The Chaplinsky decision was wrong, Orwellian-wrong
The best defense against the Chaplinsky decision is the Chaplinsky case.
Walter Chaplinsky was attacked, many times. James Bowering the Rochester Marshal, witnessed one attempted attack. After James Bowering leaves, a man named Bowman attempts to spear Walter Chaplinsky with a flagpole. As Walter Chaplinsky was pinned up against a car with the flagpole, he was attacked several more times by others. Then James Bowering returns, and surprisingly, attacks Walter Chaplinsky himself. James Bowering called Walter Chaplinsky a "son of a bitch" and an "unpatriotic dog", while hitting Walter with several body blows. James Bowering then pushes Walter Chaplinsky to the police station, and while James & the mob around him were taunting Walter, Chaplinsky finally called James Bowering a "fascist".
Not only did James Bowering use "fighting words" against Walter Chaplinsky, over & over again ("son of a bitch", "unpatriotic dog"), as did the mob, but Walter Chaplinsky was physically attacked, multiple times, too. Walter Chaplinsky attacked nobody. Walter Chaplinsky did not raise his hands to hit anybody, not even those who were attacking him. Walter Chaplinsky "turned the other cheek", as his Messiah demanded of him.
James Bowering witnessed one attempted attack, seemingly doesn't witness the attempted impalement by a flagpole, but returns with a violent fascist vengeance. James Bowering hits Walter Chaplinky himself, & then he pushes him towards the police station, as I know of no officer ever doing. Maybe it's more compassionate, but "custody" involves using handcuffs, and maybe holding the arrested's arm, but not constant pushing.
James Bowering pushed Walter the same reason he attacked Walter, and insulted Walter, his religion, and his mother ("son of a bitch").
James Bowering is a bully. A fascist authoritarian bully.
The "Fighting Words" doctrine allows for an American citizen to attack another if that person uttered an insulting name to that specific individual. The "Fighting Words" doctrine push that some words by "their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" (Murphy, 1942), and the Supreme Court held in 1942 that since Walter Chaplinsky had called James Bowering a "fascist" (after James Bowering attacked Walter, and after James Bowering was pushing Walter Chaplinsky), that James Bowering was in his rights to pummel Walter Chaplinsky.
The Supreme Court case defies logic. James Bowering used "fighting words" against Walter Chaplinsky prior to Walter Chaplinsky using "fighting words" against James Bowering. If "fighting words" is a thing, then either the first person speaking "fighting words" is guilty, or both are, with the author preferring the former. James calls Walter an "unpatriotic dog" & a "son of a bitch" first, and then Walter calls James a "fascist" or "an agent of fascism", a perfectly apt description, second. James used "fighting words" on Walter first. It would seem Walter's mistake was not attacking the Rochester Marshal immediately after the Rochester Marshal issued his "fighting words".
Look at the chain of events. Not only was Walter Chaplinsky's "fighting words" in response to another's "fighting words", it was also in response to multiple physical attacks, including nearly being impaled by a flagpole. Words are words & actions are actions.
It is in the opinion of this court that physical assault & battery take precedence over any & all utterance of any & all words or clever turn of phrases or idioms.
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942) is hereby overturned & voided.
Walter Chaplinsky was attacked, many times. James Bowering the Rochester Marshal, witnessed one attempted attack. After James Bowering leaves, a man named Bowman attempts to spear Walter Chaplinsky with a flagpole. As Walter Chaplinsky was pinned up against a car with the flagpole, he was attacked several more times by others. Then James Bowering returns, and surprisingly, attacks Walter Chaplinsky himself. James Bowering called Walter Chaplinsky a "son of a bitch" and an "unpatriotic dog", while hitting Walter with several body blows. James Bowering then pushes Walter Chaplinsky to the police station, and while James & the mob around him were taunting Walter, Chaplinsky finally called James Bowering a "fascist".
Not only did James Bowering use "fighting words" against Walter Chaplinsky, over & over again ("son of a bitch", "unpatriotic dog"), as did the mob, but Walter Chaplinsky was physically attacked, multiple times, too. Walter Chaplinsky attacked nobody. Walter Chaplinsky did not raise his hands to hit anybody, not even those who were attacking him. Walter Chaplinsky "turned the other cheek", as his Messiah demanded of him.
James Bowering witnessed one attempted attack, seemingly doesn't witness the attempted impalement by a flagpole, but returns with a violent fascist vengeance. James Bowering hits Walter Chaplinky himself, & then he pushes him towards the police station, as I know of no officer ever doing. Maybe it's more compassionate, but "custody" involves using handcuffs, and maybe holding the arrested's arm, but not constant pushing.
James Bowering pushed Walter the same reason he attacked Walter, and insulted Walter, his religion, and his mother ("son of a bitch").
James Bowering is a bully. A fascist authoritarian bully.
The "Fighting Words" doctrine allows for an American citizen to attack another if that person uttered an insulting name to that specific individual. The "Fighting Words" doctrine push that some words by "their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" (Murphy, 1942), and the Supreme Court held in 1942 that since Walter Chaplinsky had called James Bowering a "fascist" (after James Bowering attacked Walter, and after James Bowering was pushing Walter Chaplinsky), that James Bowering was in his rights to pummel Walter Chaplinsky.
The Supreme Court case defies logic. James Bowering used "fighting words" against Walter Chaplinsky prior to Walter Chaplinsky using "fighting words" against James Bowering. If "fighting words" is a thing, then either the first person speaking "fighting words" is guilty, or both are, with the author preferring the former. James calls Walter an "unpatriotic dog" & a "son of a bitch" first, and then Walter calls James a "fascist" or "an agent of fascism", a perfectly apt description, second. James used "fighting words" on Walter first. It would seem Walter's mistake was not attacking the Rochester Marshal immediately after the Rochester Marshal issued his "fighting words".
Look at the chain of events. Not only was Walter Chaplinsky's "fighting words" in response to another's "fighting words", it was also in response to multiple physical attacks, including nearly being impaled by a flagpole. Words are words & actions are actions.
It is in the opinion of this court that physical assault & battery take precedence over any & all utterance of any & all words or clever turn of phrases or idioms.
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942) is hereby overturned & voided.
Comments
Post a Comment