Is it considered harrassment in the US to call a black man the N-word? I recently saw a Youtube Short featuring a man interviewing Jordan Peterson and they were discussing the legality of calling someone by racial slurs, specifically the N-word. Seemingly having actually to do with the legality of calling transpeople by their deadnames or old pronouns. Peterson was not suggesting at all that it is OK to call a black person the N-word, but that he simply stating that it is not illegal in the US. Host: For example, if a black guy said &quot;Hey, I'm black.&quot; You can just say no, you're not, and then can you use racial epithets, or what he considers to be racial epithets?... Peterson: Can I? Of course I can. Whether I should or not is a different issue, and whether or not it should be illegal is a completely different issue...no its not [illegal] Host: If a black guy repeat to call him [sic] the n word Peterson: [interrupting] It's not illegal Host: its harassment Peterson: ...It's not illegal in the United States...there's no disagreeing This got me curious as to who was right? When, if ever, would calling a black person the N-word not be covered under free speech? I'm guessing it varies from state to state, but I'm not certain.
The spectrum of &quot;illegal&quot; is broad. One way in which racial epithets are (indirectly) illegal is via anti-discrimination laws, indeed labeled &quot;harassment&quot; by the EEOC Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy), national origin, older age (beginning at age 40), disability, or genetic information (including family medical history). Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws. If an employer tolerates racial epithets, they are likely to be the target of a harassment lawsuit. There is no limit on who utters the epithet, thus a customer can be the trigger for a suit. In cases not involving supervisory employees, liability arises if the employer &quot;knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action&quot;. Analogously, racial epithets in educational institutions are actionable. Framed in terms of a random epithet by a non-employee or campus visitor (where the institution has minimal leverage over the offender), the institution must act, when it becomes aware of such circumstances arising, and cannot just say &quot;What can we do??&quot;. A second (remote) possibility is through the fighting words doctrine, that the government can limit speech that is &quot;likely to incite immediate violence or retaliation by the recipients of the words&quot;. This arose initially in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire – one of the holdings was that The Court notices judicially that the appellations &quot;damned racketeer&quot; and &quot;damned Fascist&quot; are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace. There have been numerous refinements of the doctrine over the decades, so the mere utterance of a racial epithet would not run afoul of properly-restrained &quot;breach of peace&quot; laws. One of the two most-relevant current opinions is Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, where the court held that the government cannot forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action but uttering an epithet is not advocacy of force or law violation. The second is R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 US 377 where defendant was charged with violating an ordinance that prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to know &quot;arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender&quot; SCOTUS ruled that &quot;the First Amendment does not permit a state to use content discrimination to achieve a compelling interest if it is not necessary to achieve that interest&quot; (emphasis added), holding that A few limited categories of speech, such as obscenity, defamation, and fighting words, may be regulated because of their constitutionally proscribable content. However, these categories are not entirely invisible to the Constitution, and government may not regulate them based on hostility, or favoritism, towards a nonproscribable message they contain. Thus the regulation of &quot;fighting words&quot; may not be based on nonproscribable content. It may, however, be underinclusive, addressing some offensive instances and leaving other, equally offensive, ones alone, so long as the selective proscription is not based on content, or there is no realistic possibility that regulation of ideas is afoot. A further holding is that the law is is facially unconstitutional because it imposes special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on the disfavored subjects of &quot;race, color, creed, religion or gender.&quot; At the same time, it permits displays containing abusive invective if they are not addressed to those topics. Moreover, in its practical operation the ordinance goes beyond mere content, to actual viewpoint, discrimination. The court has not clearly identified a context in which a law against a racial epithet would be constitutional, they have simply identified other bars that would have to be cleared for such a law to be permissible. No utterance, devoid of context, is illegal, so to discover where such an utterance could be part of a prosecutions, we would need a lot of specific context in the hypothetical.
Actually, he has been libelling you which is defamation in writing - slander is verbal defamation. Notwithstanding, if what he has done has or is likely to cause damage to your reputation and is a statement of fact that is not true then it is actionable. Neither name calling nor his opinion that you "are the worst person in the world" are statements of fact. Saying you left rotting food and that you threw garbage on the lawn are. You could sue for damages or seek an injunction requiring him to withdraw his statements and apologise, however, a better (and cheaper) first step would be to send a cease and desist letter. You can find templates online or pay a lawyer to send one. The latter is likely to scare the s@&amp;t out of him and may be worth the money just for the satisfaction.
We don't have enough facts to know. What Bob said about having violated the injunction, which could expose him to criminal contempt of court liability, was not true. But, the precise details of what he said, to whom he said it, and his relationship to the case, are not clear. Saying something that isn't true isn't always against the law, and even when it is against the law, the consequences depend upon the context. An intentionally false statement of fact to a police officer or to the court under oath would probably be a crime (but, unlike U.S. practice, criminal defendants who testify are not generally required to testify under oath). An unintentionally false statement of fact to the same persons (e.g. because Bob misheard the question or was drunk at the time and assumed that the statement of fact he was making was true or had dementia) would probably not have legal consequences for him. A mere confession - I am guilty of violating the civil injunction - would probably not be perjury or fraud because guilt of a civil injunction includes opinions and legal conclusions which are not actionable, as well as implied statements of fact, which might be actionable. But, if he confessed in the form of a plea, there probably wouldn't have been a trial at all. Once he made his plea, his factual guilty or innocence might be irrelevant in the face of a judicial admission. Courts can sometimes sanction parties to lawsuits for wasting everyone's time under quite specific circumstances, but we don't know precisely what relationship Bob has to the case in which the injunction was entered.
It is illegal to threaten to report a person for violating the law (it is illegal to threaten a person). There are laws in California that limit official cooperation with ICE investigations, therefore the police will not arrest a person for being an illegal immigrant. This is basically a limit on use of state and local resources, and the state has the power to control its purse strings. The state has no power to mandate that individuals not report a suspected or imagined violation of federal law to federal authorities, and there is no California law purporting to have that power.
The dichotomy between solicitors and barristers in the UK isn't one based on verbal definitions in the English language. In other words, the fact that barristers argue and solicitors don't isn't something that's inherent to the words, it's just how British law decided to divide it. Since those countries with solicitor generals don't have this dichotomy, they generally don't have anything actually called a barrister, and there's no reason why the solicitor general couldn't be called that, since solicitor doesn't require that he not argue in court.
Can someone be arrested for not being ‘nice’ to police? Yes. The arrest may later be declared unlawful, and the cop could later be disciplined by his boss, but if a cop wants to arrest you now for any reason they just can. Seems weird and an abuse of power to me. The available means of dealing with abuse of power have never been in excess. Could they win such a case? Yes. So could your friend. It depends on many many factors.
Start with the premise that Person A has so far engaged only in speech, which is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. So unless the speech is for some reason unprotected, the police should not involve themselves. This of course begs the question of whether this speech is protected. The First Amendment does not protect &quot;true threats,&quot; which includes &quot;those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.&quot; Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). So the question for the police is whether Person A's texts were meant to communicate a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence. Removing First Amendment protection won't be as simple as letting B testify that he truly felt threatened, as the question is whether A meant to communicate a threat. But that also means that for A, it won't be enough to simply deny any violent intent, so the &quot;nothing illegal&quot; disclaimer won't be enough. In the end, this is a question for a jury to decide, should the case ever reach that far. The jury would essentially be asked to engage in mind-reading, determining what A was thinking when he sent those texts. The jury should be instructed to take several factors into consideration when it makes that decision, including the &quot;context&quot; of the remarks (the explicit disclaimer of violence helps A), the &quot;conditional nature&quot; of the threat (the three-strikes langauge helps A), and the &quot;reaction of the listener&quot; (calling the police hurts A). Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). Practically speaking, if B were to call the police, I'd expect them not to investigate, unless they were awfully bored. If they decided to, I don't think there would be any actionable violation of A's rights, given their obvious inability to divine A's intent based solely on B's account. A court would likely allow them to investigate, but I doubt a prosecutor would allow them to bring charges based on the facts you've described.
No. It is an often repeated misconception that "Freedom of Speech" means that no one can restrict speech ever. This is not the case. Let us look at the US Consitution's First Admendment, which contains the "Freedom of Speech" clause: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... (Emphasis mine) As one can see, the First Amendment only restricts government actions. (It also stops other branches of government from restricting speech, because those branches are innately weak with very few powers granted to them by the constitution; the majority of executive or judicial branches powers are granted to them by a law passed by Congress, and Congress cannot give a power to another party that they do not possess). A Home Owner Association (HOA) is not a government or government agency; it is a private organization (and it is not the same as the "private management company" that manages the condominium, which is probably in the employ of the HOA; which also means that emailing the manager is not emailing the HOA board). Their power stems from a contract, one that your friend signed when they bought the property (one of the conditions agreed to is that a member who sells or gifts their HOA-member property can only do so to someone who also agrees to the contract). That said, HOAs can be horribly abusive and many states have laws that restrict what kinds of rules and penalties can be applied by an HOA. But that is not a constitutional matter (at either the Federal or State level), nor a question of "Freedom of Speech", but rather a limitation on the kinds of behaviors that can be enforced by contract.