That sure sounds like terrorism to me. Just scare everyone into agreeing with you by being violent toward them, right? It’s the conservative way.
“All he had to do was walk away,” Kolvet said of Boyles
He tried walking away. He walked away and these guys kept following him and taunting him/defaming him. A person can only be reasonably expected to tolerate that for so long.
This was clearly harassment with the intent to goad the professor into an action that Turning Point could spin in their favor. Either a frustrated "leave me alone" or some act of violence. After that, they'd use editing to remove their harassment so that it seemed like he got flustered and/or resorted to violence after the first innocent question.
In the United States, if you insult someone so that they punch you, it's your fault. As we get more non-white or openly LGBT judges and prosecutors, hopefully they will enforce the law as written.
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.[1] It held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
To be clear, it’s not just insults in general. If you walk up to someone and say “you look like poop” and they respond by punching you square in the face, that’s on them. You need to go above and beyond in your attempted insults to raise to the level of fighting words.
Not gonna lie if I saw someone walk up to some dude and say "you look like poop" only to get fucking decked I think id be laughing too hard to care about right or wrong.
if you insult someone so that they punch you, it's your fault
That's not quite true. That's speech that you can be arrested for.
For use of force, or throwing a punch, here's the justifications for force in one of the states in which I've had to work with the law: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.22 Look at 9.31(b)(1). It specifically says that force is not justified based on verbal provocation alone. It doesn't matter what they say. As long as the speech doesn't constitute a threat, then you cannot swing freely and claim self-defense as a legal defense.
The veritas playbook!
*Project Veritas
They need to be investigated as a criminal organization.
Turning point should be treated like the hate group they are.
Absolutely
Why would the police investigate themselves?
How else are they going to declare they’ve been investigated and no wrongdoing was found?
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News