All people naturally Goodness… So I point out the restriction of free speech…
You got that right. :sad_yes:Hate speech laws are a convenient way to silence people with views they disagree with.
Diminish motivation to have “Hate Speech” laws…Diminish this issue
Thank you, CatholicLeft; we can always count on you to stir the pot and contribute nothing to the conversation.Nope, they can’t. Not in America at least. But the Right wing media likes to predend they are out there so they can rally their base to divide this nation.
Precisely. If someone murders or brutally assaults a person and there is evidence, such as the example you cited, that the person was motivated by racism or such, then it is a hate crime. If someone commits murder in the exact same fashion but without said evidence that is was racially motivated, then it is not a hate crime and can carry a lighter sentance.That isn’t the way it works, though. If you tell your fried “I’m going to go kill some [insert racial slur]s” and kill a black man, that’s a hate crime. If you get into a fight with a black man, and shoot him, even if you call him by a racial slur after the fight starts, it still isn’t a hate crime.
Contrary to popular belief, it isn’t a hate crime every time a white man kills a black man. It is only a hate crime if racism, or anti-Semitism (there was a pretty high profile assault perpetrated by a black high schooler near my house who wanted to “beat up some dirty Jews”), or any other bias.
Are you aware that that standard is entirely arbitrary and thus the enforcement would be entirely arbitrary? We see this in Canada where hate speech laws are in effect. Many people are persecuted (NOT prosecuted) by the euphemistically names Human Rights Commission. People who say homosexual acts are sinful, who point out that the 9/11 terrorists were all moslems, etc.Am I reading this correctly? Do you believe that you believe anyone should be allowed to incite hate with hate speech? You are aware that that often leads to violence against those the hate is directed to, aren’t you?
I’m all for protecting the Christian influence as long as all the other influences can stand side by side with it. Otherwise you might have laws against hate speech towards Christians but not against the other groups. And just because all the 9/11 terrorists were muslims does not give us free reign to say all muslims are terrorists or are even likely to be.Are you aware that that standard is entirely arbitrary and thus the enforcement would be entirely arbitrary? We see this in Canada where hate speech laws are in effect. Many people are persecuted (NOT prosecuted) by the euphemistically names Human Rights Commission. People who say homosexual acts are sinful, who point out that the 9/11 terrorists were all moslems, etc.
Yet people who desecrate the Holy Eucharist and try to bring hate down upon the Catholic Church are not charged or investigated by the Canadian HRC.
Hate speech laws are intended to do one thing, completely eliminate Christian influence from public discourse. And it is succeeding in Canada.
And that particular story was kind of swept under the rug because of the earthquake that occured the next morning.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.
Do you really want to live in a world where other people have the power to punish you for what you believe?Am I reading this correctly? Do you believe that you believe anyone should be allowed to incite hate with hate speech? You are aware that that often leads to violence against those the hate is directed to, aren’t you?
What about not allowing the government to protect or punish any kind of “influence?”I’m all for protecting the Christian influence as long as all the other influences can stand side by side with it.
We have free reign to say whatever we want because our constitution recognizes that we are all born with the right to say whatever we want without government approval.And just because all the 9/11 terrorists were muslims does not give us free reign to say all muslims are terrorists or are even likely to be.
I can’t see the link to the sex industry but, if that’s the case in the US, you must be right.Nonsense. They are pandering laws, pure and simple.
I agree. Arson should be treated as a crime of arson. Whyd o we need to worsen the punishment based on motive? Punishment should be based on how much damage was done. And if we have the right to say anything I could say some things about some Catholics as well and that speech should be protected. But I still get the impression that we want to spew any speech or views towards anyone but want Catholics to be sheltered. Not the way it is supposed to be. I put the proposal again that you either protect everyone or noone.What about not allowing the government to protect or punish any kind of “influence?”
It shouldn’t matter if a person purposely burns down a church, or a mosque, or a synagogue, or a firestation
We have free reign to say whatever we want because our constitution recognizes that we are all born with the right to say whatever we want without government approval.
- they should be tried and convicted for arson, because that’s what they did.
That doesn’t mean that all speech is correct, valid, or in the interests of the public good-
But since when does the government really have anything to do with protecting what is correct, valid, or in the interests of the public good?
If people want to stand up for a group that is being picked on for one reason or another, they are free to do that- by ostracising those who hate them, by working to educate and inform the public, and by making sure that crimes committed against them are highly publicized.But I still get the impression that we want to spew any speech or views towards anyone but want Catholics to be sheltered. Not the way it is supposed to be. I put the proposal again that you either protect everyone or noone.
There is not necessarily any link to “sex”. Websters defines Pandering:I can’t see the link to the sex industry but, if that’s the case in the US, you must be right.