"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
The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights. The aim of the Bill of Rights is to safeguard individual freedoms and constrain the power of the government.
The First Amendment reflects these democratic ideals by establishing the freedom of speech. Its free speech clause reads,
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”
From this language, we can see that our First Amendment right to free speech begins as a prohibition on Congress. Our federal legislature is bound by the Constitution, which means that Congress cannot enact laws that violate our rights to free speech. Through the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and the doctrine of incorporation, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that this prohibition extends to government action (state action) of any kind and at any level.
Government action restricting free speech can take many forms, including local ordinances, public library policies, court injunctions, and federal agency action.
The First Amendment generally applies to government regulation of private speech. It doesn’t restrict government regulation of government speech. Aside from a few exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court, this does not apply to speech limitations enforced by private entities.
The Supreme Court has determined that speech protected by the First Amendment can include the written word and other expressive conduct. For example, refusing to salute the American flag or messaging on a t-shirt are both forms of speech, or free expression, protected by the First Amendment.
However, the right to free speech isn’t absolute. The Supreme Court has established several categories of unprotected speech. Obscenity and defamation are two such categories. In this article, we focus on speech the Supreme Court calls “fighting words” and “true threats.”
The state generally has greater leeway to regulate and penalize unprotected speech. However, not all restrictions on unprotected speech are constitutional. This is particularly relevant if their reach extends to protected speech or if the restrictions involve content-based distinctions.
Similarly, not all restrictions on protected speech are unconstitutional.
The Court has developed legal standards and frameworks for determining whether a government restriction on speech violates the First Amendment. Their application varies depending on the type of speech and circumstances involved.
These standards typically weigh the government interest served by the restriction against the First Amendment freedoms burdened by it. In these analyses, we commonly refer to government interests as state interests.
Strict scrutiny is the most difficult standard to meet. For a speech restriction to pass constitutional muster, it must serve a compelling state interest in the least restrictive manner.
Content-based restrictions are typically subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review. This is because, at its core, the constitutional right to free speech protects against government suppression of ideas.
Still, the Supreme Court has established certain categories of speech and associated protections precisely because of their content. Fighting words and true threats are two such unprotected categories.
In 1942, the Court unanimously decided in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that the First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. The Chaplinsky Court reviewed a conviction under state law. that criminalized the use of “fighting words.” The law defined fighting words as speech “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
The Court upheld the conviction and the statute, which it found to be sufficiently narrowly tailored. The opinion explains that the law defined and prohibited specific acts likely to disrupt the peace in public places. This was well within the state’s power.
The Court explained that fighting words aren’t protected because they play no crucial role in the free exchange of ideas and have minimal social value. As such, the public interest in maintaining order and morality far outweighs any benefit derived from their utterance.
Chaplinsky remains the prevailing standard, and the Court consistently cites ‘fighting words’ as a type of speech not protected. Yet, it has not affirmed any state action grounded in the Chaplinsky doctrine regarding fighting words.
In Cohen v. California (1971), the Court reversed Paul Cohen’s conviction for disturbing the peace. Cohen was arrested and convicted for wearing a jacket that said “Fuck the Draft” in a California courthouse. The Court overturned the conviction partly because the messaging didn’t constitute fighting words as it wasn’t directed at anyone personally.
The Court has since held that “speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.”
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Supreme Court reviewed another conviction. Arthur Terminiello was an outspoken activist and provocative speaker whose speeches typically drew large crowds of supporters and protesters.
One such speech in Chicago sparked violence. The police arrested Terminiello, who was later convicted of disorderly conduct. He challenged the conviction on First Amendment grounds.
The Court overturned the conviction, explaining that the state can’t shut down speech because the audience finds it offensive. There is no “heckler’s veto” for controversial speech.
The government, indeed, has an interest in maintaining public order and safety. This state interest includes dealing with violent and unruly crowds. However, this interest must be balanced against First Amendment speech protections.
Thus, a controversial speaker can’t be penalized for saying things an audience doesn’t like. The Terminiello Court reminded that a “function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute.”
Political speech and advocacy often involve riling up an audience. They are often accompanied by stirring and emotional appeals to unite and act for or against a common cause.
If such appeals don’t incite lawless action, they must be considered speech protected by the First Amendment.
Quoting Justice Holmes’s famous dissent in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), Justice Samuel Alito wrote in Matal v. Tam (2017) that “the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”
Accordingly, federal courts have held that the First Amendment protected the free speech rights of Nazis. After all, the unfettered exchange of ideas and public debate involving conflicting opinions is at the heart of free speech.
Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment unless it falls under another category of unprotected speech. However, hate speech that causes tangible harm is generally punishable as a hate crime.
In 1969, the Court distinguished true threats from political hyperbole in Watts v. United States. The Watts Court reviewed Robert Watts’s federal conviction. The relevant law criminalized any threat to kill or cause bodily harm to the American President.
Watts opposed the military draft for the Vietnam War. At a public rally, he told the crowd, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”
The Court adhered closely to First Amendment principles when interpreting the law and overturned the conviction. It reasoned that Watts didn’t actually make a true threat but rather just engaged in political hyperbole.
In 2003, the Court clarified the meaning of true threats in Virginia v. Black. The Virginia Court reviewed a state law prohibiting cross-burning with the goal of intimidation. The Court said the state could ban intimidation as a “type of true threat” if the speaker “means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”
In light of our country’s history, the Court noted that cross-burning may constitute a true threat. However, it found that one provision in the Virginia statute violated the First Amendment. It allowed cross-burning to serve as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate.
Cross-burnings carried out without an intent to intimidate are protected speech or expression. Thus, the provision’s reach went beyond unprotected speech. The Court invalidated it for overbreadth because the increased likelihood of prosecution under the provision chills the expression of constitutionally protected speech.
The widespread use of social media has drastically increased incidents of speech perceived as threatening.
In Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the Court addressed one such matter. The Counterman Court also clarified the intent requirement for true threats.
Billy Raymond Counterman was convicted of stalking for statements he posted to Facebook. The Court explained that the state used the wrong standard when determining whether Counterman’s statements were true threats.
Specifically, it had applied an objective, “reasonable person” standard. But, the Court determined it should have used a subjective standard for intent.
The Court cited other unprotected speech decisions, including New York Times v. Sullivan. The New York Times Court’s decision established a subjective standard for proving the state of mind required for certain defamation matters.
The Counterman Court explained that the state should have used a subjective recklessness standard to evaluate whether Counterman knew or recklessly ignored that the recipient would perceive his statements as threats of violence.
In other words, the state needed to demonstrate that Counterman made such statements even though he knew the recipient would perceive them as threatening. But it didn’t. As a result, the Court vacated Counterman’s lower court conviction.
The frameworks established by the Supreme Court help identify categories of speech. This may help determine which standard of review applies. However, the Court’s approach to First Amendment matters isn’t purely categorical. As a result, the Court’s treatment of fighting words and true threats over the years provides us with invaluable insight into First Amendment jurisprudence.
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.