Originally posted by Lord MelkorFreedom 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.
Originally posted by StarhawkAgain, 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
WASHINGTON - The White House issued a veto threat Thursday against legislation that would expand federal hate crime law to include attacks motivated by the victims' gender or sexual orientation.
The hate crimes bill, with strong Democratic backing, is expected to pass the House Thursday. Similar legislation is moving through the Senate.
But the legislation, which also would increase the penalties for bias-based violence, has met outspoken resistance from conservative groups and their Republican allies in Congress, who warn that it undermines freedom of speech, religious expression and equal protection under the law.
The White House, in a statement, said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and "there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."
It also questioned the constitutionality of federalizing the acts of violence barred by the bill and said that if it reaches the president's desk "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."
The White House also noted that the bill would leave out other classes such as the elderly, members of the military or police officers.
Hate crimes under current federal law apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national original. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as enrolling in school, voting or traveling between states.
The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.
That would make it easier for federal authorities to become involved in hate crimes, although House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., said in a statement that state and local authorities will continue to prosecute the overwhelming majority of such cases.
"To ensure federal restraint, the bill requires the attorney general or another high-ranking Justice Department official to approve any prosecutions undertaken pursuant to this measure," he said. He also stressed that it does not impinge on public speech, religious expression or writing.
Those using guns to commit crimes defined under the bill would face prison terms of up to 10 years. Crimes involving kidnapping or sexual assault or resulting in death could bring life terms.
The Judiciary Committee cited FBI figures that there have been more than 113,000 hate crimes since 1991, including 7,163 in 1995. It said that racially motivated bias accounted for 55 percent of those incidents, religious bias for 17 percent, sexual orientation bias for 14 percent and ethnicity bias for 14 percent.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_go_co/hate_crimes;_ylt=AiNUTZK1GyTc1QqMYX44D9LMWM0F
Guess the topic is dead for now. Bush will pWnT the bill.
Originally posted by Starhawk
The fact still remains, Canada has made laws like this one work.
OR
we have driven racist speech underground where we have no way of combating or confronting it. 😉
EDIT: or we could talk about the glorious breeches in freedom of speech in Quebec. Canada doesn't have such a clean nose on this "free speech" thing
Originally posted by inimalist
ORwe have driven racist speech underground where we have no way of combating or confronting it. 😉
EDIT: or we could talk about the glorious breeches in freedom of speech in Quebec. Canada doesn't have such a clean nose on this "free speech" thing
Thats because we give Quebec anything they ask for. It makes me sick as well.
Well we don't have anywhere NEAR the level of hate crimes the US has.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Thats because we give Quebec anything they ask for. It makes me sick as well.
we do?
last I checked, Quebec refused government funding, seeing it as federalist garbage... or wait, are you talking about how in the recent election they defeated separatism again and are coming around to the Federalist mindset?
hmmmmm
lol, it has nothing to do with what we give them, it has to do with the fact that they want to protect their culture with legislation. If anything, "we" didn't let them.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Well we don't have anywhere NEAR the level of hate crimes the US has.
And you think this is specifically related to hate speech laws?