Is Prince Harry right about our 1st amendment being bonkers?

[Deleted member 199]

From the article:

I would like everyone to know that I am infact [sic] not racist at all.

Well that clears it up. Case closed then?

 

[User.168]

.

 

[Deleted member 199]

The article says she was wanted for "suspicion of racially abusing the pub doorman". Is verbal abuse actually a crime (there)? Or is it more nuanced - if she said something but hadn't made it physical (spitting is mentioned in the article, someone said pushing?) would it be "not a crime", but because she made it physical, the intent then comes into it - which is clearly racial.

We need a resident legal eagle to answer these things.

 

[Deleted member 199]

Harry Gingernuts

I mean, the name I had in mind does have an "n", a "u" and a "t" in it. But it isn't "nut".

 

[lizkat]

I'd be surprised if calling someone a racial slur (in America) ended up in criminal charges, but pushing and spitting, surely means assault charges?

Sometimes calling someone a racial slur in the USA is not protected speech, per a 1942 Supreme Court decision that has come to be known as "the fighting words exception". It amounts to saying that there are occasions where using a slur as a direct personal insult can be seen and should be assumed as incitement to violence. So that's one of the grey areas of the 1A protection of speech.

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org