Heartland

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07012606.html

No further comments from me...just enjoy, you liberals.

Of course, repealing what you so emotively call "hate-crime laws", would put us back in the days when the KKK / NF / (insert any other far-right hate group with a bunch of street-fighters that you care to pick) would intimidate, harass and physically attack (and sometimes kill) anyone they didn't like the look of.

The key is finding the right balance - people have a right to free speech, but there are limits to that right. The oft-quoted example is to ask whether you should have the right to shout "fire!" in a theatre. Or whether you have the right to lie in order to embezzle an old lady (where anti-fraud laws limit your free speech).

It'll take time to find the right balance between free speech and preventing an atmosphere where the police turn a blind eye to lynchings by men in white hoods - and the latter is what I'd call a hate-crime.

You specifically say you're not going to comment, so I presume you don't have a solution.

Eh, it'll be a sadder day when we're no longer allowed to hang signs outside of our B+Bs saying "Please Do Not Feed The Trolls".

The only thing wrong here is that he didn't have to resign in disgrace and face a possible jail term instead as he would have if he'd made the same comments about blacks or Jews.

Hahaha, oh boy, I guess your friend Crowley would approve very much of you citing a pro-life fundamental Christian site.

lifesite wrote:LifeSite understands that abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality and all other moral, life and family issues are part of the international conflict affecting all nations, even at the most local levels. LifeSite attempts to provide its readers with the most useful and up-to-date information on this conflict.

in your head must be so many contradictory ideologies flying around, that it's a wonder you can type coherentely on a keyboard...

lazarus corporation wrote:Of course, repealing what you so emotively call "hate-crime laws", would put us back in the days when the KKK / NF / (insert any other far-right hate group with a bunch of street-fighters that you care to pick) would intimidate, harass and physically attack (and sometimes kill) anyone they didn't like the look of.

No, it wouldn't. If everyone was equal under the law, it wouldn't matter what their motive was for hanging the black man, it would only matter that they hung a man. They'd still be arrested for murder, vandalism, and physical-abuse. Harassment laws would be the same for everybody.

The key is finding the right balance - people have a right to free speech, but there are limits to that right. The oft-quoted example is to ask whether you should have the right to shout "fire!" in a theatre. Or whether you have the right to lie in order to embezzle an old lady (where anti-fraud laws limit your free speech).

That's been bothering me for some time, still not found a satisfactory answer.

It'll take time to find the right balance between free speech and preventing an atmosphere where the police turn a blind eye to lynchings by men in white hoods - and the latter is what I'd call a hate-crime.

There's a difference between someone saying "kill all black people" and actually choosing to go out and obey those orders. Freedom of speech and freedom of action are two different things. Saying "kill all black people" would be violating no rights, killing a black person would be violating said black person's right to life and hence equal jail time.

I understand your argument, and it's definitely compelling.

But I still feel that freedom of speech should be limited in some respects, and I think that incitement to violence/murder (which is just words, not actions) should be one of those limitations and should still be a criminal offence.

And I also believe that in a society where incitement to violence/murder is not illegal then you create a society where more people will be attacked and murdered. True, if everyone was treated equally under the law then the individual murderers would be imprisoned, but the person(s) inciting them to murder would still be free to incite more people to murder, and more people would die.

If laws exist to protect people, then protection from being killed is surely the highest priority protection that laws can offer. And that's why I think that incitement to murder needs to be illegal.

itnAklipse wrote:No further comments from me...just enjoy, you liberals.

I'm enjoying it.

Excuse me while I go look for some nice pictures of Gackt.

But I still feel that freedom of speech should be limited in some respects, and I think that incitement to violence/murder (which is just words, not actions) should be one of those limitations and should still be a criminal offence.

Would this law also include criticisms of government, that could incite people to violence towards government? Criticisms of religion, that could incite members of said religion to rise up in violent response? Criticisms of any minority which could incite said minority to rise up in response? Does this law count if it only incites groups or does it include individuals too? Really, then, everyone would have to keep their mouths shut and not say anything that could stir up violence.

Or is it only the direct incitement, saying something like “rise up in revolution�? If so, a lot of Marxist and Anarchist literature will have to be banned. Best not anyone speak out against the government and say it should be demolished, because that's incitement to violence.

nick the stripper wrote:

But I still feel that freedom of speech should be limited in some respects, and I think that incitement to violence/murder (which is just words, not actions) should be one of those limitations and should still be a criminal offence.

Would this law also include criticisms of government, that could incite people to violence towards government? Criticisms of religion, that could incite members of said religion to rise up in violent response? Criticisms of any minority which could incite said minority to rise up in response? Does this law count if it only incites groups or does it include individuals too? Really, then, everyone would have to keep their mouths shut and not say anything that could stir up violence.

Or is it only the direct incitement, saying something like “rise up in revolution�? If so, a lot of Marxist and Anarchist literature will have to be banned. Best not anyone speak out against the government and say it should be demolished, because that's incitement to violence.

Taking any argument and extrapolating it to an extreme will always make it ridiculous. But of course I haven't put forward the position you describe - I'll leave extreme positions to people like itnAklipse who view everything in black and white, where a moderate position is never acceptable. Let's not accept that sort of mindset where common sense and compromise can't be considered.

Remember that in my original post I said "The key is finding the right balance - people have a right to free speech, but there are limits to that right. " - I'm not advocating an extreme position where everything you say is possibly illegal, but talking about finding a sensible balance.

I tend to think it should be limited to incitement to violence and murder, and that doesn't include speaking out against a government's policies.

For example, I believe that the UK's blasphemy laws should be repealed - I don't think that a religion's doctrine needs to be beyond criticism any more than I think a government's policies should be beyond criticism. However I think that inciting people to attack and/or murder people of a particular religion should be illegal.

I hope not to offend, but it appears as if you’re only for banning speech you disagree with. I don’t think what I said was extreme at all, but equal to exactly what you were saying, the only difference being that you disagree with the KKK, whereas you think it’s OK to criticize the church. All of these opinions, once stated, can easily lead an individual or a group to do idiotic things such as murder.

If you ban ‘hate speech’, it goes underground, where it is harder for the government to have access to the speeches and know what these people are thinking. If you ban ‘hate speech’, you’re not banning the act itself that the speech advocates, you’re just banning the possibility to discuss a certain point of view.

If you protect the church in a manner that suggests it's teachings are true, then prayer should be covered by existing laws on harassment and assault. Discuss.

Motz wrote:If you protect the church in a manner that suggests it's teachings are true, then prayer should be covered by existing laws on harassment and assault. Discuss.

That's going rather off topic since this is a discussion about laws that restrict 'hate speech' - i.e. speech that incites violence.

nick the stripper wrote:That's going rather off topic

This is General Chat.

nick the stripper wrote:I hope not to offend, but it appears as if you’re only for banning speech you disagree with. I don’t think what I said was extreme at all, but equal to exactly what you were saying, the only difference being that you disagree with the KKK, whereas you think it’s OK to criticize the church. All of these opinions, once stated, can easily lead an individual or a group to do idiotic things such as murder.

If you ban ‘hate speech’, it goes underground, where it is harder for the government to have access to the speeches and know what these people are thinking. If you ban ‘hate speech’, you’re not banning the act itself that the speech advocates, you’re just banning the possibility to discuss a certain point of view.

I'm not offended at all.

Criticising an organisation/government./religion and inciting violence against people are different things. In other words, I believe that saying "The Catholic Church's stance on abortion is stupid because..." is wildly different from saying "We should physically attack Catholics in the street because...".

I think you're arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that the law would interpret a criticism of an organisation as an incitement to violence against its members. If this was the case then we'd all already be in jail.

That's not how the courts work - judges and juries can interpret the law and apply intelligence. It also means that juries can find someone guilty where they've obviously intended their speech to incite violence but avoided saying it clearly.

Edit: Incitement to Violence is a common law offence in the UK, meaning it's been around for centuries. Hence my conclusion that, in practice, criticising something does not automatically equate to incitement to violence.

nick the stripper wrote:That's going rather off topic since this is a discussion about laws that restrict 'hate speech' - i.e. speech that incites violence.

Not at all. If what they teach is true, then prayer and ritual have extremely violent potential.

Incidentally, I'd like a conscience exemption from laws on Racial and Religious Hatred because I don't like the Catholic or Anglican Church, particularly John Sentanamu. Any black person against hate speech laws for other groups is so far up their own arse they could lick their own tonsils.

Dark Angel´s "boo-hoo-yer-all-against-me"-threads somehow were more interesting..

Eh, at least she was one tool short of the full bag

Motz wrote:Eh, at least she was one tool short of the full bag

Now you mention it, 's been a while since we've seen 9w9 as well, the orange kid!

Not you, Z

IZ.

Invoke Rosalie while you're at it, why don't you!

Or Loki

IZ.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:

Motz wrote:Eh, at least she was one tool short of the full bag

Now you mention it, 's been a while since we've seen 9w9 as well, the orange kid!

Not you, Z

IZ.

Aye! He said goodbye for christmas and dissapeared..

eotunun wrote:Dark Angel´s "boo-hoo-yer-all-against-me"-threads somehow were more interesting..

That's because Josh is putting forward sensible well-reasoned arguments in a calm and polite manner (and hopefully I'm doing the same) rather than engaging in a rabid flame war. Damn him.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Or Loki

IZ.

I actually miss his threats I shouldn't dare to ever post near him again.

canon docre wrote:

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Or Loki

IZ.

I actually miss his threats I shouldn't dare to ever post near him again.

He's still around but he has become a bit softer and a bit quieter...

IZ.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:

canon docre wrote:

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Or Loki

IZ.

I actually miss his threats I shouldn't dare to ever post near him again.

He's still around but he has become a bit softer and a bit quieter...

IZ.

Much to my regret.