oh no said:
were his videos set around the premises that A) even if someone is mean and says bad words and hurts feelings, they don't have a right to use violence and/or B) that if someone violently attacks them, a person has a right to defend themselves? he's about to find out a jury of his "peers" makes justice not blind and unequal and the letter of the law can be very bendable, especially if you present yourself as a POS who intentionally provokes things like this.
Very well said.
I've never heard of this guy, but based on just what has been presented here in this thread my gut reaction of "I want nothing to do with a knucklehead that goes by the name 'Chud.'" looks to be sound reasoning.
Of course I, and I'm certain most/all on this board firmly believe in ones 1st Amendment right to free speech and the promise that such expression will not carry reprisal from the government. The same of course cannot be held true in the private sector.
So the question becomes, does his free expression absolve him from the illicited response by the party his speech was directed toward and thus enable him to defend himself from a situation that he personally created.
We're fond of saying that "words are not violence" but once in the weeds, there absolutely is verbal abuse and I believe that it can arise to and cross the threshold of assault. Where is the boundary? It reminds me of the words of Justice Stewart in his 1964 opinion,.
Quote:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it
