2 ms·

Do you think you could get away with standing in front of a courthouse shouting "fuck the government" for long without getting arrested? The first amendment do

Do you think you could get away with standing in front of a courthouse shouting "fuck the government" for long without getting arrested? The first amendment doesn't protect you from a disorderly conduct charge. Behavior matters in society, and we're not talking about the government here. If you want to behave like an asshole you will have a hard time in a lot of places, and that's a good thing for the most part IMHO.

PavlovsCat 7y ago
> for long Just the fact that all these weasel words have to get added should answer the question without them. Of course nobody would even give a shit if you said it once, like said admin said it once. And the best part is, it's totally speculation whether the ban has anything to do with it. So it's basically just a bunch of people saying "I don't know or care why this happened, because I know something for which they would deserve it", which is saying "fuck arbcom" -- not that we know or care about any of the context, at all. Not even saying "fuck you" to a person. I guess if he had said "fuck wikipedia" it should have been more than one year, because after all, that includes arbcom by definition. I'm pretty sure I said "fuck HN" in other words before, one time I was so mad I actually took a break from posting, and after a year came back with a lot of upvotes on my last comment and a supportive reply. > Behavior matters in society This includes the ban, and arguing "my chess club owner would throw anyone giving them lip out instantly, so" with a straight face. edit: actually, while we don't know for sure what the ban is for, it's pretty obvious it has nothing to do with "fuck arbcom": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Further_comment_from_the_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t... > What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.” My description of much of this as "I don't know or care why this happened, because I know something for which they would deserve it" is correct - it's just not flattering.
jki275 7y ago
You can pretty much do that as long as you want anywhere in the US. That’s not disorderly conduct.
nullc 7y ago
Not that it has anything to do with Wikipedia, -- you're right that you might get arrested, but in the US the arrest may not go well for the arrester: See Cohen v. California (1971) (or something more recent: Thurairajah v. Arkansas). In this case a closer analog would be someone saying "Fuck you" to a judge in court (arbcom), and then the property manager of the courthouse comes (WMF) unbiden by the court and evicts that person from the property and declines to provide any detailed explanation for their actions either to the public or the court. It might well be that the judge would have eventually found the party in contempt and no one would have had an issue with it... but as it is the public is left confused and concerned about the property manager's use of their right to prevent trespass effectively undermining the authority of the established system of governance.

PavlovsCat 7y ago

> for long Just the fact that all these weasel words have to get added should answer the question without them. Of course nobody would even give a shit if you said it once, like said admin said it once. And the best part is, it's totally speculation whether the ban has anything to do with it. So it's basically just a bunch of people saying "I don't know or care why this happened, because I know something for which they would deserve it", which is saying "fuck arbcom" -- not that we know or care about any of the context, at all. Not even saying "fuck you" to a person. I guess if he had said "fuck wikipedia" it should have been more than one year, because after all, that includes arbcom by definition. I'm pretty sure I said "fuck HN" in other words before, one time I was so mad I actually took a break from posting, and after a year came back with a lot of upvotes on my last comment and a supportive reply. > Behavior matters in society This includes the ban, and arguing "my chess club owner would throw anyone giving them lip out instantly, so" with a straight face. edit: actually, while we don't know for sure what the ban is for, it's pretty obvious it has nothing to do with "fuck arbcom": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Further_comment_from_the_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t... > What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.” My description of much of this as "I don't know or care why this happened, because I know something for which they would deserve it" is correct - it's just not flattering.

jki275 7y ago

You can pretty much do that as long as you want anywhere in the US. That’s not disorderly conduct.

nullc 7y ago

Not that it has anything to do with Wikipedia, -- you're right that you might get arrested, but in the US the arrest may not go well for the arrester: See Cohen v. California (1971) (or something more recent: Thurairajah v. Arkansas). In this case a closer analog would be someone saying "Fuck you" to a judge in court (arbcom), and then the property manager of the courthouse comes (WMF) unbiden by the court and evicts that person from the property and declines to provide any detailed explanation for their actions either to the public or the court. It might well be that the judge would have eventually found the party in contempt and no one would have had an issue with it... but as it is the public is left confused and concerned about the property manager's use of their right to prevent trespass effectively undermining the authority of the established system of governance.