w********t
发帖数: 12853 | 1 如果可行，
我们应该鼓励华人一旦被歹徒入室抢劫，就上法庭（包括小额法庭）去告YG 和他的签
约公司，让他疲于奔命。
不仅被抢了的可以告，我怕被抢，产生心理紧张恐惧的，我也可以去告，可以上小额法
庭，十万人一起去，顶多就是手续费用。
还可以带上老婆孩子去本镇的警察局，带上YG 的视频，要求警方保护。记住：要全美
国同一天行动。
当然除了这种被动抵抗求保护的，也要进行费城那样的武装游行，硬的也不怕。
然后把这些行动都通告媒体。。。。。我们要学习一下川普大叔，怎么玩弄媒体。
言论自由不保护以下言论 （节选自 Wiki)
United States free speech exceptions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bill of Rights in the National Archives
Exceptions to free speech in the United States are limitations on the First
Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression as recognized by the
United States Supreme Court. These exceptions have been created over time,
based on certain types of speech and expression, and under different
contexts. While freedom of speech in the United States is a right protected
by the constitution, these exceptions make that right a limited one.
Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both
instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection.
Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection.
Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for
uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an
employer, controls education, or regulates the following: the mail, airwaves
, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration.
Communicative impact restrictions[edit]
Incitement[edit]
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is
unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless
action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2] In
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court struck down a criminal conviction of a
Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of
accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not
express an immediate, or imminent intent to do violence.[3] This rule
amended a previous decision of the Court, in Schenck v. United States (1919)
, which simply decided that a "clear and present danger" could justify a
congressional rule limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the
latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[4]
......
Fighting words and offensive speech[edit]
Main article: Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech"
Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is
unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[27] Fighting words, as
defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach
of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [
word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of
common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[28]
Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and
is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[29][30] Fighting
words also mean when you start to insult another being on resulting into a
physical fight.
Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.[
31] However, such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be
limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that
satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully
protected.[32] Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political
satire.[33] A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the
Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law
criminalizing flag burning in Texas.[34]
Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that
has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are
generally unprotected.[35] However, there are several exceptions. For
example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a
reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[36
][37] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically
motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[38] However, sometimes
even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.[39] | w********t
发帖数: 12853 | 2 "The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is
unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless
action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action""
“最高法院指出，鼓动使用暴力的言论，如果这种言论直接导致违法行为，不受美国宪
法言论自由保护”
在辩论中，这个 imminent 可能会有麻烦，但是，那个歌手的歌词，鼓动了非法暴力
行为（抢劫），应该有不被美国宪法保护的可能。同时，根据小布什总统期间颁布的仇
恨犯罪法律，出于种族歧视和仇恨的违法，将加重惩处。 | w********t
发帖数: 12853 | 3 对，就告 YG, 或者他的唱片公司，白宫请愿就算热身吧。
不仅被抢了的可以告，我怕被抢，产生心理紧张恐惧的，我也可以去告，可以上小额法
庭，十万人一起去，顶多就是手续费用。 | l*n
发帖数: 2590 | 4 说得好。我已经发给了几个华人微信群，只要以后发生抢劫事件，我们就可以联合起来
去告死他。 | d********g
发帖数: 11948 | 5 这个足以告他了吧 白宫那个真是joke 这个歌词基本赤裸裸教唆去抢华人而且是针对一
个族裔的，这个不受宪法言论自由保护。
【在 w********t 的大作中提到】
: "The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is
: unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless
: action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action""
: “最高法院指出，鼓动使用暴力的言论，如果这种言论直接导致违法行为，不受美国宪
: 法言论自由保护”
: 在辩论中，这个 imminent 可能会有麻烦，但是，那个歌手的歌词，鼓动了非法暴力
: 行为（抢劫），应该有不被美国宪法保护的可能。同时，根据小布什总统期间颁布的仇
: 恨犯罪法律，出于种族歧视和仇恨的违法，将加重惩处。
| w********t
发帖数: 12853 | 6 那咋就没有人出来告呢？尤其那些家里被抢的，只要在这首歌发表之后，就能告死他。
美国和中国法律制度不同，中国法律强调损失多少罚多少，而美国你可以往整死他要，
当然最后需要法庭裁决。其实黑人劫匪中早就有华人有钱，华人好抢的传闻，许多罪犯
被抓后都供认抢华人的理由。在法庭上，原告方可以强调 YG 的歌直接间接地向潜在罪
犯传达了如何暴力违法的作案信息，作案对象，甚至作案细节步骤。
当然也该同时告他的公司，就算退一万步，赢不了，那么今后谁还想和这个歌手签约就
会掂量着点儿。
【在 d********g 的大作中提到】
: 这个足以告他了吧 白宫那个真是joke 这个歌词基本赤裸裸教唆去抢华人而且是针对一
: 个族裔的，这个不受宪法言论自由保护。
|
|
