Teen banned from using 5-letter word

By Hum
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

+Mirumir Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

What about the 1st Amendment? Can a judge overrule it? Cause to me it seems like a case of individual censorship. But then it's group rights vs individual and the interests of majority win.

And I do too believe that he should have been just banned from entering those premises, instead of being silenced to pronounce a harmless word.

Grand Master

HSoft

Posted
Posted

What about the 1st Amendment? Can a judge overule it? Cause to me it seems like a case of individual censorship. But then it's group rights vs individual and the interests of majority win.

And I do too believe that he should have been just banned from entering those premises, instead of being silenced to pronounce a harmless word.

What about the 1st ammendment? The judge didn't appear to overrule it.

Freedom of speech does not equal the ability to say anything you want, anywhere you want.

Grand Master

+Mirumir Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

What about the 1st ammendment? The judge didn't appear to overrule it.

Freedom of speech does not equal the ability to say anything you want, anywhere you want.

The kid has been forbidden from expressing himself anywhere, I assume, including his own room. That's a bit overkill. What if he just likes the sound of the word?

It's the obligation of that local bingo to arrange a safe and fair environment for their participants. What have they done to prevent such a thing from happening if they are involved in serious business (like gambling) there? Nothing. No face-, age-, ID- control, no sound-proof walls.

:D

Grand Master

HSoft

Posted
Posted

The kid has been forbidden from expressing himself anywhere, I assume, including his own room. That's a bit overkill. What if he just likes the sound of the word?

It's the obligation of that local bingo to arrange a safe and fair environment for their participants. What have they done to prevent such a thing from happening if they are involved in serious business (like gambling) there? Nothing. No face-, age-, ID- control, no sound-proof walls.

:D

lmao - so according to you it would be a cinema's fault for not arranging a safe and fair environment if someone decided to go into a crowded cinema and start shouting fire?

mmm.... not so sure you understand the concept of the first ammendment.

Grand Master

+Mirumir Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

lmao - so according to you it would be a cinema's fault for not arranging a safe and fair environment if someone decided to go into a crowded cinema and start shouting fire?

mmm.... not so sure you understand the concept of the first ammendment.

imho it's not the same thing.

Shouting "fire" causes panic. Shouting "bingo" doesn't cause panic.

p.s. As for the cinema, if someone disturbs my movie watching session and the administration does nothing about it, I demand a refund.

  • theyarecomingforyou
  • Like 1
Grand Master

LaP

Posted
Posted

It might have gone down as just a harmless (if annoying) prank. But unfortunately for Whaley, Park Hills Police Sgt. Richard Webster was working off-duty security detail at the time (must be some high rollers at this bingo hall).

Really good use of tax payers money.

When i was young the police had better things to do.

We should start a trend like that harlem shake thing that's going around, no bingo halls will be safe :D

Man that would be awesome.

Grand Master

LaP

Posted
Posted

p.s. As for the cinema, if someone disturbs my movie watching session and the administration does nothing about it, I demand a refund.

Me too. But it looks like she should call the police instead. Anyway according to this police officer ...

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I can understand banning the use of a word in a courtroom, but preventing someone from using a word with the threat of jail time is unfair. The kid should have simply been banned from the bingo hall.

  • +Mirumir and Brandon H
  • Like 2
Grand Master

HSoft

Posted
Posted

imho it's not the same thing.

Shouting "fire" causes panic. Shouting "bingo" doesn't cause panic.

You mustn't have been to a bingo hall filled with old ladies lately then :rofl:

Freedom of speech doesn't just mean you are not allowed to say something if it will cause panic. Go into a predominently black ghetto neighbourhood and start shouting n*****. If you get out alive, you can and should be charged with disorderly conduct (and possibly inciting a riot amongst others, although that doesn't apparently apply to Jesse Jackson for some reason but that's a whole other topic).

Grand Master

+Mirumir Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

You mustn't have been to a bingo hall filled with old ladies lately then :rofl:

Freedom of speech doesn't just mean you are not allowed to say something if it will cause panic. Go into a predominently black ghetto neighbourhood and start shouting n*****. If you get out alive, you can and should be charged with disorderly conduct (and possibly inciting a riot amongst others, although that doesn't apparently apply to Jesse Jackson for some reason but that's a whole other topic).

Again, it's a bad comparison.

Shouting "bingo" is harmless, it doesn't ignite riots or hate. It doesn't offend anyone.

Grand Master

compl3x

Posted
Posted

Don't think you quite understand the concept of freedom of speech...

lmao - so according to you it would be a cinema's fault for not arranging a safe and fair environment if someone decided to go into a crowded cinema and start shouting fire?

mmm.... not so sure you understand the concept of the first ammendment.

Do you understand? It would seem not.

Screaming fire in a theatre isn't a form of protected speech. Or screaming "I have a gun and I am going to shoot everyone in here" or "I planted a bomb under everyone's table and you all have 30 seconds before they detonate". Libel or slander aren't protected speech. Incitement is another one.

What he kid did was obnoxious and annoying but to argue it would have resulted in the same kind of panic, riot or chaos as those examples mentioned above is absurd. He should have been fined or warned and that should have been the end of it. Banning the kid from saying bingo is as about as stupid as it gets.

Mentor

francescob

Posted
Posted

bahaha! Crazy that a judge has banned him from exercising his freedom of speech. He could just ban him from going to bingo clubs instead. Sending him to jail if he does it again is crazy.

Then he would have called the bingo hall and shouted Bingo on the phone! duh!

bahaha! Crazy that a judge has banned him from exercising his freedom of speech. He could just ban him from going to bingo clubs instead. Sending him to jail if he does it again is crazy.

Then he would have called the bingo hall and shouted Bingo on the phone! duh!

Grand Master

Noir Angel

Posted
Posted

Come on you guys, the punishment here boils down to saying "don't do it again."

The punishment amounts to him being banned from saying a word. Which violates his constitutional right to freedom of speech.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • The official Funny Pictures thread

      By Steven P. · Posted

      Blast from the past.
    • The Trump administration doesn't want you to use OpenAI's GPT-5.6 without its approval

      By ad47uk · Posted

      Fine by me, I don't want to use it anyway,.
    • Microsoft Authenticator - Constant Login Approval Requests

      By goretsky · Posted

      Hello, Were you using a product or service from one of the companies affected by the Klue data breach?  See https://klue.com/blog/an-update-on-recent-klue-security-incident for the company's public statement.  That blog post does not list affected customer. From looking around at reports, I created this list: Gong HackerOne Huntress Insurity Jamf LastPass OneTrust Recorded Future ReliaQuest Salesforce Snyk Sprout Social Tanium It is likely there are other companies affected as well. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky  
    • SpaceX reportedly plans a Starlink mobile service for U.S. consumers

      By Karthik Mudaliar · Posted

      SpaceX reportedly plans a Starlink mobile service for U.S. consumers by Karthik Mudaliar SpaceX reportedly wants to sell mobile phone plans directly to consumers in the United States as part of a wider expansion of Starlink. According to a report from the Financial Times, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell discussed the plan with investors during the company’s recent IPO roadshow. The company is also said to be considering building a terrestrial mobile network to complement Starlink’s satellite coverage. The plan is quite different from how Starlink currently operates in the U.S. mobile market. SpaceX already provides satellite connectivity for T-Mobile’s T-Satellite service, but T-Mobile remains responsible for the subscription, billing, and customer support. A Starlink-branded mobile service would give SpaceX control of the customer relationship instead. It could also turn the company from a partner of traditional mobile operators into a direct competitor. T-Mobile also began testing its Starlink-powered satellite service in early 2025. The beta was initially limited to text messaging and was also available to some AT&T and Verizon customers. The service has since expanded to support limited data access through selected apps, including WhatsApp, Google Maps, AccuWeather, and AllTrails. It is designed to provide a connection in areas where normal cell towers are unavailable, rather than replace a conventional mobile network. However, if SpaceX actually has a plan to serve nationwide, it needs to do more than just satellite networks and actually support on-ground operations. It can also partner up with existing carriers and become a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO). With that said, SpaceX has already spent heavily to support its mobile ambitions. Just last year, the company agreed to acquire wireless spectrum licences from EchoStar in deals worth a combined $19.6 billion. EchoStar's spectrum includes AWS-4, H-Block, and AWS-3 frequencies that could be used for both satellite and terrestrial communications. According to a SpaceX securities filing, the Federal Communications Commission approved the transaction in May 2026, although it is not expected to close until late 2027. There's no official statement by SpaceX for now. Pricing, availability, and other details remain unknown. Source: Financial Times
    • Ford execs say they made a mistake when they replaced human engineers with AI

      By PsYcHoKiLLa · Posted

      NO SHI... ?

  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Enthusiast
      Xonos went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      400
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      127
    4. 4
      neufuse
      69
    5. 5
      Xenon
      66
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!