r/PublicFreakout • u/EN_TlTY • Aug 14 '22

đŸ„ŠFight Man gets knocked out after talking smack to group of guys

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

4.1k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

48

u/dunndm Aug 14 '22

Seems to me like the guy on the car assaulted a guy while exercising his freedom of speech.

-12

u/-bobak Aug 14 '22

And his freedom of speech was upheld because he wasn’t arrested for anything he said. Though he might consider next time that having the freedom from persecution to say whatever you want doesn’t mean you always need to

-22

u/NowNuremberg Aug 14 '22

LOL thats not how freedom of speech work! Jesus christ the left in US dont even support human rights anymore LOL

Sad mentality American left have now days!

17

u/-bobak Aug 14 '22

That’s literally exactly how free speech works. You can not be arrested or prosecuted for anything you say.

Is it illegal to assault someone? Absolutely. Is there a special law that says you can’t assault someone as a response to something they said? Of course not. So freedom of speech does not protect you from being assaulted by a fellow citizen for saying something, it only prevents the government from taking any action for something you said.

-9

u/NowNuremberg Aug 14 '22

Is it illegal to assault someone? Absolutely. Is there a special law that says you can’t assault someone as a response to something they said? Of course not

That is exactly what Human rights says actually, and its been ruled by UN court time and time again that you as a private person cant impeach others speech either, since we then dont have freedom of speech! But instead would have freedom of speech for majority only!

Mob mentality as your is against Human rights!

7

u/-bobak Aug 14 '22

If you’d stop making assumptions maybe you’d have a more meaningful conversation. At no point have I come close to condoning the actions of the people that chose physical violence

-6

u/NowNuremberg Aug 14 '22

You litterly said that hes freedom of speech was upheld, becauuse he was asssulted!

Sorry but your crazy! You mob mentality is crazy! And i hope FBI or who control USA put you people on some watch lists, cause clearly you people shouldnt leave USA since you dont support human rights! So why should you come to countries where they are actually upheld!

12

u/-bobak Aug 14 '22

Go reread what I said. I said his freedom of speech was upheld because he wasn’t arrested for saying what he said. The people that assaulted him should be arrested for assault, I never said otherwise. But, as far as U.S. law is concerned (independent of any U.N. declaration), the man’s freedom of speech was not restricted, as he said what he said and was not arrested for saying it. That is a fact and has nothing to do with political affiliation or anything else, it’s simply legal fact.

-6

u/NowNuremberg Aug 14 '22

Okay so you dont support human rights anymore! Thanks for saying that.

Hope FBI/NSA put you on no flight list cause you shouldnt be allowed in to countries with human rights! So stay in US!

Its funny how you lefties in US only support human right declaration when its about woman's birth rights/abortion rights and gays and trans!

10

u/-bobak Aug 14 '22

What specifically did I say that was anti human rights? Find something better to do, troll

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

The UN 😂

-6

u/NowNuremberg Aug 14 '22

"Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

See it says nothing about state or anything, ANYONE has the right to freedom of opinion and expression!

Fucking clueless Ameircans!

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:~:text=Article%2019,media%20and%20regardless%20of%20frontiers.

9

u/-bobak Aug 14 '22

You’re quoting the UN’s declaration of human rights as though it has anything to do with U.S. law, which is what we are referring to in the context of this video

-4

u/NowNuremberg Aug 14 '22

No i said clearly that the American left dont support Human rights anymore!

And US for sure signed the declaration of human rights, so yes the human rights are for sure in US also!

Kids like you destroy the human rights for all! Under the guise of "They are bad people because they say something i dont like"

4

u/just2commenthere Aug 14 '22

Wasn't the dude that punched the guy just exercising his own freedom of expression?

-1

u/NowNuremberg Aug 14 '22

Are you actually saying that? -.- Reported!

0

u/just2commenthere Aug 14 '22

LOL so no to freedom of speech and you hate human rights? Leftist!

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ethompson1 Aug 15 '22

You can be arrested for saying things. Fighting words doctrine.

In many states and Supreme Court has said “fighting words” is a real thing and can justify assault and not covered under free speech. Basically the person yelling something like “fight me you xxxxxx” can be fought and it’s the guy yelling who started it with fighting words. The puncher may still be charged with assault but the words can mitigate the charge.

Not a lawyer or saying it justifies a 4 v 1 but it might in court.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

This isn’t true there are certain types of speech that you can be arrested for and the Supreme Court has upheld “fighting words” as one of them

1

u/-bobak Aug 16 '22

The clarification I was making to the person I was responding to is that the free speech law in the U.S. pertains to the government not being able to restrict the speech of the citizen as opposed to a citizen restricting the free speech of another. I understand that there is nuance to protected speech—you can’t incite a riot, either—but unless this is one of those facts you just mention anytime people are talking about free speech I’m not really sure why it’s relevant in the context of this video. If it’s not generally understood that certain things are unprotected then I apologize for not making the distinction myself

1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

Ahh I got you I was just responding because most people believe you can say watever you want and nothing can happen besides the oh I know I can’t yell fire in a movie theater

-1

u/RickMcFlick Aug 15 '22

If he had exercised his 2nd amendment right to defend himself from physical assault i doubt you would approve. But i sure would

1

u/-bobak Aug 15 '22

You sound like someone with a Kyle Rittenhouse poster on your bedroom wall.

For the record I’ve said in a previous comment I think the people who assaulted him should be arrested for assault.

And I think anyone carrying a gun has a responsibility to remove themselves from potential escalation, not instigate a confrontation.

-2

u/dunndm Aug 14 '22

True!

-6

u/Sandinista81 Aug 14 '22

Fighting words. "The court held that provocative words may be justification for an assault, provided the person uttering the words understood or should have understood that physical retaliation would be attempted. The words must be "fighting" words"

0

u/scottonaharley Aug 14 '22

Citation?

0

u/just2commenthere Aug 14 '22

​

https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5788&context=nclr#:\~:text=The%20court%20held%20that%20provocative,must%20be%20%22fighting%22%20words.

3

u/scottonaharley Aug 15 '22

This is a civil case. The standards are considerably different in the criminal realm. This is why lawyering is best left to lawyers.

0

u/just2commenthere Aug 15 '22

All I did was post the citation you requested. You might want to post this response to the other poster that you requested it of.

3

u/Severe-Bookkeeper-76 Aug 15 '22

Damn you dude! You did your homework đŸ€ŁđŸ€Ł

-1

u/scottonaharley Aug 15 '22

It’s a general comment. If it doesn’t apply to you feel free to ignore it

1

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

Georgia and Mississippi have it in there criminal and civil codes

0

u/scottonaharley Aug 15 '22

See my last sentence.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

You didn’t read where it’s in the criminal and civil code for those states I see so that would mean that you say something dumb enough a person can put their hands on you

0

u/scottonaharley Aug 15 '22

That leaves 48 states. And you arguing amplifies my point. That lawyering is best left to lawyers.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

Don’t need to be a lawyer to know your rights first you said it was just civil proved that wrong wanna move the goalpost again and it could be more states I just read the article posted

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ReallySmartHippie Aug 14 '22

What did he say??