This is NOT a pro-lynching song

[RocksInMyHead]

Just so I'm clear, you're good with reprisal for spitting in cops' faces, but you're not OK with reprisal for cussing out cops?

Depends on what you mean by "reprisal". Spitting in someone's face is considered to be assault in most jurisdictions, so getting arrested for doing so would be expected. Getting beaten, lynched, or otherwise attacked for it would be a bit of an overreaction though.

 

[Belk]

Just so I'm clear, you're good with reprisal for spitting in cops' faces, but you're not OK with reprisal for cussing out cops?

One is assault. The other is protected in our constitution.

 

[probinson]

One is assault. The other is protected in our constitution.

I'm not sure that I would agree "cussing out" anyone is protected by our constitution.

The federal courts have found increasingly severe verbal abuse to be protected speech. The First Amendment generally protects the right to free speech, but that right is subject to limitations. Threats, fraudulent speech, and obscenity are not protected.​

​

Does the First Amendment Protect a Right to Verbally Abuse the Police?

www.sog.unc.edu

​

 

[Belk]

I'm not sure that I would agree "cussing out" anyone is protected by our constitution.

The federal courts have found increasingly severe verbal abuse to be protected speech. The First Amendment generally protects the right to free speech, but that right is subject to limitations. Threats, fraudulent speech, and obscenity are not protected.​

​

Does the First Amendment Protect a Right to Verbally Abuse the Police?

www.sog.unc.edu

​

Case law is fairly clear on this. The article you cited notes it is only when it crosses over into "fighting words" that it becomes illegal.

It is clear that a state may not criminalize opposing or criticizing the police. Such a viewpoint-based restriction would be unconstitutional. Likewise, a state may not criminalize the use of curse words to express one’s opinion, whether about the police or anything else. See Cohen, supra. On the other hand, a state may criminalize the use of “fighting words” that are likely to provoke violent retaliation.

 

[probinson]

Case law is fairly clear on this.

Yeah, I don't think it is as clear as you're trying to portray.

At times, profanity is a non-protected speech category​

Profanity can be regulated, however, under certain circumstances consistent with the First Amendment. Profane rants that cross the line into direct face-to-face personal insults or fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment.​

​

Profanity. ​

There's those "fighting words" again. Would you agree that "cussing out" someone rises to the level of "fighting words" that are not protected by the First Amendment?

 

[Belk]

Yeah, I don't think it is as clear as you're trying to portray.

At times, profanity is a non-protected speech category​

Profanity can be regulated, however, under certain circumstances consistent with the First Amendment. Profane rants that cross the line into direct face-to-face personal insults or fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment.​

​

Profanity. ​

There's those "fighting words" again. Would you agree that "cussing out" someone rises to the level of "fighting words" that are not protected by the First Amendment?

No, as noted by your own source it is very rare that it does rise to the level of "fighting words". It requires something on the order of a verbal threat.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, as noted by your own source it is very rare that it does rise to the level of "fighting words". It requires something on the order of a verbal threat.

As a law enforcement officer when someone cussed me out on their own property that was their right. But when it happened in public they were usually guilty of some other offense that they could be arrested for, frequently public intoxication, sometimes disorderly conduct and on a few occasions inciting a riot

 

[Belk]

As a law enforcement officer when someone cussed me out on their own property that was their right. But when it happened in public they were usually guilty of some other offense that they could be arrested for, frequently public intoxication, sometimes disorderly conduct and on a few occasions inciting a riot

That may be the case but it remains that cussing out a cop is protected by the first amendment.

 

[BPPLEE]

That may be the case but it remains that cussing out a cop is protected by the first amendment.

That is correct unless someone makes a threat. A police officer is considered immune to offensive language but not threats.

 

[BPPLEE]

That is correct unless someone makes a threat. A police officer is considered immune to offensive language but not threats.

Saying (expletive) the police is not enough to arrest someone for.

 

[Pommer]

Saying (expletive) the police is not enough to arrest someone for.

No but it screams “look at me” and some are shocked when that happens.

 

[KCfromNC]

Can you point out where the song calls for violence?

​

Well, try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town​

I am glad to see we've moved on from the blatant mischaracterization of "saying the wrong thing".

Yet another mischaracterization of what I wrote. I wish it were surprising that this was the best that could be offered.

 

[probinson]

​

Well, try that in a small town​

See how far ya make it down the road​

Around here, we take care of our own​

You cross that line, it won't take long​

For you to find out, I recommend you don't​

Try that in a small town​

So you're inferring violence. That's what I thought.

 

[probinson]

Saying (expletive) the police is not enough to arrest someone for.

True, but the song mentions "cussing out" a cop, not just saying #%$! Cussing out would be more like...

#%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! you #%$! and#%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! ​

​

and another thing....​

​

#%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! ​

You'd be hard pressed to pretend like "cussing out" a cop (or anyone for that matter) is protected speech. You can't just berate someone endlessly and pretend like you're just exercising your first amendment right to be verbally abusive to people.

Profanity can be regulated, however, under certain circumstances consistent with the First Amendment. Profane rants that cross the line into direct face-to-face personal insults or fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment.​

 

[BPPLEE]

True, but the song mentions "cussing out" a cop, not just saying #%$! Cussing out would be more like...

#%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! you #%$! and#%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! ​

​

and another thing....​

​

#%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! #%$! ​

You'd be hard pressed to pretend like "cussing out" a cop (or anyone for that matter) is protected speech. You can't just berate someone endlessly and pretend like you're just exercising your first amendment right to be verbally abusive to people.

Profanity can be regulated, however, under certain circumstances consistent with the First Amendment. Profane rants that cross the line into direct face-to-face personal insults or fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment.​

One guy gave me the middle finger and I arrested him for disorderly conduct. The judge said that is not disorderly conduct and found him not guilty. I went out and came back in the back of the courtroom.
I yelled to the judge “Excuse me your honor” Everyone turned around and looked. I said “You have a nice day “ and gave him both middle fingers.
The courtroom erupted in laughter and they had to cancel court for that day

 

[groll2000]

Sure....but it is very pro- violence and othering. It makes it clear that you should not go against the local order, though that is a key part of American history.

The song also summons up feelings of "walking when black", so I can understand why people are calling it a lynching song.

It isn’t pro violence by going against local order. It’s against going against local order in the wrong way other than peaceful.

 

[KCfromNC]

So you're inferring violence. That's what I thought.

I notice there's no other reasonable interpretation, just a vague implication that I'm doing something wrong and an attempt at being smug. I doubt anyone's falling for that.

 

[A2SG]

So you're inferring violence. That's what I thought.

Are you contending that violence was not implied by those lyrics?

Okay...so why not try that in a small town? What do you think Aldean believed would happen?

-- A2SG, a lot of wagging fingers and stern looks, maybe?

 

[durangodawood]

Are you contending that violence was not implied by those lyrics?

Okay...so why not try that in a small town? What do you think Aldean believed would happen?

-- A2SG, a lot of wagging fingers and stern looks, maybe?

Yes, stern looks would keep you from making it to the edge of town.

Of course the implication is violence.

 

[A2SG]

Yes, stern looks would keep you from making it to the edge of town.

Of course the implication is violence.

Never underestimate the power of a good, stern talking-to.

I guess.

-- A2SG, isn't that what Andy Taylor would do?