s*****n
发帖数: 1998 | 1 美国的第一修正案， 指明了有些骂人不被保护：
Fighting words
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1942 in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “f
ighting words”— words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or te
nd to incite an immediate breach of the peace” — are prohibited and are no
t protected by the First Amendment. Almost 30 years later in 1971, the high
court limited Chaplinsky in Cohen v. California by holding that an
individual could not be held criminally liable for wearing a jacket into a
courthouse that said “Fuck the Draft.” The Supreme Court distinguished the
two by
explaining that Cohen’s action was a “simple public display” as opposed
to
a direct insult or intent to incite harm, as was the case in Chaplinsky. (Al
so see Fighting words section.)
True threats
Another form of speech that is not protected under the First Amendment is “
true threats.” The courts have defined “true threat” as a threat that
involves statements with serious expressions of an intent to commit an act
of 、violence to an individual or group of individuals. The Supreme Court
has also
labeled a true threat as a real threat to one’s personal safety (Watts v.
United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)).
注意：不能威胁一个人或者一群人， 你们老将天天说民主后死全家， 在美国也不是被
你洋爹保护的言论 |
w*********r
发帖数: 42116 | 2 大陆民主后死全家当然是受美国保护的。头些日子我说了一句GOOGEL在大陆应该象在美
国一样守法律，结果我们老将说GOOGLE在大陆当然守美国的法律了，还LOL。
“f
te
no
high
the
【在 s*****n 的大作中提到】
: 美国的第一修正案， 指明了有些骂人不被保护：
: Fighting words
: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1942 in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “f
: ighting words”— words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or te
: nd to incite an immediate breach of the peace” — are prohibited and are no
: t protected by the First Amendment. Almost 30 years later in 1971, the high
: court limited Chaplinsky in Cohen v. California by holding that an
: individual could not be held criminally liable for wearing a jacket into a
: courthouse that said “Fuck the Draft.” The Supreme Court distinguished the
: two by
|
k******7
发帖数: 521 | |
s*****n
发帖数: 1998 | 4 这就是刘三百所说的殖民三百年， 一切都是洋爹说了算
【在 w*********r 的大作中提到】
: 大陆民主后死全家当然是受美国保护的。头些日子我说了一句GOOGEL在大陆应该象在美
: 国一样守法律，结果我们老将说GOOGLE在大陆当然守美国的法律了，还LOL。
:
: “f
: te
: no
: high
: the
|
I*3
发帖数: 7012 | 5 麻痹，以后拿狗粮发帖死全家是不是也不能说了？
以前还是个传说，现在300让这个传说变成现实，这句话是不是也算威胁了？
麻痹。
“f
te
no
high
the
【在 s*****n 的大作中提到】
: 美国的第一修正案， 指明了有些骂人不被保护：
: Fighting words
: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1942 in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “f
: ighting words”— words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or te
: nd to incite an immediate breach of the peace” — are prohibited and are no
: t protected by the First Amendment. Almost 30 years later in 1971, the high
: court limited Chaplinsky in Cohen v. California by holding that an
: individual could not be held criminally liable for wearing a jacket into a
: courthouse that said “Fuck the Draft.” The Supreme Court distinguished the
: two by
|
w*********r
发帖数: 42116 | 6 我们老将故意用这个形象来侮辱TG领袖了。
【在 k******7 的大作中提到】
: 小熊维尼威胁了睡啦
|
