Jan 19 2001:

Dear Group,

Remember my post about good leaders and how so many of you
failed to choose good leaders just like the Negroes failed to
do so.

Don't you think I am brilliant how well I pegged The Rev.
Jessie Jackson? What a Putz! What a loser! What a hypocrite!
What a sinner! What a law breaker! In short, WHAT A ******!

The very nerve of the man to fornicate, commit adultery,
engage in a two-year cover-up, spend funds from a
not-for-profit organization, etc. Has he no shame?

Before you go getting upset, try to remember that '******', as
exlained in the previous post, is not a racial slut. To me a
****** is anyone of any color who has no morals, no standards,
no scruples, no sense of decency and no reason to be called a
man. Make no mistake, Jessie Jackson is NOT a man. Rather, he
is a hedonsitic fool and a super-hypocrite. Those who fail to
severely chastise him and ostracize him for his misdeeds
deserve to remain cast in the mold of stupid sheep.

Sailors need to understand this because sailors who follow
morally and ethically bankrupt leaders the likes of the Rev.
Jessie Jackson should expect to come to as much grief as the
inept Reverend.

Those who are following the lead of the organizers of the VV
thread are all in the same league with the Rev. Jessie
Jackson's followers. They are stupid, igorant, living in a
fantasy world, wasting their time, and making a mockery out of
sailing. They are the ultimate pretenders. Their actions
constitute an embarrassment to us real sailors. (Not to
mention subject up to massive boredom.)

Respectfully,
Capt. Neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A man should not mince words just to spare the sensibilities
of the thin-skinned or the ignorant." -- Capt. Neal


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"JG" jacked off in another message (oh my!)

So what are you trying to say, Jon?

I think the good Capt. Neal has a good head on his shoulders...

LP

Jan 19 2001:

Dear Group,

Remember my post about good leaders and how so many of you
failed to choose good leaders just like the Negroes failed to
do so.

Don't you think I am brilliant how well I pegged The Rev.
Jessie Jackson? What a Putz! What a loser! What a hypocrite!
What a sinner! What a law breaker! In short, WHAT A ******!

The very nerve of the man to fornicate, commit adultery,
engage in a two-year cover-up, spend funds from a
not-for-profit organization, etc. Has he no shame?

Before you go getting upset, try to remember that '******', as
exlained in the previous post, is not a racial slut. To me a
****** is anyone of any color who has no morals, no standards,
no scruples, no sense of decency and no reason to be called a
man. Make no mistake, Jessie Jackson is NOT a man. Rather, he
is a hedonsitic fool and a super-hypocrite. Those who fail to
severely chastise him and ostracize him for his misdeeds
deserve to remain cast in the mold of stupid sheep.

Sailors need to understand this because sailors who follow
morally and ethically bankrupt leaders the likes of the Rev.
Jessie Jackson should expect to come to as much grief as the
inept Reverend.

Those who are following the lead of the organizers of the VV
thread are all in the same league with the Rev. Jessie
Jackson's followers. They are stupid, igorant, living in a
fantasy world, wasting their time, and making a mockery out of
sailing. They are the ultimate pretenders. Their actions
constitute an embarrassment to us real sailors. (Not to
mention subject up to massive boredom.)

Respectfully,
Capt. Neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A man should not mince words just to spare the sensibilities
of the thin-skinned or the ignorant." -- Capt. Neal


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
news:sN8wd.5163$F25.4364@okepread07...

"JG" jacked off in another message (oh my!)

So what are you trying to say, Jon?

I think the good Capt. Neal has a good head on his shoulders...

LP

So who is going to report Ganz to his ISP for posting this?
It doesn't matter who wrote it first, what matters is that he is reposting
it now with the intent to inflame and use racial slurs.
Not only might it be reported to his ISP, somebody may send a copy to every
sailing club, board, newspaper etc that he is associated with.
California probably has a law against reposting this stuff.

To the lava lakes ASAP please!

Bob Crantz





"JG" wrote in message
...
Jan 19 2001:

Dear Group,

Remember my post about good leaders and how so many of you
failed to choose good leaders just like the Negroes failed to
do so.

Don't you think I am brilliant how well I pegged The Rev.
Jessie Jackson? What a Putz! What a loser! What a hypocrite!
What a sinner! What a law breaker! In short, WHAT A ******!

The very nerve of the man to fornicate, commit adultery,
engage in a two-year cover-up, spend funds from a
not-for-profit organization, etc. Has he no shame?

Before you go getting upset, try to remember that '******', as
exlained in the previous post, is not a racial slut. To me a
****** is anyone of any color who has no morals, no standards,
no scruples, no sense of decency and no reason to be called a
man. Make no mistake, Jessie Jackson is NOT a man. Rather, he
is a hedonsitic fool and a super-hypocrite. Those who fail to
severely chastise him and ostracize him for his misdeeds
deserve to remain cast in the mold of stupid sheep.

Sailors need to understand this because sailors who follow
morally and ethically bankrupt leaders the likes of the Rev.
Jessie Jackson should expect to come to as much grief as the
inept Reverend.

Those who are following the lead of the organizers of the VV
thread are all in the same league with the Rev. Jessie
Jackson's followers. They are stupid, igorant, living in a
fantasy world, wasting their time, and making a mockery out of
sailing. They are the ultimate pretenders. Their actions
constitute an embarrassment to us real sailors. (Not to
mention subject up to massive boredom.)

Respectfully,
Capt. Neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A man should not mince words just to spare the sensibilities
of the thin-skinned or the ignorant." -- Capt. Neal


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Go to jail!

43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the
Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and
restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily
restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from
injury to his personal relations.



45. Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing,
printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye,
which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy,
or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency
to injure him in his occupation.

51.7. (a) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have
the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of
violence, committed against their persons or property because of
their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political
affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or position in
a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have
one or more of those characteristics. The identification in this
subdivision of particular bases of discrimination is illustrative
rather than restrictive.
This section does not apply to statements concerning positions in
a labor dispute which are made during otherwise lawful labor
picketing.
(b) As used in this section, "sexual orientation" means
heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New
Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New
Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language
toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments
to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional,
set down those famous words:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the
prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any
constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the
libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words - those which by their very
utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any
exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth
that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the
social interest in order and morality.

Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine,
the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words
since Chaplinsky.

In fact, in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately
began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the
original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the
peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing
whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found
that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it
permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected
expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does
not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected
unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a
serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance."
The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words
inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's
analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely
the content of the words themselves.

The fighting-words doctrine was again reaffirmed in Street v. New York, 394
U.S. 576 (1969). After publicly burning an American flag and making defiant
comments regarding the flag, Street was convicted of violating a New York
statute making it a misdemeanor to "publicly mutilate, deface, defile, defy,
trample upon, or cast contempt upon an American flag either by words or
act." The Supreme Court reversed Street's conviction because his comments,
considered a possible factor in his conviction, were constitutionally
protected by the First Amendment. Emphasizing that the mere offensiveness of
words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again
noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate
violence, not merely offensive content.

The Court further expanded its protection of offensive speech in Cohen v.
California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). Cohen was arrested and convicted for
disturbing the peace after wearing a jacket bearing the words "F--- the
Draft." The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, redefining fighting words
as only those "personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the
ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to
provoke violent reactions." The Court reasoned that because Cohen's
statement was not an insult directed toward a particular individual, it
could not be regulated as fighting words.

In the two cases that followed Cohen, Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)
and Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 408 U.S. 913 (1972), the Court declined to
review the circumstances surrounding the challenged speech, opting instead
to overturn the convictions by holding the statutes in those cases to be
constitutionally overbroad. In Gooding, the defendant was part of a group
picketing Army headquarters in protest of the Vietnam War. A conflict arose
when the protesters refused to comply with police orders to cease blocking a
building entrance. The defendant was subsequently convicted of violating a
statute that prohibited the use of "opprobrious words or abusive language,
tending to cause a breach of the peace." Finding that the statute restricted
speech beyond fighting words, the Court invalidated it as constitutionally
overbroad.

Similarly, in Lewis, an argument between the defendant and a police officer
precipitated the defendant's arrest for violating a New Orleans ordinance
that made it a crime to "curse ... or to use opprobrious language toward an
on-duty police officer." The use of the term "opprobrious," which was deemed
overbroad in Gooding, was likewise deemed unconstitutionally overbroad in
Lewis.

It was not until 20 years later that the Court again had the opportunity to
fully analyze the fighting-words doctrine. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul,
505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Court considered the constitutionality of a St.
Paul, Minn., ordinance that prohibited fighting words on the "basis of race,
color, creed, religion or gender." The defendant was one of several
teen-agers to be charged with violating the ordinance after burning a cross
on an African-American family's lawn. The Supreme Court determined that the
ordinance was facially unconstitutional because it prohibited speech on the
basis of its content. The majority reasoned that even if the ordinance
reached only unprotected fighting words, the city still could not
constitutionally regulate only certain types of fighting words on the basis
of their content. By prohibiting not all fighting words but only those of a
particularly offensive nature, the statute ran afoul of the Constitution.

Notably, the Court in R.A.V. admitted that fighting words sometimes have
value as speech, stating:

It is not true that "fighting words" have at most a "di minimus" expressive
content, or that their content is in all respects "worthless and undeserving
of constitutional protection"; sometimes they are quite expressive indeed.
We have not said that they constitute "no part of the expression of ideas,"
but only that they constitute "no essential part of any expression of
ideas."

Explaining that fighting words do not express any particular idea but are
merely a mode of communicating other ideas, the Court warned that if
government regulates the content of ideas, rather than the mode of delivery,
the Court will strike down the regulation, even if only "unprotected" speech
is affected.

Recent lower-court opinions illustrate that the fighting-words doctrine is
still a highly contentious area of litigation. In City of Garfield Heights
v. Yaro, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 5688 (1999), for example, an Ohio appeals
court held that a woman who cursed during a confrontation with a police
officer could not be convicted of disorderly conduct because her speech did
not constitute fighting words. Citing Chaplinsky, the court determined that
the applicable test was whether the words used would "reasonably incite the
average person to retaliate."

Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Hock, 556 Pa. 409 (1998), the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court held that a "single profane remark" did not constitute
fighting words. In Hock, the defendant's breach of the peace conviction was
overturned after the court ruled that a jury could not reasonably determine
that her single remark "risked an immediate breach of the peace."

Conversely, in City of Hamilton v. Johnson, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 5623
(1999), an appellate court in Ohio rejected a First Amendment defense of a
man convicted of uttering profanities at police officers. In Hamilton, Mr.
Johnson was convicted of violating a city ordinance that makes it unlawful
to "verbally abuse or make derogatory remarks" to a police officer. While
the court admitted that on its face the ordinance sweeps too broadly, it
noted that it was nonetheless constitutional because it could be interpreted
to apply only to fighting words.

Although from its very inception the fighting-words doctrine has been
redefined and recharacterized, nearly 60 years of legal debate on the issue
demonstrate that the doctrine continues to play a role in modern
jurisprudence.






"JG" wrote in message
...
Jan 19 2001:

Dear Group,

Remember my post about good leaders and how so many of you
failed to choose good leaders just like the Negroes failed to
do so.

Don't you think I am brilliant how well I pegged The Rev.
Jessie Jackson? What a Putz! What a loser! What a hypocrite!
What a sinner! What a law breaker! In short, WHAT A ******!

The very nerve of the man to fornicate, commit adultery,
engage in a two-year cover-up, spend funds from a
not-for-profit organization, etc. Has he no shame?

Before you go getting upset, try to remember that '******', as
exlained in the previous post, is not a racial slut. To me a
****** is anyone of any color who has no morals, no standards,
no scruples, no sense of decency and no reason to be called a
man. Make no mistake, Jessie Jackson is NOT a man. Rather, he
is a hedonsitic fool and a super-hypocrite. Those who fail to
severely chastise him and ostracize him for his misdeeds
deserve to remain cast in the mold of stupid sheep.

Sailors need to understand this because sailors who follow
morally and ethically bankrupt leaders the likes of the Rev.
Jessie Jackson should expect to come to as much grief as the
inept Reverend.

Those who are following the lead of the organizers of the VV
thread are all in the same league with the Rev. Jessie
Jackson's followers. They are stupid, igorant, living in a
fantasy world, wasting their time, and making a mockery out of
sailing. They are the ultimate pretenders. Their actions
constitute an embarrassment to us real sailors. (Not to
mention subject up to massive boredom.)

Respectfully,
Capt. Neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A man should not mince words just to spare the sensibilities
of the thin-skinned or the ignorant." -- Capt. Neal


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com