5 ms·

How about that, it is illegal, at least in the US and some other places. I had no idea. I disagree, too; it's highly distasteful but shouldn't actually be crimi

by hk 18y ago

How about that, it is illegal, at least in the US and some other places. I had no idea. I disagree, too; it's highly distasteful but shouldn't actually be criminal - but that's getting off topic. Anyway I stand corrected.

tallanvor 18y ago
It's assault, plain and simple. --How can you justify doing that to someone?
- hk 18y ago
  Assault is punished by law according to physical consequence. If you break someone's jaw, you go to jail. If you break their heart by verbal assault, you don't. There are no physical consequences to being spat on by a healthy person (if they are sick and do so knowingly to infect you, that is completely different). It is an insult, a grotesque one, but an insult none the less, and should be treated as such by law.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    If you break someone's jaw, you go to jail. If you break their heart by verbal assault, you don't. That is not necessarily true. Commission of verbal assault can land a person in jail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words_doctrine#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words_doctrine#United_... The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
    - rudyfink 18y ago
      I am not a lawyer, but I believe this doctrine has essentially not been enforced in recent memory. The subsequent paragraph to the one you quoted steadily showed it being rejected by those who attempted to bring it before the court in the US.
      - gravitycop 18y ago
        There are fresh fighting-words arrest-reports, here: http://news.google.com/news?q=%22fighting+words%22+arrested http://news.google.com/news?q=%22fighting+words%22+arrested
      - matthavener 18y ago
        the test for assault is that a reasonable person would fear for their safety or life the test for battery is that you harmfully or offensively touched someone or something on them i think spitting would fall under both for most juries..
scott_s 18y ago
And if the spitter has, say, hepatitis?
- hk 18y ago
  If someone with an infectious disease knowingly infects another, whether it be by unprotected sex without disclosure or by spitting, then that is malicious intent to harm and is already well covered by law.
  - sounddust 18y ago
    And what if they didn't know they had a disease? It doesn't matter - forcing someone to share your bodily fluids in such an aggressive manner should be a crime. And of course the punishment should fit the crime, but at a minimum, spitting is equal to minor physical assault.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      I've started some dumb comment threads here, but I'm humbled by this one.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
- jncraton 18y ago
  I don't personally know why you got downmodded, but karma isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. Honestly, it doesn't add anything to the conversation to add meta conversation about people not liking your comment. It happens sometimes, and it isn't any fun, but things work a lot better for all of us when we all just move on. From the HN guidelines: "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
  - hk 18y ago
    Fair enough, I hadn't read those guidelines - thanks for the tip. Won't do it again. I do wish those guidelines had something about why to mod up or down, though. Modding something down or up simply because you happen to agree, regardless of the quality or validity of the argument presented, will also lead to boring reading - the majority view, endlessly repeated, since it's the only "safe" thing to post.
    - jncraton 18y ago
      It is somewhat unfortunate that this isn't in the guidelines, but it is a natural tendency and would be impossible to try to clean up by enforcement. Eventually, you will get used to the general group mentality. Some things can be said in a very few words and will be understood and accepted because they follow the way that most of us think. Other things have to be laid out logically so that a debate on your thinking can follow. In defense of the site though, your initial downmodded comment was rather condescending and showed a lack of knowledge of the area. Responding to someones idea with "Huh? You really think that?" isn't very respectful and it shows a certain amount of arrogance. Arrogance is frowned upon pretty heavily here. It doesn't add anything to the discussion when you are correct and is just plain obnoxious when you are wrong. Be humble about what you know, ask questions about what you don't, and provide logical arguments for what you think. That's a big part of what sets this site apart from a lot of the other sites like it.

by hk 18y ago

tallanvor 18y ago

It's assault, plain and simple. --How can you justify doing that to someone?

hk 18y ago
Assault is punished by law according to physical consequence. If you break someone's jaw, you go to jail. If you break their heart by verbal assault, you don't. There are no physical consequences to being spat on by a healthy person (if they are sick and do so knowingly to infect you, that is completely different). It is an insult, a grotesque one, but an insult none the less, and should be treated as such by law.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  If you break someone's jaw, you go to jail. If you break their heart by verbal assault, you don't. That is not necessarily true. Commission of verbal assault can land a person in jail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words_doctrine#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words_doctrine#United_... The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
  - rudyfink 18y ago
    I am not a lawyer, but I believe this doctrine has essentially not been enforced in recent memory. The subsequent paragraph to the one you quoted steadily showed it being rejected by those who attempted to bring it before the court in the US.
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      There are fresh fighting-words arrest-reports, here: http://news.google.com/news?q=%22fighting+words%22+arrested http://news.google.com/news?q=%22fighting+words%22+arrested
    - matthavener 18y ago
      the test for assault is that a reasonable person would fear for their safety or life the test for battery is that you harmfully or offensively touched someone or something on them i think spitting would fall under both for most juries..

scott_s 18y ago

And if the spitter has, say, hepatitis?

hk 18y ago
If someone with an infectious disease knowingly infects another, whether it be by unprotected sex without disclosure or by spitting, then that is malicious intent to harm and is already well covered by law.
- sounddust 18y ago
  And what if they didn't know they had a disease? It doesn't matter - forcing someone to share your bodily fluids in such an aggressive manner should be a crime. And of course the punishment should fit the crime, but at a minimum, spitting is equal to minor physical assault.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    I've started some dumb comment threads here, but I'm humbled by this one.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

jncraton 18y ago
I don't personally know why you got downmodded, but karma isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. Honestly, it doesn't add anything to the conversation to add meta conversation about people not liking your comment. It happens sometimes, and it isn't any fun, but things work a lot better for all of us when we all just move on. From the HN guidelines: "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
- hk 18y ago
  Fair enough, I hadn't read those guidelines - thanks for the tip. Won't do it again. I do wish those guidelines had something about why to mod up or down, though. Modding something down or up simply because you happen to agree, regardless of the quality or validity of the argument presented, will also lead to boring reading - the majority view, endlessly repeated, since it's the only "safe" thing to post.
  - jncraton 18y ago
    It is somewhat unfortunate that this isn't in the guidelines, but it is a natural tendency and would be impossible to try to clean up by enforcement. Eventually, you will get used to the general group mentality. Some things can be said in a very few words and will be understood and accepted because they follow the way that most of us think. Other things have to be laid out logically so that a debate on your thinking can follow. In defense of the site though, your initial downmodded comment was rather condescending and showed a lack of knowledge of the area. Responding to someones idea with "Huh? You really think that?" isn't very respectful and it shows a certain amount of arrogance. Arrogance is frowned upon pretty heavily here. It doesn't add anything to the discussion when you are correct and is just plain obnoxious when you are wrong. Be humble about what you know, ask questions about what you don't, and provide logical arguments for what you think. That's a big part of what sets this site apart from a lot of the other sites like it.