| 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: |
| Hate crimes and hate speech | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 17 2005, 01:47 PM (842 Views) | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jan 20 2005, 12:53 PM Post #61 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Sisko, before moving out here last November (2003) I lived in the 4th largest city in America. I CHOSE to move to a quieter, safer area. I live on acreage BECAUSE I CHOOSE TO, not because some rich white Republican gave me the keys to a house. I earned this and BUILT IT. Spiffy... you have seen KKK rallies. Did they go out afterward and assault anyone? Did they string anyone up? Did they do anything but spew out ignorant crap about people and things they know little of? Tell me something: Would you use hate crimes legislation on the New Black Panthers? Members of that group assaulted two white people (both men in their early 60s) in the summer of 2003 (using butts of shotguns) as these people tried to enter the Texas Republican Convention and the group was illegally protesting that day. You talk of "certain groups" in your desire for hate crimes legislation. Why doesn't it apply to everyone? Interesting that your "summary" of hate crimes (compiled from the FBI) doesn't have the metric it uses to determine the hate crime. Nor does it say who perpetrated the incident(s)? As for the Southern Poverty Law Center, I'd love to see how they "define" a hate group. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 20 2005, 12:59 PM Post #62 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I would include the New Black Panthers in that category. I don't know how anyone else defines it, but to me a hate crime is one motivated by hatred toward a group of people rather than against an individual. The thing is about hate crimes is that there is no end to them. If one person is hated, and he/she is murdered, then that's it. But when crimes are motivated toward a group of people, random representatives can be murdered at anytime. I didn't witness anyone being assulted, but that doesn't mean some of those people in attendance didn't do something of that nature. I respect your opinion on this issue. And we'll just have to disagree and move on. (.org) Edit: BTW: I didn't mean to insult you, I just wanted to point out that of course you don't witness such things happening living on an acreage. However, I disagree with your assessment of my naiettive. (Damn French spelling) :angry: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Jan 21 2005, 07:53 PM Post #63 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
So the question is how do you prove a hate crime. Unless they just out and out confess, I don't see you proving what their mindset is. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| cptjeff | Jan 21 2005, 09:38 PM Post #64 |
|
Captain of the Enterprise-J
|
Well, those people who are racist are pretty darned obvious about it... At least down here in the south. I would think that a hate crime could be determined case by case. there is no way to make a braod genrization though, so there is no 'black and white' on this issue. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Jan 21 2005, 09:46 PM Post #65 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
No to both. Hate is a motive We use motive to convict It minimalizes the harm done through the same crime for different motives. Fianlly, where hate crimes have been enforced, minorities go to jail more often then others. That is a black who beats up on a white becuase they hate whites does a longer jail term then if he beat up on someone in a mindless rage or on someone who is his own race. Silly concept. Most crime stems from some form of hatred. As for hate speech. Its protected up to the point it incites violence, defames, libels,slanders, or is used to conspire to commit a criminal act. I think these restrictions are enough. ANOVA You are nothing the Fuhrer is everything. Yes it could happen again. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| cptjeff | Jan 21 2005, 10:06 PM Post #66 |
|
Captain of the Enterprise-J
|
the idea behind hate crime laws is to discourage millitant racisim. While there are problems in determining what is a hate crime, that is for the prosicution to decide currently. they can press hate crime laws in addition to murder charges. But what if we made it so the Jury decided if it was a hate crime? and the prosicution had no say, nor the defense (in the hate crime issue)? do you think that might make a difference? As for hate speech, well, I'll stick with Voltare- "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it" |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Jan 22 2005, 01:16 PM Post #67 |
|
Admiral
|
I think that even free speech has its limits. In other words, there are some (very well thought out) exceptions to the rule. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jan 22 2005, 02:42 PM Post #68 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
No, they aren't. You've probably never heard the term "The soft racism of good intentions." Most people don't even realize it, and this is not just the south. See the whole country and experience the different varieties of it. You'll be surprised. Your average racist does NOT fly a rebel flag and then go to Klan rallies. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 22 2005, 02:46 PM Post #69 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Like affirmative actions? Use affirmative action to determine the price of tuition, its the best thing since sliced bread. Use affirmative action to determine the price of a cookie its racism. Go figure. . . |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Jan 22 2005, 03:53 PM Post #70 |
|
Admiral
|
I would love to know what MLK would think of Affirmative Action today. I don't think it is what he had in mind back in the 1960s. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| cptjeff | Jan 22 2005, 04:05 PM Post #71 |
|
Captain of the Enterprise-J
|
You know, you're right. I don't know much about your notrthern breeds of racist. but down here we have tree breeds: the N*gger hater, the mexican hater, and the xenophobe. and they all are pretty darned obvious about it. You don't have to pick out subtlys down here... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Jan 22 2005, 04:13 PM Post #72 |
|
Admiral
|
I don't think that being xenophobic is a bad thing. Am I alone on this one?
<<<
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| CV6 Enterprise | Jan 22 2005, 04:26 PM Post #73 |
![]()
Captain
|
No. To me, being xenophobic means that you don't want to lose you culture. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Jan 22 2005, 04:29 PM Post #74 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Or my privacy!
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Jan 23 2005, 12:42 AM Post #75 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Somebody still has to prove to me how you can PROVE that somebody used one motive over another. Unless they wrote down or told somebody that "I killed that person because of <blank>", there is no way to prove in a court of law that somebody used a certain thought process. Even if they did record that they hated certain people, they could always say that they changed their mind, how are you going to prove them wrong? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



9:46 AM Jul 11