I think so. She has made herself a public (and reviled) figure. As such, many people feel that spitting in her face constitutes protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Even if you get arrested for it (civil disobediance), you have a pretty good case on free speech grounds.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A man spit tobacco juice into the face of Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new memoir.
Capt. Rich Lockhart of the Kansas City Police Department said Michael A. Smith, 54, was arrested Tuesday night on a municipal charge of disorderly conduct. Smith, a Vietnam veteran, told The Kansas City Star Wednesday that Fonda was a "traitor" and that her protests against the Vietnam War were unforgivable. He said he doesn't chew tobacco but did so Tuesday solely to spit juice on the actress.
2007-02-02 07:53:35 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
"I consider it a debt of honor," he told The Star for a story on its Web site. "She spit in our faces for 37 years. It was absolutely worth it. There are a lot of veterans who would love to do what I did."
Some readers commented:
"I would like to pay Mr. Smith's bail. He is a true patriot."
"I don't like what [Fonda] did and will never forgive her. If I was on a jury to sentence the tobacco spitter I'd say 'if she deserved the spit, you must acquit.'"
2007-02-02 07:53:44 · update #1
Alot of Viet nam vets would think so..... Hanoi Jane, American Traitor... You ask what kind of man assaults a woman ? A man that don't classifier her as a woman..
People..REMEMBER that she , during the Vietnam war, was hanging out with the North Vietnam Army & the Viet Cong, saying how pretty all those surface to air missles were at sam city & telling the international press that the brave American soldiers were all murderers, The US Goverment should have revoked her citizenship.....
2007-02-02 07:56:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
No this couldn't be considered Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
This is going to be a hard case since there is precedence where spitting on another person was considered assault, where it could be considered civil disobedience as that was what he was supposed to have been charged with.
Freedom of Speech does allow someone to voice their opinions, but this man did not speak out against Jane Fonda, he took physical action against her person.
I do not know that were I on the jury I could find this man guilty, what she had done was deplorable and should be considered acts of treason for betraying the prisoners of war and causing their further harm at the hands of their captors, but even were she ever to be charged or convicted as a criminal she still would have rights that protect her from others attacking her physically.
Many will be sympathetic to this man's cause, unfortunately the laws remain the same for all. He could have shown up at the signing and spit on her picture in front of her and that would have been freedom of speech, unless that city or county has laws prohibiting public spitting which there are still some old laws on the books that do.
If this were the case then where does it end, I don't like someone so I can spit on them and this is exercising my rights of free speech? If I do not like someone I have the right to SAY so, I do not have the right to take actions to physically come in contact to another.
2007-02-02 08:24:28 · answer #2 · answered by nowment 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
To answer the original question: no, spitting in someone's face is not "free speech." In some jurisdictions it's called "simple assault;" in KCMO it's considered "disorderly conduct."
Here's what the 1st Amendment says:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
As written, the amendment says that the people have a right to voice their opinions about the government without fear of retribution from the government for doing it. This does not, however, give people the right to slander others or just say whatever they want and call it "free speech." It's like shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire; sure you can do it, but there are consequences to it that the 1st Amendment will not protect you from.
I don't see anywhere in there that it says you can spit in somone's face.
2007-02-02 08:00:47 · answer #3 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
So much for the constitution if one is not allowed freedom of speech. Considering the number of sane people living in the United States who oppose the current war, there will be a lot of spitting going on by those conservatives. That is certainly grown up. Actually it is just a glaring example of the mentality of those who think that they have rights while others do not.
2007-02-02 08:06:27 · answer #4 · answered by Deirdre O 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Free speech does not include assault and/or battery on another person. They have rights also. If Jane was not happy with the ruling of the judge in regards to disorderly conduct, she can file assault and battery charges against the guy. She could also sue him in civil court.
(Funny how the vet fought to defend HER right of free speech and she makes the most of it but she supported the other side.)
2007-02-02 08:52:55 · answer #5 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yep. I love Jennifer Lopez but I didn't go to see Monster In Law at the movies. I am not gonna pay for anything that Jane Fonda might possibly get even a few cents royalty from.
2007-02-02 08:03:29 · answer #6 · answered by Bean62960 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
First amendment freedoms can only be infringed upon by state/government action. Jane Fonda does not represent the government.
As such, Michael Smith could not use the first amendment as a shield for his act.
Jane could sue him civilly for battery though.
2007-02-02 09:46:12 · answer #7 · answered by Peter 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no i don't think it's free speech but what a good idea i've always wanted to spit in bushes face and the chew might be just the little extra essence that would really make it just so special so i'll purchase some and keep it in my purse just in case i get my chance but i bet the charges agnist me would be more severe....
2007-02-02 08:03:13 · answer #8 · answered by auntie s 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Regardless of her actions, he has no right to be just as wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. We all know that. Everybody in the world can't start acting against criminals legally, or that would make everybody a criminal. Spitting on someone is not only disgusting, but it is considered assault. You cant touch people in anyway, or you could get in serious trouble. and if someone spit on me, by god I would make sure I would take them to justice. I dont care how menial the crime is, its disgusting and the person obvously has no objections to being crude so probably has plenty of sick diseases that he could spread to youas well. If he is so hung up on her acting in an inhuman way, then he is obviously a hypocrite and needs to learn morals himself.
2007-02-02 08:36:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Physical assault isn't covered by free speech.
I know you aren't serious, you just want agreement that Jane sucks, but in case you were thinking of going out there, you should be aware of the facts.
2007-02-02 07:58:04 · answer #10 · answered by justa 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋