Connecticut's First Amendment problem

[+and-then]

https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2012/title-53/chapter-939/section-53-37/ 

From the statute:

Section 53-37 - Ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race.

Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.

So, all those who publicly ridicule the Donald and his supporters are guilty of misdemeanors in Connecticut? 

The case that dragged this bit of blatant anti-Constitutional fluff to the light was about a couple of university students who had the temerity to espouse Ray-Sus views in public, at volume, in front of some black students.  They were charged with a misdemeanor.  Not a campus rule, a criminal statute in Connecticut.  

What say you?  Justifiable or anti-Constitutional?

[Farmer77]

5 minutes ago, and then said:

https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2012/title-53/chapter-939/section-53-37/ 

From the statute:

Section 53-37 - Ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race.

Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.

So, all those who publicly ridicule the Donald and his supporters are guilty of misdemeanors in Connecticut? 

The case that dragged this bit of blatant anti-Constitutional fluff to the light was about a couple of university students who had the temerity to espouse Ray-Sus views in public, at volume, in front of some black students.  They were charged with a misdemeanor.  Not a campus rule, a criminal statute in Connecticut.  

What say you?  Justifiable or anti-Constitutional?

Nope cant do it. Dangerous and unconstitutional.

[Farmer77]

9 minutes ago, and then said:

So, all those who publicly ridicule the Donald and his supporters are guilty of misdemeanors in Connecticut? 

Is this you officially admitting you guys are a religion?  

Edited November 2, 2019 by Farmer77

[Piney]

17 minutes ago, and then said:

What say you?  Justifiable or anti-Constitutional?

Un-Constitutional!

 Pussies......

[RoofGardener]

26 minutes ago, and then said:

.....

So, all those who publicly ridicule the Donald and his supporters are guilty of misdemeanors in Connecticut? ....

Only if they ridicule him for his race, creed, colour, nationality or religion  ? 

[Piney]

12 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Only if they ridicule him for his race, creed, colour, nationality or religion  ? 

So saying  "Orange Painted *******" would be illegal? 

[RoofGardener]

10 minutes ago, Piney said:

So saying  "Orange Painted *******" would be illegal? 

Absolutely. 

< rattles handcuffs > 

Calling him "Orange Painted" will get you Orange Overalls  

Edited November 2, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Piney]

5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Absolutely. 

< rattles handcuffs > 

Calling him "Orange Painted" will get you Orange Overalls  

Check out Rogues Gallery. I don't look half bad in em. Especially in shiny new shackles. 

[XenoFish]

I'm out of my element being here, but it's looking almost like the Government is afraid of the people. So they start policing everything.

[spartan max2]

55 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Only if they ridicule him for his race, creed, colour, nationality or religion  ? 

What is a creed in this context?

Is conservative and liberal a creed? They have creed seperated from religion.

Edited November 2, 2019 by spartan max2

[Piney]

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

What is a creed in this context?

Is conservative and liberal a creed? They have creed seperated from religion.

Chauvinism, White and Black Supremacy and Veganism are technically "creeds". 

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Piney said:

Especially in shiny new shackles. 

It's a must have for the well-turned-out convict 

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

What is a creed in this context?

Is conservative and liberal a creed? They have creed seperated from religion.

I take it to mean any ideology followed by a group whether formally or informally so I think "Orange Man Bad!" is definitely a popular creed these days.  That's the point, really.  The amazing thing to me is how long this law has been on the books without a legal challenge.  It's so far over the top anti-1A that it could never  stand review by a higher court that wasn't totally politicized.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I'm out of my element being here, but it's looking almost like the Government is afraid of the people. So they start policing everything.

This is one of those "A bridge too far" types of laws.  I realize folks in the UK have slowly gotten used to their freedom of speech being curtailed but I'm not sure that even Canada would go this far.  It literally criminalizes differences of opinion for the sake of PC culture.  It's my belief that when governments over reach and attach actual penalties to PC behavior it can precipitate or expand the "bad" behavior it intends to curtail.  People, everywhere, tend to be hard headed about being told how to think and act.

[XenoFish]

Every system has a breaking point. The more controlling it is, the more pressure it'll build up. Eventually, POP!

The thing is that society is just playing a marvelous game of pretend. 

[+and-then]

7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

The thing is that society is just playing a marvelous game of pretend. 

That's one way to describe the reality of it.  When enough people stop believing in a system based on self-discipline in pursuit of a better life, it all falls down.  There's a whole genre of fiction out there that deals with the collapse and the struggles to live WROL.  Without Rule of Law.  It's pretty damned grim...

[Gromdor]

You know Freedom of Speech isn't Freedom from Consequence.  People should be free to say whatever they want, whenever they want.  No one is stopping people from shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater after all.  But if what comes out of their mouth causes harm they should still face the consequences that their particular use of Freedom of Speech incurred.

[+and-then]

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

You know Freedom of Speech isn't Freedom from Consequence.  People should be free to say whatever they want, whenever they want.  No one is stopping people from shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater after all.  But if what comes out of their mouth causes harm they should still face the consequences that their particular use of Freedom of Speech incurred.

I agree, so long as those consequences are not from a government who has the power to take one's liberty.  In the racist example that brought this law under scrutiny, it would be likely where I live that the two students would have gotten the beat down for what they did.  And I wouldn't blame those that did it.  

[XenoFish]

24 minutes ago, and then said:

That's one way to describe the reality of it.  When enough people stop believing in a system based on self-discipline in pursuit of a better life, it all falls down.  There's a whole genre of fiction out there that deals with the collapse and the struggles to live WROL.  Without Rule of Law.  It's pretty damned grim...

My problem is I know it's all a game. Underneath it all is chaos. No one is really in control. That's why there are systems, governments, religions, stuff like that. We seem to crave order. You either keep playing the game, break the rules, or you learn the rules and bend them to your will. Yet, no one really controls you. It is only that you allow yourself to be control. It's all sheep, wolves, and herders. 

[Openmindhere]

 

6 hours ago, and then said:

Section 53-37 - Ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race.

Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.

Absolutely Unconstitutional, anti American, and dangerously Orwellian. This is no different than the Thought Police disappearing you to The Ministry Of Love.  

[spartan max2]

6 hours ago, Gromdor said:

You know Freedom of Speech isn't Freedom from Consequence.  People should be free to say whatever they want, whenever they want.  No one is stopping people from shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater after all.  But if what comes out of their mouth causes harm they should still face the consequences that their particular use of Freedom of Speech incurred.

China gives plenty of legal government "consequences" for speech. 

If a government is punishing you for speech then that is not freedom of speech just because you as a biological human that has the ability to say the words lol. 

When people mention you don't have "freedom from consequences" they are typically referring to social consequences from other free people, not censorship from governments. 

Seems sort of Orwellian to suggest censorship from a government is freedom of speech.

 

Obviously there at limits to being able to say wherever you want, like spreading manic in a movie. But you are using the "freedom from consequences" wrong.

Edited November 3, 2019 by spartan max2

[ExpandMyMind]

5 hours ago, Openmindhere said:

Absolutely Unconstitutional, anti American, and dangerously Orwellian.

Get a grip, 'Orwellian'. Many countries around the world, most with as many, if not more, freedoms than the US are Orwellian because they convict people who shout racist slurs? 

Only in America would you see people defend racism and racists in the name of free speech. Only in America would you see their Constitution prioritise someone's right to be a complete dick over a victim. 

Free speech is stupid. I mean the concept of not being silenced by your government is great, but the idea that anyone has a right to say anything they want is idiotic. It doesn't extend to any part of normal life or society because common sense gained through experience tells us that you can't say whatever you want in whichever situation, because there will be serious consequences for saying the wrong thing.

Even libel laws show just how stupid it is and just how ridiculous it is to allow anyone to say anything without consequence.

Next thing you know you'll have parents defending their bully kids, responsible for driving someone to suicide with the ol' 'Free Speech!'. I mean bullying is cool, right? Kids have as much right to free speech as anyone else, yeah? And when they kill with words then it's all good, because people should be able to say whatever they want, right?.

We have plenty of free speech here in the UK without the need for 'Free Speech'. There has to be a line between free speech and hate-speech, threats, racism and cultism. 

[+and-then]

Take a breath, Nancy.  Speech is either uncensored or it's constrained by government.  The two idiots in this case could have been beaten down for their crassness and stupidity and I'd never say a word against the ones who did it.  There ARE consequences for intentionally stirring the pot with race or religious hatred.  It just isn't the government's job because government never relinquishes power.  It only ever grows.  You may be alright with that but most people aren't.  If you need a government to have your back in case you might be offended by another citizen then I pity you.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Take a breath, Nancy.  Speech is either uncensored or it's constrained by government.  The two idiots in this case could have been beaten down for their crassness and stupidity and I'd never say a word against the ones who did it.  There ARE consequences for intentionally stirring the pot with race or religious hatred.  It just isn't the government's job because government never relinquishes power.  It only ever grows.  You may be alright with that but most people aren't.  If you need a government to have your back in case you might be offended by another citizen then I pity you.

'There are consequences' you say.

The government are totally fine with punishing people for every single crime, except one, and for that you shall have no trials, no defence, no hope whatsoever at addressing a claim made against you - you just get knocked out, beaten, stabbed or maybe even shot by some random person, because words are the citizen's to police.

Hopefully you one day become aware of how ridiculous that argument is. I doubt it though.

You have an opinion on the school (or workplace) bullying that leads to suicides? You okay with their free speech or should the parents of the victim just kick the **** out of them, since the government apparently is unable to police that particular crime.

And what happens to those who do dish out the 'justice'? Since they're doing citizen's work, I'm sure their attempted murder charge will be thrown out of court, yeah?

[Farmer77]

12 hours ago, and then said:

I agree, so long as those consequences are not from a government who has the power to take one's liberty.  In the racist example that brought this law under scrutiny, it would be likely where I live that the two students would have gotten the beat down for what they did.  And I wouldn't blame those that did it.  

 

5 hours ago, and then said:

Take a breath, Nancy.  Speech is either uncensored or it's constrained by government.  The two idiots in this case could have been beaten down for their crassness and stupidity and I'd never say a word against the ones who did it.  There ARE consequences for intentionally stirring the pot with race or religious hatred.  It just isn't the government's job because government never relinquishes power.  It only ever grows.  You may be alright with that but most people aren't.  If you need a government to have your back in case you might be offended by another citizen then I pity you.

 

So im torn because I really agree with the words youve posted here my problem is that based on your posting history I have a problem believing that you actually believe them.

ANTIFA being a prime example.  Another being private businesses like social media platforms removing the voices of bigotry and hatred.  In both those instances of a society self regulating negative behavior you, and those you support politically,  called for the government to get involved to stop those doing the self regulating.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by Farmer77