Posts: 26,407
Threads: 741
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
The US legal definition is extremely broad and I'm not a lawyer so don't care. It is common for common usage and dictionary definitions to differ substantially from legal definitions. Definitions are all over the map, depending on the source...in many cases, exercising free speech by yelling at someone is "assault", in which case your original statement "assault is not freedom of speech" falls apart. By any reasonable measure, and I'd argue in most people's parlance, the term "assault" refers to what is legally called "aggravated assault" and what Bush received was an "insult", not an "assault". It's abundantly clear from his comments that the "victim" ( Bush) didn't consider this an assault of any consequence since he compared it to yelling or flipping the bird, and in fact took it as a sign that his goal of a free society was being met.
Posts: 6,342
Threads: 815
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
It doesn't end there. Peace activists are piling shoes outside the Whitehouse in protest against the Bush crime syndicate. I'm going to ship my smelliest tennies to my sis and have her deliver them for me.
Posts: 10,000
Threads: 626
Joined: Jul 2020
Reputation:
0
davester wrote:
The US legal definition is extremely broad and I'm not a lawyer so don't care...
...in many cases, exercising free speech by yelling at someone is "assault", in which case your original statement "assault is not freedom of speech" falls apart.
'Never said that.
In fact, I said the opposite. "Sometimes, speech and criminal violence are one and the same."
Posts: 1,635
Threads: 158
Joined: Oct 2023
Reputation:
0
davester wrote:
The US legal definition is extremely broad and I'm not a lawyer so don't care...
...in many cases, exercising free speech by yelling at someone is "assault", in which case your original statement "assault is not freedom of speech" falls apart.
Wrong. Show me a case where merely yelling at someone was assault and where the case had a successful conviction. Even if you can provide one, you can't provide "many." The only time yelling at someone could be assault is if what was yelled was a violent threat. And to get a successful conviction, you'd also likely need to be able to show that the violent threat was able to be immediately followed through with. So my original statement does not fall apart. An example of yelling being assault would need to be something along the lines of a guy yelling that he was going to beat your head with a hammer, and he would need to be actually holding said hammer and be near enough to you that it's a possibility he could actually do it. Whereas, simply yelling "I hate you and wish you were dead" is not assault.
Hurling an object at someone with the intent to injure is assault. I understand the insult, and I did read the article and other background to the story. You can't tell me that, even with the primary intent to insult, that it can't be expected that throwing objects at peoples' heads wouldn't cause injury. And if you were more familiar with the insult, you'd know that the insult is specifically about the bottom of a shoe making contact with a person's head. The reporter's target was in fact Bush's head. If we didn't believe that something thrown at our heads would injure us, we wouldn't instinctively duck.
Cultural relativism is no excuse for throwing objects at peoples' heads or otherwise doing harm. Beheading infidels is also a form of protected free speech otherwise. Yes, that is an extreme example, but you opened that can of worm by saying the simple yelling is assault. Or course, it isn't.
I agree that Bush played it cool and was wise to dismiss it. This was the best course of action for him. It would have looked very bad if he had made a big deal of it.
Posts: 1,594
Threads: 40
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
If he'd have taken off his own shoe and thrown it, that would have been cool. :mswerd:
Posts: 26,407
Threads: 741
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Doc wrote:
[quote=davester]
...your original statement "assault is not freedom of speech" falls apart.
'Never said that.
In fact, I said the opposite. "Sometimes, speech and criminal violence are one and the same."
Oops, you're right. I was talking about Dharmadog's statement.
However, where on earth do you get the concept that "speech and criminal violence are one and the same". Perhaps in a totalitarian regime, but not one where liberty was valued.
Posts: 10,000
Threads: 626
Joined: Jul 2020
Reputation:
0
davester wrote:
However, where on earth do you get the concept that "speech and criminal violence are one and the same". Perhaps in a totalitarian regime, but not one where liberty was valued.
You need to read more carefully.
" Sometimes, speech and criminal violence are one and the same."
...Like when you throw a shoe at someone to illustrate your point.
Posts: 1,594
Threads: 40
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
Under current Iraqi law, one can be jailed for years for disparaging any government official. The disparagement may have been earned but is none the less illegal.
Posts: 6,329
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Mar 2022
Reputation:
0
The shoes were not "thrown", they were hurled.
It is disrespectful.
The guy had a platform as a "reporter" and should have used it.
I don't think you could throw shoes at a President in this country .....
Posts: 26,407
Threads: 741
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
DharmaDog wrote: Wrong. Show me a case where merely yelling at someone was assault and where the case had a successful conviction. Even if you can provide one, you can't provide "many." The only time yelling at someone could be assault is if what was yelled was a violent threat. And to get a successful conviction, you'd also likely need to be able to show that the violent threat was able to be immediately followed through with. So my original statement does not fall apart. An example of yelling being assault would need to be something along the lines of a guy yelling that he was going to beat your head with a hammer, and he would need to be actually holding said hammer and be near enough to you that it's a possibility he could actually do it. Whereas, simply yelling "I hate you and wish you were dead" is not assault.
As I indicated above, I don't give a rat's ass about the legal definition. However, from the original source of the legal definition you cited, their primary definition is:
as•sault
noun
1. a violent attack, either physical or verbal
Pretty much all the other dictionary definitions I looked at have the same definition. Therefore, your opinion that physical violence must be threatened doesn't hold water.
DharmaDog wrote: I agree that Bush played it cool and was wise to dismiss it. This was the best course of action for him. It would have looked very bad if he had made a big deal of it.
Bush didn't simply "play it cool" and "dismiss it". He specifically brought it up as an example of dissent in a healthy society, essentially approving such demonstrations. I laugh at your silly "shoe thrown = intent to cause physical harm" BS. Heck, my mother used to throw, nay hurl, her shoe at me (with intent to hit and hurt me with it) when I was a kid and was trying to escape getting whacked for misbehaviour. Should she have been brought up on assault charges?
|
