | Anti-discrimination (race, religion, etc.) |
| **Consequences of Violation** | Trespass; possible civil suit | Trespass; potential lawsuit under civil rights laws |
### Practical Advice
- **Consent is Key**: Entering implies agreement to the rules. If you disagree, don’t enter—or politely ask to negotiate.
- **Challenges**: If you believe a restriction violates anti-discrimination laws, document it and contact the EEOC or a local civil rights agency. For constitutional claims, you’d need to show government complicity (rare).
- **Variations**: Laws differ by state; e.g., some require “reasonable” restrictions only.
This balances property rights with public access, rooted in common law traditions predating the Constitution.
Whatever the current regime doesn’t want said is hate speech.
My source has always been Leonard W. Levy’s book Origins of the Bill of Rights, but I put a copy in the book. My only problem has been after discussing freedom of the press he says,” In the following year, 1805, the state legislature enacted a bill that allowed the jury to decide the criminality of an alleged libel and that permitted truth as a defense, if published “with good motives and justifiable ends.” That standard, which prevailed in the United States until 1964, effectively protected freedom of the press.
So what happened in the last 60 years?
Hillary Clinton called half the nation’s populace “detestable”, uneducated, and not worthy of voting,, at all.
There was a tsunami of chuckles from Democrats, but no calling her to answer for her comments
So, I am convinced that anything said by anybody, is free speech, with no handicaps, and the speaker understand FAFO!
The 1st Amendment is first for a reason. The 2nd was added to back up the 1st. Anyone trying to water down those rights I consider my enemy. I thought it was only the Left pushing this sort of bs but apparently not. Having free speech is at the core of what this country is about. Maybe I getter start voting Libertarian. The Republican Party has become worthless.
Hate speech vs direct threats. Legal apples & oranges.
"N-wording while white"
Also known as "disorderly conduct" --which is a crime, as Shiloh Hendrix can attest to.
First of all, the concept of “Hate Speech” is anathema to the 1st Amendment. Threats to do actual physical violence is a different mater.
Unfortunately?!?
Yes, There is absolutely no -0- need to suspend the 1st Amendment; America already has long standing laws against "verbal" assault & battery.
"Verbal- Not all assault has to be physical. Verbal assault is the act of orally communicating with someone in order to cause emotional, mental, or psychological injury to someone."
"Verbal abuse can be incredibly damaging, often leaving victims with emotional wounds that are just as serious as those caused by physical harm.
"It can occur in virtually any setting—at home, in the workplace, online, or in public—and can range from insults and threats to manipulation and degradation."
"While verbal abuse doesn’t always leave a visible mark, its effects are long-lasting and far-reaching."
"Penalty: Misdemeanor, resulting in fines and/or time in jail ~ Repeat offenses can become felonious."
Perhaps We need a Federal legal definition, though, as currently these are state bound, enforced, defined laws.
Either we live in a civilized Nation, or we don't...
What would Charlie do?
P.S. I already knew AG Pam Barbie was an unfit for her job, this is just more confirmation of her inability to perform a job that should be done by spiritually sane men.
P.P.S. I believe KNOW the most important need the USA has right now, which has been true for decades, is respect given to The Culture Of Excellence that fought an Empire to give us "freedom", building a civilization out of a violent wilderness, turning back to entrusting spiritually sane men to leadership positions, which ain't gonna be easy to find/identify in this secular/materialist CULTure.
Bingo!
As we've also seen, businesses can limit exployee speech outside of the place of business itself in that businesses have a brand or public image and employee comments that are inflamatory, especially those made on social media, may damage that brand or image of the company. Employment contracts often have behavior clauses addressing such matters which is why those fired for public comments that violate their employment contract have no legal leg to stand on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.