Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://rense.com/general74/HATEBILL.HTM

For the past eight years, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has tried unsuccessfully to pass its Orwellian federal "anti-hate" bill. It has failed largely for one reason: Republican control of Congress.

Repeatedly, Republican opponents of their hate bill, such as Rep. Roy Blunt and Sen. Bill Frist have been able, with Republican congressional backing, to block passage.

With Democrats now in control, such freedom-saving clout no longer exists. ADL's federal thought crimes bill, "The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act," will be reintroduced soon after January 1. Since no Democrat in Congress has ever voted against the hate bill, it will pass. Pres. Bush has said he will sign a "modified" hate bill. If he does, free speech in America will quickly come to an end.

Unless, that is, there arises an upheaval of protest from the American people. How can that happen? Answer: Alternative right-wing talk radio has helped make it happen before; it can do so again.

Spreading Net of Thought Crime Laws

Today, from Canada to California, to Europe and Australia, ADL-inspired "thought crime" laws are stripping nations of free speech. In Canada and many European countries, it is a crime punishable by heavy fines and even imprisonment to make use of the internet to criticize federally protected groups, such as homosexuals and Muslims.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait....can the Democrats and/or Republicans now actually change anything? I thought the NWO just controlled everything?

rense.com

back to your little conspiracy playground thread deano

Will I still be allowed to call Deano a retard?

Originally posted by PVS
rense.com

back to your little conspiracy playground thread deano Oh noes! Jeff Rense might not be able to continue his bs about Jews taking over the world and reprinting of Holocaust denials.

Idiocy comes to mind.

Current federal hate crime law, passed by Congress is 1968, allows federal investigation and prosecution of hate crimes based on race, religion, and national origin. It does not include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.

You're arguing against a bill that would fix that.

Really, are you psychotic? or just completely out of touch with reality?

It's not too far from reality.

A pastor was jailed in britain for saying that homosexuality is wrong and imoral.

For saying so out of the bible, in his own church.


That's not "hate speech", that's reciting.

That's simply telling others what the Bible, (a free-speech protected book, I believe) says about the subject.


I can see that same situation happening in the U.S. soon enough.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It's not too far from reality.

A pastor was jailed in britain for saying that homosexuality is wrong and imoral.

For saying so out of the bible, in his own church.

That's not "hate speech", that's reciting.

That's simply telling others what the Bible, (a free-speech protected work of fiction, I believe) says about the subject.

I can see that same situation happening in the U.S. soon enough. Fixed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait....can the Democrats and/or Republicans now actually change anything? I thought the NWO just controlled everything?




First freedom is all an illusion..now we have freedom, but the democrats are gonna take it away from us..but the democrates arent in power, the NWO is.....mother of god. That means Hulk Hogan is a democrat.

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/5748/originalnwo5dk.jpg

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It's not too far from reality.

A pastor was jailed in britain for saying that homosexuality is wrong and imoral.

For saying so out of the bible, in his own church.


That's not "hate speech", that's reciting.

That's simply telling others what the Bible, (a free-speech protected book, I believe) says about the subject.


I can see that same situation happening in the U.S. soon enough.

The Bible also says slavery is acceptable. If pastors started shouting about slavery, or public stonings, they would be jailed.

Beliefs aren't substantiated. The bible was used against interacial marriages and against desegregation. If the Bible limits the rights of others, it should be limited so it no longer limits the rights of others.

Deano...you're a moron.

drones since the dawn of time

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait....can the Democrats and/or Republicans now actually change anything? I thought the NWO just controlled everything?

i posted the article because it was interesting to me.take it or leave it.

the nwo operates through every political party

You don't live in the US, so why do you care?

Originally posted by KidRock


First freedom is all an illusion..now we have freedom, but the democrats are gonna take it away from us..but the democrates arent in power, the NWO is.....mother of god. That means Hulk Hogan is a democrat.

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/5748/originalnwo5dk.jpg

tooo sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

Originally posted by Deano
drones since the dawn of time Yes, rebel without a clue, everyone is a drone but you. Feel proud.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It's not too far from reality.

A pastor was jailed in britain for saying that homosexuality is wrong and imoral.

For saying so out of the bible, in his own church.


That's not "hate speech", that's reciting.

That's simply telling others what the Bible, (a free-speech protected book, I believe) says about the subject.


I can see that same situation happening in the U.S. soon enough.

How the hell do you figure that?

Even a Democrat isn't about to try and rid America of the First Amendment.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It's not too far from reality.

A pastor was jailed in britain for saying that homosexuality is wrong and imoral.

For saying so out of the bible, in his own church.



Was this the pastor of Totally-made-upshire?

Originally posted by Deano
drones since the dawn of time

The only real drone I see here is you.

Hmm.

Ironically enough, I was going to make a thread about the limits of free speech in Canada.

I am now glad that I did not.

hate bill?

does that mean hate bill clinton...damn democrat back stabbin liberals

I think the limits of free speech are expressedly clear.

Speech ceases to become free speech when it impedes upon the rights of others.

Originally posted by jaden101
hate bill?

does that mean hate bill clinton...damn democrat back stabbin liberals

DAMN THEM FOR STOPPING DISCRIMINATION

Originally posted by Alliance
I think the limits of free speech are expressedly clear.

Speech ceases to become free speech when it impedes upon the rights of others.
My right not to have to listen to ****ing morons ***** about shit on the Intarwebs.

Unfortunately, that does not constitute an infringement upon your rights.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Deano...you're a moron.

Hate speach! Call the police! The FBI! The Democratic Convention!

You know, Deano (no you don't; you don't know anything), there are lots of countries with hate-speach laws already in place. And yet ... free speach has not come crashing to a halt in any of them.

Honestly, you're such a drama queen.

Originally posted by Deano
http://rense.com/general74/HATEBILL.HTM

For the past eight years, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has tried unsuccessfully to pass its Orwellian federal "anti-hate" bill. It has failed largely for one reason: Republican control of Congress.

Repeatedly, Republican opponents of their hate bill, such as Rep. Roy Blunt and Sen. Bill Frist have been able, with Republican congressional backing, to block passage.

With Democrats now in control, such freedom-saving clout no longer exists. ADL's federal thought crimes bill, "The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act," will be reintroduced soon after January 1. Since no Democrat in Congress has ever voted against the hate bill, it will pass. Pres. Bush has said he will sign a "modified" hate bill. If he does, free speech in America will quickly come to an end.

Unless, that is, there arises an upheaval of protest from the American people. How can that happen? Answer: Alternative right-wing talk radio has helped make it happen before; it can do so again.

Spreading Net of Thought Crime Laws

Today, from Canada to California, to Europe and Australia, ADL-inspired "thought crime" laws are stripping nations of free speech. In Canada and many European countries, it is a crime punishable by heavy fines and even imprisonment to make use of the internet to criticize federally protected groups, such as homosexuals and Muslims.

Well, an anti-hate bill seems better then a hate bill. After things like the Patriot Act and so on it is hard to believe this could be so much more detrimental to fundamental rights. And I don't actually think the laws are Orwellian in nature (Orwell would be spinning in the grave at the way he is used) or expressily the field of "thought belief" - there are already laws in place in places like Australia where speech that incites hate or violance against particular groups is prohibited - speech is free so far as it doesn't harm others. I remember a case a couple of years ago by a group of homosexual men against a radio host based upon derogatory comments that villified gay people and could be seen as inciting gay hate and potentially violance - such laws here are consitutional and operate on the balance of everybodies rights to be safe which overwrites a persons right to say "Gay/etc people should be exterminated, they are a pox." I have no problem with such laws.

Wait - if the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin and both controlled by the same masters - isn't it a moot point? Wouldn't it just easily come in under the Republicans as the Democrats if that was the case?

Originally posted by Alliance
Unfortunately, that does not constitute an infringement upon your rights.
STFU i gave it 2 ur mom last nite n00b

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Wait - if the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin and both controlled by the same masters - isn't it a moot point? Wouldn't it just easily come in under the Republicans as the Democrats if that was the case? Obviously the NWO made the Republicans oppose the bill, then engineered a Democrat win, then made the Democrats support the bill, all in a vicious ruse to steal our voices... literally... with microchips... nanopicomicrochips... fired from lasers. Then when people can no longer communicate vocally society will break down into chaos...

It's impossible to ban hate speech. Because doing so would be obviously unConstitutional, and would be struck down immediately.

Conversation over

Originally posted by Deano
http://rense.com/general74/HATEBILL.HTM

For the past eight years, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has tried unsuccessfully to pass its Orwellian federal "anti-hate" bill. It has failed largely for one reason: Republican control of Congress.

Repeatedly, Republican opponents of their hate bill, such as Rep. Roy Blunt and Sen. Bill Frist have been able, with Republican congressional backing, to block passage.

With Democrats now in control, such freedom-saving clout no longer exists. ADL's federal thought crimes bill, "The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act," will be reintroduced soon after January 1. Since no Democrat in Congress has ever voted against the hate bill, it will pass. Pres. Bush has said he will sign a "modified" hate bill. If he does, free speech in America will quickly come to an end.

Unless, that is, there arises an upheaval of protest from the American people. How can that happen? Answer: Alternative right-wing talk radio has helped make it happen before; it can do so again.

Spreading Net of Thought Crime Laws

Today, from Canada to California, to Europe and Australia, ADL-inspired "thought crime" laws are stripping nations of free speech. In Canada and many European countries, it is a crime punishable by heavy fines and even imprisonment to make use of the internet to criticize federally protected groups, such as homosexuals and Muslims.

Meh...If I get thrown in jail or tortured for my beliefs so be it. I'd rather be imprisoned for something that I believe in -- than be imprisoned whilst thinking I'm free.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait....can the Democrats and/or Republicans now actually change anything? I thought the NWO just controlled everything?
This comment me caught me hilariously off guard.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
speech is free so far as it doesn't harm others.

Then speech is not free at all.

im fine with that. free thought and expression is what i hope will stay preserved. however im content with not having the right to directly endanger others by intentionally prompting those around me to stampede, attack, and/or riot.

Democrats are pansy pathetic dumbasses.

See, freedom of speech is not gone.

not yet.

LOL

Originally posted by PVS
im fine with that. free thought and expression is what i hope will stay preserved. however im content with not having the right to directly endanger others by intentionally prompting those around me to stampede, attack, and/or riot.

How do you mean freedom of expression would be allowed, if a freedom of speech is not?
What if you feel there is something wrong with you religious or political system? How exactly are you going to express yourself in a way that it doesnt violate freedom of speech.

Freedom of expression and freedom of speech, are pretty much mother and daughter.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Democrats are pansy pathetic dumbasses.

See, freedom of speech is not gone.

Internet is still the only place where freedom of speech as reached an absolute.

Total freedom of speech is not laudable, Lil. Laws preventing the incitement of racial hatred are there to restrict speech with damn good cause.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Total freedom of speech is not laudable, Lil. Laws preventing the incitement of racial hatred are there to restrict speech with damn good cause.

That is a topic where the oinions of people are quite different. I for one see total freedom of speech as a rather good thing.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How do you mean freedom of expression would be allowed, if a freedom of speech is not?
What if you feel there is something wrong with you religious or political system? How exactly are you going to express yourself in a way that it doesnt violate freedom of speech.

Freedom of expression and freedom of speech, are pretty much mother and daughter.

let us not get lost in blind idealism. unless you feel people should have the right to scream "fire" in a movie theater, or someone should have the right to bear false witness in a court of law.

only a sith deals in absolutes

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is a topic where the oinions of people are quite different. I for one see total freedom of speech as a rather good thing.

Then it is fortunate that no rational society agrees with you.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Then speech is not free at all.

If 'free speech' were to be completely unfettered, many crimes would suddenly become non-criminal.

There has to be a balance between the realistic right to say whatever you choose, and the necessity of laws which prevent certain crimes that occur as a result of speech.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Then it is fortunate that no rational society agrees with you.

Fair enough. Just saying that it is not as obvious as you make it out to be. It is also controversial. And not only with persons who want to be able to continue with their "Hate Speeches".

bardock's just frustrated because he's forbidden by law from goose stepping and saluting hitler

It's not actually very controversial among legislative circles; it tends to be a particular sort of person that has issue with it. The fact that no reasonable society is ever going to come close to literal free speech indicates, basically, what an absurd idea it is considered to be.

Actually, spinning off from that point, you can go too far. Free Speech might not be literal but it is a concept that needs serious attention being paid to, and all this stuff on the Continent about Holocaust denial being illegal is really quite silly.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How do you mean freedom of expression would be allowed, if a freedom of speech is not?
What if you feel there is something wrong with you religious or political system? How exactly are you going to express yourself in a way that it doesnt violate freedom of speech.

Freedom of expression and freedom of speech, are pretty much mother and daughter.



Internet is still the only place where freedom of speech as reached an absolute.

You...kind of don't really know what freedom of speech actually covers, do you.

Speech is free up until the point where it violates the rights or safety of someone else. Saying you disagree with the government is protected under it. Saying you dislike how your church did something is protected under it. Going into a crowded area and yelling "fire!" is not, as it will incite a riot. Saying that (insert group here) should die is not, because hate speech sure as hell violates the rights of the people targetted by such speech.

And actually, free speech is non-existant on the internet. All sites are privately owned by people and thus you are bound to any and all rules that they set.

Originally posted by PVS
bardock's just frustrated because he's forbidden by law from goose stepping and saluting hitler

This does bother me to be honest. I can see that screaming fire in a Theatre has ..."bad"...consequences. But it is hard (for me to draw a line) and although it might not be useful for a society to allow it I think free speech should be free. Certainly the free expressions of ones feelings. If one has the opinion that "Allm whites are selfish bastards" or "All woman should cook and shut up or "All ******* should be killed" I think they should have the right to say so. As idiotic as I find it myself. I just can't see why "I think gays should have the right to marry" can't be forbidden by that reasoning as well. I don't think it is a slippery slope, I don't think bad things would happen if we forbid it, I just think it is a freedom we lose that we don't have to lose.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
and all this stuff on the Continent about Holocaust denial being illegal is really quite silly.

i agree. simply being an ignorant ass does not endanger anyone, and once that is forbidden, its a very slippery slope. once laws forbid offending certain parties, i think that particular society is ****ed

Okay, that is embarrassing, but I did jump to a conclusion too fast. There are things that should not be covered by free speech. Forgive me for stealing your folks time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Certainly the free expressions of ones feelings. If one has the opinion that "Allm whites are selfish bastards" or "All woman should cook and shut up or "All ******* should be killed" I think they should have the right to say so. As idiotic as I find it myself. I just can't see why "I think gays should have the right to marry" can't be forbidden by that reasoning as well. I don't think it is a slippery slope, I don't think bad things would happen if we forbid it, I just think it is a freedom we lose that we don't have to lose.

The distinction is made where it could possibly lead to harm. If someone wants to say someone is an idiot, stupid, or whatever, that's fair, but if they try to persuade someone to kill them, it's one of those things that will naturally evolve into the system we have now.

The reason such things are illegal is because it is grossly juvenile to deny a link between allowing the incitement of bad things, and then those bad things actually happening, which it would be a total failure of Government if they did not act to prevent it at source.

The reason some things are alloiwed and some are not are based on a moral judgment made by society as reflected by elected representatives and the reason you can't see the distinction is because you really don't have much truck with that whole moral area.

The reason you think you have something to lose is made on the assumption that all freedom is good. It is not; that is a blanket view that does not stand close examination.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, that is embarrassing, but I did jump to a conclusion too fast. There are things that should not be covered by free speech. Forgive me for stealing your folks time.


do me

Originally posted by Lana
You...kind of don't really know what freedom of speech actually covers, do you.

Speech is free up until the point where it violates the rights or safety of someone else. Saying you disagree with the government is protected under it. Saying you dislike how your church did something is protected under it. Going into a crowded area and yelling "fire!" is not, as it will incite a riot. Saying that (insert group here) should die is not, because hate speech sure as hell violates the rights of the people targetted by such speech.

And actually, free speech is non-existant on the internet. All sites are privately owned by people and thus you are bound to any and all rules that they set.

No.

You cannot use phrase ''freedom of speech'' then staert spuring bullshit about limitations of it.
There is no freedom of speech, and if there is, it is UNLIMITED. Fact.

If you feel happy thinking that freedom of speech is free upuntil some point, and then its not anymore, than thats fine. It does not make it so, however.

Originally posted by PVS
let us not get lost in blind idealism. unless you feel people should have the right to scream "fire" in a movie theater, or someone should have the right to bear false witness in a court of law.

only a sith deals in absolutes

Not really idealism. I am not for a complete freedom of speech anyway.
I was marely responding to the idea that people use term ''freedom of speech'' then condem hate speech.

You can't have both. It is simple as that.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If 'free speech' were to be completely unfettered, many crimes would suddenly become non-criminal.

There has to be a balance between the realistic right to say whatever you choose, and the necessity of laws which prevent certain crimes that occur as a result of speech.

Not sure what you base that on.

How would freedom of speech make certain crimes non-criminal?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The distinction is made where it could possibly lead to harm. If someone wants to say someone is an idiot, stupid, or whatever, that's fair, but if they try to persuade someone to kill them, it's one of those things that will naturally evolve into the system we have now.

That is very subjective though. That's a line I would aim at, but what to take in and leave out is very broad. Originally posted by Ushgarak
The reason such things are illegal is because it is grossly juvenile to deny a link between allowing the incitement of bad things, and then those bad things actually happening, which it would be a total failure of Government if they did not act to prevent it at source.

The reason some things are alloiwed and some are not are based on a moral judgment made by society as reflected by elected representatives and the reason you can't see the distinction is because you really don't have much truck with that whole moral area.

The reason you think you have something to lose is made on the assumption that all freedom is good. It is not; that is a blanket view that does not stand close examination.

Wow. Hey, I might be wrong a lot of the time, but at least I do not believe I found the absolute truth.

Originally posted by PVS
do me

Nah, I'm a failure,...you can find better.

Deano is correct. Most of those who are somewhat intelligent, know that its all a cover up to limit "free speech" as it pertains to Christians. Half of you are so blind and delusional its scary. The other half are just following along with program, probably being cohersed by the self proclaimed powers that be, or too afraid to say anything - but the way I figure it -- they really don't have any real power to begin with, so that's why I really don't care.

I'm not going to be intimidated. If I gotta say something that's true - then I'll say it, and whatever consequences come about so be it. Wouldn't be much love in this life without a bit of sacrafice and risk eh?

Very few outside of religions claim to have found absolute truth. To be searching for it is different. That is what most legal systems try to do.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not really idealism. I am not for a complete freedom of speech anyway.
I was marely responding to the idea that people use term ''freedom of speech'' then condem hate speech.

You can't have both. It is simple as that.

to condemn 'hate speech' which does not endanger the lives of others imho is a tremendous breach in freedom of speech. however according to black/white thinking i can say that freedom of speech would mean having the right to lie in court and even perhaps hire a hitman.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is very subjective though. That's a line I would aim at, but what to take in and leave out is very broad.



It is, but it's one of those things where it's probably better to err on the side of caution. I tend to favour the right of not having one's life endangered over the right for someone to do that. It's a law that could be officially abused, but then so can many things.

It's a weird idea anyway, complete freedom of speech. Like complete freedom of action, wihtout having to consider the consequences.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Very few outside of religions claim to have found absolute truth. To be searching for it is different. That is what most legal systems try to do.

That is a rather optimistic...well, lets just say it, wrong view. They are not searching for absolute truth. But how to run a country fair and secure for the citizens (well, they should). I suppose there are also those that aim to give the government more power to oppress it's people.

But I don't think you can really call others too idealistic with such a view of.

Well, PVS said idealistic...but still.

Originally posted by PVS
to condemn 'hate speech' which does not endanger the lives of others imho is a tremendous breach in freedom of speech. however according to black/white thinking i can say that freedom of speech would mean having the right to lie in court and even perhaps hire a hitman.

IMHO, people lie in courst as it is. I can't say for sure, or even guess how that would be influence if a complete freedom of speech is to be implemented.

This is the greatest difficulty with the idea of freedom of speech - that it brings so many difficulties with itself.

In America, what is the speech like there? Are you allowed to say anything and everything to anybody?
Use of certain derogatry words, can you be liable for racism, or homophobia?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No.

You cannot use phrase ''freedom of speech'' then staert spuring bullshit about limitations of it.
There is no freedom of speech, and if there is, it is UNLIMITED. Fact.

If you feel happy thinking that freedom of speech is free upuntil some point, and then its not anymore, than thats fine. It does not make it so, however.



Not really idealism. I am not for a complete freedom of speech anyway.
I was marely responding to the idea that people use term ''freedom of speech'' then condem hate speech.

You can't have both. It is simple as that.



Not sure what you base that on.

How would freedom of speech make certain crimes non-criminal?

Um, yes. Because you ARE free to say and do what you want. Until you do something that infringes on the rights of someone else. Do you know how often it is that the limitations are actually needed to be enforced? Very rare.

If you don't like the gov't, you can go out and say "I don't like how they're doing things." And people might not agree with you, but it's your right to say it, and theirs to disagree. But what you don't have the right to do is go around and say that anyone who disagrees with what the gov't says needs to die, because at that point you are infringing upon their rights, and should someone go out and actually kill someone, then the blame can ultimately be laid on you for inciting it in the first place.

And as for absolute freedom of speech making crimes non-criminal - it's a crime to hire someone to murder another person. It's a crime to lie under oath. If freedom of speech were absolute, it would be illegal to make these things illegal.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Not sure what you base that on.

How would freedom of speech make certain crimes non-criminal?

Well, because various crimes are literally speech-based.

Aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring. All of those can be applied to murder, rape, theft, whatever you want, and with equal sentences.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
IMHO, people lie in courst as it is. I can't say for sure, or even guess how that would be influence if a complete freedom of speech is to be implemented.

This is the greatest difficulty with the idea of freedom of speech - that it brings so many difficulties with itself.

In America, what is the speech like there? Are you allowed to say anything and everything to anybody?
Use of certain derogatry words, can you be liable for racism, or homophobia?

yeah, so long as you're not endangering anyone you can say whatever the hell you want. however you need a permit from the government to protest the government.

:edit: to answer your statement/question of lying in court, yes it would be allowed if freedom of speech was absolute. and yes, people lie in court all the time but its also a criminal offense to do so. its like you said, freedom of speech, in a black/white sense, is the freedom to say anything at any time.

Freedom of Speech is not absolute...and I am glad PVS brought that up.

Hate Speech is not 100% protected, and speech that endangers the safety of a person or people is unlawful.

Originally posted by Lana

If you don't like the gov't, you can go out and say "I don't like how they're doing things." And people might not agree with you, but it's your right to say it, and theirs to disagree. But what you don't have the right to do is go around and say that anyone who disagrees with what the gov't says needs to die, because at that point you are infringing upon their rights, and should someone go out and actually kill someone, then the blame can ultimately be laid on you for inciting it in the first place.



That's all true except for the end part.

Nobody is forced to go do anything because of what somebody else SAYS.

They choose to listen to a racist, or biggot, etc... and they even further choose to take those ideas to heart and act upon them through violence or murder.

The biggot or racist is not to blame, but the murderer is.

If they are gullible or stupid enough to fall into whatever message is being presented, that's their own issue.

As long as the speaker never commits any criminal act, he is in fact, innocent of said act.

(this obviously doesn't include inciting panic or a riot by shouting "fire!", but is meant to include hateful speech, which is the subject under discussion)


The person speaking hate is not responsible for the grown adult who acts on it. (if such is the case)


Is there no f*cking accountability in this world any more?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is a rather optimistic...well, lets just say it, wrong view. They are not searching for absolute truth. But how to run a country fair and secure for the citizens (well, they should). I suppose there are also those that aim to give the government more power to oppress it's people.

But I don't think you can really call others too idealistic with such a view of.

Well, PVS said idealistic...but still.

But they do it on moral cause. That is the establishment of nearly all modern law- an attempt to define that which is right or wrong. Nothing to do with me being optimistic, it is just how it works.

It's just one of the many paradoxes of ideals versus expectations. People believe in free speech....but wait....I don't like what they're saying. What can I do? Nothing. The only form of speech that isn't protected is intentionally fraudulent speech (slander, libel).

People who want to band flag burning are hurting America. Flag burning is symbolic speech, therefore protected by the Constitution. Hate speech, while undesirable, is also protected by the Constitution. As the famous quote goes: "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

That's the America I know and love

Originally posted by sithsaber408

The biggot or racist is not to blame, but the murderer is.


Personally, I pretty much agree; I don't think that people just suddenly get these ideas when someone says "do this to these people because of who they are". Just like how people blame kids committing violent crimes on video games and music - I don't buy it for a second, because most of the time they've had the idea already in their head.

On one hand, I think that if someone allows themselves to be so easily influenced by what someone says to do, or to be influenced by a game or something, then 1) they've got some mental issues already, and 2) the idea to do so was in their head already.

But on the other hand, there's the argument that the hate speech that someone goes on with could be the triggering factor that causes someone to go out and commit murder.

And then there are cases such as in cults, where followers are all but brainwashed.

It's a sticky situation and a bit of a slippery slope, and something I think really needs to be investigated in-depth with every individual case.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
That's all true except for the end part.

Nobody is forced to go do anything because of what somebody else SAYS.

They choose to listen to a racist, or biggot, etc... and they even further choose to take those ideas to heart and act upon them through violence or murder.

The biggot or racist is not to blame, but the murderer is.

If they are gullible or stupid enough to fall into whatever message is being presented, that's their own issue.

As long as the speaker never commits any criminal act, he is in fact, innocent of said act.

(this obviously doesn't include inciting panic or a riot by shouting "fire!", but is meant to include hateful speech, which is the subject under discussion)


The person speaking hate is not responsible for the grown adult who acts on it. (if such is the case)


Is there no f*cking accountability in this world any more?

who said that a murderer should not be held accountable for a murder? anyone? anyone? no? no

if someone stirs up a crowd with "kill the jews" and they kill a jew, damn right he's an accessory. THATS accountability

Originally posted by PVS
who said that a murderer should not be held accountable for a murder? anyone? anyone? no? no

if someone stirs up a crowd with "kill the jews" and they kill a jew, damn right he's an accessory. THATS accountability


Nope, nobody did. Nor did I imply that they did. Lana's original point was that the person who incites the murder, should be considered guilty along with the killer themselves. That was what was under discussion, and nowhere was the asertion made by me that we were advocating letting the killer go. (do try to keep up)



Again, I disagree.

All the person did was to express an idea, or thought.

He didn't pick up a bat or a rope and use it; nor did he provide one or force anybody else to use one.(the only two ways, other than planning, that could make him an "accessory"

Those that would kill the Jews in the scenario you describe, are the ones guilty.

The ones who do so already have it in their minds and hearts to do it, for whatever reasons, or they are stupid and gullible beyond belief to listen to another person and do what they didn't believe in doing before.


Let's say we all met somewhere, a KMC meet and greet. And upon seeing you, I said, "There's that PVS, the provoking, harrasing, playing drama, and antics king! He's a piece of shit liberal pussy! Y'all should kill this man!"

If the crowd rises up and kills you, its they who are guilty of the crime, not me. They choose to listen, and to believe, and to follow through.

I didn't plan with them, assist with them, or commit your murder with them.

I just suggested it.


If they choose to act on it, much as fool would act on the old suggestion of "Kill the umpire!", then they are responsible.

THAT is accountability.

Realising that you made your choice to take whatever action, and that no matter what any other person said, you are the one comitting the crime.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Let's say we all met somewhere, a KMC meet and greet. And upon seeing you, I said, "There's that PVS, the provoking, harrasing, playing drama, and antics king! He's a piece of shit liberal pussy! Y'all should kill this man!"

If the crowd rises up and kills you, its they who are guilty of the crime, not me. They choose to listen, and to believe, and to follow through.

you need to study up on law. you would have been charged as an accessory to the crime. there is what is and what you make up. please learn the difference between fact and opinion. is that how you would like it to be? fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but as i said, your view on the law in this regard is factually wrong

:edit: lets put it in simpler terms. lets say you're dating some girl and it turns out she's married. she asks you to kill her husband so you two can be together. (not jokingly, but requests that he be killed) you then kill him. do you think she was just expressing her opinion? should that be her freedom?
should only you be charged or is she an accessory to say the least?

Originally posted by PVS

:edit: lets put it in simpler terms. lets say you're dating some girl and it turns out she's married. she asks you to kill her husband so you two can be together. (not jokingly, but requests that he be killed) you then kill him. do you think she was just expressing her opinion? should that be her freedom?
should only you be charged or is she an accessory to say the least?



I made the choice to kill her husband. She didn't make me.

She can say whatever the hell she wants.

It's up to me to say: "No, just leave him." or "No, lets just keep on screwing." or "No you crazy byitch, I'm outta here."

It's also up to me to go get a gun and shoot him, if that's my choice.

I understand that she is legally responsible in THIS case, since she was part of the planning, but that's not what we were originally discussing.

We are discussing hate speech, and the right to express it. (or lack therof.)

In the cases that have been mentioned so far (by you and others) we were speaking about a biggoted racist talking either to a large crowd, or to a small group of people, about how he hates such and such a group, and how he thinks that they should all be dead.

If the few people or the mob act on his suggestion, then its their dumb-asses that are to blame for the death.

The speaker may doing little more than venting after a bad day at work, or getting pulled over by an ethnic cop. (or a full-out biggoted racist, it makes no difference)

They have no responsibility to check and see if their audience is either:

1.) already motivated to commit such and act or

2.) stupid and gullible enough to go out and do it "cuz he said so."


Example:

Drunken, angry biggot Mel Gibson says that "The Jews are responsible for all the wars!"

I believe he's right and go kill a Jew.

Do they charge Mel?

no, they dont, however gibson was not endangering anyone. dont switch the topic. if he was at some nazi rally and pointed out jews and said to kill them he would be charged. factually. charged.

also, let it be known that by your opinion of what law should be, bin laden and every other terrorist mouthpiece would be innocent of any crime. (with exception to bin laden's funding that is) ...or are you going to go on and explain why thats different

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Nope, nobody did. Nor did I imply that they did. Lana's original point was that the person who incites the murder, should be considered guilty along with the killer themselves. That was what was under discussion, and nowhere was the asertion made by me that we were advocating letting the killer go. (do try to keep up)



Again, I disagree.

All the person did was to express an idea, or thought.

He didn't pick up a bat or a rope and use it; nor did he provide one or force anybody else to use one.(the only two ways, other than planning, that could make him an "accessory"

Those that would kill the Jews in the scenario you describe, are the ones guilty.

The ones who do so already have it in their minds and hearts to do it, for whatever reasons, or they are stupid and gullible beyond belief to listen to another person and do what they didn't believe in doing before.


Let's say we all met somewhere, a KMC meet and greet. And upon seeing you, I said, "There's that PVS, the provoking, harrasing, playing drama, and antics king! He's a piece of shit liberal pussy! Y'all should kill this man!"

If the crowd rises up and kills you, its they who are guilty of the crime, not me. They choose to listen, and to believe, and to follow through.

I didn't plan with them, assist with them, or commit your murder with them.

I just suggested it.


If they choose to act on it, much as fool would act on the old suggestion of "Kill the umpire!", then they are responsible.

THAT is accountability.

Realising that you made your choice to take whatever action, and that no matter what any other person said, you are the one comitting the crime.





Let's say you are in a red state. A very red neck, old fashioned red state.


You are white and good looking (lets just say for arguments sake) so you are in an area where the Ku Klux Klan heavily reside. They accept you, because you look like them, and you fit in with what they consider to be the superior race.

However, you notice there's a black person in the woods....he looks like he is trying to leave the town unnoticed...you see him from a distance, but no one else does.

So you go "What the hell is that n*gger doing here? Guys look ! There's a negro there!"

Or let's not even go that far...let's just say you go "Oh, whose that guy?"



Either way, you have pointed the attention from ignorance to the presence of a black person. The KKK would have not seen him there if you hadn't mentioned his presence, but because you DID, they chase him, shoot him, and hang him.



Ooooops doh


Your words were just as deadly as thier guns. Words can be just as dangerous as physical actions.




Hate Speech or speech that puts someone's life in danger is not acceptable, and is punishable by law. Accept it already.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You are white and good looking (lets just say for arguments sake) so you are in an area where the Ku Klux Klan heavily reside. They accept you, because you look like them, and you fit in with what they consider to be the superior race.

However, you notice there's a black person in the woods....he looks like he is trying to leave the town unnoticed...you see him from a distance, but no one else does.

So you go "What the hell is that n*gger doing here? Guys look ! There's a negro there!"

Or let's not even go that far...let's just say you go "Oh, whose that guy?"

Either way, you have pointed the attention from ignorance to the presence of a black person. The KKK would have not seen him there if you hadn't mentioned his presence, but because you DID, they chase him, shoot him, and hang him.

Ooooops doh

Your words were just as deadly as thier guns. Words can be just as dangerous as physical actions.

Hate Speech or speech that puts someone's life in danger is not acceptable, and is punishable by law. Accept it already.

If thats really your example then simply pointing out a person isn't against the law.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Example:

Drunken, angry biggot Mel Gibson says that "The Jews are responsible for all the wars!"

I believe he's right and go kill a Jew.

Do they charge Mel?

Poor example

With a famous quote oft repeated by media people they can't charge Mel, because he only said it once. All of the people who repeated it on television would be implicated.

Charles Manson cited The Beatles' White Album as his source of inspiration. Did they charge the Beatles? No, because they aren't responsible for peoples' wrongful interpretations of their work. Same with Lee Harvey Oswald saying Jane Fonda spoke to him in code telling him to assassinate Kennedy.

PVS's example is quite good. If your married lover implores you to kill her husband, and you do it, she is an accessory and would be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.

Originally posted by PVS
no, they dont, however gibson was not endangering anyone. dont switch the topic. if he was at some nazi rally and pointed out jews and said to kill them he would be charged. factually. charged.

also, let it be known that by your opinion of what law should be, bin laden and every other terrorist mouthpiece would be innocent of any crime. (with exception to bin laden's funding that is) ...or are you going to go on and explain why thats different

How is a hate rally endagering anybody?

They are held legally all the time. (under police guard, for the racists safety, but still)

You may be right about him being charged, but then we're back to square one.

That was my whole point at the beginning of the thread.

I don't believe that a person expressing their views should be charged with any crime that another person commits, because of those views.

An anti-war protest rally that produces an assasination of the president shouldn't be targeted, just the assasin and anybody that planned the killing, or provided a means for it.

It's absurd to think that we should charge people for having influence.

Even in an extreme case that you mention, like a Nazi rally, where the speaker points out a Jewish person and says that the people should kill them.

Because the speaker has no authority, no rank other than what the people in the crowd give him in their own minds.

They choose to listen to his words, and to actually physically go over and grab the person, and do whatever it is that results in the death of the person.

It wasn't pre-meditated, it wasn't like he threw a gun to somebody.

If all he does is stay up on the stage and point and shout, then he's guilty of pointing and shouting.

The people on the floor are grown adults that choose whether or not they believe in his (or her) bullshit, and even further choose whether or not they will act on those beliefs.



Yes I'll explain why its different. Bin laden and every terrorist "leader" (not those that commit the actual bombing or whatever) is a "planner". They are involved in the pre-meditated set-up of a killing, and as you said, financing it.


If it were provable that they did no such thing, only spoke on the evils of America and how muslims should kill us, then no.

They haven't done anything except express an opinion.



I find it funny as hell that I, the evangelical Christian conservative am arguing for free speech, and that you the liberal democrat, are saying that it means I'm in support of the terrorists.

Don't you?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I find it funny as hell that I, the evangelical Christian conservative am arguing for free speech, and that you the liberal democrat, are saying that it means I'm in support of the terrorists.

Don't you? That's not what you're arguing though. You're arguing that people should be free of accountability for whatever they say, a very Republican ideal. The speaker at a Nazi rally would indeed be guilty, because he is directly suggesting to the crowd that they kill someone. He is an accessory to murder.

Do you think that the Inquisitors at the Spanish Inquisition weren't guilty because they only 'suggested' or 'expressed their opinion' that the Jews should be burned at the stake? Your logic is quite poor.

Originally posted by Strangelove

With a famous quote oft repeated by media people they can't charge Mel, because he only said it once. All of the people who repeated it on television would be implicated.


PVS's example is quite good. If your married lover implores you to kill her husband, and you do it, she is an accessory and would be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.

Horseshit.

No media person would be implicated in a murder that I decided to commit.

C'mon.


PVS's example is of a murder for hire. A hitman scenario, basically, (except the payment is love/sex/relationship)


It's not an example of hate speech. (in which there IS NO conspiracy to commit murder)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes I'll explain why its different. Bin laden and every terrorist "leader" (not those that commit the actual bombing or whatever) is a "planner". They are involved in the pre-meditated set-up of a killing, and as you said, financing it.

hold on. thems is double standards. a wife instructs her lover to kill her husband and she is innocent. a nazi leader instructs a crowd to kill a jew, and thats ok. but a terrorist instructs others to fly planes into buildings and thats different. how? because the instructions were more detailed? what if the wife told her lover to stab the man with a knife, and he did just that? what if the nazi leader instructed the crown to hang the man, and they did just that? is that different? the degree of specific intructions? and if so, where is the line between guilty and innocent?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I find it funny as hell that I, the evangelical Christian conservative am arguing for free speech, and that you the liberal democrat, are saying that it means I'm in support of the terrorists.

Don't you?

no, i just find it funny how you, a blatant favoritist, will improvise by warping and bending your own logic and philosophy just to avoid being cornered...however you're still cornered. now, answer the question above. in fact if you dont mind i'll load it a bit. let us use for an example al qauda leaders who did not fund the attacks. and since most are dirt poor i think its a safe and valid loading of that question

:edit: and while we're at it, lets say some mafia guy owes you a favor, and you request a hit on someone. no money or items have changed hands, mind you. just an ambiguous favor being repaid. he carries out the hit. so...you're innocent?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Horseshit.

No media person would be implicated in a murder that I decided to commit.

C'mon.


PVS's example is of a murder for hire. A hitman scenario, basically, (except the payment is love/sex/relationship)


It's not an example of hate speech. (in which there IS NO conspiracy to commit murder) I was being facetious, I wasn't really suggesting that media men be implicated in a murder. You should know that

The person who incites a serious act like a hate crime (especially murder) can easily be charged and convicted for conspiracy to commit murder

Free speech GONE, bitches!

Originally posted by Strangelove
.

Do you think that the Inquisitors at the Spanish Inquisition weren't guilty because they only 'suggested' or 'expressed their opinion' that the Jews should be burned at the stake? Your logic is quite poor.

We're not talking about the Spanish Inquisition, we are talking about people being aloud to express a view-point. (even a hateful one)

Setting up committees' of people to hold mock trials and executions is far different from you or I stepping out onto a street corner and telling anybody who will listen that we hate ____ and that ____ is evil and should be killed.

We are just lone people, expressing what we believe is true.

Those who would take that message and act on it, are the guilty ones.

I know this may come as a shock, but the people who commit such acts are already pre-disposed to so. They already want to kill the people in that group.

It's the biggest crock of shit ever to blame somebody else who "told me I should do it", along with the person who actually did it.


Are we to arrest people for being influential now?

I can think all I want that your life sucks, and that you have no purpose here.

If I tell you that, and you believe it and jump off of a bridge, I'm not responsible for your death.

I just told you what I thought.

YOU committed the act.

people are arrested for ordering the assault and/or deaths of others, and this pleases me. too bad you're so against it

Originally posted by Strangelove
I was being facetious, I wasn't really suggesting that media men be implicated in a murder. You should know that

The person who incites a serious act like a hate crime (especially murder) can easily be charged and convicted for conspiracy to commit murder

That's a contradiction.

You admit then that if Mel Gibson says "Jews are responsible for all the wars!" and I believe him and go kill a Jewish person, that nobody is guilty but me?

Not Mel, not the media, but ME?



What the bill in question would be against would be a person making single statements like the Mel Gibson one, not the Nazi-rally's or husband killing lovers that we seem to keep discussing.

Wow. I'm seeing more straw men in this single thread than I did my entire stay in, oh...let's say...Kansas.

*ahem* SS, i asked you 2 very relevant questions

stop whining. now crawl...you worthless little piece of shit, crawl between my legs like the lil bastard u are

i love freedom of expression

deano, this is a privately owned site. if a forum administrator wanted to, he/she could ban you for not vowing to bend over backwards and kiss your own ass, and there wouldnt be a thing you could do about it.

welcome to teh internets

Originally posted by Deano
stop whining. now crawl...you worthless little piece of shit, crawl between my legs like the lil bastard u are



Lies. That is just what they want you to think. Dance puppet, DANCE you sheep!

Originally posted by sithsaber408
That's a contradiction.

You admit then that if Mel Gibson says "Jews are responsible for all the wars!" and I believe him and go kill a Jewish person, that nobody is guilty but me?

Not Mel, not the media, but ME?



What the bill in question would be against would be a person making single statements like the Mel Gibson one, not the Nazi-rally's or husband killing lovers that we seem to keep discussing. Did Mel Gibson say "Go kill a Jew!"? No, he said "F**king Jews. The Jews are responsible for all of the wars in the world." If you go kill a Jew because of that, Mel can't be held responsible, he never said, "Go kill a Jew." If he did say "Go kill a Jew" to a police officer, and it was broadcast everywhere, and you go kill a Jew, he still wouldn't be held responsible, at least not by the law. People would be pissed at him, but he's not legally accountable.

But; if you're standing in a room together with Mel Gibson and he looks you in the eye and says "I want you to go kill a Jew" and you do, he is an accessory to murder.

Why you don't understand this baffles me

Originally posted by KidRock
Lies. That is just what they want you to think. Dance puppet, DANCE you sheep!

HAHAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. you never fail to amuse. keep up the good work

awww thats cute. you gonna toss his salad now?

Originally posted by PVS
hold on. thems is double standards. a wife instructs her lover to kill her husband and she is innocent. a nazi leader instructs a crowd to kill a jew, and thats ok. but a terrorist instructs others to fly planes into buildings and thats different. how?
B]

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I understand that she is legally responsible in THIS case, since she was part of the planning, but that's not what we were originally discussing.






Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes I'll explain why its different. Bin laden and every terrorist "leader" (not those that commit the actual bombing or whatever) is a "planner". They are involved in the pre-meditated set-up of a killing, and as you said, financing it.


If it were provable that they did no such thing, only spoke on the evils of America and how muslims should kill us, then no.

They haven't done anything except express an opinion.




As I said before, a wife who "instructs" her lover to kill her husband is guilty because she is part of the PLANNING.

(not guilty if she says, "He's such a dick, I wish he was dead." and the other guy does it.)

A terrorist who "instructs" another to fly a plane into a building(or finances such an operation) is guilty because he is part of the PLANNING.

(not guilty if he says, "Americans are evil, they should all die."



As for the Nazi rally, I'm going to reneg on that. (slightly)

If the crowd has people in custody, and brings them before the front and the guy says "kill them" he is part of the PLANNING of the murder.

(not guilty if he says "Jews are evil, the should all be killed.", and then the people go and seek out Jewish people and kill them)

That's no different than Mel Gibson saying that they're evil, me listening, and then going to kill a Jew later.

The actual chances of him pointing one out in the street are very slim, to none. (even still, it would be my choice to go across the street and kill the person.)


So,....

no there is no double standards there.

If you PLAN a murder, or are part of assisting it to happen, you are guilty.

If you simply say that you hate a group of people, or a person, and would love to see them dead, that's just talk. Just expression.

Any fool who hears it and carries it out is responsible to himself, and to the law.

Originally posted by PVS
awww thats cute. you gonna toss his salad now?

explain yourself. are you joking or can you not understand sarcasm.

enjoy your voting

Originally posted by Strangelove
But; if you're standing in a room together with Mel Gibson and he looks you in the eye and says "I want you to go kill a Jew" and you do, he is an accessory to murder.

Why you don't understand this baffles me

I understand it, I just think its bullshit.

I still make the choice to tell him to f*ck off, or to go and kill somebody.

If stand together with you in a room, look you in the eye and say "I want you to kill yourself" and you do, am I responsible for your suicide?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I understand it, I just think its bullshit.

I still make the choice to tell him to f*ck off, or to go and kill somebody.

If stand together with you in a room, look you in the eye and say "I want you to kill yourself" and you do, am I responsible for your suicide? This is not about personal choice. I don't care if you would say f*ck off. That's not what this is about. If he said "Kill a Jew" and you did it, he would be an accessory to murder.

As for the suicide thing, say I was mentally unbalance and on suicide watch, and you knew this. If you told me to kill myself and I did, yes, you would be held responsible. Not for murder, perhaps, but for reckless endangerment. But if I wasn't all of those things, probably not. There's a lot of context involved in suicide cases

This is in dire need of VVD's legal approach!

Originally posted by Deano
HAHAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. you never fail to amuse.

Oh come on now Deano, dont give me any credit, we all know your the funniest guy on here. All your posts are hilarious.

Originally posted by sithsaber408

If you PLAN a murder, or are part of assisting it to happen, you are guilty.

If you simply say that you hate a group of people, or a person, and would love to see them dead, that's just talk. Just expression.

Any fool who hears it and carries it out is responsible to himself, and to the law.

so, you, the master of all reality, get to decide what is 'planning' and what is not. if the nazi leader says "kill jews" he's innocent, and of he says "kill that jew" he's guilty. ok...right....thank god the law is not in your favor

Originally posted by KidRock
Oh come on now Deano, dont give me any credit, we all know your the funniest guy on here. All your posts are hilarious.

to ignorant fools yes. So why do you find them funny?...oh wait..

Originally posted by Soleran
This is in dire need of VVD's legal approach!

PVS has proven that fact isn't going to sway anything in here.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
PVS has proven that fact isn't going to sway anything in here.

I listen to facts. Sometimes.

You do. You do indeed.

It's just all these bastards. Even PVS. Especially PVS.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You do. You do indeed.

It's just all these bastards. Even PVS. Especially PVS.

He is old. Don't take it too hard.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
How is a hate rally endagering anybody?


Hate promotes hostility. Hostility promotes Violence.

There you go...


Originally posted by sithsaber408
I don't believe that a person expressing their views should be charged with any crime that another person commits, because of those views./B]


Me either. Unless that person was expressing thier instigating views in an atmosphere that would provoke violence, like a nationality pride parade or so.

If you scream out "Go back to your fkn country!" at a Mexican Day Parade, and it causes a riot, and people die...you are held accountable.



Originally posted by sithsaber408
An anti-war protest rally that produces an assasination of the president shouldn't be targeted, just the assasin and anybody that planned the killing, or provided a means for it.


An Anti-War protest does not directly promote violence against the President. An Anti-President rally DOES directly promote the danger of a President.


If us Liberals went in front of the White House, started screaming how much we hate Bush and how much he sucks, and then he gets killed.....you'd probably be the first to blame us for his death.



Originally posted by sithsaber408
Even in an extreme case that you mention, like a Nazi rally, where the speaker points out a Jewish person and says that the people should kill them.

Because the speaker has no authority, no rank other than what the people in the crowd give him in their own minds.


Just like Hitler had no authority over the Nazi party who went and rounded up Jews for the concentration camps.




Originally posted by sithsaber408
It wasn't pre-meditated, it wasn't like he threw a gun to somebody.

The speaker? Hate speech does not somehow provoke hostility ?





Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes I'll explain why its different. Bin laden and every terrorist "leader" (not those that commit the actual bombing or whatever) is a "planner". They are involved in the pre-meditated set-up of a killing, and as you said, financing it./B]

So......

If I randomly dare a bunch of teenagers to blow up the school, and they do it, am I not guilty ?

If I dare my freinds to beat the shit out of an old lady, and they do it, am I not guilty?



Originally posted by sithsaber408
I find it funny as hell that I, the evangelical Christian conservative am arguing for free speech, and that you the liberal democrat, are saying that it means I'm in support of the terrorists.

Don't you?






Evangelicals are notorious for hate speech. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter and the like make a lot of money, popularity, and gain a lot of power through thier hate speech.

Am I surprised that an Evangelical would defend hate speech? No fkn way, because that is the source of thier power.

Am I surprised that you would defend hate speech ? Very Much so !

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hate promotes hostility. Hostility promotes Violence.

Ok, Master Yoda.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ok, Master Yoda.


You know its true ya Mexican !

Sin duda!

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Sin duda!


LOL

Originally posted by Deano
to ignorant fools yes. So why do you find them funny?...oh wait..

now i have to throw all my slayer albums in the trash.
thanks poser

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
PVS has proven that fact isn't going to sway anything in here.

are you being facetious? in the rare event that you're not, im open to any corrections

Originally posted by PVS
are you being facetious? in the rare event that you're not, im open to any corrections
http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar33570_32.gif

leave carl out of this.

he owns you st00pid n00b

http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar93940_1.gif

?

Originally posted by Deano
to ignorant fools yes. So why do you find them funny?...oh wait..

There are few things more irritating then a smug idiot.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Then speech is not free at all.

Meh, that goes back to the whole "no person is ever truly free" since unless one lives in a complete anarchical society there are going to be rules and laws that will limit a persons potential to do whatever they wish. The key is to push it back far enough that a person is liberated enough so that the limits on personal freedom aren't damaging but rather protect the rights of as many as possible at the same time.

In the case I mentioned the plaintiffs won their case, as the court deemed the freedom of speech of one man, in this case, was not inherently greater then an entire groups right to live a life without vilification and not facing potential hatred being incited against them. Now - is Australia suddenly a tyrannical wonderland were a person can't speak their minds? No - however there is a limit on how far a person can go. In the case I mentioned; is one allowed to express their dislike - sure. Their personal opinion that they are bad - sure. But if they cross the line from where they are merely expressing their opinion to potentially inciting others to act upon it in a vilifying or violent way then the balance of liberties and all kicks in. Freedom to live without fear trumps freedom to speak hatefully.

Really, it seems like only another step from anti-discrimination laws. After all, that takes away an employers right to discriminate against a racial or gender group. He might think, and say, "I don't want to hire such and such because his race is *derogatory comment*" - is that allowed? No.

http://pics.livejournal.com/4degrees/pic/0005sx38

Free speech sucks, don't it?

Originally posted by Gregory
There are few things more irritating then a smug idiot.

if there is id like to see em

Originally posted by PVS
now i have to throw all my slayer albums in the trash.
thanks poser

i didnt cut my own back for people to throwthere slayer albums away

Originally posted by PVS
are you being facetious? in the rare event that you're not, im open to any corrections

No, I was actually being...not that. Not-facetious.

Though my later post probably made that seem even more likely.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No, I was actually being...not that. Not-facetious.

Though my later post probably made that seem even more likely.

ok thanks for explaining how i was mistaken in my previous posts...wait a minute.
seriously though, i respect you're opinion, especially given your expertise in the legal field, however a simple and completely vague "you're wrong" isnt going to sway me, im afraid

Originally posted by PVS
now i have to throw all my slayer albums in the trash.
thanks poser

Seconded. Goddamnit.

Originally posted by PVS
ok thanks for explaining how i was mistaken in my previous posts...wait a minute.
seriously though, i respect you're opinion, especially given your expertise in the legal field, however a simple and completely vague "you're wrong" isnt going to sway me, im afraid

No, I actually was not being facetious.

I'm on your side. I hate the devil. I think he's an evil, evil idiot.

????


dude, are you in 'champ mode'? if so ill just leave you be.

Originally posted by PVS
????


dude, are you in 'champ mode'? if so ill just leave you be.

Am I in 'champ mode'?

I like that phrase.

If you are asking me: no, I really did agree with you, you ****ing bastard.

then you were being facetious.
ffs are you trying to make me short circuit?

I remember that film.

I have the same opinion as you, as regards the subject of this thread, that we, you and I, currently find ourselves engaged whereupon thereto.

blowup

Can't a guy comment on another guy's threadal poundage without the other guy exploding anymore?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
guy's threadal poundage


lol..you said poundage

Originally posted by FeceMan
http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar93940_1.gif

?


MY SIG droolio

Preeeetty stupid.