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

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are already wearing their badgets.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Someone point out the mistake.

I know, I know. Take me. I know it. Teacher. Here, here. I know it.

Someone other than Bardock?


Okay, Bardock.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Someone other than Bardock?


Okay, Bardock.

Is it because it says that it can only be called a Thought Police law, while in the next sentence it gives another, the actual name, thereby proving that it is not the only name for the law?

Correct.

Also they say 'homosexuals' and not 'deviants'.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Correct.

Also they say 'homosexuals' and not 'deviants'.

Oh man, the second one always gets me. I want a gold star anyways. I demand it even.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is it because it says that it can only be called a Thought Police law, while in the next sentence it gives another, the actual name, thereby proving that it is not the only name for the law?

Good catch.


I didn't write the thing, I just read it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Good catch.


I didn't write the thing, I just read it. I didn't actually catch it, I was just able to see what that other weirdo was babbling about.

Anyways, though I feel the article is horrible biased and a disgrace to a any decent editor/editorial, it is right that of course it is quite 1984 to not allow people to peacefully state their opinion (as hateful, wrong and stupid as it may be (no offense sithsabre, you know how I feel)), especially if it is in their church or private place.

"In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment."

Outright lie in an attempt to discredit. This is not even slightly true. It's being treated as possiuble incitement to such attacks.

Doesn't really matter, this law is stupid. And I hate people that bash gays because they are gay..

Laws like this are just plain ****ing wrong, unless somebody calls on others to hurt homosexuals in some way then they aren't doing anything wrong.

This is honest to god sad, a bunch of pansy assed* gays can't take some insults ? Cry me a river

If I call a gay guy a fakkot** I expect to be called a douche-bag right back , if you can't insult each other without getting lawyers involved then your country has truly hit rock bottom.

*In the fact that they whine and cry over insults, not because their homosexuals.

** Replace the K's with G's , stupid word censor !

This is hardly a matter of outlawing religious freedom in favor of homosexual rights. Ush is right, this article and practically every other article on the subject...on top of the television commercials I've seen over the act...involves confrontational religious speech. If you go to an event like a gay pride parade and shout at them about being f@gs and how they're going to burn in hell, you can be arrested. And vice versa is true. Extreme gays can't do the same in the face of a religious gathering.

The particular commercial that stands out for me is the one with the older black lady that says she went to Philadelphia to "spread the word of Jesus Christ" at a "gay rally". She says, "I'm 79 years old, and I was arrested for spreading the message of Jesus Christ. Stop the Hate Crimes legislation before you get arrested for teaching the truth of Jesus Christ."

What does that mean? She and her zealot friends got arrested for screaming at the people involved. No one goes 10 states away to stand there quietly and pass out those little religious comics you find in phone booths.

All that being said, I don't agree with any legislation that effects your rights to express yourself. And as it is now, someone with a religious message(excuse me 'Christian" is given far more leeway that any other "message".

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Now while I'm not for anybody being hit or hurt, or even demeaned for race, gender, orientation, etc.....

Then I assume you support this legislation?

I support it completely, although I don;t think that surprises anyone on here. Sometimes you have to look at the greater good.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I support it completely, although I don;t think that surprises anyone on here. Sometimes you have to look at the greater good.

In this case the greater good being the complete control of what people are allowed to say and what not?

Originally posted by Bardock42
In this case the greater good being the complete control of what people are allowed to say and what not?

If it will prevent hate crimes and curb racism and prejudice then yes it is worth it. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, when we live in a society that allows for it without harm.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Now while I'm not for anybody being hit or hurt, or even demeaned for race, gender, orientation, etc.....

I don't want somebody arresting my pastor because as a minister he gives the Bible's view on homosexuality.

Thoughts?

Hypocrite.
Originally posted by Starhawk
If it will prevent hate crimes and curb racism and prejudice then yes it is worth it. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, when we live in a society that allows for it without harm.

Unfortunately...I dont think it will do such things.

Wow. Just wow Starhawk.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Wow. Just wow Starhawk.

Sorry I don't share your love of hate speech.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Sorry I don't share your love of hate speech.

I don't love hate speech. I just believe that freedom of speech should never be limited for any cause. No one has a right to tell you what you can and can't say.

(auto quote)[/quickquote

Are you serious?

Hate crimes are already illegal...and if you have no freedom what does matter anyways?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I don't love hate speech. I just believe that freedom of speech should never be limited for any cause. No one has a right to tell you what you can and can't say. Its not a question of love...its a question of REALISM.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you serious?

Hate crimes are already illegal...and if you have no freedom what does matter anyways?

Does that classifications extend to homosexuals on a federal level?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I don't love hate speech. I just believe that freedom of speech should never be limited for any cause. No one has a right to tell you what you can and can't say.

If what you say can lead to violence and harm of other citizens then yes they have every right to. The only people who oppose this should be those that plan to utilize hate speech themselves.

Originally posted by Starhawk
If what you say can lead to violence and harm of other citizens then yes they have every right to. The only people who oppose this should be those that plan to utilize hate speech themselves.

Or those that don't want just anyone to decide what hate speech is.

Also, the only people in favour of it are idiots.

illegal spying, wiretapping, databases of u.s. tens(perhaps hundreds) of thousands of u.s. citizens deamed "threats" because they openly protest government policy, secret prisons, discreet torture and murder of prisoners, a foreign war based on lies, and conservatives cheer or at best remain oblivious.

but now this (ficticious article) and conservatives are running around sreaming "**** the system" and jammin out to dead kennedys albums.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Or those that don't want just anyone to decide what hate speech is.

Also, the only people in favour of it are idiots.

No we just don't like seeing people encouraging others to hate minorities and other races and promote violence against them. That may be your cup of tea, buts it's just not for us.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, the only people in favour of it are idiots.

May I ask why?

Originally posted by Starhawk
No we just don't like seeing people encouraging others to hate minorities and other races and promote violence against them. That may be your cup of tea, buts it's just not for us.

So, what about "racist" jokes. Are those still okay? Or hate speech?

Originally posted by Devil King
May I ask why? T-to insult Starhawk.

Also, because limiting Freedom of Speech is not cool.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, what about "racist" jokes. Are those still okay? Or hate speech?

Depends on the effect they have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
because limiting Freedom of Speech is not cool.

It doesn't do that though.

Originally posted by Devil King
It doesn't do that though.

Wait till the lawyers get involved...then it will...

Originally posted by Devil King
It doesn't do that though. Well...I can only go by what I read there, which admittedly was quite biased....

well, we have a law student here and he disagrees. win

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Wait till the lawyers get involved...then it will...

I don't see it that way. If you go out to an event that is being held by people you think are sinners and low lifes, then I doubt your intention is to stand by quietly while they have their say. Your intention is to disrupt. And what is the likely result of that? Violence. It doesn't limit free speech.

Punishing those who commit hate crimes is not the same as limiting hate speech.

Hate crimes=bad

Hate speech=bad, but part of the Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech.

Anyone who thinks that it's fine and dandy to control what we say (here's lookin' at you, Starhawk), is a totalitarian. If we try to limit what people are allowed to say, then it's a slippery slope until we do indeed reach 1984

Originally posted by Strangelove
Punishing those who commit hate crimes is not the same as limiting hate speech.

Hate crimes=bad

Hate speech=bad, but part of the Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech.

Indeed. People who are against this legislation are pissed because it represents equal considerations of homosexuals under the law. So, what happens after that? The "slippery slope" on the other side of the argument is that this will eventually lead to gay marriage being legalized. They just don't have the balls to admit it.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Punishing those who commit hate crimes is not the same as limiting hate speech.

Hate crimes=bad

Hate speech=bad, but part of the Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech.

Anyone who thinks that it's fine and dandy to control what we say (here's lookin' at you, Starhawk), is a totalitarian. If we try to limit what people are allowed to say, then it's a slippery slope until we do indeed reach 1984

Well in Canada we have had those types of laws for sometime and we have yet to become 1984. So your theory is flawed.

The problem is that this will lead to all sorts of subjective definitions of what is and is not offensive.

Starhawk has a cute idea but I just do not think it will "stop" people from saying stuff. That was just like when black people were talking about banning the word "******" as if they would do anything. It is a mentality of people.

Banning a word or certain kinds of speech does not get rid of the mindset so the law is stupid by default.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Well in Canada we have had those types of laws for sometime and we have yet to become 1984. So your theory is flawed. I didn't say limit free speech=1984. You're on the path though

You're flawed period.

The thing is, all this fuzzy commitment to free sppech evaporates pretty damn quick when people start to incite the mmurder of blacks or mass terrorism, and then these things happen. THEN people want to speakers silenced because people are dying as a result of their hate-filled vicious rhetoric.

There is homophobic incitement that is killing homosexuals. Those who think the right to make this incitement is above the right for those beinbg targetted to be protected by stopping such incitement have entirely lost their moral compass.

People hold up Freedom of Speech as this ultimate, unquestionable good. Bolllocks. Speech can be used for heinous uses as bad as any crime we legislate against. It can be legislaatively prevented also.

In any case, total freedom of speech has never existed anywhere, and a good thing too.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The thing is, all this fuzzy commitment to free sppech evaporates pretty damn quick when people start to incite the mmurder of blacks or mass terrorism, and then these things happen. THEN people want to speakers silenced because people are dying as a result of their hate-filled vicious rhetoric.

There is homophobic incitement that is killing homosexuals. Those who think the right to make this incitement is above the right for those beinbg targetted to be protected by stopping such incitement have entirely lost their moral compass.

People hold up Freedom of Speech as this ultimate, unquestionable good. Bolllocks. Speech can be used for heinous uses as bad as any crime we legislate against. It can be legislaatively prevented also.

In any case, total freedom of speech has never existed anywhere, and a good thing too.

There are people who are willing to die for the right for people to express hate

you make a pragmatic point though, which I agree is a much better way to run a society than a moralistic path.

I didn't know the First Amendment could be ignored so easily.

Saying that homosexuality is wrong should NEVER be against the law, that's just bullshit. Unless someone is telling others to kill and do harm, freedom of speech should be upheld.

Originally posted by inimalist
There are people who are willing to die for the right for people to express hate


I really don't think they are. Willing to KILL for it, maybe, but I didn't see anyone putting themselves in the firing line to prevent laws preventing people from murderous racial incitement. I did see people trying to kill to preserve that 'tradition' though.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
I didn't know the First Amendment could be ignored so easily.

It isn't. It isn't being ignored. It isn't being subverted.

And if you read it, it mentions peaceful assembly. It doesn't support hate crimes or violence otherwise, as a legitimate manner of expressing your opinions.

Again, this bill doesn't effect the freedoms of speech we've always enjoyed. It merely addresses how violating that freedom of other people will be addressed.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
I didn't know the First Amendment could be ignored so easily.

Libel law.

The reason we legislate against things like murder, arson and theft is that they are wrong.

Sometimes speech is wrong too, and laws are made to prevent that.

Just because it is in the Constitution does not make it universal and uncontestable.

Originally posted by Devil King
It isn't. It isn't being ignored. It isn't being subverted.

It sounds to me that this bill would limit speech, so that NO ONE could speak their mind in any negative way about homosexuality, not even in a peaceful way.

Sure sounds like freedom of speech is being subverted to me.

EDIT: Don't think I'm fighting for the allowance of hate speech, here; I am not. But this bill seems to limit any mention of homosexuality being wrong at ALL, whether peaceful or not, and that is wrong. People are allowed their opinions.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
It sounds to me that this bill would limit speech, so that NO ONE could speak their mind in any negative way about homosexuality, not even in a peaceful way.

Sure sounds like freedom of speech is being subverted to me.

Again, that is massive exaggeration as to what this subject is.

Why do people feel the need to falsify to such an extent?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The thing is, all this fuzzy commitment to free sppech evaporates pretty damn quick when people start to incite the mmurder of blacks or mass terrorism, and then these things happen. THEN people want to speakers silenced because people are dying as a result of their hate-filled vicious rhetoric.

There is homophobic incitement that is killing homosexuals. Those who think the right to make this incitement is above the right for those beinbg targetted to be protected by stopping such incitement have entirely lost their moral compass.

People hold up Freedom of Speech as this ultimate, unquestionable good. Bolllocks. Speech can be used for heinous uses as bad as any crime we legislate against. It can be legislaatively prevented also.

In any case, total freedom of speech has never existed anywhere, and a good thing too. Well of course Freedom of Speech isn't all-encompassing. First Amendment rights do not extend to slander or speech that encourages riots and/or breaking the law, or causes a panic (yelling fire in a crowded playhouse, to quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes).

"We should find all ******* and beat them to death" - Not protected

"I hate *******" - protected

banning hate speech is ludicrous because you can't expect that you can say anything you want (within the limits) and then think you can keep someone else form saying what he believe just because you don't like it.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
It sounds to me that this bill would limit speech, so that NO ONE could speak their mind in any negative way about homosexuality, not even in a peaceful way.

Sure sounds like freedom of speech is being subverted to me.

EDIT: Don't think I'm fighting for the allowance of hate speech, here; I am not. But this bill seems to limit any mention of homosexuality being wrong at ALL, whether peaceful or not, and that is wrong. People are allowed their opinions.

Not at all. Your minister can preach the disadvatages of homosexuality from a religious perspective all he wants.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not at all. Your minister can preach the disadvatages of homosexuality from a religious perspective all he wants.

But why shouldn't someone be able to say they don't like homosexuals? That's not violent at all, it's an opinion. Though fairly ignorant, it's still an opinion and not a call for violence.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I really don't think they are. Willing to KILL for it, maybe, but I didn't see anyone putting themselves in the firing line to prevent laws preventing people from murderous racial incitement. I did see people trying to kill to preserve that 'tradition' though.

I respectfully disagree with you

sure, you can call hypocrisy, but living in an advanced democracy, I am willing to bend my moral position enough to get the benefits of society.

Thats my general take on the issue anyways. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that acting like a retard is ok. Clearly I'd never call a black man a ****** to his face, though I see no problems with it (I also don't see a whole lot of problems with whoever does getting their ass kicked afterward... that totally a different issues though). However, I'd like to think that if there were ever a time that I thought it in my best interest to express myself, I would certainly defend my right to do so to the death, regardless of whether or not my words were classified as "hate".

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The thing is, all this fuzzy commitment to free sppech evaporates pretty damn quick when people start to incite the mmurder of blacks or mass terrorism, and then these things happen. THEN people want to speakers silenced because people are dying as a result of their hate-filled vicious rhetoric.

There is homophobic incitement that is killing homosexuals. Those who think the right to make this incitement is above the right for those beinbg targetted to be protected by stopping such incitement have entirely lost their moral compass.

People hold up Freedom of Speech as this ultimate, unquestionable good. Bolllocks. Speech can be used for heinous uses as bad as any crime we legislate against. It can be legislaatively prevented also.

In any case, total freedom of speech has never existed anywhere, and a good thing too.

I agree, though I'm a traditionalist on the spelling of bollocks.

Originally posted by Starhawk
If what you say can lead to violence and harm of other citizens then yes they have every right to. The only people who oppose this should be those that plan to utilize hate speech themselves.

So if I say your mom's a whore I should go to jail?

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well of course Freedom of Speech isn't all-encompassing. First Amendment rights do not extend to slander or speech that encourages riots and/or breaking the law, or causes a panic (yelling fire in a crowded playhouse, to quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes).

"We should find all ******* and beat them to death" - Not protected

"I hate *******" - protected

banning hate speech is ludicrous because you can't expect that you can say anything you want (within the limits) and then think you can keep someone else form saying what he believe just because you don't like it.


Strangelove's analogy is better.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
But why shouldn't someone be able to say they don't like homosexuals? That's not violent at all, it's an opinion. Though fairly ignorant, it's still an opinion and not a call for violence.

No one is saying you can't voice your distate for homosexuality.

The point is, Canada has such laws and we don't have any problems with it.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
So if I say your mom's a whore I should go to jail?

How would that one work?

Originally posted by Starhawk
The point is, Canada has such laws and we don't have any problems with it. Well America has Constitutional rights and we have problems for time to time, but hey, that's the price of liberty

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well America has Constitutional rights and we have problems for time to time, but hey, that's the price of liberty

Our liberty is just fine, we simply realize that some limitations are necessary for public safety. Unlike you, I don't think in extremes, you can have limitations on freedom without losing your liberty.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Our liberty is just fine, we simply realize that some limitations are necessary for public safety. Unlike you, I don't think in extremes, you can have limitations on freedom without losing your liberty. And do you somehow think our freedoms are limitless? You think me extreme? Yes, here in America we murder hobos in the street while robbing the elderly blind and slandering blacks and gays all the live-long day, hm?

Anyone up for jeering at the mentally handicapped? This is America!

Originally posted by Strangelove
And do you somehow think our freedoms are limitless? You think me extreme? Yes, here in America we murder hobos in the street while robbing the elderly blind and slandering blacks and gays all the live-long day, hm?

Anyone up for jeering at the mentally handicapped? This is America!

Way ahead of you!

Originally posted by Strangelove
And do you somehow think our freedoms are limitless? You think me extreme? Yes, here in America we murder hobos in the street while robbing the elderly blind and slandering blacks and gays all the live-long day, hm?

Anyone up for jeering at the mentally handicapped? This is America!

No but, Canada has shown that we can ban hate speech without taking it too far, we are living proof that your theory is flawed.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No but, Canada has shown that we can ban hate speech without taking it too far, we are living proof that your theory is flawed. And how is our theory flawed? They're different schools of thought. I, for one, don't see one crazy old coot standing on the street corner preaching about the demons called homosexuals a threat to public safety. But hey, I'm not law student.

Never understood why these topics shift to "We vs. You Americans"

hmm

Originally posted by Strangelove
And how is our theory flawed? They're different schools of thought. I, for one, don't see one crazy old coot standing on the street corner preaching about the demons called homosexuals a threat to public safety. But hey, I'm not law student.

Because crazy people may listen to him and act violently towards them. And believe me I know your not a law student, what do you do for a living?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Because crazy people may listen to him and act violently towards them. And believe me I know your not a law student, what do you do for a living? you're* I know you're not an English student.

I'm a political science student

Originally posted by Strangelove
you're* I know you're not an English student.

I'm a political science student

Really? Your a poli-sci major? And you still don't understand why Canada puts limits on speech? Do you have qualified professors?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Really? Your a poli-sci major? And you still don't understand why Canada puts limits on speech? Do you have qualified professors? I love how you keep ignoring the fact (as I've pointed it out to you many times) that America does have limits on speech. But banning controversial speech would fly straight in the face of the Constitution. It's banning speech because you don't like it. Simply unacceptable. Don't you dare question the integrity of my professors, my American Politics professor has a master's degree in Poli Sci and belongs to the American Political Scientist Association.

I understand why Canada limits speech, but that doesn't keep me from thinking it's wrong

Originally posted by Strangelove
I love how you keep ignoring the fact (as I've pointed it out to you many times) that America does have limits on speech. But banning controversial speech would fly straight in the face of the Constitution. It's banning speech because you don't like it. Simply unacceptable. Don't you dare question the integrity of my professors, my American Politics professor has a master's degree in Poli Sci and belongs to the American Political Scientist Association.

I understand why Canada limits speech, but that doesn't keep me from thinking it's wrong

You can think it's wrong all you want. That's your opinion, but it's not fact.

Originally posted by Starhawk
You can think it's wrong all you want. That's your opinion, but it's not fact. Well it's your opinion that it's a good thing. Also not fact.

Agreed.

*should we sing Hands across America now?

Bottom line, a law banning hate speech would be unconstitutional in the United States. I'm sure it would be popular, but still. UnAmerican.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
How would that one work?

He said:



If I called his mom a whore it might lead to a fight that MAY lead to one of us being hurt.

And for that matter, we should ban religion because that can also lead to violence. Right Starhawk?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
He said:



If I called his mom a whore it might lead to a fight that MAY lead to one of us being hurt.

And for that matter, we should ban religion because that can also lead to violence. Right Starhawk?

LOL Don't tempt me. Religion is also one of the biggest problems of our time.

Hate Speech can lead to mass violence, beatings, and killings.

Originally posted by Starhawk
LOL Don't tempt me. Religion is also one of the biggest problems of our time.

Hate Speech can lead to mass violence, beatings, and killings.

So you agree that we should ban religion to keep 'violence, beatings, and killings' to happen over idealogical differences? Actually, we should outlaw every type of thinking but yours to avoid conflicts.

No, unfortunately religion is allowed to run free, huge mistake that it is.

But as I have said time and again in Canada we've outlawed hate speech and suffered no ill effects to our society as a result. We are proof that it can work.

So you do think we should outlaw religion?

Originally posted by Starhawk
No, unfortunately religion is allowed to run free, huge mistake that it is.

But as I have said time and again in Canada we've outlawed hate speech and suffered no ill effects to our society as a result. We are proof that it can work.

Religion and extremism are not the same thing. Religion does not preach hate it's extremists that do.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Religion and extremism are not the same thing. Religion does not preach hate it's extremists that do.

Religion breeds hate all the time. We've had wars because of Religion.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Religion breeds hate all the time. We've had wars because of Religion.

And we've also had wars over political beliefs. Should those be outlawed too? Hey, we've had war for land; why not outlaw that too?

Religion has caused much more suffering over the course of history. but as long as it does not teach hate speech there's nothing I can do about it.

I am against organized religion, not all religion.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Religion breeds hate all the time. We've had wars because of Religion.

No we haven't had wars because of religion, religion has sometimes been a contributing factor.
I'm not talking as far back as the crusades by the way, which incidentally is one of the reasons extremists feel robbed. I'm also not sure what religions you are talking about because I'm certain no wars have happened due to Buddhist conflicts.

Christian and Islamic.

Not just the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Salem trials, it's the excuse for allot of terrorism in the world today, partly the reason for the IRA. The KKK is a christian organization.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Christian and Islamic.
Not just the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Salem trials, it's the excuse for allot of terrorism in the world today, partly the reason for the IRA. The KKK is a christian organization.

The Spanish inquisition had ulterior motives such as more power, money and weakening the opposition. The Salem trials were not a war. I've already explained the fact of extremists to you, if all the Islam followers were terrorists the western world would be down the pan. The IRA were fighting for Ireland to become a republic. Also the KKK would find an excuse to to persecute and torment, Christianity or no.

My argument for religion not being all bad is that think of the positive effects of its teachings, a lot of people are that scared of going to hell that they abide a strict moral code, without this we could have less religious extremists and more psychopaths.

Actually, the IRA were also trying to drive out people who didn't share their religious beliefs as well.

And I never said the Salem trials were a war, merely suffering caused by organized religion.

Extremists may not represent religion, but they are a by product of it.

Originally posted by Devil King
Indeed. People who are against this legislation are pissed because it represents equal considerations of homosexuals under the law. So, what happens after that? The "slippery slope" on the other side of the argument is that this will eventually lead to gay marriage being legalized. They just don't have the balls to admit it.

I am all for gay marriage, and equal rights to gays, and still very much against this law.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The thing is, all this fuzzy commitment to free sppech evaporates pretty damn quick when people start to incite the mmurder of blacks or mass terrorism, and then these things happen. THEN people want to speakers silenced because people are dying as a result of their hate-filled vicious rhetoric.

There is homophobic incitement that is killing homosexuals. Those who think the right to make this incitement is above the right for those beinbg targetted to be protected by stopping such incitement have entirely lost their moral compass.

People hold up Freedom of Speech as this ultimate, unquestionable good. Bolllocks. Speech can be used for heinous uses as bad as any crime we legislate against. It can be legislaatively prevented also.

In any case, total freedom of speech has never existed anywhere, and a good thing too.

There is of course a difference between being able to say whatever you want whenever you want including asking other people to kill some group of people for you and just saying that, that particular group is morally wrong. The last one you should definitely be able to do, no matter how ignorant it might be.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Our liberty is just fine, we simply realize that some limitations are necessary for public safety. Unlike you, I don't think in extremes, you can have limitations on freedom without losing your liberty.

Yes you can, limiting people's ability to ask others to start violent acts for instance. However saying that nobody should be able to say being Gay is wrong, or that homosexuality is a sin against god is limiting freedom of speech without a good reason and that should never happen.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Religion has caused much more suffering over the course of history. but as long as it does not teach hate speech there's nothing I can do about it.

I am against organized religion, not all religion.

So you think we should ban religions like Christianity and the Muslim faith as both their holy books preach violence against none believers and woman...

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
No we haven't had wars because of religion, religion has sometimes been a contributing factor.
I'm not talking as far back as the crusades by the way, which incidentally is one of the reasons extremists feel robbed. I'm also not sure what religions you are talking about because I'm certain no wars have happened due to Buddhist conflicts.

Look at Thailand, Muslims and Bhuddist are fighting there. Look at India and Pakistan a conflict started because of Muslim and Bhuddist population groups.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually, the IRA were also trying to drive out people who didn't share their religious beliefs as well.

And I never said the Salem trials were a war, merely suffering caused by organized religion.

Extremists may not represent religion, but they are a by product of it.

By products can be a result of a lot. Politic groups have unwanted by products (sometimes wanted ones) such as lynching etc. There are many who argue that video games have violent by products.

We cannot outlaw something thats intention is initially to be good, no matter what the by products are. That in itself is extremism.

Originally posted by Fishy

Look at Thailand, Muslims and Bhuddist are fighting there. Look at India and Pakistan a conflict started because of Muslim and Bhuddist population groups.

There is much more to those conflicts than that, such as countries boundaries etc.
This applies to the India and Pakistan conflict especially.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
By products can be a result of a lot. Politic groups have unwanted by products (sometimes wanted ones) such as lynching etc. There are many who argue that video games have violent by products.

We cannot outlaw something thats intention is initially to be good, no matter what the by products are. That in itself is extremism.

I believe I already said, much to my disappointment that we can't outlaw religion.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
There is much more to those conflicts than that, such as countries boundaries etc.
This applies to the India and Pakistan conflict especially.

That is true of course, but that doesn't mean that the Bhuddist religion is one of complete peace, it simply isn't.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
He said:



If I called his mom a whore it might lead to a fight that MAY lead to one of us being hurt.



Well, that would be self-inflicted in the event that it happened. It doesn't come under the remit of the concept.

Originally posted by Fishy
That is true of course, but that doesn't mean that the Bhuddist religion is one of complete peace, it simply isn't.

True, though it by no means teaches hatred. It really is a shame that religious teachings can be taken out of context and lives are lost as a result. But, I still believe that those who take the teachings as moral and spiritual, and not in-sighting violence deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Well we know it is a liberal thing and I doubt it if they are going to go through it.This not only takes our freedom of speech away but other stuff as well.
The goverment as way too much power as it is.And after I read the book I could see that happening in the nearby future so it is pretty scary stuff.
I wonder if the writter just got the date wrong?Maybe he met 2084 or something close to that/JM

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Well we know it is a liberal thing and I doubt it if they are going to go through it.This not only takes our freedom of speech away but other stuff as well.
The goverment as way too much power as it is.And after I read the book I could see that happening in the nearby future so it is pretty scary stuff.
I wonder if the writter just got the date wrong?Maybe he met 2084 or something close to that/JM

The power to prevent hate speech is a very good thing as Canada demonstrates.

How do you determine what is hateful?

That is true not everyone considers everything hateful.Just people who are very senative.jm

Well, it's not really a "Thought Police" law, as it requires action to be arrested rather than mere thoughts. Describing it as such is a mischaracterization, unless I'm missing something.

And the law ought to have provisions to protect even the most deviant of individuals from attacks from others, be they child molesters, rapists, or goat-****ers.

However, what I find most amusing about this entire thread is that the people who are normally screaming about "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" and the First Amendment are supporting this law, which is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

For those of you a little rusty on what it says, allow me to refresh your memory:

Prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Arguable. Curtailing freedom of speech and press? Yes, and yes. Taking away the right to assemble peacefully? Yes.

Hmm. Three violations, and a fourth that is arguable.

Hypocrisy is failure.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The power to prevent hate speech is a very good thing as Canada demonstrates.

Well Canada seems to do a good enough job of it.

Canada sucks.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Canada sucks.

Kiddo, this is the big boy's table, your kind of out of your league here.

Where have I heard that one before?

(Sock.)

Anyhow, bite me. My single post in this thread is more valid and well thought-out than any of yours.

LOL Yes, now run along and find a ball to play with, we're talking about grown up stuff here.

Originally posted by Starhawk
LOL Yes, now run along and find a ball to play with, we're talking about grown up stuff here.
Originally posted by Schecter
reverse psychology for the FAIL, toto

*throws tennis ball*
You're a PVS wannabe. That's pathetic.

Kiddo, there's this thing called the OTF, you would love it, you don't have to make intellegent points or anything, I think it's for you.

Now anyone have anything else to say on the topic?

Originally posted by Devil King
Are you quoting the article, or the legislation?

The article. Certainly it might be a very quick synopsis of what the legislation states, but I haven't seen the legislation so that's all I have to go on right now.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Well, it's not really a "Thought Police" law, as it requires action to be arrested rather than mere thoughts. Describing it as such is a mischaracterization, unless I'm missing something.

And the law ought to have provisions to protect even the most deviant of individuals from attacks from others, be they child molesters, rapists, or goat-****ers.

However, what I find most amusing about this entire thread is that the people who are normally screaming about "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" and the First Amendment are supporting this law, which is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

For those of you a little rusty on what it says, allow me to refresh your memory:



Prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Arguable. Curtailing freedom of speech and press? Yes, and yes. Taking away the right to assemble peacefully? Yes.

Hmm. Three violations, and a fourth that is arguable.

Hypocrisy is failure.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Well, it's not really a "Thought Police" law, as it requires action to be arrested rather than mere thoughts. Describing it as such is a mischaracterization, unless I'm missing something.

And the law ought to have provisions to protect even the most deviant of individuals from attacks from others, be they child molesters, rapists, or goat-****ers.

However, what I find most amusing about this entire thread is that the people who are normally screaming about "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" and the First Amendment are supporting this law, which is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

For those of you a little rusty on what it says, allow me to refresh your memory:

Prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Arguable. Curtailing freedom of speech and press? Yes, and yes. Taking away the right to assemble peacefully? Yes.

Hmm. Three violations, and a fourth that is arguable.

Hypocrisy is failure.


See and this here is the point.





Why does it even matter?

You charge the person for assault or whatever crime regardless of how they felt about a person's race, gender, orientation, etc....



It has no bearing on committing a crime, and the fact that this new bill focuses PURELY on adding homosexuality into it, without protection for troops being attacked for their service, or children/elderly for their ages, and that a clause introduced by the Republican congressman Mike Pence of Indiana which stated an "exception to the hate crimes law for Freedom of Religion" was flat-out rejected shows a clear bias and attempt to make it illegal to think homosexuality is wrong.

If it wasn't, then why not just punish for whatever crime was committed rather than what the person's feelings/thoughts were?





Let's play what if.


What if:

A gay person (or couple) visits a local church. Just to check it out or whatever. Maybe they're spiritual, maybe they aren't.


And somewhere in the service, they mention things going on in the culture.

Things like porn, abortion, murder, and..... homosexuality... as being part of the devil's attempts to destroy this society.

That such things are part of spiritual warfare and must be combatted with prayer.

That they should vote for those who believe as they do. (churches aren't allowed to endorse a particular candidate by name, but often say: "find those who have the same values as you do."



So basically, the church has said: Being gay is wrong. It is from the devil. We should fight it spiritually and with our actions(non-violent), words, and with our votes.



Under this new law, will the gay person or couple be able to accuse the pastor of a hate crime?



Uncertain for now, but I can see it leading that way soon enough.

Personally I see nothing wrong with that, we should be doing all we can to push small minded beliefs out of society.

Fun fact: in AZ its a hate crime to assault a bouncer.

get the F out. really?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Personally I see nothing wrong with that, we should be doing all we can to push small minded beliefs out of society.
LOL.

Fail.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It has no bearing on committing a crime, and the fact that this new bill focuses PURELY on adding homosexuality into it, without protection for troops being attacked for their service, or children/elderly for their ages, and that a clause introduced by the Republican congressman Mike Pence of Indiana which stated an "exception to the hate crimes law for Freedom of Religion" was flat-out rejected shows a clear bias and attempt to make it illegal to think homosexuality is wrong.

If it wasn't, then why not just punish for whatever crime was committed rather than what the person's feelings/thoughts were?

Its also illegal to attack other races as being inferior, or other religions...so whats your point besides the fact that you're a raging hypocrite? You're behind the times. If this was 40 years ago youd be whining about how your right to hate black people is being infringed upon.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Personally I see nothing wrong with that, we should be doing all we can to push small minded beliefs out of society.

Why is it your place to decide what society believes and what it shouldn't?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
get the F out. really?

Yes. The logic behind the law, is that your attacking them because of their profession/uniform.

Kinda like shooting and killing a uniformed police officer is automatic First Degree Murder even if there was no premeditation.

Originally posted by Alliance
Its also illegal to attack other races as being inferior, or other religions...so whats your point besides the fact that you're a raging hypocrite? You're behind the times. If this was 40 years ago youd be whining about how your right to hate black people is being infringed upon.



Why is it your place to decide what society believes and what it shouldn't?

I never said it was, I simply said i wish we could, the Government decides that.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Well we know it is a liberal thing and I doubt it if they are going to go through it.This not only takes our freedom of speech away but other stuff as well.
The goverment as way too much power as it is.

A "government that tyakes away too much power". But you take no responsability in taking that power yourself.

You loose.

Originally posted by FeceMan
the law ought to have provisions

Not what this is addressing. The "provisions" are there from teh beginning.

Originally posted by Starhawk
good enough

"good enough" is not "good enough"

Originally posted by FeceMan


Not really. Especially considering that you have NOT addressed it as such

Let's not totally ignore the reality of the situation in favor of addressing the "argument". The argument doesn't address the reality at all. First amendment is one thing. The reality is another. Hence the reason that no one is willing to address the "first" amendment at all, in relation to this contention.

Critical thinking is one thing, but "critical thinking" is a whole different beast when considering this legislation.

What the hell are you on about? "Reality of the situation" vs. the "argument"?

Originally posted by FeceMan
What the hell are you on about? "Reality of the situation" vs. the "argument"?

That's not my argument. Nor is it the point of the legislation. No one here is talking about the legislation. Everyone is talking about "talking points". Don't argue based on that inncorrect asumption.

Elaborate and clarify.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Elaborate and clarify.


"Reality v. the situation" is a lie.


The arguments about the right to speak V. Don Imus is a hoax.

That's not what this legislation is about. Don't try to turn it into that.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I never said it was, I simply said i wish we could, the Government decides that.

Why should we trust the government to do so?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Agreed.

*should we sing Hands across America now?

No, singing is for the gays.

Oh shit, cops are here, later.

Blood is nature's lube.

Yes

Originally posted by Starhawk
I never said it was, I simply said i wish we could, the Government decides that.

So you want your government to say what you can and can not think???

Originally posted by sithsaber408
See and this here is the point.





Why does it even matter?

You charge the person for assault or whatever crime regardless of how they felt about a person's race, gender, orientation, etc....



It has no bearing on committing a crime, and the fact that this new bill focuses PURELY on adding homosexuality into it, without protection for troops being attacked for their service, or children/elderly for their ages, and that a clause introduced by the Republican congressman Mike Pence of Indiana which stated an "exception to the hate crimes law for Freedom of Religion" was flat-out rejected shows a clear bias and attempt to make it illegal to think homosexuality is wrong.

If it wasn't, then why not just punish for whatever crime was committed rather than what the person's feelings/thoughts were?





Let's play what if.


What if:

A gay person (or couple) visits a local church. Just to check it out or whatever. Maybe they're spiritual, maybe they aren't.


And somewhere in the service, they mention things going on in the culture.

Things like porn, abortion, murder, and..... homosexuality... as being part of the devil's attempts to destroy this society.

That such things are part of spiritual warfare and must be combatted with prayer.

That they should vote for those who believe as they do. (churches aren't allowed to endorse a particular candidate by name, but often say: "find those who have the same values as you do."



So basically, the church has said: Being gay is wrong. It is from the devil. We should fight it spiritually and with our actions(non-violent), words, and with our votes.



Under this new law, will the gay person or couple be able to accuse the pastor of a hate crime?



Uncertain for now, but I can see it leading that way soon enough. C'mon SS. You were reading an incredibly biased Op-Ed piece, not news. Expressing an opinion that homosexuality is wrong has never been considered a hate crime. Writing a law that prevents hate crimes would not criminalize something that wasn't a hate crime before. It is to prevent hate crimes for which laws are already on the books.

Again, expressing an opinion is not against the law. Especially an opinion that is religiously based, because most liberals understand, unlike conservatives, that forcing values onto another group is a bad thing.

Bring us a reputable news source saying that this new law would criminalize any and all speech against homosexuals and maybe you'd only be standing on shaky ground.

I'm so glad this guy is fighting for us

He's quite right about Darwinianism, evolution, and eugenics, although that's not particularly relevant to any conversation.

Nor is it accurate.


But you're right. Not relevant

Erm...yeah, really, Colson would be accurate in saying that.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Religion has caused much more suffering over the course of history. but as long as it does not teach hate speech there's nothing I can do about it.

I am against organized religion, not all religion.

Much more suffering? Not even close to wars for land. Don't speak about things you have no idea about.

To actually get this somewhere, define "hate speech".

Originally posted by FeceMan
Erm...yeah, really, Colson would be accurate in saying that. That Darwinism is used to attack Christianity?

I'm sorry, but FAIL.

Scientists don't sit around and say "I wonder how we can best undermine Christianity today." They do what they do because they want to understand how things work. It's used to understand where we come from. Attacking Christianity is hardly a goal.

there are many Christians who study and research the theory of evolution.

they see the wonder and mystery of it as being far superior to the "God done it" response given by pro-creation advocates. To them, something as complex, yet incredibly simple, as evolution shows the glory of God.

lol, way off topic....

Well, in my country it is a crime to spread Nazi ideology, and I agree with it.

Freedom of speech doesn`t mean that you are irresponsible for your words. And no right quaranteed by constitution is unlimited, because it can clash with other rights and public safety. Though I am not American and not an expert on USA Constitution.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
Well, in my country it is a crime to spread Nazi ideology, and I agree with it.

Freedom of speech doesn`t mean that you are irresponsible for your words. And no right quaranteed by constitution is unlimited, because it can clash with other rights and public safety. Though I am not American and not an expert on USA Constitution.

Nazi ideals include preaching violence and asking people to hurt certain population groups. There is a huge difference between that and saying you think that all blacks suck and white people are great.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor


Freedom of speech doesn`t mean that you are irresponsible for your words. And no right quaranteed by constitution is unlimited, because it can clash with other rights and public safety.

Yup, thats pretty much whats in the preamble to our Bill of Rights. And we have found a way to make it work for us.

Of course, I still believe that civil law should be the main limitation on freedom of speech, with regards to legal instruments. It is better for individual or even group to sue for damages and win, than for goverment to make a bunch of unnecessary legislation.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Yup, thats pretty much whats in the preamble to our Bill of Rights. And we have found a way to make it work for us. Again, you have this smug superiority that assumes America encourages people to be irresponsible with their words. Of course we expect people to be responsible. But it is also people's right to say what they feel without fear of retribution.

Get off your goddamn high horse.

Originally posted by Strangelove
That Darwinism is used to attack Christianity?

I'm sorry, but FAIL.

Scientists don't sit around and say "I wonder how we can best undermine Christianity today." They do what they do because they want to understand how things work. It's used to understand where we come from. Attacking Christianity is hardly a goal. Originally posted by FeceMan
He's quite right about Darwinianism, evolution, and eugenics, although that's not particularly relevant to any conversation.
Reading comprehension FTW.

I think you need to be a little less jealous, that we have found a way to limit hate speech without becoming this dictator state you fear.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I think you need to be a little less jealous, that we have found a way to limit hate speech without becoming this dictator state you fear.
You're retarded if you think that we're jealous of Canada.
Originally posted by inimalist
they see the wonder and mystery of it as being far superior to the "God done it" response given by pro-creation advocates. To them, something as complex, yet incredibly simple, as evolution shows the glory of God.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with creationism.

Originally posted by FeceMan
You're retarded if you think that we're jealous of Canada.

Once again, I think the OTF is more your speed.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I think you need to be a little less jealous, that we have found a way to limit hate speech without becoming this dictator state you fear. Originally posted by FeceMan
You're retarded if you think that we're jealous of Canada.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Once again, I think the OTF is more your speed.
You keep saying that, and I keep saying to myself, "That abbreviation doesn't mean what he thinks it means."

Just hours before the House votes on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, the White House issued a statement saying that if the bill passes the House and Senate and goes to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto it.

A statement from the Executive Office of the President said, "The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin."

. . . but apparently, not sexual orientation.