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

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

Originally posted by sithsaber
Snip.

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:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

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*

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:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

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.

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 [b]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?[/B]

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.