Marcus Smart

[Regulator]

I hear Volmav is en route to K.C.

It would appear he was too drunk/hungover to even make it to church today. Lots of irony in that.

 

[therealUT]

You're not free from the repercussions of exercising your right to free speech.

If those repercussions are physical violence, then yes you are.

Sure, Texas Tech can in some sense limit the speech that occurs on their campus and in their facilities (although, there is much debate regarding this, especially coming after KU's new rules on social media use, since public universities are public property, and most explicitly proclaim themselves to be free speech zones). But, none of that matters with regard to the physical reaction by Smart. The man said something, and Smart responded with violence. If free speech does not protect against repercussions such as this, then it is entirely worthless as a right.

 

[volprof]

He can say whatever he wants, but he shouldn't have the opportunity to hide behind the First Amendment after his mouth has written a check and the large black man has come to collect.

This, to second Lawrence's "This." I have no sound legal argument to back up my beliefs here. It's just an old school "man code" thing. Say what you want; speak your mind. But you'd best be willing to deal with the practical consequences.

 

[therealUT]

This, to second Lawrence's "This." I have no sound legal argument to back up my beliefs here. It's just an old school "man code" thing. Say what you want; speak your mind. But you'd best be willing to deal with the practical consequences.

Right, maybe we can bring back dueling over honor, as well.

 

[Regulator]

Right, maybe we can bring back dueling over honor, as well.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

If those repercussions are physical violence, then yes you are.

Sure, Texas Tech can in some sense limit the speech that occurs on their campus and in their facilities (although, there is much debate regarding this, especially coming after KU's new rules on social media use, since public universities are public property, and most explicitly proclaim themselves to be free speech zones). But, none of that matters with regard to the physical reaction by Smart. The man said something, and Smart responded with violence. If free speech does not protect against repercussions such as this, then it is entirely worthless as a right.

No, you're not.

If you provoke a fight verbally, and someone shoots you, you're still shot.

The shooter will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but you're still shot.

You assume the risk whether the repercussions are lawful or otherwise.

 

[Regulator]

If you provoke a fight verbally, and someone shoots you, you're still shot.

The shooter will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but you're still shot.

You assume the risk whether the repercussions are lawful or otherwise.

On the plus side, you have plenty of time to enjoy and celebrate your self-righteousness while you recuperate.

 

[Gramps]

I hear Volmav is en route to K.C.

He's still sleeping off his big night at Capone's.

 

[volprof]

If those repercussions are physical violence, then yes you are.

Sure, Texas Tech can in some sense limit the speech that occurs on their campus and in their facilities (although, there is much debate regarding this, especially coming after KU's new rules on social media use, since public universities are public property, and most explicitly proclaim themselves to be free speech zones). But, none of that matters with regard to the physical reaction by Smart. The man said something, and Smart responded with violence. If free speech does not protect against repercussions such as this, then it is entirely worthless as a right.

Like I said, I don't really have a sound legal argument here, but I just see it a little different. For me (and I have no clue what the Constitution or the law says relative to this) there is a difference in these two situations:

Man in public space says the following:

1. "All black people are n*'s."

2. "You, sir, you there, Marcus Smart. You, sir, are a n*."

Now this is all speculative pertaining to the incident in question. But, my argument is still the same. Situation 1 is acceptable free speech, albeit hateful. Situation 2 is what I would consider verbal assault and even perhaps inciting a riot, by a lose definition of that law code.

 

[volprof]

Right, maybe we can bring back dueling over honor, as well.

I know I'm not on solid legal ground. I recognize that. But, you have to admit: it would keep some stupid mouths shut.

 

[therealUT]

If you provoke a fight verbally, and someone shoots you, you're still shot.

The shooter will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but you're still shot.

You assume the risk whether the repercussions are lawful or otherwise.

Do tell me what the assumption of risk entails? Is it merely that one is aware that something bad may happen? If so, then I assume all types of risks by just thinking of what could happen. I'm sitting in my living room and I am aware of the possibility that some raged killed may come through my French doors at anytime and kill me. Have I assumed this risk?

Or, do I have to play a relevant causal role in the potentially bad outcome? If that is the case, then are you saying that Marcus Smart does not have agency? That his volition is at the mercy of the man who calls him a ******? That seems rather strong. Further, does the man, then, have any volition, or is he just the resultant of some preceding cause, and he has no volitional control over what he says? How far back does this regression go?

Basically, are you arguing that no one has agency (a defensible position)? Or, are you arguing for special exceptions to agency (an ad hoc and much less defensible position)?

 

[Gramps]

If Smart is going to play big time ball he is going to have to learn that some fans are going to be a**holes and he has to tune them out .

 

[Freak]

The fan can say whatever he wants and Smart can respond with whatever verbal response he chooses. Smart putting his hands on a fan is over the line and he deserves whatever punishment he gets, I don't care if the fan spoke the most hateful words ever to come our of anyone's mouth, it's irrelevant.

Now, if you want to discuss the man being removed from the game or having his season tickets revoked, that's an acceptable consequence.

If a fan shoved a player, he would be escorted from the arena. Players should be held to that same standard, at minimum.

 

[therealUT]

I know I'm not on solid legal ground. I recognize that. But, you have to admit: it would keep some stupid mouths shut.

It would keep most mouths shut, stupid and not stupid. It would result in a society in which the only opinions that were publicly aired were those opinions that were already held by the masses. Dissenting opinions would be expressed underground, and then only in very intimate circles. And, society would suffer, innovation would be stagnant, and many would live in fear of expressing their true opinions.

 

[Gramps]

The fan can say whatever he wants and Smart can respond with whatever verbal response he chooses. Smart putting his hands on a fan is over the line and he deserves whatever punishment he gets, I don't care if the fan spoke the most hateful words ever to come our of anyone's mouth, it's irrelevant.

Now, if you want to discuss the man being removed from the game or having his season tickets revoked, that's an acceptable consequence.

If a fan shoved a player, he would be escorted from the arena. Players should be held to that same standard, at minimum.

Excellent post.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Do tell me what the assumption of risk entails? Is it merely that one is aware that something bad may happen? If so, then I assume all types of risks by just thinking of what could happen. I'm sitting in my living room and I am aware of the possibility that some raged killed may come through my French doors at anytime and kill me. Have I assumed this risk?

Or, do I have to play a relevant causal role in the potentially bad outcome? If that is the case, then are you saying that Marcus Smart does not have agency? That his volition is at the mercy of the man who calls him a ******? That seems rather strong. Further, does the man, then, have any volition, or is he just the resultant of some preceding cause, and he has no volitional control over what he says? How far back does this regression go?

Basically, are you arguing that no one has agency (a defensible position)? Or, are you arguing for special exceptions to agency (an ad hoc and much less defensible position)?

You know exactly what I'm arguing.

It's quite simple.

If you want to increase the odds of someone doing harm to you by exercising your right to free speech at the wrong place or time, don't be surprised if you are an intended victim based on opening your mouth.

 

[therealUT]

Like I said, I don't really have a sound legal argument here, but I just see it a little different. For me (and I have no clue what the Constitution or the law says relative to this) there is a difference in these two situations:

Man in public space says the following:

1. "All black people are n*'s."

2. "You, sir, you there, Marcus Smart. You, sir, are a n*."

Now this is all speculative pertaining to the incident in question. But, my argument is still the same. Situation 1 is acceptable free speech, albeit hateful. Situation 2 is what I would consider verbal assault and even perhaps inciting a riot, by a lose definition of that law code.

You have merely presented a distinction without a difference. Saying "All black people are ******s" entails that "Marcus Smart is a ******". In fact, it entails that Barack Obama is one also. Thus, if (2) ought not be protected and be subject to the charge of one count of assault, then (1) also ought not be protected and, further, be subject to the charge of at least two counts of assault.

 

[volprof]

It would keep most mouths shut, stupid and not stupid. It would result in a society in which the only opinions that were publicly aired were those opinions that were already held by the masses. Dissenting opinions would be expressed underground, and then only in very intimate circles. And, society would suffer, innovation would be stagnant, and many would live in fear of expressing their true opinions.

You're absolutely right. I have no sound retort to that other than the "man code" argument, which is obviously not sound. As you are aware, though, we are products of our environment. I grew up in a very conservative environment (regarding personal conduct) where words and actions equaled responsibility. I'll never quite escape that environment, regardless of it being right or not.

 

[therealUT]

You know exactly what I'm arguing.

It's quite simple.

If you want to increase the odds of someone doing harm to you by exercising your right to free speech at the wrong place or time, don't be surprised if you are an intended victim based on opening your mouth.

Like Montgomery, Alabama in the mid-1950s?

 

[Spartacavolus]

You know exactly what I'm arguing.

It's quite simple.

If you want to increase the odds of someone doing harm to you by exercising your right to free speech at the wrong place or time, don't be surprised if you are an intended victim based on opening your mouth.

Its hard not to be amused when fools get what they ask for

 

[therealUT]

Its hard not to be amused when fools get what they ask for

Correct, being a good and decent human is quite demanding.

 

[Regulator]

Instead of responding in a physical manner, perhaps Smart should just have sued the man for Slander. Take everything he owns.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Like Montgomery, Alabama in the mid-1950s?

I see you moved the goal post to the 20 yard line.

You're equating blacks fighting for their constitutionally guaranteed rights that were being denied to the Marcus Smart dialogue.

Yeah, that's exactly the same. :no:

 

[Freak]

You know exactly what I'm arguing.

It's quite simple.

If you want to increase the odds of someone doing harm to you by exercising your right to free speech at the wrong place or time, don't be surprised if you are an intended victim based on opening your mouth.

And the assaulter doing the harm shouldn't be surprised if he's prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[volprof]

You have merely presented a distinction without a difference. Saying "All black people are ******s" entails that "Marcus Smart is a ******". In fact, it entails that Barack Obama is one also. Thus, if (2) ought not be protected and be subject to the charge of one count of assault, then (1) also ought not be protected and, further, be subject to the charge of at least two counts of assault.

You could certainly make that case. I won't disagree. I just personally see a difference. The former does not call out an individual (although it may be implied, if you like), while the latter directly calls out an individual. And I've never really understood what "inciting a riot" is but giving the dynamics of the public space in question, the man's actions could be construed that way. I guess it just boils down to what your definition of "inciting a riot" is. Or "disturbing the peace" for that matter.

And I hate to be that guy, but just because it's in our current legal statures doesn't make it any more right or wrong. Our legal statures are arbitrary, however needed they may be.