Words Are Not Violence: Smitty's White-Wing Sycophants Are Full Of Orange Elephant Shit

Amerika's decline and hypocrisy has finally gone from ROFL hilarious to psychotically tragic.

The current, and ad nauseam, assertion by the white-wing in the wake of the Kirk killing that "words are not violence" is complete elephant shit. Particularly in legal contexts where certain speech acts are indeed treated with the gravity of physical harm due to their potential to incite fear, cause emotional distress, or lead to actual violence. While the tragic event of the Charlie Kirk murder is just that, the legal treatment of speech as violence is irrefutable (at least in some cases). I shall begin with California's Penal Code 422 PC, concerning criminal threats, as it directly addresses how communicated words can be legally construed as a form of harm.

The legal landscape in the United States, and globally, recognizes several categories of speech that are not protected by free speech principles and can be prosecuted due to their harmful nature. These categories often blur the line between mere words and actionable offenses, demonstrating that in specific circumstances, words are indeed treated as equivalent to violence or its precursor.

Now, whitey and everybody else can call me Nigger all day and night long. Not only that, they make money doing it: in movies, in so-called music and a plethora of other things. Your slave patrollers adore the term because that is your police-y. That’s why you “back the badge” because the tin-badged Klansmen hiding and riding under the hood of “law and order” are carrying out your policy.

Then, you turn around and feign you are so offended by the word that you invented, propagate and profit from. That is not treated as violence. But call a European “Jew” a Kike, and see how you fare. The word Nigger is the last word that millions of my ancestors heard before they were murdered and if I had a half cent for every time I have been called that word I would be Jeff Bozo; or whatever that entitled clown’s name is.

Criminal Threats and Incitement

California's Penal Code 422 PC defines the crime of making criminal threats. This statute makes it illegal to communicate a threat to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement be taken as a threat, and which causes the person threatened to reasonably be in sustained fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family. This law exemplifies how words, when they instill a credible and sustained fear of violence, are legally treated with the same seriousness as an act of violence itself, even if no physical harm occurs. The intent behind the words and the impact on the victim are crucial elements.

Beyond California, many other states have similar statutes addressing criminal threats or terroristic threats. For instance, even in backwards-assed Texas, Penal Code § 22.07 defines "Terroristic Threat" as threatening to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to cause a reaction of any type by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies, or to place any person in fear of serious bodily injury. Similarly, New York Penal Law § 120.15 covers "Menacing in the Second Degree," which involves intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury by displaying a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or by any other physical action. While this sometimes involves physical action, the underlying intent to instill fear through a threat is paramount.

Boogalooing, inbred, proud boy.

Incitement to Violence

Another significant area where words are legally considered akin to violence is incitement. The landmark Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established a two-pronged test for determining when inflammatory speech can be restricted: (1) the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action," and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." This means that speech that directly and imminently encourages illegal acts of violence is not protected and can be prosecuted. For example, if someone, like President Smitty, were to stand up and tell a crowd to immediately go and physically assault a specific individual, and the crowd then proceeded to do so, the speaker could be held liable for incitement. This principle underscores that words that directly lead to or are intended to lead to immediate physical harm are legally actionable and are treated as a form of violence.

Uh, a Trump rally or January 6, 2021, perhaps?

Harassment and Stalking

Many jurisdictions also treat certain forms of verbal harassment and stalking as serious offenses, recognizing the psychological and emotional violence they inflict. While not always involving direct threats of physical harm, persistent and unwanted verbal communication that causes significant emotional distress or fear can be criminalized. For example, cyberstalking laws, which exist at both federal and state levels, often criminalize repeated online communications that cause a reasonable person to feel harassed, annoyed, or alarmed, and which cause substantial emotional distress. These laws acknowledge that words, even without explicit threats of physical violence, can inflict severe psychological harm, akin to emotional violence.

Them’s Fighting Words

While the U.S. generally has robust free speech protections, certain narrow categories of speech are not protected. "Fighting words," as defined in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), are words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." These are words that are so inherently abusive or provocative that they are likely to cause an immediate violent reaction from the person to whom they are addressed. While the application of "fighting words" has been narrowed over time, it still represents a legal recognition that some words, due to their direct and inflammatory nature, are not merely expressions but acts that can directly provoke violence.

Furthermore, while "hate speech" itself is largely protected in the U.S. unless it falls into categories like incitement or true threats, many countries outside the U.S. have laws specifically criminalizing hate speech that promotes discrimination, hostility, or violence against groups based on characteristics like race, religion, or sexual orientation. For example, in Germany, Volksverhetzung (incitement to hatred) is a criminal offense, prohibiting speech that incites hatred against parts of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them. This demonstrates a broader international legal perspective where words that systematically promote hatred and violence against groups are considered a form of societal harm, akin to violence.

Jews will not replace us…Nigger!

Conclusion

As I started out this disquisition, the phrase "words are not violence" is white wing, orange tinged elephant shit. Legal frameworks in the ”US” and globally demonstrate that certain categories of speech are indeed treated with the gravity of violence. This is particularly true when words constitute criminal threats, incite imminent lawless action, or inflict severe emotional distress through harassment or stalking. The legal system recognizes that the impact of words can be profound, causing fear, psychological harm, and even leading to physical violence, thereby blurring the simplistic distinction between speech and harm.

Question is: how does the proverbial white elephant end up dropping an orange turd?

Aha! Eureka and Yahtzee! I have discovered the answer to this most daunting of queries!

It’s been eating yams, and Earl Scheib has a factory in its stomach.

Points and Authorities

California Penal Code 422 PC. [California Legislative Information]

1. Texas Penal Code § 22.07. [Texas Constitution and Statutes]

2. New York Penal Law § 120.15. [New York State Senate]

3. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). [Oyez]

4. 18 U.S. Code § 2261A - Stalking. [Legal Information Institute (LII)]

5. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). [Oyez]

6. German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB) § 130 Incitement to Hatred. [German Law Archive]