Our Oceans are Under Attack

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fighting words

"fighting words n. words intentionally directed toward another person which are so nasty and full of malice as to cause the hearer to suffer emotional distress or incite him/her to immediately retaliate physically (hit, stab, shoot, etc.) While such words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery, if they are threatening they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault."

In most southern states of the USA, where "gentlemanly manners" are still admired and "honour" still has value, a jury trial will often acquit a battery charge provoked by "fighting words".
A jury acquitted a father for shooting a prisoner being extradited from California to Louisiana on a kidnapping charge.
The culprit had kidnapped the 12-13 year old son of the shooter. He killed the handcuffed prisoner being led through the airport, and the execution was filmed for prime time news.
NOT GUILTY! said jury.
We still have values in the south.

 

Obviously USA and Australia don't operate under the same statutes, but I would be confident there is no case for assault on the basis of verbal abuse only, here. Otherwise the courts would be full after every football match !

 

Roflamao

 

Ok, so that's saying "if they are threatening". Presumably that means threats of violence against someone. I can see that being classified as a form of assault. Over here it wouldn't actually be called that, but would still be a prosecutable offence.

 

My honest opinion is any one that tortures animals are no better or worse than paedophilia, ****, violence, murder.
Morrissey who is well respected and liked by millions made a good point as why not speak on behalf of defenceless animals.

Capital locks show high blood pressure, to much meat, maybe the monkey.

 

Depends on the culture I reckon.
Here in the south (of USA), everybody knows calling a man an SOB to his face is a challenge to fight. And gets answered as such!

I'd say that's threat of violence. However, nobody but a woos would bring lawsuit over it. Instead, you take his head off, or try to.

 

Sounds interesting. Attenborough could do a doco on it.

 

Maybe. I'm a wicked man when my pride flares up. Not just "Don't tread On Me!" American pride, but enhanced with southern culture masculine pride, how a man is expected to behave and defend his honour.
Reckon we ain't much removed from old duelin days, or fast draw gunfights, mainstreet at noon, here in the south.
We still nurse resentment from the War between the States.
"Save yer Conferderate money, the South shall rise again! We ain't fergettin!"
Is still TRUE southern sentiment.

 

Musically, The Smiths are my favouriite band (after John Cooper Clarke and the Invisible Girls).
Morrissey was a fantastic singer and song-writer, but as a political person he is widely regarded
by millions as a ridiculous nincompoop.

 

Before you can defend, you have to feel threatened. Frankly I'm not the sort of bloke who would regard being called an SOB as threatening. Over here we call each other far worse things just for fun. If someone called me a goat-f#$!ing c#$t I'd just regard it as amusing. Really, why feel threatened by idiots? What do you gain out of it?

 

If I could be rational in that situation, I'd just laugh it off, but ...enough. Enough about me!

 

Millions also think he is hero who makes animal rights statements that stir up the red necks.
In the USA slave trading days in the south if Morrissey made the same statements to give blacks rights then millions would state as a ridiculous nincompoop

 

Your misconceptions of US history reflect the post civil war propaganda of the north. Abraham Lincoln never freed a single slave anywhere and the war was over state rights opposed to a strong central government. Not about slavery.
Wrong side won and freedom diminished.

 

Never mentioned Abraham Lincoln, the war did free the slaves and the slaves help win the war.
There were almost 200,000 African-Americans serving in the Union Army during the War Between the States.

 

Well, really not the appropriate topic here, but read the emancipation Proclamation. FOUR slave states were still in the union, didn't secede. And parts of the south were under union military occupation. No slaves were freed in these 4 states or union occupied areas.
The proclamation declared slaves freed only in rebel states where Lincoln had no authority. Those states were part of a different government, the Confederacy.
It's like if today I declare a national holiday in China. No power or authority to accomplish it.
After the war union congress passed 14th amendment to Constitution and required southern states to ratify under duress. some legislatures didn't and union generals ousted the elected legislature an installed an army controlled legislature..

Read facts before pontificating, less embarrassing for you.