[Vision2020] Say What!?!

[Scott Dredge]

It's your scenario Tom, you tell me what damage / injury you caused in your bar scene.  If none, then it's 'no harm, no foul' and really nothing comes into play regarding the first amendment...it's simply you mouthing off.

If property damage and /or injury to others occur as result of and associated brawl, then I'm saying that if your defense is 'the first amendment legally permits me to go into the Backdoor (a bar in south central Los Angeles) and say, "Fu*k you, nig*r!', then you'll be found guilty of any number of charges that will result in civil and/or criminal penalties.  This all would be relatively easy to prove and you're offering essentially no defense so it would probably be in your best interest to just concede 'guilty as charged'.

The reason being is that the first amendment permits you no such 'Constitutionally guaranteed right' which is why I wrote 'it's nonsensical to think you can try and high behind First Amendment rights for damage / injury that result from your direct 
provocation.' In short, you're sadly mistaken if you think otherwise.

As for 'Could an insightful video ridiculing a religion be just as guilty of "direct provocation"?', the answer is maybe.  But a litigator would need to be able to convincingly prove cause & effect.  That's why the your bar scene versus the youtube video is a poor comparison.


> CC: thansen at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> From: thansen at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Say What!?!
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:56:59 -0700
> To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> 
> Scott Dredge suggests:
> 
> "It's nonsensical to think that you can try and hide behind First Amendment rights for damage / injury that result from your direct provocation and there would be witnesses who could take the stand against you in criminal / civil trials."
> 
> What "damage/injury" did my words cause, Mr. Dredge?
> 
> How am I hiding behind my first amendment rights, rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution?
> 
> Could an insightful video ridiculing a religion be just as guilty of "direct provocation"?
> 
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
> 
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>   
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
> 
> "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students.  The college students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
> 
> - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
>  
> 
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > It's nonsensical to think that you can try and hide behind First Amendment rights for damage / injury that result from your direct provocation and there would be witnesses who could take the stand against you in criminal / civil trials.

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120925/acd7975d/attachment-0001.html>