Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Hate crimes and hate speech
Topic Started: Jan 17 2005, 01:47 PM (844 Views)
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^ If so, then those individuals need to be charged with incitement.

But I wouldn't shut down the entire movement for the wrongful actions of a few.

Dwayne - how did you vote in the poll??????
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Interestingly, back in 1999, when James Byrd was dragged behind a pickup truck until he died, people were calling for the three men who did it to be charged with a hate crime. Two of the three received the death penalty and the third got life in prison. How would being charged with a hate crime change anything?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

I think hate crime laws are necessary. I voted 'Yes on hate crimes' in this poll.

I undertand things like threats and slander (illegal) enter the equation at some point, but I am more accepting and tolerant of allowing individuals to express their opinions, even biased, controversial, ignorant and perhaps hateful opinions (especially when directed toward politicians or religious leaders :) ).

I believe that in our essentially good society (USA) the public renders appropriate punishment for genuinely hateful speech - duly discrediting and isolating individuals who dare.

I truly believe that if hateful speech were outlawed in the USA, the Bush administration would stand ready to do something like broaden the scope of the USA PATRIOT Act to search for, quell and punish political adversaries (can you say Valerie Plame?).

I generally distrust the government - even less so the Bush administration.
| Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Since there are organizations that can exist under free speech even though they condone and even encourage violence against minorities and other groups then there should be a measure that deters people from carrying this nonsense out.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Jan 18 2005, 09:19 AM
But many other countries have been able to draw the lines pretty clearly and have effective laws against hate speech and hate crimes without giving up the concept of free speech.

I don’t see how you can have a law against speech with out imposing on the concept of free speech. If you have laws against it - it isn’t free. What you get in these other countries is a compromise between the freedom of speech and the getting rid of hate (or at lest sweeping it under the rug). That maybe an expectable compromise, we make compromises like these with our freedoms all the time. But to say that curtailing hate speech does not impose on our freedom of speech, is incorrect. What is worse is that this concept seems even more dangerous to me then hate speech itself. As history has shown us over and over it is dangerous to impose upon a freedom and make it out as if it isn’t happening; it just makes taking the next step that much more easy.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Jan 18 2005, 12:01 PM
Since there are organizations that can exist under free speech even though they condone and even encourage violence against minorities and other groups then there should be a measure that deters people from carrying this nonsense out.

A "measure" already exists. It is called "the law."
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
I agree with this wholeheartedly.

--Pharktar
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Minuet
Jan 18 2005, 10:14 AM
^^^ If so, then those individuals need to be charged with incitement.

But I wouldn't shut down the entire movement for the wrongful actions of a few.

Dwayne - how did you vote in the poll??????

I voted no on both.

Don't get me wrong, essentially I agree with you, but I just wished to show that some people actually incite an enemy to hold out and to keep up the violence, which would kind of fit the criteria.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator
Dwayne
Jan 18 2005, 06:13 PM


Don't get me wrong, essentially I agree with you, but I just wished to show that some people actually incite an enemy to hold out and to keep up the violence, which would kind of fit the criteria.


Can you say "Jane Fonda" circa 1970?


If that wasn't treason I don't know what is.


She should still be in prison.


Anyone who publicly endorses an enemy of one's nation and celebrates
the defeat of one's troops is a traitor. That is not a 'free speech' issue.

It's alright to protest the war in Iraq; everyone has the right to protest the
actions of the state. But giving encouragement to the enemy who are killing
one's own troops is another matter, IMO. I know this is a delicate issue; it's
also the main reason Kerry lost the election.

Where do we draw the line between "free speech" and Treason?

I'm deliberately wearing my "Ann Coulter" hat for this post. And yes,
I'm pressing a couple of "hot buttons" here...

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Yeah, we all know how well "the law" worked against hate crimes against black people in the South in the early to mid part of the 20th Century. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with today.

Hell, we know how the law worked against people in the middle ages, which is just as valid.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Doesn't it? We are talking about hate crimes. Crimes of racial hatred.

There are hate crimes to deter such organized terrorism. I am trying to make you understand that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Sisko, don't lecture me. I've lived in the South since you were in diapers. I've seen how people have moved away certain behaviors and actions. I live in probably the most integrated city in this country. We don't have racial strife or hate crimes here.

So, as I said, your analogy is just plain bullshit. (and no, I'm not disguising the word with a dollar sign or an exclamation point)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Guys you are getting off topic here.

The discussion is whether or not these laws should even exist. The history of the enforcement of these laws is irrelevant, except in the context of whether or not the past and current laws make sense and are enforceable. The fact that they were not enforced due to past racism has nothing to do with today. Lack of enforcement does not nessesarily mean that the laws are inadequate. It only means the people doing the enforcing are inadequate.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Damn universal translator!!! Is this thing on? ;)

I think people are having a hard time understanding me. I am saying: Hate crimes should exist to deter organized terrorism against racial groups such as the KKK. We have a Patriot Act and a Dept. of Homeland security to guard against international terrorism. This is a law to protect citizens against domestic racial terrorism.

Where's Hoshi when you need her? :lol:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus