Well nothing is for free; there is a price to pay even for words.
Every word you speak someone is judging you, they are accessing your timber to see you for who you really are. Are you a conservative? Are you a moderate or white nationalist, or are you a liberal, if so how liberal are you. Are you a racist?
So every word has a price.
WHAT SPEECH ISN’T PROTECTED?
Fighting words, inciting violence and hate speech in New England
Super Lawyers
By Trevor Kupfer
[…]
With the recent rise of protests, marches and rallies also come increased questions about the First Amendment. The line between what is and isn’t protected speech is anything but clear.
[…]
Don’t Tread on Me
One of the biggest misconceptions is that free speech is absolute, Shelkrot says. “The First Amendment and similar state provisions prevent the government from restricting your expression. Private restrictions are not constitutionally protected, so when people say, ‘It’s a free country, I can say what I want,’ it doesn’t apply to your school, your employer, or your landlord, for example.”
[…]
Them’s Fightin’ Words
There are other free speech restrictions that try to address issues of physical harm. “Words can really hurt people,” says Shannah Kurland, a civil rights attorney in Providence. “Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can also hurt us. So it’s not as simple as ‘free speech means you can say whatever you want.’”
And this is where we come in…
The Content of Your Speech
The grey area largely depends on how the speech is interpreted, but “a good rule of thumb is that the closer something is to political speech, the greater the protections,” Shelkrot says.
“There are categories that are generally unprotected: speech that is overtly physically threatening, extortion, fraud—crimes where the speech itself is the crime,” Shelkrot says, citing things like slander, defamation and obscenity.
There is likewise grey area in politics, as some political beliefs can intersect with restricted speech. “There have been, over the last few decades, a number of jurisdictions passing laws that punish crimes more severely when they are motivated by racism or other discrimination—what we call hate crime,” Shelkrot says. “Interestingly, they have mostly been upheld in constitutional challenges. It’s not settled law, though, and might be subject to more litigation. Viewpoint discrimination is pretty carefully scrutinized.”
For us it is important to realize that the hate crime law and the non-discrimination law does protect “free speech” however the line between “free speech” and harassment is vague.
If someone comes up to you and calls you the “f” word for a gay slur, tells you that you are going to hell that is protected “free speech” and from what I gather talking to lawyers is that it all changes when it becomes repetitive and/or prolonged and/or they use “fighting words.”
So if you are standing on a street corner waiting for the crosswalk light and someone comes up to and tells you are sinner and going to hell… that is “free speech.”
If you are standing on a street corner waiting for the crosswalk light and someone comes up to and tells you are sinner and going to hell and follows you across the street saying that… that is getting into the grey area of “free speech.”
If you are standing on a street corner waiting for the crosswalk light and someone comes up to and tells you are sinner and going to hell, follows you across the street, and then follows you walking down the street saying that… that has most likely crossed into harassment (one thing that I learned from talking to lawyers and CHRO attorneys is that they never give a yes or no answer).
As I said at the begging, free speech come with a price. When someone says I am going to “hell” my first thought… asshole. If someone on Facebook that I’m “friends” with praises “white nationalist,” click unfriend.
It does create an echo chamber but I must rather have friends who same views, however that doesn’t mean I don’t have conservative friends, I do but they are not far right zealots and we can have a civil discussion with them.
One thing that worries me is the latest Supreme Court nominee judge Kavanaugh seems to lean toward striking down hate crime laws as limiting First Amendment rights. From the
Popehat…
Kavanaugh has been an appellate judge for 12 years and has written many opinions on free speech issues. They trend very protective of free speech, both in substance and in rhetoric. His opinions are consistent with the Supreme Court’s strong protection of free speech rights this century. People who buy into the “conservatives are weaponizing the First Amendment” narrative will see him as a strong advocate of that movement, in that he has applied the First Amendment to campaign finance laws, telecommunications regulation, and other aspects of the regulatory state. But he’s also demonstrated fidelity to free speech principles in classic speech scenarios. Even when he concurs in a First Amendment decision, he frequently writes a separate opinion to clarify his analytical approach to the problem. He’s quoted First Amendment guru Eugene Volokh — one of the leading voices in free speech analysis and a strong defender of speech rights.
Under
Connecticut law a “hate crime” is…
(a) A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the first degree when such person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of the actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, [or] disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression of such other person, causes serious physical injury to such other person or to a third person.
[…]
(a) A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the second degree when such person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of the actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, [or] disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression of such other person, does any of the following: (1) Causes physical contact with such other person, (2) damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of such other person, or (3) threatens, by word or act, to do an act described in subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection, if there is reasonable cause to believe that an act described in subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection will occur.
[…]
(a) A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the third degree when such person, with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person or group of persons because of the actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, [or] disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression of such other person or persons: (1) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property, or (2) threatens, by word or act, to do an act described in subdivision (1) of this subsection or advocates or urges another person to do an act described in subdivision (1) of this subsection, if there is reasonable cause to believe that an act described in said subdivision will occur.
Notice nowhere in the law does it say anything about call speech, it is all about action.
So when they following yelling their hate speech that is not what is the hate crime but rather your fear when they are following you.
Now the question is will judge Kavanaugh see it that way if he is appointed to the Supreme Court bench,
