What are you talking about ‘disagreeing with his freedom of speech”? What the heck does that mean? Hell, I’d disagree with him if I ran into them. You have an absolute right to put a F**K Hillary sticker on your truck. Actions have consequences, I think I’d not want to be dumb enough to drive that truck into the parking lot of a lot of bars I know, but that is not the point- it’s not up to any governmental entity to say what you can or can’t express unless it’s defamation , incitement to riot or the like. That is a classic “I hate what you say but I’ll defend your right to say it”.
If you think I’d agree with the sentiment *OR* be stupid enough to put such a thing on my truck even if I did you’re a bigger idiot than the driver, which would be quite an accomplishment, since having that sticker on a truck in TEXAS seems pretty dumb to me.
My point is only that A) this will get shot down in the courts or B) if it doesn’t and somehow gets upheld, it’s a VERY bad precedent
If you had an 18 year old daughter and this guy walked up to her and said, “F**k you” without provocation completely out of the blue, what would your reaction be?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that “insulting or ‘fighting words’, those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are among the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.”
Spot-on. bramps is literally in left field with skin as thin as onion.