it's a common misconception that the First Amendment protects all sorts of speech and forms of personal expression. It does not, it only protects free speech when it has substantial "scientific, artistic or political value". There's a difference in expressing one's opinion and simply harassing or attacking somebody for personal benefit. When the conduct is borderline, the courts look at community standards in order to evaluate it's value. The values of this message board as a "community" are clearly stated in the "terms of service" demanding courtesy towards others.

Unfounded attacks, constant and persistent name-calling, hate messages and the such constitute unlawful conduct not protected under the Bill of Rights. See Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952) (holding that group defamation is not protected); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942) (containing dictum to the effect that libel is not protected by the first amendment).

The fact that the reader may ignore the message is irrelevant to the fact that the unlawful activity has already taken place. Intent exists even in the absence of damages.

So please, refrain from excusing shameful conduct as constitutionally protected.

Telling the truth is not a shameful conduct. Rather, it's not accepting the true facts and admitting the mistakes that's shameful.

You can tell the truth, but name-calling and insults are not messages of "value".

Well, as long as it's the truth, who cares what kinds of words or ingredients that go with it? The problem with you Hudson, you only know how to speculate and guess.

Houston,

I didn't understand why you said free speech is only protected when it has substantial "scientific, artistic or political value." So I looked that up. What came up was just one site called "Q-U-E-E-R-S Anonymous" (w/o the dashes). Then I looked up those cases you cited. They were from late 1940's and early 50's. Niether had anything to do with internet forums.

But, is it reasonable to assume you are thinking Hm has a basis for a libel suit against Someone12 based on Hate speech written on a forum?

I don't know but I found a "motion to dismiss" with some interesting arguments defending speech like (and much worse) than Someone12 uses.

http://www.andrewschulman.com/Briefs/1400%20Motion%20To%20Dismiss.pdf

Here are exerpts (and not the worst!)
_____________
"The common law has always differentiated sharply between genuinely defamatory communications as opposed to obscenities, vulgarities, insults, epithets, name calling, and other verbal abuse." Wilson v. Grant, 9. For example, in Wilson the court held that when a radio talk show host described a caller as a "sick, no good, pot smoking, wife beating skunk," this was mere verbal abuse and conveyed no defamatory, factual meaning. See also, Lovings v. Thomas,
6
(Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (The term “mother f***ker” does not impute criminal or sexual misconduct but merely communicates the non-actionable opinion that somebody is “thoroughly despicable.”); Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Group¸ (Radio talk show host’s description of reality television participant as a “*****,” “chicken butt,” and “loser” were “rhetorical hyperbole which no listener could reasonably have interpreted to be a statement of actual fact”)
______

And, if you insist on your scientific, artistic, or politcal value, Someone12's ranting as political (immigration laws not being followed) has some merit.

I also did a search on "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I got 1,021,000 hits. That's a lot. People don't like to be censored. And, freedom of speech shouldn't be censored. I don't like the idea of the government ruling what I can say. Reminds me of the thought police, thought crimes.

So, while Hm may have more than enough evidence for a libel suit, what is the point in it? Why would she sue? She retaliated in her messages with much of the same conduct used against her. No harm, No foul. She had supporters . She even had people who believe current immigration laws should be followed defend her against Someone12. If everyone shooting off thier mouth on a forum were sued, it would shut the court system down. This is just one of thousands of forums where libel claims could be made. While I understand they are testing the waters with internet libel suits, I believe any that won had to do with a lot more than insults and name calling on a forum.

Native: I don't know the crime charged in your citation but don't confuse "your freedom to express your thoughts and opinions" with "libel" or unprotected conduct. You have every right to express your thoughts but you don't have the right to intentionally harass other people, intentionally subjecting that person to harm, injury (tangible or otherwise), shame and scandal.

This is an issue of intent, of course you're allowed to express whatever opinion you have, but you may not continuously insult and degrade others only because you feel you "have a right to do it".

The point that I wanted to explain is that you're free to express your opinions, whatever they may be, as long as you don't violate the liberties and rights of others and your intent is not to injure or degrade. You may say, as an example, that you don't like a particular TV show; you may write about what's wrong with the show, why the show is bad and why it should be taken off the air; but if you constantly insult and humiliate your neighbor because he or she happens to enjoy that show, you're breaking the law. Even the courts treat convicts with respect, you'll never see a judge saying "this is the matter of that piece of trash vs. the state of...".

-THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE-

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Houston,

I suppose I should have put Someone12 on my ignore list long ago... then all of this chaos could have been prevented. But it has been done now. I hope you're all happy.

Native: I understand that laws are not made to be broken, but sometimes, they must be. If it is for something that you know is right... then sometimes... you don't really have much of a choice. Don't worry though, I'm not really angry at the laws. I suppose they make sense for the most part. Eek, I don't really know how to explain my thoughts on laws without pointlessly rambling on and on and on... it's kind of complicated. But don't worry, I'm not going to do anything way out of line.

Dragonlady: I live in California. Hopefully you know some good lawyers here, but if not, the websites you have provided me with are pretty helpful. Thanks for answering all my questions as well.

Houston: I will be honest. I have tried, and tried, to understand what you are talking about. Something about the freedom of speech... can't really understand anything past that. You sound really intelligent though, I'll give you that.

That's the problem with lawyer. Even when using plain english, they're still incomprehensible

Now I'm confused with Houston and Hudson. I thought I was communicating with this Hudson who was more polite. This Houston is different. He sure behaves like a fighting Texan.

I apologize if I sounded "harsh", I detest violence and come here only to post an opinion and not to antagonize with others. I would like for people to communicate in a more decent and courteous way without name-calling and insults. I would like folks to finally understand that the First Amendment is not a license to harass others, to try and injure another on purpose, to degrade and intimidate individuals on a regular basis.

I cannot agree that some laws are made to be broken, ordinary persons don't have the discretionary power to select the laws they will obey. I'm well aware though that some laws need to be changed. When the application of a law produces anomalous results, the statute in question should be modified, that being the case of many regulations in the immigration area.

I've been friendly to those who post here, even to those who have insulted me and many others time and time again because, in all reality, this is only a message board and life goes on, and I will continue to be friendly to all regardless of their position on a particular issue. What I don't defend is the use of insults, name-calling, degradation and intimidation to force others to either leave the board or to agree with a particular position, such conduct is a violation of the terms of service of this place and, in "real life" could very well trigger some form of legal liability.

I'm not smarter or dumber than anybody here, not special or even different in any way, just another regular person like the rest of the folks who use this forum to post an opinion. It does not bother me when people make assumptions (usually untrue) about me, it's just an exercise of their right to have an opinion. Name-calling is a different thing though.

All I ask for is a little courtesy towards others, after all, when we sign up as members of the board we all promise to treat others with respect by agreeing to the "terms of service".

Your comments are well taken, Houston. Are you in Houston, Texas?

sorry, but laws are not made to be broken....everyone in the US is supposed to obey our laws....period.
visa cheats obviously have not obeyed our laws and should be deported immediately and NEVER rewarded, under any circumstance.

Tell that to the Marines, s u c k e r ! Everything should be treated case by case. Not only is there exception to every rule; there's the so called compassionate and humanitarian ground. That's why there's such a thing as relief and waiver. If criminals are granted probation, community services and parole; why can't a minor whose only fault is to have parents who are illegals?

I have to agree with S12 on the issue that the laws are not meant to be broken. If people, at their discretion, only obeyed some laws and ignored some others society would be nothing but chaos.
However, the law is not supposed to be applied in batches. Immigration law in particular should be applied on a case by case basis because of the harsh consequences on society and other humanitarian factors.

While community service is not "relief", the sentencing guidelines provide for many forms of statutory relief. Also, a judge may consider all mitigating circumstances when considering a case. Parole is also a form of relief available to most convicted offenders, the point system implemented in many states also provide relief and contribute to avoid prison overcrowding.

But criminal law features an automatic form of relief requiring no application, no testimony, no court appearance, no judge's opinion, nothing but inactivity. That form of relief is automatic and applies to ALL but the hardest criminals facing a death sentence. It's called statute of limitations and it's nothing but a clear-cut amnesty in its most basic form. This relief is also available in civil procedures, so in a nutshell, immigration law is the one area of the law that ignores a principle considered by all other forms of legislation. When people talk about amnesty they think it applies only to immigration law, but the principle is codified in Federal criminal law and has been present and extended for many, many decades. Interesting to see how the Supreme Court has time and time again thought of the SOL as a valuable part of criminal procedure intended to protect the public.

It's nothing but hypocrisy to refer to amnesty only in the context of immigration law. When it comes to the famous "5 years" group in the Senate law, let me tell you that 5 years is also the SOL for most felonies under Federal law, so the feared "immigration amnesty" is nothing but the implementation of an already established SOL in the immigration context. I'm yet to see one person who proposes eliminating the SOL in criminal law, or one Congressman who's willing to repeal it.

Obviously, immigration law has evolved as a patched, overcomplicated, hyper-technical statute that's in conflict with all other areas of the law, a statute that's difficult or maybe impossible to implement to its fullest, a statute that fails to consider reality thus aggravating the problem it's aimed at correcting. Congress has now the opportunity to finally put an end to this mess by substantial and comprehensive reform that's based in reality and not on some distorted view of the problem.

and this just in (for all you unpatriotic types out there).....
Minutemen are patriots, not racists

By: DAN NOVAL - Commentary

It has often been said that "words have meaning." This is especially true regarding the current controversy over illegal immigration, emphasis on the word "illegal."

The recently formed group of Americans known as the Minutemen has been labeled by the supporters of illegal immigration as "racists," "bigots," "KKK," "Nazis," and even "un-American." These pejoratives are used as weapons of intimidation to stifle the will of anyone who would defend the rule of law of our nation. There is nothing bigoted about defending one's homeland against the influx of crime, drugs and economic strain that accompanies the unprecedented flow of illegal immigration hemorrhaging across our southern border.

America has enough homegrown crime; we don't need to import it. Just ask the family of Oceanside police officer Tony Zeppetella, or any other family of the many law enforcement officers who have been murdered by individuals who violated our immigration laws. Just ask any of the North County families ravaged by drug abuse resulting from the lucrative business of smuggling those drugs across our southern border. And finally, just ask our local middle-class families who will admit to being financially squeezed by depressed wages and a tax burden that subsidizes the many social services needed to assist a growing, impoverished underclass. No nation on earth can withstand an invasion of such magnitude. These issues give rise to a needed rebuttal to this paper's editorial of Nov. 26 titled, "Evicting migrant workers not a solution."


The editorial implied that the recent protest to evict the trespassers, aka "migrant workers," from McGonigle Canyon was based upon the contemptible motives of latent racism and selfish publicity. The editorial also singled out the Minutemen for scrutiny when in fact the protest was organized by a cross-section of concerned citizens. This shallow attempt to claim the moral high ground in the illegal immigration controversy is disingenuous at best.

The editorial vaguely mentioned "squalid conditions" but no specific references to hazardous campfires, drug usage, prostitution, open latrines and other disgusting examples that decorum prohibits describing. These "squalid" issues were documented in a recent NBC television news report that was a catalyst for the protest. Also, the "migrant workers" were characterized as "homeless" in order to tug at our heartstrings.

But the editorial conveniently failed to state that the vast majority of those "migrant workers" do in fact have homes in Mexico and other Latin American countries that they left voluntarily to come north, violate our immigration laws with impunity, then, in many cases, send the money they earn home to their families. How can one be "homeless" while at the same time sending money "home"? The oxymoron is glaring.

Today's Minutemen are no different from their forebears of 1775. They are not racists; they are patriots in the truest sense of the word. They are standing shoulder to shoulder to protect the sovereignty of our nation. They are standing on the Lexington Green of our local communities and southern border. What could be more patriotic than that?

Oceanside resident Dan Noval is a retired deputy with 23 years of service for the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Previous Story:
Next Story:

There's clearly two different positions on every issue, but I don't think that people who don't agree with one particular point of view deserve to be called unpatriotic.

Are we saying here that Martin Luther King was unpatriotic because he fought to change a particular conduct at the time validated by law? Are we saying that President Lincoln was unpatriotic because we didn't agree with slavery, a repulsive practice at the time validated by law? Are we saying that granting women the right to vote was unpatriotic because it changed the law and the view of women as an important sector of society equal to men?

The patriots did not fight to preserve the status quo, they fought against it. The American Revolution was a struggle to change the way things were at the time at a fundamental level. This country does not celebrate national holidays to honor traitors or the "unpatriotic" but to honor the heroes who risked everything to fight for what they knew was right, instead of what they knew was "accepted" at the time.

Nobody would nowadays consider subjecting another to slavery, it would be a crime not to mention conduct that's morally reprehensible. But more than a century and a half ago it was legal, accepted and normal to punish slaves, to trade them like animals, to kill them or even torture them. Things changed because of a vision, because somebody finally realized it was fundamentally wrong and decided to fight against a flawed regulation.

So, are we saying that asking for a change in law is unpatriotic? I thought it was a right granted by the Constitution, the very same instrument that defines a nation, so what's so unpatriotic about it? Are we saying that the patriotic way is serving a 7 year old with a notice to appear? Are we saying that patriotism is preserving a class of underprivileged individuals? Is patriotism compatible with discrimination because if it is, the Constitution would then be unpatriotic as can be? Breaking up a family, is that patriotic? Is allowing an individual to die because of lack of basic care patriotic? Is the incarceration of children patriotic? This nation stands as the nation of the free and the righteous, not as a nation of the cruel or the inhumane.

This re-defined version of patriotism would produce absurd results. The President of the United States, all the Courts that decided to block local statutes discriminating against immigrants, the majority in the Senate who voted for immigration reform and more than 80% of the people in this country would be called "unpatriotic"... Couldn't it be that that version of patriotism is indeed a distortion of the truth? Of course it is.

A patriot is one who transpires true American values, the values of a nation "with liberty and justice for all" not just for "some". It's the land of the free and the home of the brave, NOT the land of the incarcerated children and the home of the slave.

Like I said, it's a difficult topic, and there will always be different positions and points of view, but I don't think that calling people "unpatriotic" simply because they don't agree with a determined position on the issues is fair or even appropriate.

Houston: I have to agree with you:
"A patriot is one who transpires true American values, the values of a nation "with liberty and justice for all" not just for "some". It's the land of the free and the home of the brave, NOT the land of the incarcerated children and the home of the slave."
Since this country is build by immigrants, it is also possible that an immigrant is patriotic.
You do not have to be born in America to be a Patriot!



"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Is this not the inscription on the statue of liberty?

I did not mention "citizenship" anywhere in my description of what a patriot should be. Many soldiers in the U.S. Armed Forces are foreign-born, many are not even U.S. citizens, and they are patriots. But it goes beyond that, far beyond. A known figure of the American Revolution, the Marquis de Lafayette was not an American but he was honored with the trust and friendship of Gen. Washington himself. Marquis de Lafayette was a hero at Yorktown in October 1781.