Lurker > The Admiral

_Near_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

You're strawmanning,

you said that the constitution protects speech against private citizens

i'm waiting for proof of that

back up your shit

It was posted. You're welcome to admit that you're wrong whenever you want. Or that you didn't understand the points you were responding to in post 38.

Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

---

- The Admiral

_Near_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

but it has been delineated by the courts.

please cite me a case where a court used the 1st amendment against a private citizen where there's no state action

You're strawmanning, but what I'm going to cite for you are the cases where the court delineated what types of speech are protected by the first amendment, since this is what I've been discussing here:
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/43-threats-of-violence.html
---

- The Admiral

_Near_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

_Near_ posted...

lol, it's the first thing they teach anyone in con law

but you wouldn't know anything about that. you just make up shit as you go along

You obviously need to study a bit harder.

already graduated and doing bar prep questions every day

which you would fail hard

Make doubly sure you re-visit the section on which type of speech is constitutionally protected and which types are not, since those are most certainly relevant to government actions between two private citizens. The point here being the difference between speech that is legally protected and speech that is a threat and justifies violence.

Balrog0 posted...

this isn't an issue of free speech imo because the person who punched the other person would be in the wrong even if the person who said the n word wasn't actually exercising their freedom of speech

I generally agree with this, except that the definition and lines for what speech is protected and what speech is a threat are first amendment issues. This isn't in the U.S. Constitution, since it does not get that specific, but it has been delineated by the courts.
---

- The Admiral

gamepimp12 posted...

The Admiral posted...

gamepimp12 posted...

The Admiral posted...

_Near_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

Freedom of speech still applies in this case.

it really doesn't, because there's no government action

The government action is the legal protection of that speech, so it most certainly does. You cannot be arrested or justifiably attacked by citizens for exercising your free speech rights.

Actually depending on the location and local laws racial slurs are considered assault

Not in any place in the U.S.

Actually yes.

You're wrong, but I'll indulge you enough to let you post a source so we can pick it apart together.
---

- The Admiral

_Near_ posted...

lol, it's the first thing they teach anyone in con law

but you wouldn't know anything about that. you just make up shit as you go along

You obviously need to study a bit harder.
---

- The Admiral

_Near_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

Free speech is a right you have that cannot be infringed by the government or private citizens.

literally wrong, sorry

You literally don't know what you're talking about, but you seldom do.
---

- The Admiral

_Near_ posted...

This doesn't have to do with free speech, since it's an interaction between two private citizens. Your speech isn't protected against other people.

You don't know what you're talking about here, or in the rest of the post for that matter. Free speech is a right you have that cannot be infringed upon by the government or private citizens. And yes, this means the government needs to take action against other citizens who are infringing upon your speech rights in certain cases, particularly with violence or intimidation.
---

- The Admiral

gamepimp12 posted...

The Admiral posted...

_Near_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

Freedom of speech still applies in this case.

it really doesn't, because there's no government action

The government action is the legal protection of that speech, so it most certainly does. You cannot be arrested or justifiably attacked by citizens for exercising your free speech rights.

Actually depending on the location and local laws racial slurs are considered assault

Not in any place in the U.S.
---

- The Admiral

_Near_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

Freedom of speech still applies in this case.

it really doesn't, because there's no government action

The government action is the legal sanctioning of that speech, so it most certainly does. You cannot be arrested or justifiably attacked by citizens for exercising free speech.
---

- The Admiral

Kimmy knows he doesn't have a point, he just wants attention.
---

- The Admiral

Counundrum posted...

Both are in the wrong but A clearly used provocative language to incite a reaction from B. Freedom of Speech doesn't cover language that could be used to incite violence so they can't use that has a defence.

You don't quite understand the way the law works. Freedom of speech still applies in this case. Language does not "incite violence" just because it hurts your feelings or makes you mad. It needs to be a specific and actionable threat for violence to ever be justified.
---

- The Admiral

Patty_Fleur posted...

The Admiral posted...

It's not an acceptable response to non-violence because we're not animals. The law is simply the formal acknowledgement of that, in this case.

Yet you havent once defended a black guy who was killed by cops. Surely one of the many had been preventable.

Sure I have: Tamir Rice and Walter Scott, to give two examples. If you weren't too busy keeping up your gimmick, you might have noticed.
---

- The Admiral

Patty_Fleur posted...

So what? You just get to verbally insult people free of consequence?

Person B is free to verbally insult back or just laugh and walk away.
---

- The Admiral

It's not an acceptable response to non-violence because we're not animals. The law is simply the formal acknowledgement of that, in this case.
---

- The Admiral

They're both wrong, but the person engaging in violence is more wrong and also a criminal.
---

- The Admiral

No.
---

- The Admiral

lowtides posted...

First off I'm a recluse. I avoid even the people in my life (my family) to a large degree.

I believe I have avoidant personality disorder.

I also can't hold conversations.

I couldn't complete high school because of my mental illness.

I'm a virgin and have no friends except yesterday I decided to go for it with this guy I was cybering with. I'm such a loser and awkward as hell

I'll probably start avoiding this guy down the line

I called it appropriately.

You're obviously articulate and intelligent enough that you could certainly find some job that fits around whatever self-diagnosed disabilities you have. The fact that you're deliberately a recluse just creates a negative feedback loop that reinforces all of things you're complaining about. You're just making excuses.
---

- The Admiral

gmanthebest posted...

BlazinBlue88 posted...

What mental illness?

Laziness
---

- The Admiral

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/12/artificial-intelligence-face-recognition-michal-kosinski

Voters have a right to keep their political beliefs private. But according to some researchers, it won’t be long before a computer program can accurately guess whether people are liberal or conservative in an instant. All that will be needed are photos of their faces.

Michal Kosinski – the Stanford University professor who went viral last week for research suggesting that artificial intelligence (AI) can detect whether people are gay or straight based on photos – said sexual orientation was just one of many characteristics that algorithms would be able to predict through facial recognition. Using photos, AI will be able to identify people’s political views, whether they have high IQs, whether they are predisposed to criminal behavior, whether they have specific personality traits and many other private, personal details that could carry huge social consequences, he said.

In a wide-ranging interview, Kosinski outlined the extraordinary and sometimes disturbing applications of facial detection technology that he expects to see in the near future, raising complex ethical questions about the erosion of privacy and the possible misuse of AI to target vulnerable people.

“The face is an observable proxy for a wide range of factors, like your life history, your development factors, whether you’re healthy,” he said.

Faces contain a significant amount of information, and using large datasets of photos, sophisticated computer programs can uncover trends and learn how to distinguish key traits with a high rate of accuracy. With Kosinski’s “gaydar” AI, an algorithm used online dating photos to create a program that could correctly identify sexual orientation 91% of the time with men and 83% with women, just by reviewing a handful of photos.

Kosinski’s research is highly controversial and faced a huge backlash from LGBT rights groups, which argued that the AI was flawed and that anti-LGBT governments could use this type of software to out gay people and persecute them. Kosinski and other researchers, however, have argued that powerful governments and corporations already possess these technological capabilities and that it is vital to expose possible dangers in an effort to push for privacy protections and regulatory safeguards, which have not kept pace with AI.

Building on this topic from yesterday:
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/400-current-events/75763673

about AI that already exists and can detect homosexuality based on photo analysis with 81% accuracy, face-based political recognition seems like the next step.

While this stuff is interesting, the ability for use in discrimination seems quite high.
---

- The Admiral

The iphone can only do about 10% of what a laptop can.

And 60% of what an Android phone can
---

- The Admiral

Man, those budget cuts are really starting to show.
---

- The Admiral

The actual letter doesn't seem nearly as unreasonable. Businesses do need some structure for how to operate before/after an emergency.

And if you think about it, there will be thousands of people without power who will need food, and Pizza Hut will be the go-to for many of them. If those employees are able to work, they're doing a service for the community.
---

- The Admiral

Since most places in the U.S. have shitty Italian food, going to Olive Garden is somewhat defensible.

If you go to the one in Times Square when you're visiting NYC, though, I will consider you an idiot.
---

- The Admiral

My kind of girl.
---

- The Admiral

That fat guy exerting himself is almost the same color as Darth Maul.
---

- The Admiral

Full Throttle posted...

Trump Supporters then posted a message on reddit asking its supporters to avoid seeing "it" during the opening weekend in hopes the movie would tank..

Literally an entire article about a Reddit topic.
---

- The Admiral

Some city in Alaska
---

- The Admiral

I love these topics
---

- The Admiral

Delirious_Beard posted...

The Admiral posted...

Belowaveragejoel is getting embarrassed again in a political topic. What else is new.

you'd know the feeling more than anyone i suppose

Definitely, I've been embarrassing joel in political topics for years.
---

- The Admiral

Dustin1280 posted...

Hollow Knight is amazing
So is Shovel Knight FYI

Agreed
---

- The Admiral

Belowaveragejoel is getting embarrassed again in a political topic. What else is new.
---

- The Admiral

CountessRolab posted...

BignutzisBack posted...

CountessRolab posted...

BignutzisBack posted...

did you play the first two games

There are others?

soul blazer is the first game
illusion of gaia is teh second

Oooo I will add to my list.

Granstream Saga is the last game in that series, but it's not on the SNES like the other three.

IMO, those are three of best games on the console.
---

- The Admiral

averagejoel posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

This list is oversimplified. I am a libertarian socialist but cannot say socialist or libertarian.

as someone who leans ancom: destroying capitalism needs to take precedence over destroying the state

People like you, who don't contribute anything to society, would be the first to be purged if you got your wish and capitalism and the state crumbled. Literally have no clue how this irony escapes you.
---

- The Admiral

Indeed, never forget to celebrate the heroic men and women who stopped the plague of socialism from spreading beyond the countries it destroyed.
---

- The Admiral

AceWingsta posted...

Did you know there are more than two races

Other races are usually just an inconvenience to the oppression narrative.
---

- The Admiral

AliceofInsanity posted...

They literally can't though since racism comes from a place of systemic power and blacks have never been in that position in America.

I suppose it's fitting that you have Insanity in your username.
---

- The Admiral

davyheinz posted...

Who else took down all their pics, just in case?

Just in case...?
---

- The Admiral

This is literally an article about a Reddit post.
---

- The Admiral

Twin3Turbo posted...

And if you read my whole statement, you would see that I said he should have left it at that. There was 100% no need to add the whole "mistakes shouldn't follow them" bit. It suggests that it's possible that their downright racist actions were potentially a "mistake" and shouldn't follow them for the rest of their lives if it's found that yelling racial slurs and putting a rope around someone's neck is deemed to be a "mistake".

Read post 46. Those comments have nothing to do with this case at all. He said it because this is the reason why details for juvenile cases are not made public in general.
---

- The Admiral

With 81% accuracy in men

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/08/a-i-can-detect-the-sexual-orientation-of-a-person-based-on-one-photo-research-shows.html

Artificial Intelligence (AI) can now accurately identify a person's sexual orientation by analyzing photos of their face, according to new research.

The Stanford University study, which is set to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and was first reported in The Economist, found that machines had a far superior "gaydar" when compared to humans.

The machine intelligence tested in the research could correctly infer between gay and straight men 81 percent of the time, and 74 percent of the time for women. In contrast, human judges performed much worse than the sophisticated computer software, identifying the orientation of men 61 percent of the time and guessing correctly 54 percent of the time for women.

The research has prompted critics to question the possible use of this type of machine intelligence, both in terms of the ethics of facial-detection technology and whether it could be used to violate a person's privacy.

Interesting stuff. This also strongly supports the idea that there are physical facial differences that are clearly correlated with sexual orientation.
---

- The Admiral

cjsdowg posted...

Who would have guessed people defending a black kid being the hung and the cops writing it off, call it an accident. Tell me how do you accidently. Tell me how do you accidently yell racial slurs at a child ?

Literally not one person in this topic has said anything like that. What people are doing is calling you out for posting fake bullshit about the cops "defending" these teenagers when they didn't do any such thing.
---

- The Admiral

gamepimp12 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

gamepimp12 posted...

I love how boys will be boys only applies to white boys

Literally nobody argued that "boys will be boys" as it pertains to this.

Pretty sure the they're kids and they shouldn't have their lives ruined by one mistake is a classic boys will be boys statement

That quote was not even from this case. Read that sentence carefully. Newsone is fake news, and you guys need to stop falling for this shit.
---

- The Admiral

Axiom posted...

The Admiral posted...

Axiom posted...

The Admiral posted...

Axiom posted...

@The_Admiral posted...

Newsone is a fake news site.

http://www.vnews.com/Family-of-Boy-Says-Older-Teens-Deliberately-Hung-Him-Claremont-NH-12308069

Local news site from New Hampshire

And you'll notice this says nothing like the TC's source.

Uh it says he was hung with a rope by older teens who called him racial slurs and even has a pic of his neck. What's different

It says nothing about the police defending this, which is the main point of the TC's anti-cop title. Everyone on CE knows the TC hates the police.

They are defending the kids though. You can argue they aren't defending the actions but they are most definitely defending them

Slattery said police told her there wasn’t anything they could do because one or more of the teenagers claimed the incident was an accident. That explanation didn’t fit the facts she has ascertained.

I mean that's pretty fucked up if true. Taking the word of teens who would lie to save themselves is at best stupid

“It remains under investigation,” he said.

Speaking generally, Chase said his department takes seriously and investigates any crimes that are perceived to be motivated out of racism or other forms of bigotry.

This is not what the TC is claiming.
---

- The Admiral

Two_Dee posted...

for the league's refusal to employ a man at his quarterback position

LOL
---

- The Admiral

Axiom posted...

The Admiral posted...

Axiom posted...

@The_Admiral posted...

Newsone is a fake news site.

http://www.vnews.com/Family-of-Boy-Says-Older-Teens-Deliberately-Hung-Him-Claremont-NH-12308069

Local news site from New Hampshire

And you'll notice this says nothing like the TC's source.

Uh it says he was hung with a rope by older teens who called him racial slurs and even has a pic of his neck. What's different

It says nothing about the police defending this, which is the main point of the TC's anti-cop title. Everyone on CE knows the TC hates the police.
---

- The Admiral

Axiom posted...

@The_Admiral posted...

Newsone is a fake news site.

http://www.vnews.com/Family-of-Boy-Says-Older-Teens-Deliberately-Hung-Him-Claremont-NH-12308069

Local news site from New Hampshire

And you'll notice this says nothing like the TC's source.
---

- The Admiral

No. These are routine hurricanes that we get every year. The only difference is that they're making landfall, which has nothing to do with global warming.
---

- The Admiral

Newsone is a fake news site.
---

- The Admiral

If you murder an innocent man literally just for being in your way, you're a fucking thug. I don't care what your race it.
---

- The Admiral