"Hate speech" laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter goofyjim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

goofyjim

Guest
They should all be ended. One should be able to speak hatred against anyone or noone. None of this foolishness of protecting some while allowing it against others.
 
That’s been an issue here from time to time. It’s mostly due to one group. Of course, they are aware of this, and if anything about “hate speech” legislation is mentioned, they start screaming about “free speech.” Maybe they’re right, but that’s no excuse for their behavior. And to think they call themselves christion. 😦
 
Hate speech laws are a convenient way to silence people with views they disagree with.
 
“Hate speech” laws are a wonderful means by which groups not suffering from various forms of discrimination and hatred can claim that they’re being persecuted.
 
goofyjim said:
They should all be ended. One should be able to speak hatred against anyone or noone. None of this foolishness of protecting some while allowing it against others.
Click to expand...
Jim, do you have a particular law or laws in mind? My impression is that the US doesn’t have any hate speech laws, although there are laws against inciting a crime. Given the free speech tradition of the US, as interpreted by its courts, I think any hate speech law would be struck down as unconstitutional.

That said, I am uneasy with some of the hate speech laws in other countries.
 
“Hate speech” is such a wishy-washy term. I hate it. This said, clear libel or slander or serious verbal abuse should be a tort or misdemeanour, crime incitement should be a crime. Free speech extends to being wrong and foolishing or even rude, but it does not extend to causing real harm. Saying that homosexual sexual activity is immoral is not causing real harm. Out of two evils, I’d rather see people able to call names at impunity than people not being able to express their serious and reasonable views legally.
 
Hate speech laws exist? I thought they were just the hoped for fantasy of student activist groups at the UW-Madison when I went to school there…:rolleyes:
 
goofyjim said:
They should all be ended. One should be able to speak hatred against anyone or noone. None of this foolishness of protecting some while allowing it against others.
Click to expand...
The notion that the government can control the way you feel is a silly one.

You are perfectly free to hate me if you want. All the government can hope to do is control what you do about that hate.

I’m no lawyer but IIRC strong emotions are often a mitigating factor in crimes e.g. the “fighting words” defense) while un-hate filled crimes such as “cold blooded” murder is considered more heinous.
 
steveandersen said:
The notion that the government can control the way you feel is a silly one.

You are perfectly free to hate me if you want. All the government can hope to do is control what you do about that hate.

I’m no lawyer but IIRC strong emotions are often a mitigating factor in crimes e.g. the “fighting words” defense) while un-hate filled crimes such as “cold blooded” murder is considered more heinous.
Click to expand...
Any crime is a hate crime. Why the need for any special categories? Be they religion, ethnicity, or whatever, tehy should be punished based on how heinous they are not which class of people the victim belongs to.
 
Exactomundo. We don’t hear about many “Love crimes”.

It’s all political BS, but may have some roots in the criminal justice system, where they can thow a whole bunch of charges out there and see what sticks.
 
Did any of you follow the human rights trial of Mark Steyn, who was up on a hate speech charge in Canada? If not, google it. It was quite something.

What he did was quote a mullah about Islam’s long term plans for the west-- basically, breed christianity onto the ash heap of history *. A Canadian magazine printed an excerpt, and a muslim rights group claimed to be offended, causing both Steyn and the magazine to go on trial.

The trial got enough attention [in part thanks to Steyn’s very funny writings on the process] that it’s done a lot to boost the free speach movement in Canada.

Steyn and the magazine were eventually aquitted, but he shined the light of day into a dark corner of Canadian law that had been largely ignored. To call them ‘kangaroo’ courts is far to insulting to kangaroos.*
 
In America there are hate crimes.

A hate crime is allegedly based on that a violent act is based on the ethnicity of the person. For example, a white person beats up on a black person just for being black, nothing else. But the problem is it is not applied evenly, in that minority groups are often not charged with a hate crime if they beat up a white person just for being white.
 
Starwynd said:
In America there are hate crimes.

A hate crime is allegedly based on that a violent act is based on the ethnicity of the person. For example, a white person beats up on a black person just for being black, nothing else. But the problem is it is not applied evenly, in that minority groups are often not charged with a hate crime if they beat up a white person just for being white.
Click to expand...
It is straight from Orwell’s Animal Farm. All the animals on the farm are equal. It’s just that some are more equal than others.

Case in point: the “Fat Tuesday” riots some years back in Seattle. A Caucasian youth, Christopher Kime, was singled out and beaten to death, on video, in front of police, by a minority man. No hate crime occurred. And no arrest was even made at the scene! Unbelievable.
 
po18guy said:
It
Case in point: the “Fat Tuesday” riots some years back in Seattle. A Caucasian youth, Christopher Kime, was singled out and beaten to death, on video, in front of police, by a minority man. No hate crime occurred. And no arrest was even made at the scene! Unbelievable.
Click to expand...
Would like to mention that the teen who killed him was arrested and is now in jail.
I met Kristopher Kime’s scout leader, who told me what a great young man Kristopher was. He was trying to protect a fallen woman when he was attacked.
The police were not at their best that day, I think they realized that later.
 
goofyjim said:
Any crime is a hate crime. Why the need for any special categories? Be they religion, ethnicity, or whatever, tehy should be punished based on how heinous they are not which class of people the victim belongs to.
Click to expand...
There has always been special categories. Intent is always a factor in determining sentencing. Was the murder spur of the moment passion? or was it carefully planned and calculated? These things do make a difference, so why wouldn’t the reason a person is murdered? Was it self defense? or was he killed because the suspect hates homosexuals? Do you think these two crimes should have the same sentence?
 
CatholicLeft said:
There has always been special categories. Intent is always a factor in determining sentencing. Was the murder spur of the moment passion? or was it carefully planned and calculated? These things do make a difference, so why wouldn’t the reason a person is murdered? Was it self defense? or was he killed because the suspect hates homosexuals? Do you think these two crimes should have the same sentence?
Click to expand...
Murder is murder. Both are homicide. Self defense is only a legal tenet of the US code that defends the perpetrator under certain circumstances.

To provide any minority, no matter what type, with legal protection based solely on their distinction is to provide them with legal preference over the majority. This violates the equal protection clause in the constitution. That does not stop the left from trying, and succeeding in some cases. It remains a perversion of the law.
 
po18guy said:
To provide any minority, no matter what type, with legal protection based solely on their distinction is to provide them with legal preference over the majority.
Click to expand...
This legal distinction counters the criminal intent on targetting individuals based solely on their distinction from the majority. Fairness at play. The motive behind the crime is as important as the crime itself.
 
cristininha said:
This legal distinction counters the criminal intent on targetting individuals based solely on their distinction from the majority. Fairness at play. The motive behind the crime is as important as the crime itself.
Click to expand...
But, motive, lacking a crime is never punished, or we would all be in prison! Class/hate crimes are discrimination, pure and simple. If they were fairly applied, many many more black men would be in prison. Should this be our goal? No!

If I shoot a black man, I go to prison under a hate crime for 20 years. I shoot a white man, no “hate crime”, I go to prison for 12 years. You have just placed a higher value on the black man’s life. That is fair? Please explain. Equality under the law is, or should I say, was our goal.

If God does not place a higher value on one life than another, who is pleased when we do? The prince of this world, perhaps?
 
po18guy said:
Murder is murder. Both are homicide. Self defense is only a legal tenet of the US code that defends the perpetrator under certain circumstances.

To provide any minority, no matter what type, with legal protection based solely on their distinction is to provide them with legal preference over the majority. This violates the equal protection clause in the constitution. That does not stop the left from trying, and succeeding in some cases. It remains a perversion of the law.
Click to expand...
Then remember, no minority, even Catholics, would get any legal protection or preference over the majority. This is the point I am trying to make. Catholics want some protection based on religion but deny it to everyone else. It’s all or nothing, as far as I’m concerned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top