Difference between revisions of "Incitement to riot"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(not only are epithets devoid of constitutional protection, they can get you a one-week vacation from this web site)
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
'There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any [[Constitution]]al problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed [337 U.S. 1 , 27]    that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and [[morality]]. 'Resort to [[epithets]] or [[personal abuse]] is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]], and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 309, 310, 906, 128 A.L.R. 1352.' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=337&invol=1]
 
'There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any [[Constitution]]al problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed [337 U.S. 1 , 27]    that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and [[morality]]. 'Resort to [[epithets]] or [[personal abuse]] is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]], and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 309, 310, 906, 128 A.L.R. 1352.' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=337&invol=1]
  
[[category:United States law]]
+
[[Category:United States Law]]

Revision as of 23:57, December 14, 2009

Quotations

'There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed [337 U.S. 1 , 27] that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 309, 310, 906, 128 A.L.R. 1352.' [1]