Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/3/2006 6:20:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 6:22:15 AM EDT by 89grand]
Well at least in Connecticut anyway, it is.



WOMAN ARRESTED AFTER 'RACIST LANGUAGE' AT TACO BELL
Fri Feb 03 2006 09:24:48 ET

A woman accused of using racial epithets while waiting for food at a Connecticut Taco Bell drive-through window was arrested Wednesday.

Jennifer Farrelly, 19, of East Windsor, has been charged with ridicule on account of race, creed or color and second-degree breach of peace. Farrelly's boyfriend, Eric Satterlee, 22, of Ashford, was charged with breach of peace in the incident.

On Dec. 18, Farrelly and Satterlee became frustrated by the slow service at the Taco Bell restaurant on Brookside Place, according to an arrest warrant. Farrelly banged on the drive-through window and called the Taco Bell attendant, Jamelle Byrd, a racial epithet, according to the warrant. Satterlee allegedly cursed and banged on the window.

Farrelly denied using racial epithets when she was interviewed by police, saying Byrd caused the dispute by ridiculing her for parking her car far away from the drive-through window, the warrant states. Byrd's supervisor told police that Byrd should not have been working the drive-through because he had gotten into a similar incident with another customer, the warrant states.

Ridicule on the account of race huh...whatever
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:27:18 AM EDT
So the more believable of the two persons is guilty until proven innocent because she is (apprently) white? Sounds about right.

The worker, who is know to have problems with people, is assumed to be legit simply because he is non-white.

This is bullshit. How come everything is "freedom of speech" unless you're white and/or Christian?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:29:10 AM EDT
WoW.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:29:27 AM EDT
This type of speech falls under the fighting words exception to the First Amendment.



Fighting words
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In its 1942 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had said to a New Hampshire town marshall who was attempting to prevent him from preaching: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist" and was arrested. The Court upheld the arrest and stated:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
The Court has continued to uphold the doctrine, but despite this vigorous statement, it has also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969), which overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning, the Court held that mere offensiveness of fighting words was not enough, and that the threat of actual violence must be present. Similarly, in Cohen v. California (1971), the fact that Cohen had been arrested for wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets."

Finally, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting cross burning on the grounds that governments could not prohibit speech based on its content or subjects addressed. The court went on to assign some free-speech value to fighting words (although the court ruled that cross burning was not fighting words):

It is not true that "fighting words" have at most a "de minimis" expressive content, or that their content is in all respects worthless and undeserving of constitutional protection;" sometimes they are quite expressive indeed. We have not said that they constitute "no part of the expression of ideas," but only that they constitute "no essential part of any expression of ideas."
The court went on to say that while the government can regulate the mode of delivery of the ideas, it cannot regulate the ideas themselves.

In more recent decisions, the Court has held that fighting words must "reasonably incite the average person to retaliate" and risk "an immediate breach of the peace" or they could not be prohibited.

Be careful what you say and who you say it to.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:29:29 AM EDT
Moving to Mexico, and disappearing, is beginning to look better and better.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:30:37 AM EDT
Call me a kike and the law will be the least of your worries.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:31:03 AM EDT
I have a good idea of the dynamics of this situation....

I wonder what would happen of you have a black person calling a white fast food worker honkey and crackah....

As we all know, nothing....
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:32:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rugerp345:
This type of speech falls under the fighting words exception to the First Amendment.
.
.
.

I would have less objection to it if were EQUALLY applied.

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:34:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By rugerp345:
This type of speech falls under the fighting words exception to the First Amendment.
.
.
.

I would have less objection to it if were EQUALLY applied.




A HUGE +1
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:36:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
Call me a kike and the law will be the least of your worries.



What's a kike?

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:37:55 AM EDT
Well, there goes rap music.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:38:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By POWER03:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By rugerp345:
This type of speech falls under the fighting words exception to the First Amendment.
.
.
.

I would have less objection to it if were EQUALLY applied.




A HUGE +1



yep. i'd like to see that official list of racial slurs and epithets. anyone wanna' bet "cracker" and "honkey" aren't on there...
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:39:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:40:27 AM EDT
I wonder how this law would apply to a person ridiculing the race, creed or color of a person whom is also
of the same race, creed or color? (the law doesn't make any distinction).


Sec. 53-37. Ridicule on account of race, creed or color. Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both.
(1949 Rev., S. 8376.)

www.cga.ct.gov/2001/pub/Chap939.htm
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:41:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By rugerp345:
This type of speech falls under the fighting words exception to the First Amendment.
.
.
.

I would have less objection to it if were EQUALLY applied.




What he said.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:42:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
Call me a kike and the law will be the least of your worries.



What's a kike?

They're usually made of paper or light plastic. You tie a string to them and let the wind take them up high.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:43:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
Call me a kike and the law will be the least of your worries.



What's a kike?



slur delivered towards people of the Jewish religion.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:45:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
The trend in this country that makes hurting someones feelings a crime is really going to catch up with everyone one day.



Like when punishing someone for hurting someone's feelings equates to hurting their feelings. The paradox will tear the fabric of space and time completely apart.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 6:45:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 7:06:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LoginName:
I wonder how this law would apply to a person ridiculing the race, creed or color of a person whom is also
of the same race, creed or color? (the law doesn't make any distinction).


Sec. 53-37. Ridicule on account of race, creed or color. Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both.
(1949 Rev., S. 8376.)

www.cga.ct.gov/2001/pub/Chap939.htm


Good point.

What do they say about "reverse-discrimination" or "reverse-racism"
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 7:07:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
I can't help but wonder why the girl didn't spit in their food like evereyone else does.



Uh, the girl was the customer. Why would she spit in her own food??

The one pressing charges is the guy in the window.

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 7:10:13 AM EDT
"10-4, thoughtpolice enroute."
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 7:12:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
The trend in this country that makes hurting someones feelings a crime is really going to catch up with everyone one day.



Like when punishing someone for hurting someone's feelings equates to hurting their feelings. The paradox will tear the fabric of space and time completely apart.




I will be retiring from YMCA basketball in March. I just can't handle the double-standard racism. Some black players in the league love run their mouths off. I've been called "trailer trash" and "white trash piece of shit", "Sabonis" "Vlade Divac". These black guys are baiting me and others into dropping an "N" bomb so they can have their little race riot at the Y. One guy even threatened to kill me. He said, "I'll kill you. I've killed before and I'll kill again." Of course, I knew he was just acting tough, but Jesus H. Christ. He likes to play dirty- grabbing and holding are against the rules of basketball. So I pushed him away when he grabbed me during a rebound. It is apparently OK for a Black man to put his hands on a white man, but not vice-versa. He also told me I couldn't "make it" on the playground league. If I wanted to play thugball, I would go to the ghetto. However, I prefer to play basketball indoors in a league, with referees. Call me white.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 7:26:45 AM EDT
You white folks better start reproducing like crazy, because if you think this shit is bad, just wait till we become the minority in this country.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 7:30:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 89grand:
Well at least in Connecticut anyway, it is.



WOMAN ARRESTED AFTER 'RACIST LANGUAGE' AT TACO BELL
Fri Feb 03 2006 09:24:48 ET

A woman accused of using racial epithets while waiting for food at a Connecticut Taco Bell drive-through window was arrested Wednesday.

Jennifer Farrelly, 19, of East Windsor, has been charged with ridicule on account of race, creed or color and second-degree breach of peace. Farrelly's boyfriend, Eric Satterlee, 22, of Ashford, was charged with breach of peace in the incident.

On Dec. 18, Farrelly and Satterlee became frustrated by the slow service at the Taco Bell restaurant on Brookside Place, according to an arrest warrant. Farrelly banged on the drive-through window and called the Taco Bell attendant, Jamelle Byrd, a racial epithet, according to the warrant. Satterlee allegedly cursed and banged on the window.

Farrelly denied using racial epithets when she was interviewed by police, saying Byrd caused the dispute by ridiculing her for parking her car far away from the drive-through window, the warrant states. Byrd's supervisor told police that Byrd should not have been working the drive-through because he had gotten into a similar incident with another customer, the warrant states.

Ridicule on the account of race huh...whateverhinking.gif



That's Connecticunt for you.


I hate that state.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 7:34:21 AM EDT

This type of speech falls under the fighting words exception to the First Amendment.


The UCMJ has this too. It's called provoking speeches and gestures. Funny how you can use just about any insult or talk any crap to an MP and he won't charge you with it. Don't try the same thing with a DA cop though!
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 7:41:11 AM EDT
We really need to do something about all those Polocks........
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 8:29:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rugerp345:
This type of speech falls under the fighting words exception to the First Amendment.



And if some lib commie SOB ever burns an American flag in front of me, they will quickly come to understand what "fighting words" and "intense personal pain" mean very quickly.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 8:47:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 8:49:36 AM EDT by legalese77]

Originally Posted By rugerp345:
In more recent decisions, the Court has held that fighting words must "reasonably incite the average person to retaliate" and risk "an immediate breach of the peace" or they could not be prohibited.

Be careful what you say and who you say it to.



Chaplinsky has been called into doubt by Greene v Barber 310 F.3d 889. It should also be noted that Chaplinsky represents a rather narrow holding. This case is frequently distinguished by the Courts and occasionally has been rejected pursuant to separate state law grounds.

It also bears noting that Chaplinsky was decided by the SCOTUS in 1942. Quite a bit has changed since 1942. The "likely to cause a breach of the peace" rationale is questionable at best. This is particularly true since the law has developed such that mere threatening words are not enough to support a claim of self defense. If threats of violence alone don't justify a breach of the peace under the law, how is it reasonable to think that an insult or epithet would reasonably incite the average person to retaliate such that there was a genuine risk of imminent breach of the peace?

I'm not suggesting that you're not correct, BTW.... just suggesting that Chaplinsky is inconsistent with other holdings, a narrow holding and probably an outdated case that is ripe to be overturned.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 8:51:25 AM EDT
Damn, I've been called quite a few names that apply to me and some that don't and I never felt the need to call 911.

Yes officer, this man called me a farging icehole. Please rush over immediately because he may call me a WOP, Deago (don't know the spelling on either, who cares), or cracker next. I was just referred to as vannilla so I want an immediate beat down of the perp as soon as you arrive.

What, oh yes I am white. OK, I'll hold. What? You say that you can't come until I use fighting words? Oh, I see, it doesn't apply to me becasue I'm white. Thanks anyway officers.

What ever happened to sticks and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 8:59:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By wgjhsafT:
Damn, I've been called quite a few names that apply to me and some that don't and I never felt the need to call 911.

Yes officer, this man called me a farging icehole. Please rush over immediately because he may call me a WOP, Deago (don't know the spelling on either, who cares), or cracker next. I was just referred to as vannilla so I want an immediate beat down of the perp as soon as you arrive.

What, oh yes I am white. OK, I'll hold. What? You say that you can't come until I use fighting words? Oh, I see, it doesn't apply to me becasue I'm white. Thanks anyway officers.

What ever happened to sticks and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me?[/quote]


If I remember correctly, that left about the same time Jimmy Carter made his exit.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:08:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:10:02 AM EDT
Well well well...

Why hasnt the ACLU been all over this one?


BTW I've been called a WASP, honky, and a cracka... I really don't give a flying fuck


Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:12:10 AM EDT
So I can call the cops the next time I get called cracker?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:12:39 AM EDT
While it may be rude, I hardly feel it's an arrestable offense. Welcome to the NWO.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:14:39 AM EDT
sticks and stones may break may bones, but words will never hurt me, but say that shit to me in Conn and your ass be goin' to jail cracka.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:18:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 9:19:11 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Uh, Jennifer....those 'people' are back there in the kitchen alone with your food and drink.

Do you really think it wise to get into any sort of argument with 'them'???

Just a word to the wise.

Eric The(Wise)Hun
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:19:02 AM EDT
Apparently not all speech is protected.

In my state is is illegal to make a false report of an emergency
the make annoying telephone calls
To make malicious 911 calls
To challange another to fight in a public place
To threaten a person with specific immediate threats of death or GBI
To use words "likely to invoke a violent reaction" in a public place

apparently you cant say whatever you want whenever you want.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:27:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
Call me a kike and the law will be the least of your worries.



weren't Phillistines an Indo-European tribe?????
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:30:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By POWER03:
Moving to Mexico, and disappearing, is beginning to look better and better.




Good news, Mexico is moving to you so that should help you do this almost effortlessly!
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:33:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
Call me a kike and the law will be the least of your worries.



weren't Phillistines an Indo-European tribe?????



Phillistines came from the sea (Mediterannean), probably greece, crete, sicily...they are not of Arab decent. Israelis were there first, and hence have full rights to the land of God.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:35:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Uh, Jennifer....those 'people' are back there in the kitchen alone with your food and drink.

Do you really think it wise to get into any sort of argument with 'them'???

Just a word to the wise.

Eric The(Wise)Hun



Exactly, that's why I hold back the racial slurs and other insults until after they've handed me my food.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:37:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
Call me a kike and the law will be the least of your worries.



weren't Phillistines an Indo-European tribe?????



Phillistines came from the sea (Mediterannean), probably greece, crete, sicily...they are not of Arab decent. Israelis were there first, and hence have full rights to the land of God.




"Philistines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The historic Philistines (פלשתים Hebrew plishtim) (see "other uses" below) were a people who inhabited the southern coast of Canaan around the time of the arrival of the Israelites, their territory being named Philistia in later contexts. Their origin has been debated among scholars, but modern archaeology has suggested early cultural links with the Mycenean world in mainland Greece. Though the Philistines adopted local Canaanite culture and language before leaving any written texts, an Indo-European origin has been suggested for a handful of known Philistine words."


So calling someone a philistine or a cretan would be against the law now????

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:44:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
The trend in this country that makes hurting someones feelings a crime is really going to catch up with everyone one day.



It already has in countires like England and South Africa.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:48:23 AM EDT
Well, in defense of this law, many cultures and places have symbolic things they do or say to signal that the time for words is over, let's fight. I remember seeing something on TV about it. In Mexico, the sign that it's time to throw down looks like brushing long gloves off from your elbows down to the tips of your fingers. You'd put your hand palm down on the top of your forearm and sweep down to the fingers on one side and then the other. If the other guy's still standing there two seconds later he's getting hit. It at least gives him warning that you're about to break his face for him.

So.

If you go up to a black man (assuming you're white) and drop the N-bomb on him, take a guess as to what's coming next? It's gonna be a fist.

You know what would be a good thing? If white people had a Fighting Word we could agree on. You walk up to a white man and call him a "something" and it's time for HIM to throw down. Or a symbolic gesture like they have in Mexico.

There is no one specific word that somebody could come up and say to my face to provoke me to fight. Is that a good thing? I'm not so sure. Since black people have a specific "fighting word" if you say it to a black person then IIRC they are not necessarily subject to the same "he started it" thing. Essentially, the person that dropped the N-bomb (notice that I can't even type the word on this anonymous forum, even though it's not directed at anyone in particular and is specifically only meant to serve as an example of a fighting word) started it.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:50:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Uh, Jennifer....those 'people' are back there in the kitchen alone with your food and drink.

Do you really think it wise to get into any sort of argument with 'them'???

Just a word to the wise.

Eric The(Wise)Hun


Yeah, fast food workers are infamous for giving your food a "extra" ingredient
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:51:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pv74:
Well well well...

Why hasnt the ACLU been all over this one?


BTW I've been called a WASP, honky, and a cracka... I really don't give a flying fuck





A mid-30's Asian woman at the local grocery store called me a kwailoh a couple weeks ago. That pissed me off. But what am I gonna do about it? Go slap her in the face? No, I just maintained my composure and buy my food elsewhere now.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:51:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:56:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 10:00:21 AM EDT by 89grand]

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
Well, in defense of this law, many cultures and places have symbolic things they do or say to signal that the time for words is over, let's fight. I remember seeing something on TV about it. In Mexico, the sign that it's time to throw down looks like brushing long gloves off from your elbows down to the tips of your fingers. You'd put your hand palm down on the top of your forearm and sweep down to the fingers on one side and then the other. If the other guy's still standing there two seconds later he's getting hit. It at least gives him warning that you're about to break his face for him.

So.

If you go up to a black man (assuming you're white) and drop the N-bomb on him, take a guess as to what's coming next? It's gonna be a fist.

You know what would be a good thing? If white people had a Fighting Word we could agree on. You walk up to a white man and call him a "something" and it's time for HIM to throw down. Or a symbolic gesture like they have in Mexico.

There is no one specific word that somebody could come up and say to my face to provoke me to fight. Is that a good thing? I'm not so sure. Since black people have a specific "fighting word" if you say it to a black person then IIRC they are not necessarily subject to the same "he started it" thing. Essentially, the person that dropped the N-bomb (notice that I can't even type the word on this anonymous forum, even though it's not directed at anyone in particular and is specifically only meant to serve as an example of a fighting word) started it.



Wow! You actually believe that's the reason for this B.S.?

It's plain and simple really, and it has nothing to do with "fighting words", it's all about liberal reverse discrimination. Me calling any minority some racial slur is EXACTLY the same thing as one of them calling me whitey, cracker or whatever.

I doubt most minorities really care about names that much either, but hey they'll never let on to that fact. They get their asses kissed for pretending to be all offended, they're not going to do anything to jepordize that.

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:07:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 89grand:

Originally Posted By Peak_Oil:
Well, in defense of this law, many cultures and places have symbolic things they do or say to signal that the time for words is over, let's fight. I remember seeing something on TV about it. In Mexico, the sign that it's time to throw down looks like brushing long gloves off from your elbows down to the tips of your fingers. You'd put your hand palm down on the top of your forearm and sweep down to the fingers on one side and then the other. If the other guy's still standing there two seconds later he's getting hit. It at least gives him warning that you're about to break his face for him.

So.

If you go up to a black man (assuming you're white) and drop the N-bomb on him, take a guess as to what's coming next? It's gonna be a fist.

You know what would be a good thing? If white people had a Fighting Word we could agree on. You walk up to a white man and call him a "something" and it's time for HIM to throw down. Or a symbolic gesture like they have in Mexico.

There is no one specific word that somebody could come up and say to my face to provoke me to fight. Is that a good thing? I'm not so sure. Since black people have a specific "fighting word" if you say it to a black person then IIRC they are not necessarily subject to the same "he started it" thing. Essentially, the person that dropped the N-bomb (notice that I can't even type the word on this anonymous forum, even though it's not directed at anyone in particular and is specifically only meant to serve as an example of a fighting word) started it.



Wow! You actually believe that's the reason for this B.S.?

It's plain and simple really, and it has nothing to do with "fighting words", it's all about liberal reverse discrimination. Me calling any minority some racial slur is EXACTLY the same thing as one of them calling me whitey, cracker or whatever.




No, I don't really like the law, it's just that it's not all that uncommon for other cultures to standardize a method by which parties can agree to fight. If there was something like that for white people then I think it would be a little tougher for black people that use racist language while assaulting white kids to get away with what would be called a hate crime if the races were reversed. As it is, this law gives special privelege to non-whites, and non-white males specifically. There is a special word you can call any woman and assume that you could be justifiably slapped across the face.

I'll go on the record and say that not only is this law bad but so are all hate-crime laws, as IMO they define thoughtcrime exactly like the book 1984 lays it out. It's not just assault because you were thinking about the person's race while committing the crime. So it's a horrible idea that I wish was abolished. But here it is for now.

I bet that if white males picked a fighting word and threw down every time they heard it come out of somebody's mouth that all the hate-crime laws would be struck down. It would have to be something that both conservatives and liberals would agree on, by the way.

Not that I'm suggesting that white males should do this, it's just a thought exercise.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:17:27 AM EDT
Why was she eating at Taco Bell in the fyrst place?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top