Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)

21. I can't imagine a case where your sign would be taken, prima facie, as a threat.

Reply to leveymg (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 02:16 PM

Dec 2015

It has neither the reasonableness nor the specificity to pass the sniff test. And no amount of backstory piling on will make that happen.

There is no federal 'hate speech' statute. If you want to take a collection of things and call it 'hate speech' in your mind, feel free. But the rest of us who know what legislation has been proposed as 'hate speech' will disagree.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Isn't this how it started 80 years ago in Germany? [View all] diabeticman Dec 2015 OP

It must be alright then to have a Jewish free zone, and a black free zone now also. LiberalArkie Dec 2015 #1

The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Are Beside Themselves With All The Distractions cantbeserious Dec 2015 #2

+1 Populist_Prole Dec 2015 #24

The judge is actually right. Someone from the CAIR needs to go in and get denied service. X_Digger Dec 2015 #3

What happens if they post a second sign, "We reserve the right to deny service - we are armed"? leveymg Dec 2015 #6

You can put up a sign that says, "Unattended children will be eaten." X_Digger Dec 2015 #10

The threat can be a crime - that's circumstantial - if the owner has a reputation for baby eating. leveymg Dec 2015 #11

I do disagree, yes. X_Digger Dec 2015 #12

What if the gun shop owner had a history of threats against Muslims? leveymg Dec 2015 #14

Making a threat doesn't subsequently remove your right to free speech in the future, no. X_Digger Dec 2015 #16

Correct, but a threat is grounds for seeking suit for tortious wrong as it might also be grounds leveymg Dec 2015 #19

I can't imagine a case where your sign would be taken, prima facie, as a threat. X_Digger Dec 2015 #21

If the sign were surrounded by firearms, it might. That is exactly the case here. leveymg Dec 2015 #22

So every sign in a gun shop is a threat because it's a gun shop? "No checks." (OR I'LL SHOOT YA!) X_Digger Dec 2015 #23

The key provision is also that the display is on another's property. NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #25

Muslims in this country have enough speech against minorities, etc, that you don't Yo_Mama Dec 2015 #18

Not attempting to justify one set of wrongs with another. leveymg Dec 2015 #20

Wrong. closeupready Dec 2015 #7

Why do you think the ACLU had William Smith and James Yates attempt to get a marriage license in KY? X_Digger Dec 2015 #9

The owner can call his store anything he wants LittleBlue Dec 2015 #4

well no but it is still odious. Warren Stupidity Dec 2015 #5

You're right frazzled Dec 2015 #26

In some respects, yes. And I'd be lying if I said closeupready Dec 2015 #8

The case fell apart because to have standing you actually must be denied service. NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #13

The plaintiff had no standing. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #15

It was dismissed for lack of standing, because claimants did not show that anyone was refused Yo_Mama Dec 2015 #17

No The River Dec 2015 #27

Actual refusal and discrimination has to happen in order to sue. And my friend you live in a country Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #28