Hate speech laws [sic] are hate speech!

“Fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment,” MY ASS!

The only real “fighting words” constitute simple assault in the penal code of any jurisdiction in this country.  When someone threatens you in a way that causes you to fear imminent bodily harm, then that is simple assault, period.  No speech beyond that, no matter how hateful it is deemed, is punishable because it does not cause fear of imminent bodily harm.  And if the recipient of your communication wants to become violent feeling incited by those words, any violence perpetrated by that person is that person’s crime of battery.  The recipients emotional problems certainly do not automatically make the words spoken turn into assaultive speech.

Words hurt?  Suck it up.

The creation of alleged “hate speech” laws [sic] is a subversive activity designed to overthrow the First Amendment to the united States Constitution.  It is a subversive activity in which the United States Supreme Court, a division of the United States Corporation, engages in regularly as the United States Corporation is in fact a foreign entity that continues to overthrow the real united States Constitution through criminal activity from behind the bench.  To better understand this concept, you need to read how an Alaskan judge recently blew the cover on how the united States of America was overthrown by the United States Corporation back in the 1870’s:

Judge blows cover of the United States Corporation

Alleged “fighting words” are any words someone else doesn’t like.  That could include the favorite playground retort of “your mama wears combat boots” or “up your ass with a piece of glass, twice as far with a Hershey bar.”  According to the incredibly stupid and biased United States Supreme Court, a division of the United States Corporation, when you say something that pisses someone else off enough for them to want to slug you, that’s “hate speech.”  That’s hate speech because they may want to hit you.  Can you believe that trash?

The Hawaii governor pissed in his pants when I sent him a letter irate over his open door into Hawaii, with Honolulu as a “sanctuary city” to undocumented savages currently raping and murdering their way across Europe.  I did not threaten him.  I promised him the full extent of the law, which constitutes the punishment of hanging for treason.  So he actually sent a goon from the attorney general’s office to try to terrorize me with the Hawaiian version of a “hate speech” law [sic].  If I didn’t know my rights and the real laws that support them, I would have been terrorized into self censorship.  Politicians seem to think they’re some sort of “protected group,” but I know better.  They need a good swift kick in the ass from people like me once in a while, is what they really need.  That’s metaphor, Ige, so relax.

The leftists that have taken control of this country have created “protected groups.”  That’s pretty much anyone except “whitey” the new nigger of the 21st Century.  Blacks are protected, so you had better not hurt their feelings, like saying a white person “works hard.”  Accordingly to black racist, CIA mind-control operative Melissa Harris-Perry, saying that hurts her feelings because only black people who have ancestors who were slaves can work hard.  What?  Her hateful speech against whitey is protected, but I have to examine every word I breath in front of a black person because they are protected?  And that’s because I am now subject to the racial slur that I am a “privileged white”?  Excuse me?  All I can say to that, is kiss my ass because that is pure, unmitigated bull shit.

Islam is a “protected group.”  We can’t hurt their feelings, but they can use any hate speech they want against “infidels” in addition to raping and murdering us because that is “customary” in their culture.  According to the Commie-pinkos currently in control of this country, it is hateful to tell a Muslim that Allah is in fact Satan because the Qu’ran says Allah is the greatest deceiver of all.  Surah 3:54, Qu’ran.  Well, among Christians and other worshipers of the true God, the Creator of heaven and Earth, only Satan is the greatest deceiver of all.  But, since Christians are not the “protected group,” it is “hateful” to speak the truth that Allah is in fact Satan, and Christian prayer is now hate speech, and Christian holidays are offensive.  To whom?  To the “protected” Muslims.  Why are they protected and not Christians?  Because this country has been overthrown by a bunch of Commie-pinkos that wish to destroy our western-culture values and Islam is the government that the New World Order aka the United Nations plans to impose on us.

Government 101, Axiom 1:
Only those laws that support and defend
the united States Constitution are in fact law
in the united States of America.
The rest is not law and is subject to jury nullification.
Sharia Law is illegal filth in the united States.

You need to know that you are the only real authority figure in every matter concerning your sovereign rights as an autonomous child of God, some of those rights being enumerated in the united States Constitution.  And it is your decision alone on how to handle matters being forced upon you without the color of real law; a law that supports and defends the united States Constitution.  Now is the time to decide how you wish to handle the criminal standing before you attempting to violate your rights through the application of duress, which does not necessarily require a gun barrel in your face.  Threatening you with prison supported by nothing other than your own ignorance is a crime and you need to let the perpetrator know that, and keep in mind he’s really just as ignorant as everyone else, so try to be kind.

“Hate speech laws” [sic] are in fact hate speech themselves because they are not law and therefore they are tools of fraud perpetrated upon the general public.  This fraud that exists in the united States government is fully, maliciously and wantonly supported by the criminal organization known as the American Bar Association.  Since they claim to be the sole authority on what is law and have even made it a felony for anyone else to have that level of authority outside of pro se litigation, if they don’t know then they ought to know.  It is their self acclaimed responsibility to challenge all bastard law.  But when what you really have is a license to practice billing, who wants to waste time doing that?

In Chaplinsky, good common law that supports and defends the united States Constitution is treasonously aborted in favor of tyranny and oppression without the united States Supreme Court even overruling itself.  The Supreme Court can’t overrule law that supports and defends the Constitution.  So sometimes they just play knight-jump-exegesis and hope you didn’t notice them quickly switching the walnut shells.

Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) is a relatively recent piece of case law that became an unsubstantiated precedent for a new bastard line of law.  It is the subversive foundation to the treason called “hate speech laws” [sic].  Whenever the courts “frown” upon resorting to early American law (or bury good law in footnotes because they cannot use it to support the otherwise unsupported decision), they encourage law students to rely on a recent piece of shit like this case, a subversive activity being perpetrated upon the American public.

Bastard law is a bitch
because it’s subversion in full view
which those ignorant of the law cannot see.
Its retention is treason by the ABA.

That’s why I object so strongly to lawyers being allowed to run for political office.  Overall, they have the ethics of a piss ant, which is not to say that there isn’t that occasional golden needle in the haystack of vultures.  After four decades, I can count five lawyers that I know who I genuinely respect.  And I’ve worked for a lot of lawyers.

Before we can understand how they came up with this insipid conclusion that words that cause someone emotional pain constitutes “hate speech”, we must look at all of the facts available to us in this case, which is the premier case relied on to censor speech; a case of hatred shared by the Supreme Court itself in its obviously biased opinion; a personal bias apparently shared by all the justices in this unanimous decision in 1942 that now stands as the foundation to oppressive tyranny in the united States until it is put down like a mad dog through jury nullification since the criminals of the American Bar Association will never challenge it.

Mr. Chaplinsky was distributing Jehovah’s Witnesses literature in a location that was clearly prejudiced against Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Keep in mind that, during World War II, Jehovah’s Witnesses were generally hated throughout America because they refuse to salute the flag because it is idol worship.  Cool, I can dig it.  But not the rest of American in 1942.  No sir, they hated Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I want you to particularly focus on who is who in this scenario in 1942 versus who is who in the current scenario of Islam being shoved down the throats of the infidel world.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses are the hated group in 1942.  They are peacefully spreading their own beliefs.  The hating group is everyone else who wants to slug the Jehovah’s Witnesses for their alleged “hate speech.”  In Chaplinsky, the Supreme Court through stated bias, sides with the haters and not the hated.

How easy it is to flip-flop a vague, capricious and arbitrary un-law.

We have the reverse use of “hate speech” restrictions today, those very same laws which some day may even be applied to claiming someone’s mother wears combat boots deserves a visit to Hillary’s “fun camp” for rehabilitation.

Today, the hated are those who, as a religious practice, are chronic liars when they are not robbing, raping, and murdering, in accordance with scripture, all in the name of establishing their alleged “religion of peace” as the sole world government, by whatever means they deem necessary.  They are the protected group; these violent liars.

The haters, under current application of the very same vague and arbitrary “hate speech” laws [sic] applied in 1942, are those who are being lied to, and are being robbed, raped, and murdered.  We are the “infidels.”  Anything we have to say about the protected Muslims, those who lie, rob, rape, and murder in strict obedience to the commands of their Qu’ran, is considered “hate speech” and is censored.

Chaplinsky is a case in which there is conflicting testimony as to what had occurred during the incident made the basis of this lawsuit in which Mr. Chaplinsky challenged the New Hampshire state law forbidding “hate speech,” a vague term that can be applied to anything anyone doesn’t like to hear, such as Governor Ige of Hawaii quite possibly justifiably feeling uncomfortable around the neck when I promised him a noose for treason, because he knows he is inviting a mass influx of criminals into the state by just following orders from the Commie-pinkos in the District of Criminals.  So he shoved his skeletons back into the closet and sent an enforcer to shut me up with his “hate speech” law.  He counted on me not knowing my rights.  Never count your chickens before they hatch.

When there is conflicting testimony between the two parties, for the court to render a decision based on rational thinking (ratio decideni) rather than personal opinion (obiter dictum), we can apply “the so-called Wambaugh’s Inversion Test which provides, that to determine whether a judicial statement is ratio or obiter, you should invert the argument, that is to say, ask whether the decision would have been different had the statement been omitted.  If so, the statement is crucial and is ratio; whereas if it is not crucial, it is obiter.[1]

If the Supreme Court’s explictly biased statement had been stated in the opposite, according to the Wambaugh’s Inversion Test, thereby not condemning Chaplinsky’s cursing as speech without religious merit while also not overlooking the fact that cursing is nonetheless protected free speech, the lower court’s decision would not have been affirmed because the Chaplinsky court would have had to rule that his speech, however offensive, was protected free speech.

Wambaugh’s Inversion Test of
ratio decideni versus obiter dictum
shows the Supreme Court should have overruled the lower court.

The Supreme Court’s stated bias that it did not consider Chaplinsky’s cursing a public officer the exercise of religion wholly ignored the fact that, regardless of whether or not “cursing” is a religious activity, it is nonetheless protected free speech.  They conveniently skipped over that.

This was a case of conflicting testimony.  According to Mr. Chaplinsky, he had reported to the City Marshal, Mr. Bowering, that people were causing a disturbance in objection to his distribution of literature that they considered offensive and asked if Mr. Bowering would please provide him with assistance.  At that point in time, the officer stated to protesters that Mr. Bowering was exercising a legal right.

However, Mr. Bowering later claimed during testimony that Mr. Chaplinsky was causing a disturbance by denouncing all religion as a racket rather than his prior affirmation that Mr. Chaplinsky was exercising a legal right.  The police officer, like the courts subsequently, engaged in the “hate speech” of denouncing the Jehovah’s Witness religion.

Clearly in this case, it is a matter of perspective as to who was causing the disturbance.  Interesting to note is that the City Marshal’s version, which became the official version, indicates his biased belief that Mr. Chaplinsky’s personal beliefs were the cause of the obvious local disturbance, rather than the objections of the crowd to Mr. Chaplinsky’s beliefs.

The bias of the people of the City of Rochester in 1942 toward Jehovah’s Witnesses, happened to be a bias that was shared by the united States Supreme Court in it’s Chaplinsky opinion.  The alleged “hate speech” words used by Mr. Chaplinsky in his anger towards Officer Bowering, apparently because of the police officer’s obvious prejudice, are the words used in the cartoon above, with the exception stipulated by Mr. Chaplinsky that he did not take the name of the Lord in vain.  The condemned words that Chaplinsky spoke to Bowering are:

You are a damned racketeer.
You are a damned fascist.

All of which, in my opinion, was true!  The police officer shared the hateful bias of the general public toward the Jehovah’s Witness.  The police officer threatened, assaulted through arrest, and incarcerated Mr. Chaplinsky because he personally hated Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Mr. Chaplinsky was arrested because the crowd hated him so much that they wanted to do violence to him, and not vice versa.  Mr. Chaplinksy was arrested because they wanted to engage in violence.  That’s pretty sick if you ask me.  Mr. Chaplinsky in no way threatened anyone else with violence.

To add insult to injury, Mr. Chaplinsky is denied due process of law by the courts because they too clearly share a bias toward Jehovah’s Witnesses.  What is being called “hate speech” through this bastard law is anything that doesn’t support the status quo that is enforced by subversives until such time as the public understands their rights and enforce them, like I do.

In Chaplinsky, the Supreme Court remarkably came to the decision that calling an officer of the law who was arresting him a “damned racketeering fascist” constituted “fighting words” and somehow warranted violation of Chaplinsky’s right to free speech.  Mind you, there was no threat of Mr. Chaplinsky inflicting bodily harm on someone else through assaultive speech.  The threat was to Mr. Chaplinsky from the crowd that hated him and wanted to beat him up, so he was arrested by the damned racketeering fascist who shared the crowd’s hatred of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My careful examination of the Supreme Court’s rationale in Chaplinsky reveals an outrageous case of double speak that constitutes pure gibberish, the hallmark of bastard law.

The New Hampshire statute in question forbids under penalty that any person shall address “any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place,” or “call him by any offensive or derisive name,” was construed by the Supreme Court of the State, in this case and before this case arose, as limited to the use in a public place of words directly tending to cause a breach of the peace by provoking the person addressed to acts of violence.

In lay English, these hate-speech statutes [sic] claim, if you say something someone else doesn’t like and that person feels like committing violence against you, then you have spoken illegal words.  My ass.  That is a complete twisting of the idea of simple assault which is using language that causes the other person to have good reason to fear that you will do him bodily harm.  The only speech that can be restricted is assaultive speech, defamatory speech, and pornography that has no socially redeeming value.  Assaultive speech clearly imparts that you, the speaker, intend to cause bodily harm to the recipient, causing the recipient to suffer fear of imminent harm.

When the landlady’s son called up his former brother-in-law and told him “I’ll kill you if you ever get near my sister again,” he engaged in simple assault.  However, he was threatened under post 9/11 Patriot Act unconstitutional laws with being charged with making a “terroristic threat” which makes him an enemy of the state.  That is subversion in action, folks.  The United States Corporation is getting ready to make sneezing “terrorism.”

In this bastard law, the Chaplinsky court had the audacity to say that if someone else wants to strike you because they didn’t like what you said, then their desire to commit a violent act against you is somehow your fault.

That certainly falls in line with Sharia Law.
Men can rape a woman and then
the woman is condemned to death for adultery.

I am not responsible for other people’s actions.  So I’m not going to allow this alleged ruling, which is a sick perversion of the law in keeping with the Luciferian traditions of the Commie-pinko left, to cause me to ignorantly censor myself out of fear of prison.

The gibberish of Chaplinsky is concocted by the Supreme Court as it opens its unanimous opinion citing a host of cases that support freedom of speech, press and religion,  But they must hide those citations in a footnote because that case law does not support the ruling.

No united States Supreme Court case law is cited
to support the ruling that the state statute is valid,
and they never ruled that it was constitutional.
That’s because the Supreme Court lied.

Then the court asserts:  “And we cannot conceive that cursing a public officer is the exercise of religion in any sense of the term.”

The testimony was conflicting; Chaplinsky says he did not use the Lord’s name in vain while calling the cop a damned racketeer and a fascist.  The cop first said Chaplinsky was exercising his rights and then turned around and accused him of inciting a riot.  Cursing at the cop was not necessarily the exercise of religion, but it was the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech, including the curse word “damn.”

Lower court judges continue to honor the absolute protection of speech, including cursing that does not constitute simple assault, is not defamatory, and is not pornography that has no socially redeeming value, Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), as was recently the case when the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a person has a right to utter a profanity at a police officer, in complete contradiction to Chaplinsky:

 “While E.J.J.’s words may have been disrespectful, discourteous and annoying, they are nonetheless constitutionally protected,” Associate Chief Justice Charles Johnson wrote for the six-justice majority. When citizens exercise their right to criticize “how the police are handling a situation, they cannot be concerned about risking a criminal conviction for obstruction.”[2]

But Chaplinsky, a united States Supreme Court case that calls cursing “hate-speech,” remains on the books; a bastard decision used to put a man in jail because other people wanted to harm him.  In Chaplinsky, the court quickly acknowledged the laws that do protect free speech, but conveniently tucked them away in footnotes because they cannot be listed next to the court’s decisive words because they do not support what is a wholly arbitrary decision based on bias alone:

 “Appellant assails the statute as a violation of all three freedoms, speech, press and worship, but only an attack on the basis of free speech is warranted. The spoken, not the written, word is involved. And we cannot conceive that cursing a public officer is the exercise of religion in any sense of the term. But even if the activities of the appellant which preceded the incident could be viewed as religious in character, and therefore entitled to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, they would not cloak him with immunity from the legal consequences for concomitant acts committed in violation of a valid criminal statute. We turn, therefore, to an examination of the statute itself.” [No citations.]

Only state case law was examined to justify the statute as valid.
The Supreme Court had no united States Supreme Court cases
to support “hate law” statutes as valid.

That’s why the First Amendment was conveniently
never pleaded in this case; only the 14th.

Therefore, state “hate law” statutes are unconstitutional.

They listed a bunch of First Amendment cases in the footnotes, but none of those cases support the state statute that arbitrarily condemns “hate speech,” in New Hampshire, just like the alleged “hate speech” statutes in every other state.  That’s why they had to hide the case law in footnotes.  Those “hate speech” statutes have no basis in constitutional law at all.  The cases cited in the footnotes that could not appear next to the ruling are contrary to the ruling!  The Supreme Court simply stated unsupported obiter dictum in lieu of a rationale based on law and no supporting law is offered next to what should be ratio but instead is obiter, which forced the good, unrelated law to be hidden in the footnotes to hide the embarrassment of their lie.  The decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is a fraud backed into from the perspective of bias.

How hateful.

So because the crowd and the cop wanted to get violent against Chaplinsky, Chaplinsky was convicted of saying words they didn’t like and he went to jail.  He in no way spoke words that made it clear he was about to inflict physical harm on the person being spoken to.  That would have been simple assault.  Instead, he was convicted of using angry words, actually quite true words, toward the police officer, who apparently wanted to slug Chaplinsky like the rest of the crowd, and therefore Chaplinsky was convicted for saying words that made the cop want to slug him; not vice versa as would be the case in simple assault if, for instance, Chaplinsky told the cop “I want to knock your teeth out, you bastard.”  Chaplinsky did not threaten anyone.  It was the crowd that threatened Chaplinsky and the cop actually assaulted Chaplinsky by dragging him off to jail in violation of his right to speak freely.


“Hate speech,” no matter how repulsive, cannot be a crime because “hate speech” is a broad, vague term that encompasses a fishing expedition against anything anyone wants to call hate speech.  A man was recently convicted of hate speech in Canada because he disagreed with a feminist!

As far as I’m concerned, “hate speech” is when a Muslim gleefully tells the world that his primary mission in support of his “religion of peace” [sic] is to kill anyone who will not embrace Islam and, in the meantime, their filthy stinking Qu’ran permits them to rape anyone who is an “infidel,” a descriptive term used by Muslims which certainly constitutes “hate speech” from my perspective.

Well, sticks and stones will break your bones, but words can never hurt you, unless they are words of simple assault such as,  “If you don’t get into that bathtub right now, I’m going to kill you!


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum

[2] Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/free-speech-state-supreme-court-rules-profanity-police-amendment/#GvzEijhT6WJ378cI.99