The Thought Police (new hate crimes law)...

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.

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.

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

"I hate faggots" - 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 faggots and beat them to death" - Not protected

"I hate faggots" - 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.