The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
58

Bobstro gave the practical answer, that it's a stupid idea for many reason. This is for the US in general, states may have laws that say otherwise. It is not illegal to provoke someone or a government official (police), it's done all the time in protest (not riots). It is not illegal to run from a cop who has not detained you in any way, or has not ...


34

In most of the United States, the answer is yes. The First Amendment protects your freedom of speech from government interference, not from private interference. You don't have to be friends with someone who says "war sucks," and you can kick someone out of your house for opposing the invasion of Libya. But corporations enjoy mostly the same First Amendment ...


30

The question actually asked, "what legal theories would support or harm...", is somewhat unclear. But what the questioner seems to be asking is, basically, what would happen if you tried it? The answer, it seems to me, is pretty straightforward. In the hypothetical case, you have been publishing a notice for years, saying "I have not been served with a ...


18

Short Answer The facts described by the OP do not, alone, constitute a crime. However, they are likely to begin a chain of causal events that can lead to a crime following a natural sequence of escalatory stages if the "suspect" does not change their behavior to stop the progression. Let's analyze how this might happen... Analysis Stage One: "...


18

Short Answer It was probably legal to rant and probably illegal to shut down the person doing the ranting. Analysis Generally speaking, "content based" restrictions on speech are very limited, although "time, place and manner" restrictions are allowed if they are reasonable and not a backdoor way to restrict content, under the First Amendment. The "time, ...


17

Denver lawyer David Lane has said, “The First Amendment lives in a rough neighborhood and if you can’t stand the neighborhood move to China … or somewhere the First Amendment does not exist.” "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric." Cohen v. Cali. 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971) At this point, we need to define illegal as used in your question. For instance, do ...


13

Private entities are not restricted by the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for ...


12

Taking the US as an example, the Constitution states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Congress or a state government ...


11

There's a video of a night-time police stop of a 17-year-old driver in Michigan for flashing the officer with high beams. The officer initially states his intention to only give the driver a warning. Unfortunately, the kid decided to play the "am I free to go?" line rather than cooperate, and the officer decided to escalate the situation. At one point, the ...


10

Quite a few states have laws against things like "interfering with a peace officer" or "obstructing a peace officer". This action might or might not fall within that statute, but there's enough variation in wording between states that it's impossible to say in general. It can also depend on some other parts of the situation, such as whether the police ...


10

Section 103 of the German criminal code states: (1) Whosoever insults a foreign head of state, or, with respect to his position, a member of a foreign government who is in Germany in his official capacity, or a head of a foreign diplomatic mission who is accredited in the Federal territory shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years ...


10

In the United States, blasphemy is really not a crime even if it severely offends certain people and tends to cause them to want to riot and kill the person who offends them. Most Americans who are familiar with the law and the U.S. Constitution strongly support this policy and think it is obviously right. Not every country interprets its freedom of speech ...


10

There are lots of times when it's illegal to lie. Among them: impersonating a federal agent (18 USC 912) lying to a federal agent (18 USC 1001); health care fraud (18 USC 1035 and 1347); mail fraud (18 USC 1341); wire fraud (18 USC 1343); perjury (18 USC 1623); False Claims Act (31 USC 3729-33); and libel and slander (common law). But you're right that ...


9

Is this true? The word "employers" suggests that he's using the word institution to include businesses. Yes. So can a person working for a grocery store or drugstore be fired for saying "I didn't support the invasion of Libya" or wearing a shirt that says "War sucks"? Yes. Virtually all of the rights in the federal constitution are only protected ...


9

If I want to protest for or against President Trump and decide to wear a Trump mask, isn't that speech protected by the first amendment? Probably. The matter of intent, in any event, is for a court to decide (if the prosecutor determines that the question should even be presented to a court). For example, someone seeking to rob a bank in a mask would ...


9

Is this illegal? No, subject to some possible narrow exceptions discussed below. Do the social media companies have a duty under the First Amendment to not censor users? No. Indeed, usually, there is greater liability exposure for failing to censor content, for example, by failing to honor a "take down notice" under Title II of the Digital ...


8

Trivially, yes The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do. The government can limit your speech The Supreme Court has recognized categories ...


8

A courtroom is not a podium A court is a forum for resolving a specific dispute. Testimony is restricted for a number of reasons the most all encompassing of which is relevance. For testimony to be admitted it has to go to the issue in dispute. For a person charged under the laws of, say, India, it cannot be in any way relevant what the laws of, say, China ...


7

In United States v. Stevens, a 2010 Supreme Court case that overturned a law outlawing animal cruelty videos, they listed the general categories of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. (I bolded the ones that seem relevant to lying in particular, and omitted the internal citations and quote marks to make it easier to read.) From 1791 to ...


7

Hate Speech is not a crime in the United States. Rather, they have "Hate Crimes" which are charged only when the prosecution wishes to show that the crime was motivated by hatred of a protected class of people (I.E. the killer shouts a slur at his victim.). They cannot be charged in absence. Spoken word, advocacy for policies that favor one protected ...


7

Do flight attendants have an unlimited leeway of forcing the passengers to listen to their gibberish that are completely unrelated to their duties? Pretty much, I'd say. It may not be a good customer experience, but the flight attendant certainly isn't doing anything illegal. You don't have a legal right not to hear speeches that offend your IP ...


6

The bottom line is: yes, there are many statutes, in many countries, criminalizing speech based on the fact that the hearer finds them offensive. These may include: Laws against extremist political sppech (i.e., anti-Nazi laws) Laws against hate speech or racial or sexually discriminatory speech Laws against criticizing or hurting the feelings of specific ...


6

Short Answer "An obstruction conviction cannot stand when it is based on speech protected by an individual’s first amendment right to criticize on-duty police officers" Source: Amicus Brief to Supreme Court of the State of Washington in State of Washington v. E.J.J. I agree with @DaleM's answer. And I want to add to it by picking up on a nuance of ...


6

The Supreme Court makes a distinction between walking and running. The Supreme court allows laws to be made against running from the police (Illinois vs Wardlow), but not from walking away (Terry vs Ohio). Walk away until you get around the corner. Then start running. If the police drive up to you while you are running, stop running and start walking. If ...


6

No, absent a state law to the contrary (and I am aware of no such law in this case) it is not illegal. Universities, as institutions, are permitted to express opinions on political issues, especially political issues that are pertinent to their operations. Indeed, they often do so. (Political candidates are arguably a different matter and certainly ...


6

Although an academy is state-funded, it is not the government, so limitations on what a government is allowed to do are not applicable, and anyway there is no First Amendment separation of church and state in the UK. I presume your school has a formal faith designation, which means that it is not subject to Section 85 of the Equality Act 2010, which might ...


6

Sometimes In general, intentionally false speech gets less protection than other speech, and in some cases it is unprotected. The classic example of speech that is unprotected is "Falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater". Note that this is both intentionally false and highly likely to be seriously harmful to multiple uninvolved people. On the other hand,...


6

Overview The cop is basically wrong. Sexual harassment is not the only kind of harassment recognized by U.S. law. The question and the cop's answer to it, assume that simply asking certain questions is illegal or not illegal, but it isn't that straight forward. Words communicated verbally are part of the analysis, but not the entire analysis. It all ...


5

In this specific case and location, the precise location of the incident was explicitly made a public space via state law not too long before this actual event. They therefore most certainly have no right to privacy. What is interesting to me though is the other side of this, does someone have the right to record others in public spaces, or is it simply ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible