NationStates Jolt Archive

Discuss.

don't tell me what to do.

There shouldn't be any for public places. I should be allowed to say whatever I damn well please, where ever I damn well like, as long as I do it in public where everyone can shout back.

OTOH, no-one has the right to go to someone's house and be offensive to them. Private property should mean the owner sets the rules.

That's a terrible way to start a thread.

What are your own thoughts in the matter? To which country are you referring? What is "hate speech" or a "hate crime"? Etc.

Please, do make an attempt to at least formulate that before you try to start a discussion.

If your skin is white, you're automatically a racist/sexist anytime you say any or all of the following;

Indian
Black
Girl
Spaniard
I'd like to slap BBQ sauce on that and go to town.
Those guys in Palestine are causing more trouble again.
The new pope seems nice enough.
Sheehan is insane.
Affirmative action is unfair.
anything that doesn't include PC wording.


If your skin is any other color, and/or are female, these rules do not apply.

this was a joke, do not complain about it.

If your skin is white, you're automatically a racist/sexist

Poor white victims. :rolleyes:

If your skin is white, you're automatically a racist/sexist anytime you say any or all of the following;

Indian
Black
Girl
Spaniard
I'd like to slap BBQ sauce on that and go to town.
Those guys in Palestine are causing more trouble again.
The new pope seems nice enough.
Sheehan is insane.
Affirmative action is unfair.
anything that doesn't include PC wording.


If your skin is any other color, and/or are female, these rules do not apply.

Agreed.

Let them say whatever in public places as long as their diatribe is peaceful and orderly. However, they have to get permission first and can't just show up and start protesting.

On private property, they have to get the permission of the owner before they can protest. Anything else violates the rights of the property owner.
The same rules in regard to peaceful protest and prior notice apply.

@ Fass/Zanato;
this was a joke, do not complain about it.

this was added becasue it was obvious peolpe take this shit too seriousley.

This is a pretty tough issue. I think people can be a bit too extreme towards the free speech side of things. Every country that I know of accepts limits to free speech, such as laws against slander and death threats. In my opinion, the only legitimate limits on "hate speech" is where it verges on threats.

For example, say there has been a recent attack on a Muslim business. If I publicly say that Muslims are going to get what's coming to them, that's not just me expressing an opinion, and I don't think it would legally be a threat as it is non-specific. But it causes genuine harm by causing people to live in fear. I'm still uncomfortable about this being illegal though, because it depends how the law is enforced, and is very close to censorship of ideas.

Poor white victims. :rolleyes:
Perhaps you could try living somewhere where there is a minority and have to deal with the bullshit involved with PC terms rather than nearly 100% white Sweden where its no problem. I mean hell. 87% of your population claims to be of the same religion! (Lutheran).

Hate-speech shouldn't be a crime.

That's not to say that its a good thing, but the government has no good reason to restrict it. Its a matter of free speech, and if governments are about protecting rights, and not controling people, they'll let people say what they want.

Oh the usual, in public prohibit immediate threats and incitment to violence (although they have to be immediate). Allow time and place restrictions consistant with public order, although this applies to any speech in puiblic places. As for private property, even publicly accesable areas of private property - anything goes as long as it is accepted by the owner/custodian of the property without restriction (applies to other types of speech too). In fact the only difference I feel appropriate between hate-speech and any other type of speech is that immediate threats and incitment to violence are not allowed. Sure it may create a rough and tumble enviroment where some people's feelings might be hurt, but if you cannot take that, then stay in your house.

Perhaps you could try living somewhere where there is a minority and have to deal with the bullshit involved with PC terms rather than nearly 100% white Sweden where its no problem. I mean hell. 87% of your population claims to be of the same religion! (Lutheran).

Are you saying that you live in a country where white people are an oppressed minority? Where is that?

Are you saying that you live in a country where white people are an oppressed minority? Where is that?
No, he is suggesting that Sweden has no minorities at all and so they do not have to deal with PC-talk and such, unlike America where everyone and his dog belongs to some sort of oppressed minority group.

Are you saying that you live in a country where white people are an oppressed minority? Where is that?

California :p Damned dirty Mexican Majority.

I think hate-speech laws have a definite place in society. As a Canadian, I was immensely releived when Ernst Zundel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zundel) was deported, thanks to our hate-crime laws.

I see nothing wrong with the gov't enforcing such legislation in order to protect it's citzens from such hatred and unreason. Its one thing when an individual expresses an opinion of hate towards any group, quite another when they organize a group to espouse and further their message, which is what Zundel did. Its is just such actions that the hate-crime laws are targetted towards, as well as people with influence and/or power (such as a university professor or a politician) using their position to dissementae hatred.

If you feel you must hate an entire group of people, keep it in your home and amongst your closest friends...don't bring it out in the open. Hate is an ugly thing that deserves no tolerance in an open and just society.

How about this? Is the following "hate speech"? Should the perpetrator have been punished for saying what he did?


University rebukes employee for e-mail decrying lesbianism
by Joyce Howard Price


July 31, 2005

The Washington Times

A state university in New Jersey has reprimanded a student-employee for describing homosexuality as a "perversion" in a private e-mail that he sent a female professor, after she sent him an unsolicited announcement about a university event that promoted lesbian relationships.

But Jihad Daniel, 63, who works for William Paterson University repairing computer hardware and takes graduate-level courses part time, said he was only expressing his Muslim religious beliefs when he responded to professor Arlene Holpp Scala, head of the university's women's studies department.

Mr. Daniel wants a letter of reprimand from the university's president removed from his permanent employee file. The letter says he violated state discrimination and harassment regulations for using the term "perversion."

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit group based in Philadelphia that is assisting Mr. Daniel in his fight with the university, calls the action taken against him "absurd" and an infringement of his free-speech rights.

"William Paterson University is knowingly disregarding the U.S. Constitution. No one here was 'harassed' or 'threatened,' as defined by the law. The university simply strongly disliked a student's point of view," said Greg Lukianoff, FIRE's director of legal and public advocacy.

Mr. Daniel received an e-mail from Miss Scala on March 7 advertising an upcoming viewing and discussion of the film "Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House." The e-mail referred to the film as a "lesbian relationship story."

Mr. Daniel replied to the professor the next day asking that he not be sent "any mail about 'Connie and Sally'... and 'Adam and Steve.' "
"These are perversions," Mr. Daniel wrote. "The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the creator of the heavens and the universe is never mentioned."

On March 8, Miss Scala forwarded Mr. Daniel's e-mail to the university's Office of Employment Equity and Diversity.

"Mr. Daniel's message to me sounds threatening and in violation of our university nondiscrimination policy. I don't want to feel threatened at my place of work when I send out announcements about events that address lesbian issues," she said in an e-mail message.

University President Arnold Speert sent Mr. Daniel a letter on June 15, informing him that the investigation into Miss Scala's complaint was complete. It was a letter of reprimand in which Mr. Speert said "perversion -- is clearly a derogatory or demeaning term." As a result, he said, Mr. Daniel was guilty of violating state discrimination and harassment regulations.

Mr. Daniel then contacted FIRE for assistance and appealed Mr. Speert's decision on First Amendment grounds.

FIRE also is outraged by a letter that it received this month from the New Jersey Attorney General's Office, which upheld Mr. Daniel's reprimand, saying that "speech which violates a non-discrimination policy is not protected by the First Amendment."

Deputy Attorney General Cheryl Clarke said Mr. Speert's letter of reprimand was appropriate.

Peter Aseltine, spokesman for Attorney General Peter Harvey, said Miss Clarke was "acting as a representative of the university."
"The attorney general has not taken a position" in this case, he added.
FIRE officials said they will continue with their appeals and would not rule out a lawsuit.

University spokesman Stuart Goldstein refused to comment on the case. "We don't discuss personnel matters," he said.

I do think thats taking things to far. It was PRIVATE email, afterall. I have nothing against an individual expressing his beleifs in private, though they may be hurtful to the one they are being expressed to. Thats simply a fact of lfe unfortunately, the kind of thing a grown person should be mature enough to deal with on their own without having to run to some regulitory body for help.

My beef is with organized hatred and widepsread public dissemantion of a message of hatred.

I see nothing wrong with the gov't enforcing such legislation in order to protect it's citzens from such hatred and unreason. Its one thing when an individual expresses an opinion of hate towards any group, quite another when they organize a group to espouse and further their message, which is what Zundel did. Its is just such actions that the hate-crime laws are targetted towards, as well as people with influence and/or power (such as a university professor or a politician) using their position to dissementae hatred.

Uhhhhhh. Can you not see the blatant and total though police/thought control of what you are advancing? The government should enforce legislation in order to protects "it's" citizens from 'unreason.' And btw, its 'our' government. We are not the government's citizens. We own it. It does not own us.

If you feel you must hate an entire group of people, keep it in your home and amongst your closest friends...don't bring it out in the open. Hate is an ugly thing that deserves no tolerance in an open and just society.

And if you feel being a democrat, a republican, a libertarian, is a good thing, keep it in your home and amongst your closest friends... don't bring it out in the open. I mean hey, what about all these wonderful democrats who parade the streets filled with hate for Bush? What of the wonderful republicans who protest and hate Hilary? Or the anarchists, or the staunch racists?

Legal enforcement begins with the actions of a man's hands. Not with the firing of neurons inside his skull.

I think freedom of speech shouldn't cover racial slander and/or majorly insulting religion (but of course this would have to be pretty extreme and not the "oh did you hear the one about the priest and the pageboy")

Umm, Downmarching is a Canadian citizen, so the government is not his, he is in fact a subject of the Canadian government and is "owned" by it. Not all governments are republics, I also reject the concept that non-republics can reach a different correct level of hate-speech laws.

I think freedom of speech shouldn't cover racial slander and/or majorly insulting religion (but of course this would have to be pretty extreme and not the "oh did you hear the one about the priest and the pageboy")
And I think freedom of speech shouldn't cover criticism of barbecue ribs or SUV's. Really - criticizing someone's barbecue ribs - worthy of the death penalty, at least!

For those who did not detect it, the above paragraph was an example of hyperbole and sarcasm. Who is to decide what is worthy of being protected and what is not? When exceptions are made for the things that offend you, why shouldn't exceptions be made for the things that offend me, or my next door neighbor, or my cousin's wife's plumber? Pretty soon there's nothing left to talk about.

California :p Damned dirty Mexican Majority.

lol, yeah, umm...

For those who did not detect it, the above paragraph was an example of hyperbole and sarcasm. Who is to decide what is worthy of being protected and what is not? When exceptions are made for the things that offend you, why shouldn't exceptions be made for the things that offend me, or my next door neighbor, or my cousin's wife's plumber? Pretty soon there's nothing left to talk about.

I trust my goverment they won't cock this up

Umm, Downmarching is a Canadian citizen, so the government is not his, he is in fact a subject of the Canadian government and is "owned" by it. Not all governments are republics, I also reject the concept that non-republics can reach a different correct level of hate-speech laws.

what are you trying to say (I live in England) :mad:

I trust my goverment they won't cock this up
You are about the only person I have ever heard on this forum, on the right or on the left, that trusts the government to not screw things up.

Government is the seat of power and authority. The power over expression is one of the greatest of those powers, as many a dictator has discovered and used throughout history.

Uhhhhhh. Can you not see the blatant and total though police/thought control of what you are advancing? The government should enforce legislation in order to protects "it's" citizens from 'unreason.' And btw, its 'our' government. We are not the government's citizens. We own it. It does not own us.



And if you feel being a democrat, a republican, a libertarian, is a good thing, keep it in your home and amongst your closest friends... don't bring it out in the open. I mean hey, what about all these wonderful democrats who parade the streets filled with hate for Bush? What of the wonderful republicans who protest and hate Hilary? Or the anarchists, or the staunch racists?

Legal enforcement begins with the actions of a man's hands. Not with the firing of neurons inside his skull.


Ernst Zundel and his cronies actively dissementated hatred through websites and publications. Thats bthe action of the hands if ever I saw it. Unless you can type by telepathy. Protesting the gov't is a right enshrined in my counrties constitution as much as it is in your country.


As Squi already pointed out, I don't live in a Republic, as you do. That doesn't mean I'm any less free to voice my opinions, and neither to the hate-crime laws in Canada restrict me from voicing my opinion. They are meant to curb the spread of hatred and the advocation of it on a widespread scale. I'm still perfectly legally allowed to hate Stephen Harper, just as he is allowed to hate me.

The hyperbole used by you and the hyperbole used by neo-nazis and other scum like Zundel are remarkably similar, and equally full of holes.

The very concept of "Hate Speech" is is redundant and it in and of itself provides special protections and priviledge there-by inciting Hate.

The concept that already exists is called "Incitement to Violence" Most States in the United States of America already have this law existing on the books--it makes inciting violence illegal on any subject, as in NO special protectionism based on Race, Creed, Sexual orientation.

As an American--properly United States Citizen, I am repulsed by the concept of "Hate Speech".

"******, Kike, Spik, Deport them all. White Power!!"

"The Blue Eyed Devil has held his Jack boot on the Neck of the true Man, the Asiatic Black man for too long and we must no allow it to continue.
Thw white man is the brother of the dog, he is the cave dweller, the Devil in the flesh."

Wow, no harm done--no crime--plenty of HATE--no crime
Now allow me to demonstrate an example of criminal language.

"The oppressive regime that has taken hold globally to oppress the left handed people of the world has been thousands of years, why they use language itself against us as the word 'sinister' is from the greek for left-handed, now given a conotation of evil or malign. This conspiracy against those who in truth work closest to the Heart(simply examine physiology) will come end, now!! Revolution, nothing short of armed resistance tothe oppression of the RIght-Handed, the scissor makers and the coffee cup makers, righty-tighty lefty loosy my ass, we must deal in blood with this machine that has existed soley to demean us---Refuse and resist--by any means!!! By every means rise up and fight, to Left I say, to the Left and let the streets run red with the blood of the Right!!!"

See the difference?
You cant and should not try to regulate HATE--you have no RIGHT to tell me who I can HATE and on what grounds--but violence must be regulated-Hate Speech, I'll spend the rest of my life in prison--I hate just about everyone.

Well, what about slander. What gives the government the right to punish me for telling damaging lies about someone. I don't really see the distinctuion between this and more extreme examples of hate speech. Slander too could just be seen as a part of life that you just have to put up with.

There is no proper level of hate-speech legislation. The very idea is restrictive and pointless.

HATE CRIMES--here is another joke.

If I beat you in the street and put you in the Hospital and keep my mouth shut--I do two years for assault.

If I beat you in the street and DO no lasting physical harm beyond bruises but call you a :fag, ******, kike, Mikey, ginnie, spik, greaser, bean eater, zipper head-- I get a mandatory four years--

Here is a crazy thought--if I attack you for any reason--call it hate and burn my ass.

Hey, its nutty but call Murder Murder and it is just as bad for any reason--

I cant speak on other Nations legal systems butthe United States government and its entities are not suppose to offer any type of Special Protection- it is unconstitutional--so giving extra time if someone kills outside their race, sexual orientation, or religion is indeed special protection and unconstitutional.
The law provides for mitigating circumstances--by allowing the Judge to consider MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

There is no proper level of hate-speech legislation. The very idea is restrictive and pointless.

So, the correct level IYO would be none, right? :p

So, the correct level IYO would be none, right? :p
The most correct thing would be to have never began to infringe free speech to spare the feelings of anyone.

The most correct thing would be to have never began to infringe free speech to spare the feelings of anyone.
Bingo!

Perhaps you could try living somewhere where there is a minority and have to deal with the bullshit involved with PC terms rather than nearly 100% white Sweden where its no problem.

Are you truly trying to talk about Swedish demographics (http://www.answers.com/topic/demographics-of-sweden) without knowledge in the amount of foreign-born people who live here and immigration waves of the last 50 years?

I mean hell. 87% of your population claims to be of the same religion! (Lutheran).

They do not claim so. They are typed so because of automatic membership in what used to be a state church. The number is steadily declining due to the fact that membership is no longer automatic, and the church is no longer a state church. Most people are, in fact, secularised, and there are surveys that report "non-belief in a higher power" to be a view held by a majority.

You are about the only person I have ever heard on this forum, on the right or on the left, that trusts the government to not screw things up.

Government is the seat of power and authority. The power over expression is one of the greatest of those powers, as many a dictator has discovered and used throughout history.

well I'm centrist :p

your saying you don't trust people who are the best of the best at what they do? also you could just vote them out should they get to greedy

I think that incitement to violence, against any group which is not criminal, would be a broad enough term. So saying "beat up those fucking homosexuals" would be illegal, but "beat up those fucking practising paedophiles" wouldn't be illegal - even if undesirable. (I'm not saying homosexuality is comparable to paedophilia). Including race or religion as a particularly bad thing is a bit restrictive maybe.

I think that incitement to violence, against any group which is not criminal, would be a broad enough term. So saying "beat up those fucking homosexuals" would be illegal, but "beat up those fucking practising paedophiles" wouldn't be illegal - even if undesirable. (I'm not saying homosexuality is comparable to paedophilia). Including race or religion as a particularly bad thing is a bit restrictive maybe.

If my poorly expressed opinions make ANY sense at all.

Anything you say will offend at least one other person. Hate speech laws are an impractical, tyrannical foundation of the nanny-state.

You cannot eliminate hate by legislating away the speech that hatred inspires. You can do much better by letting those hateful people express their beliefs and be ridiculed and marginalized for them.

;)
This ones easy -
You don't need laws to govern your speech - just do it where it will make a difference, you know reach out to the people who have the wrong ideas.

Some suggestions:

Go to a KKK rally & discuss the pro's of the Black Panthers
Go to a gay bar & discuss how god hates them & they need salvation

Although I never advocate violence, you could go kick some other race's ass in their neighborhood -- this is a really good idea. It will really get your point across.

Change society through discussion.

Starry

Anything you say will offend at least one other person.

Seven.

Right, okay, who's offended? Come on, own up.

If my poorly expressed opinions make ANY sense at all.
I believe you are sayying what I was trying to say in my verbose way.

Who cares what label you choose to use while trying to incite violence--let the CRIME be attempting to Incite Violence--not have a crime be labeled as against a person having a right to hate who and what they want based on whatever reason they want.

Violence is the issue, and the problem, people are perfectly entitled to hate anything.

I believe you are sayying what I was trying to say in my verbose way.

Who cares what label you choose to use while trying to incite violence--let the CRIME be attempting to Incite Violence--not have a crime be labeled as against a person having a right to hate who and what they want based on whatever reason they want.

Violence is the issue, and the problem, people are perfectly entitled to hate anything.

I agree, I think "hate speech" itself should not be a crime. The examples that I think should be criminal can be covered by incitement to violence, or in laws covering threats. Merely expressing that you hate some group isn't enough.

what are you trying to say (I live in England) :mad:Blauscild was making the argument that the govenment is owned by the people (true in republics). In various countries which are not republics (comes from the Latin, Rei Publicuus, thing belonging to the people) the government is not owned by the people. As an Englishman, your Government (and to a lesser extent Parliment) are in law agents of (owned by) your Queen, entrusted by her to carry out her duties and obligations toward her subjects as laid out in the laws. Parliment is in a somewhat different position than the government, being both the body called by the Queen to represent the "commons" (people) before her and the Soverign Body of Egland, Wales and Scotland which has chosen the Monarchy as it's agent to help it carry out its duties and obligations to its subjects (darn Restoration, it would have been so much easier if you had remained a republic). SO Parliment is the agent of the Queen, representing the will of the people to her and the Queen is the agent of Parliment acting under such laws as it creates, and Government is the agent of the Queen performing for her such duties as Parliment has by law has created for it. Goodness, don't they teach you about your own government in England?

Of course, in actual practice these days the situation is similar to when you were a republic, the Parliment controls the Government (as much as possible) and the Queen is irrelevent. However it is interesting that the way the restoration came about established Paliment as soverign in itself, not as representative of the people - the only way parliment is required to be responsible to the people is from it's role as agent of the Queen carrying to her the will of the people. One of the old formultions was that Parliment was not responsible to the people of Britain but to the Law of Brotain.

actually it's more like we own the Queen (especially since we could get rid of her at a moments notice and the fact that it is her duty to serve the United Kingdoms best interests whether she likes it or not!)

actually it's more like we own the Queen (especially since we could get rid of her at a moments notice and the fact that it is her duty to serve the United Kingdoms best interests whether she likes it or not!)
You cannot get rid of the Queen (by law), Parliment can, but you cannot as an Englishman. The Queen is responsible to Parliment as the Soverign Body, but Parliment is not responsible to the people as the Soverign Body, Parliment is only responsible to the people as the representative of the wishes of the people to the Queen. It sounds silly, but when you cobble together a structure over a millenia and a half (we can actually go back a little further for parts of how Britain is run), some silliness is bound to creep in.

OK, I think we have some misconceptions here. At least about hate crime laws in the United States. (I cannot speak with authority about the laws of other countries, although I know the law in Canada is different.)

1. There are no laws in the US against hate speech as such. You cannot be charged with a crime simply because of something you say is racist, sexist, etc.

2. Hate crime laws provide for a sentencing enhancement if your crime was committed with a specific intent. The federal government and every state already have tons of laws distinquishing between degrees of crime and/or providing for sentencing enhancements based on a wide variety of variables -- including a wide variety of intents. So, hate crime legislation is not particularly unique.

3. Reiterating #1 & #2, you have to commit a normal crime and then have additional specific intent to be convicted of a hate crime. You then get a longer sentence than if you had committed the original crime alone. You cannot be convicted for a hate crime based solely on discriminatory intent or words without an underlying crime.

4. Hate crime legislation applies equally to protect every race, gender, etc. White males are not the only ones convicted of hate crimes. And white Christian males are as equally protected against a hate crime on the basis of race, gender, or religion as a black Jewish lesbian.

This post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9075648&postcount=31) contains more specifics. Including a citation to, and quote from, the US Supreme Court case upholding the constitutionality of hate crime legislation.

I've recently been told my posts contain too many facts, so I won't repeat that information here.