II. Mullen’s Speech Was Inherently Likely To Provoke Violent Reaction
The fundamental right of free speech on matters of public interest does not come at the expense of leaving individuals exposed to fighting words. Fighting words must: (1) have an addressee; (2) be personally abusive language, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction when addressed to ordinary individuals; and (3) be likely to incite a violent reaction in the addressee, given the context.” Nickolas S., 245 P.3d at 446. Courts have typically limited fighting words to face-to-face confrontations. Citizen, 115 P.3d at 107.
For example, in Citizen, 115 P.3d at 107, Islamic-Americans filed a tort action responding to a newspaper’s publishing a letter calling for American …show more content…
However, the social media posts are just as more invasive than an in-person confrontation. Society encourages individuals to engage positively with others on social media. Individuals constantly check their phones to use social media and communicate with their family. Mullen’s posts on social media invaded Raymond’s personal space. Engaging with others on social media is an efficient way to build relationships, but if someone like Mullen abuses that privilege, it could disrupt the addressee’s ability to focus on other aspects of their lives. Raymond has 4,986 Facebook “friends” and 3,465 Twitter followers, so the posts were highly visible. (R-9:26). Therefore, there was a face-to-face interaction and an …show more content…
The placement of the terms “boot party” and “encajuelados” next to “jihad”, a common term, demonstrate that Mullen was calling for a threat on the Kidds’ lives. (R-8:18). Additionally, during the show, Mullen showed a clip of Savages depicting a man being beaten and burned alive. (R-8:20). In that context, the club’s audience would be able to ascertain the meaning of Mullen’s language. Individuals like Raymond that have sensitivities regarding racial language, would react violently to the insensitive rhetoric espoused by Mullen. (R-6:8). Thus, the words were so personally abusive as a matter of common knowledge that ordinary citizens, minorities, and fathers would be likely to react violently in order to protect their families.
C. Mullen’s Language Provoked a Violent Response from Raymond
Mullen’s language was highly provocative and likely to incite a violent response from Raymond. Political discourse did not give Mullen license to partake in highly offensive conduct. As in Brahy, the social interest in peaceful and non-offensive conduct outweighs Mullen’s language. Mullen already demonstrated his negative intentions by chanting “Keep Kidd out, by any means necessary!” at Raymond’s campaign rally. (R-9:27). Thus, in evaluating Mullen’s words and relationship with Raymond’s former intern who accused Raymond of sexual harassment, Mullen was more motivated by inciting a violent reaction
The fundamental right of free speech on matters of public interest does not come at the expense of leaving individuals exposed to fighting words. Fighting words must: (1) have an addressee; (2) be personally abusive language, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction when addressed to ordinary individuals; and (3) be likely to incite a violent reaction in the addressee, given the context.” Nickolas S., 245 P.3d at 446. Courts have typically limited fighting words to face-to-face confrontations. Citizen, 115 P.3d at 107.
For example, in Citizen, 115 P.3d at 107, Islamic-Americans filed a tort action responding to a newspaper’s publishing a letter calling for American …show more content…
However, the social media posts are just as more invasive than an in-person confrontation. Society encourages individuals to engage positively with others on social media. Individuals constantly check their phones to use social media and communicate with their family. Mullen’s posts on social media invaded Raymond’s personal space. Engaging with others on social media is an efficient way to build relationships, but if someone like Mullen abuses that privilege, it could disrupt the addressee’s ability to focus on other aspects of their lives. Raymond has 4,986 Facebook “friends” and 3,465 Twitter followers, so the posts were highly visible. (R-9:26). Therefore, there was a face-to-face interaction and an …show more content…
The placement of the terms “boot party” and “encajuelados” next to “jihad”, a common term, demonstrate that Mullen was calling for a threat on the Kidds’ lives. (R-8:18). Additionally, during the show, Mullen showed a clip of Savages depicting a man being beaten and burned alive. (R-8:20). In that context, the club’s audience would be able to ascertain the meaning of Mullen’s language. Individuals like Raymond that have sensitivities regarding racial language, would react violently to the insensitive rhetoric espoused by Mullen. (R-6:8). Thus, the words were so personally abusive as a matter of common knowledge that ordinary citizens, minorities, and fathers would be likely to react violently in order to protect their families.
C. Mullen’s Language Provoked a Violent Response from Raymond
Mullen’s language was highly provocative and likely to incite a violent response from Raymond. Political discourse did not give Mullen license to partake in highly offensive conduct. As in Brahy, the social interest in peaceful and non-offensive conduct outweighs Mullen’s language. Mullen already demonstrated his negative intentions by chanting “Keep Kidd out, by any means necessary!” at Raymond’s campaign rally. (R-9:27). Thus, in evaluating Mullen’s words and relationship with Raymond’s former intern who accused Raymond of sexual harassment, Mullen was more motivated by inciting a violent reaction