Whose side do you take?

[MadSquabbles500]

Person A is disturbing the peace, unless he has some permit or something to speak his mind out loud in public places. You do not have the right to harass people.

 

[silicavaginitis]

Side A is a douche for sure but if a person is unhinged enough to resort to violence over words,you need to be wary of them.Their thought process has become distorted to a primitive mentality.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Person A: is standing in a public park spewing all kinds hateful speech, using racial slurs, but not physically threatening anybody

Person B: is a hippy and speaks nothing but peace and equality for all

Situation: B is listening to A talk from a nearby park bench. Person B begins to notice people walking away from A visibly distraught. This upsets him and he approaches A and begins to speak out against him. Growing frustrated at the hateful speech person B attacks person A.

Was person A wrong for their actions? Ideologically it may be easier to side with world peace but is it ok to physically attack?

Now this all should be fairly obvious to most of us, but by some of the recent conversation I'm curious as to what some of you will say

It's pretty obvious that Mr.B is not all peace and love and does not respect equal rights under the law.

He should have debated and refuted A, which given how you characterize Mr. A, would not be that hard to do.

That said, Mr.A is an asshole, and I'd much rather hang out with Mr.B.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Person A is disturbing the peace, unless he has some permit or something to speak his mind out loud in public places. You do not have the right to harass people.

If you are from Jersey or Queens, maybe you need a permit to speak your mind in a public place, but in Cleveland you do not.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

You did. You exactly asked if Person A was wrong for his actions. The action you gave was spewing hate speech in a public park. That's wrong.

Oh you seemed to have missed the overall question then. I don't mean that sarcastically either because I understand your point. I'm asking from a legal standpoint. Morally I think a lot of us side of with world peace over hate speech, but you can't go around assaulting people that aren't violent without repercussion agreed?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

It's pretty obvious that Mr.B is not all peace and love and does not respect equal rights under the law.

He should have debated and refuted A, which given how you characterize Mr. A, would not be that hard to do.

That said, Mr.A is an asshole, and I'd much rather hang out with Mr.B.

I don't believe anybody can be ALL peace and love. The point was to say that is what B stands for generally speaking. Everybody has their triggers/limits though. I think I'm really addressing the fact that while we may not agree with people. Sometimes it may sound downright ugly... But the law HAS to protect their speech for the good of all people. It's a weird concept that seems easy to grasp, but a lot of people don't want to accept that hateful speech is protected speech

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I don't believe anybody can be ALL peace and love. The point was to say that is what B stands for generally speaking. Everybody has their triggers/limits though.

I understand and agree wit those points. My point is that if B's limits/triggers are so easily reached, then peace and love is not what they stand for generally speaking. Just because someone claims to be for peace, does not mean that they are. B's actions suggests they are not terribly interested in either peace or love when push comes to shove. Love is a lot of work and takes lot of tolerance of bullshit. Peace isn't much different. Talking about love is cheap and easy; truly showing love can be damn hard and it can cost you.

I think I'm really addressing the fact that while we may not agree with people. Sometimes it may sound downright ugly... But the law HAS to protect their speech for the good of all people. It's a weird concept that seems easy to grasp, but a lot of people don't want to accept that hateful speech is protected speech

I 100% agree, despite my nitpicking with your hypothetical I think you and I are on the same page about this.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Person A: is standing in a public park spewing all kinds hateful speech, using racial slurs, but not physically threatening anybody

Person B: is a hippy and speaks nothing but peace and equality for all

Situation: B is listening to A talk from a nearby park bench. Person B begins to notice people walking away from A visibly distraught. This upsets him and he approaches A and begins to speak out against him. Growing frustrated at the hateful speech person B attacks person A.

Was person A wrong for their actions? Ideologically it may be easier to side with world peace but is it ok to physically attack?

Now this all should be fairly obvious to most of us, but by some of the recent conversation I'm curious as to what some of you will say

Who I side with and what is right are 2 different things. Person A is free to say what ever he wants, but he must be willing to accept the repercussions of his actions - including getting punched in the face.

Person B is also free to be offended, but if he decides to throw a punch then he must also be prepared to face the consequences - including being arrested, beaten, or both.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I understand and agree wit those points. My point is that if B's limits/triggers are so easily reached, then peace and love is not what they stand for generally speaking. Just because someone claims to be for peace, does not mean that they are. B's actions suggests they are not terribly interested in either peace or love when push comes to shove. Love is a lot of work and takes lot of tolerance of bullshit. Peace isn't much different. Talking about love is cheap and easy; truly showing love can be damn hard and it can cost you.



I 100% agree, despite my nitpicking with your hypothetical I think you and I are on the same page about this.

I expected it. Hypotheticals are hard to get right. Especially with this charged of a scenario

 

[Nameless Ghoul]

Person B should just walk away?

 

[AviatorShades]

As someone who is always right about everything, I've never felt even the slightest desire to physically attack anyone in an argument. It's always the other way around.

What is a man going to do? Just admit he's wrong and you're his new master? When you take their worldview apart piecemeal it's a matter of time until they get physical.

 

[silicavaginitis]

Person B should just walk away?

Yes.He has absolutely no restraints holding them there.

 

[silicavaginitis]

Really the only reason to go to these things is if you are looking for trouble.

 

[SpartanKhmy]

Need to know if person A or B is white or black before i can make any determination...

 

[Gunny]

Person A: is standing in a public park spewing all kinds hateful speech, using racial slurs, but not physically threatening anybody

Person B: is a hippy and speaks nothing but peace and equality for all

Situation: B is listening to A talk from a nearby park bench. Person B begins to notice people walking away from A visibly distraught. This upsets him and he approaches A and begins to speak out against him. Growing frustrated at the hateful speech person B attacks person A.

Was person A wrong for their actions? Ideologically it may be easier to side with world peace but is it ok to physically attack?

Now this all should be fairly obvious to most of us, but by some of the recent conversation I'm curious as to what some of you will say

Even though I don't like it, person B has forced me to come to the defense of person A where I otherwise would have put him right out of my mind. Which, in turn makes me resent person B that much more.

 

[RIPWarrior]

Need to know if person A or B is white or black before i can make any determination...

It's obvious person A will always be white.

Person B, the progressive, is a brainwashed drone because person B will not doing anything about these people:

 

[RIPWarrior]

The progressive brown shirts are growing in numbers which is a scary thought.

Look at how many on here want to silence me.

 

[machidafan99]

Menacing is the name of a criminal offense in many US states. The wording and degrees of the offense vary from state to state. It often consists of displaying a weapon to a person with the intention of threatening them with bodily harm from the said weapon, or of criminally threatening another, or otherwise putting them in fear of physical harm. Depending on state, degrees of offense range from a misdemeanor for first time offenders, to low to mid level felonies for offenders with a prior menacing charge. The tangentially related crime of "Menacing By Stalking" was introduced as a new charge in some states following the popularization of laws specifically targeting stalking behavior, in which a perpetrator adopts a long-term pattern of actions designed to frighten and harass a victim while still adhering to the letter of existing harassment laws.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Person A: is standing in a public park spewing all kinds hateful speech, using racial slurs, but not physically threatening anybody

Person B: is a hippy and speaks nothing but peace and equality for all

Situation: B is listening to A talk from a nearby park bench. Person B begins to notice people walking away from A visibly distraught. This upsets him and he approaches A and begins to speak out against him. Growing frustrated at the hateful speech person B attacks person A.

Was person A wrong for their actions? Ideologically it may be easier to side with world peace but is it ok to physically attack?

Now this all should be fairly obvious to most of us, but by some of the recent conversation I'm curious as to what some of you will say

Fighting words aren't always protected as free speech even in the US so depending on the local and states laws at play here person A could've broken the law first. Assuming there are no fighting words statutes then person B was legally wrong but beyond the law I wouldn't really blame person B for laying an ass whooping on an asshole as long he was willing to deal with the consequences.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

If you physically attack somebody you are in the wrong every time.