Replies to post #9281 on RANT & CHAT - No Politics (RANT-NP)

[Tate202]

Onebgg ...Don't you think her think her words would fall under the category of "Fighting words"? By definition and according to the US Supreme Court, they are words that tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace or provoke the recipient to violence. I am not so sure they would be protected under the First Amendment.

Tate

[AKvetch]

ONEBGG, sometimes things are said in the heat of passion, so to speak. Asking for clarification shouldn't be considered trampling on anybody's rights. We all say things that, upon reflection, we don't really mean.

I'll take her non-response, and your response for her, to mean that even upon reflection, she did mean it. Not being a regular poster here, it takes a while to learn everyone's agenda. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, just as I would hope anything I say that might be unclear would be (civilly) questioned.

AK