>>> "Joseph Catron"
It's no such thing, and I don't believe for a minute that you're stupid enough to believe that it is. The "fighting words" doctrine is used to justify governmental restraint, not mob violence.
You do realize that the situation you're trying to justify, as you define it, meets most definitions of lynching, right? I'm not saying your definition is correct, mind you.
^^^^ CB: You do realize you are evincing serious ignorance of the history of the United States of America ? The definition this fits is that of a counter-lynching.
I say the slogan should be "All hail the Jena 6 !"
On 9/24/07, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> The established legal doctrine is that "fighting words" justify a
> violent response.
___________________________________