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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Student's arrest for racist post sparks free speech debate [View all]MarineCombatEngineer
(12,369 posts)90. You just don't get it, do you?
Read this:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/appeals-court-overturns-conviction-racial-slur-case-77633857
Appeals court overturns conviction in racial slur case.
The conviction of a retired U.S. Air Force officer who used a racial slur while speaking to a Black store clerk and Black customer has been overturned by a federal appeals court
By DENISE LAVOIE AP Legal Affairs Writer
May 12, 2021, 12:21 AM
4 min read
RICHMOND, Va. -- The conviction of a retired U.S. Air Force officer who used a racial slur while speaking to a Black store clerk and Black customer was overturned Tuesday by a federal appeals court that found his speech was protected by the First Amendment under the circumstances.
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Jules Bartow, who is white, was arrested after he used the slur while shopping for boots at the Quantico Marine Corps Exchange in November 2018. Prosecutors and witnesses at his trial said he posed several bizarre rhetorical questions, including asking the customer, while referring to the store clerk, If I called her a (slur), would she still say good morning?
Bartow was convicted of violating Virginia's abusive language law.
Bartow's conviction was overturned by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court found that the First Amendment permits criminalization of abusive language, but only if the government proves the language had a direct tendency to cause immediate acts of violence by the person to whom it was addressed.
By DENISE LAVOIE AP Legal Affairs Writer
May 12, 2021, 12:21 AM
4 min read
RICHMOND, Va. -- The conviction of a retired U.S. Air Force officer who used a racial slur while speaking to a Black store clerk and Black customer was overturned Tuesday by a federal appeals court that found his speech was protected by the First Amendment under the circumstances.
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Jules Bartow, who is white, was arrested after he used the slur while shopping for boots at the Quantico Marine Corps Exchange in November 2018. Prosecutors and witnesses at his trial said he posed several bizarre rhetorical questions, including asking the customer, while referring to the store clerk, If I called her a (slur), would she still say good morning?
Bartow was convicted of violating Virginia's abusive language law.
Bartow's conviction was overturned by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court found that the First Amendment permits criminalization of abusive language, but only if the government proves the language had a direct tendency to cause immediate acts of violence by the person to whom it was addressed.
So where was the immediate act of violence?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
97 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
coming soon, blasphemy laws. seems like there are other ways to handle such rotten behavior nt
msongs
May 2021
#2
This case is a bit tricky though as he posted it online so the school has actually no say on what he
cstanleytech
May 2021
#29
It is legal to be a racist, bigoted, xenophobic asshole. It's legal to say racist, bigoted things.
Jedi Guy
May 2021
#93
Defamation cases are difficult to win and even then it would be a civil case not criminal.
cstanleytech
May 2021
#30
"Hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment, so that law is definitely unconstitutional.
Jedi Guy
May 2021
#10
Schools are rather limited though when it comes to disciplining students off school grounds.
cstanleytech
May 2021
#32
Expulsion might not even work unless he posted it online using school equipment
cstanleytech
May 2021
#34
Is that really different than asking "Why is Donald Trump not behind bars?"
NutmegYankee
May 2021
#51
Where ACLU is missing the boat here: the speech wasn't about all members of a class ...
marble falls
May 2021
#14
Libel and slander were not specific to this case, it speaks to the concept that not all free ...
marble falls
May 2021
#26
The swings both ways. They are passing laws to stop "offensive topics" being taught or discussed
AZLD4Candidate
May 2021
#45
I teach social studies. Can't teach freedom of speech without offensive things being taught
AZLD4Candidate
May 2021
#73
No government, no matter how high or petty, can dictate what is orthodox in politics, religion,
AZLD4Candidate
May 2021
#79