Hate Crime Legislation

[Ifreann]

The one I'm talking about? It wasn't funny, but it was obviously not sincere. But there was nothing about Hitler or killing Jews, so I guess the internet wasn't interested in the young gamer arrested for using his free speech in America, in Texas as I recall, in a way that the police didn't like. Truly a bastion of free speech that other nations would do well to emulate.

Well at least Count Dankula wouldn't have been arrested here for the stupid thing he said. And that is the case I was talking about, and I explicitly mentioned this posts ago.

Edit: If you're going to talk about another case, say that you're talking about a different case.

Further Edit: I found the case of the gamer in question. This case has nothing to do with hate speech against minorities, and I don't recall ever saying that America was perfect when it came to free speech. I only argued that hate speech shouldn't be criminalized, and even I make an exception for direct threats of violence.

I'm just pointing out that people do get arrested in America for jokes.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Calling on people to kill, murder, maim, rape or torture others has no redeeming quality. Free speech is not absolute. It has bounds. If we lived in a world of angels we would not need laws, but there is no sense in pretending that all speech is inherently worth it, pretending like we live in a fantasy. Some speech has no redeeming quality, does not contribute meaningfully to any debate, and is just actively hurting others. In that case, yeah. Ban the speech.

In Europe we therefore talk about freedom of expression. You have the freedom to express yourself in any way you desire. This covers art (but not financial contributions) and limits some forms of harmful speech that have no other intent than to cause damage.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Well at least Count Dankula wouldn't have been arrested here for the stupid thing he said. And that is the case I was talking about, and I explicitly mentioned this posts ago.

Edit: If you're going to talk about another case, say that you're talking about a different case.

Further Edit: I found the case of the gamer in question. This case has nothing to do with hate speech against minorities, and I don't recall ever saying that America was perfect when it came to free speech. I only argued that hate speech shouldn't be criminalized, and even I make an exception for direct threats of violence.

I'm just pointing out that people do get arrested in America for jokes.

It shouldn't happen, but it does. We have our own problems. That doesn't mean that hate speech laws in Europe snagging people for making jokes isn't problematic however.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Calling on people to kill, murder, maim, rape or torture others has no redeeming quality. Free speech is not absolute. It has bounds. If we lived in a world of angels we would not need laws, but there is no sense in pretending that all speech is inherently worth it, pretending like we live in a fantasy. Some speech has no redeeming quality, does not contribute meaningfully to any debate, and is just actively hurting others. In that case, yeah. Ban the speech.

In Europe we therefore talk about freedom of expression. You have the freedom to express yourself in any way you desire. This covers art (but not financial contributions) and limits some forms of harmful speech that have no other intent than to cause damage.

We certainly don't need to arrest people who misgender people that's for sure, or criticize Islam.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Calling on people to kill, murder, maim, rape or torture others has no redeeming quality. Free speech is not absolute. It has bounds. If we lived in a world of angels we would not need laws, but there is no sense in pretending that all speech is inherently worth it, pretending like we live in a fantasy. Some speech has no redeeming quality, does not contribute meaningfully to any debate, and is just actively hurting others. In that case, yeah. Ban the speech.

In Europe we therefore talk about freedom of expression. You have the freedom to express yourself in any way you desire. This covers art (but not financial contributions) and limits some forms of harmful speech that have no other intent than to cause damage.

We certainly don't need to arrest people who mis
sgender people that's for sure, or criticize Islam.

Please quote the part where I said that.

Please, I beg of you.

Alternatively, react to the point I am making rather than the one I am not making.

[Tornado Queendom]

I do not believe that "Hate Crime" legislation is at all justifiable, at least under US law.

First, It is punishment for thought, not action. The action that is being punished is already criminal under statutes for murder, manslaughter, or assault; the only reason for the additional punishment is what the perpetrator thought about the victim.

Second, it should be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. That guarantees equal protection under the law, yet if I am a member of a protected class I am protected more fully than if I am not a member of one. That is not, to me at least, equal protection under the law.

Reactions?

I agree, because it violates not only the 14th amendment, but also the first. Trust me: hate crime laws WILL lead to a slippery slope down the rabbit hole to 1984.

[Arayas]

Calling on people to kill, murder, maim, rape or torture others has no redeeming quality. Free speech is not absolute. It has bounds. If we lived in a world of angels we would not need laws, but there is no sense in pretending that all speech is inherently worth it, pretending like we live in a fantasy. Some speech has no redeeming quality, does not contribute meaningfully to any debate, and is just actively hurting others. In that case, yeah. Ban the speech.

In Europe we therefore talk about freedom of expression. You have the freedom to express yourself in any way you desire. This covers art (but not financial contributions) and limits some forms of harmful speech that have no other intent than to cause damage.

Unless you say that Muslim rape gangs are made up of Muslims. Then you get arrested for hate speech

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Calling on people to kill, murder, maim, rape or torture others has no redeeming quality. Free speech is not absolute. It has bounds. If we lived in a world of angels we would not need laws, but there is no sense in pretending that all speech is inherently worth it, pretending like we live in a fantasy. Some speech has no redeeming quality, does not contribute meaningfully to any debate, and is just actively hurting others. In that case, yeah. Ban the speech.

In Europe we therefore talk about freedom of expression. You have the freedom to express yourself in any way you desire. This covers art (but not financial contributions) and limits some forms of harmful speech that have no other intent than to cause damage.

Unless you say that Muslim rape gangs are made up of Muslims. Then you get arrested for hate speech

Prove it.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Calling on people to kill, murder, maim, rape or torture others has no redeeming quality. Free speech is not absolute. It has bounds. If we lived in a world of angels we would not need laws, but there is no sense in pretending that all speech is inherently worth it, pretending like we live in a fantasy. Some speech has no redeeming quality, does not contribute meaningfully to any debate, and is just actively hurting others. In that case, yeah. Ban the speech.

In Europe we therefore talk about freedom of expression. You have the freedom to express yourself in any way you desire. This covers art (but not financial contributions) and limits some forms of harmful speech that have no other intent than to cause damage.

Unless you say that Muslim rape gangs are made up of Muslims. Then you get arrested for hate speech

A source would be nice, of course.

[Andsed]

Calling on people to kill, murder, maim, rape or torture others has no redeeming quality. Free speech is not absolute. It has bounds. If we lived in a world of angels we would not need laws, but there is no sense in pretending that all speech is inherently worth it, pretending like we live in a fantasy. Some speech has no redeeming quality, does not contribute meaningfully to any debate, and is just actively hurting others. In that case, yeah. Ban the speech.

In Europe we therefore talk about freedom of expression. You have the freedom to express yourself in any way you desire. This covers art (but not financial contributions) and limits some forms of harmful speech that have no other intent than to cause damage.

Unless you say that Muslim rape gangs are made up of Muslims. Then you get arrested for hate speech

Right because that totally happens.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

We certainly don't need to arrest people who mis
sgender people that's for sure, or criticize Islam.

Please quote the part where I said that.

Please, I beg of you.

Alternatively, react to the point I am making rather than the one I am not making.

I'm reacting to what your point ultimately leads to. You not liking it is not my problem. I do also recall you defending a blasphemy ruling against passing out anti-islamic pamphlets.

[Tornado Queendom]

Unless you say that Muslim rape gangs are made up of Muslims. Then you get arrested for hate speech

Right because that totally happens.

It DOES happen, at least among the Jihadists (or "Earthquakists" in Tornado Queendom terms). The Shias might be a different story, but I'm not sure.

[Scomagia]

Hate speech is the only "hate crime" I think should be legal. Other than that I don't really care. The circumstances around a crime will always contribute to the punishment.

So a stranger calling me a "faggot that deserves to be put to death" in the street should be legal? Fucking nonsense.

If it's a one off? Sure. If it's repeated then it's harrassment, which is a crime.

[Andsed]

Right because that totally happens.

It DOES happen, at least among the Jihadists (or "Earthquakists" in Tornado Queendom terms). The Shias might be a different story, but I'm not sure.

Can you link me to a story where someone was arrested for qoute on qoute “saying Muslim rape gangs are made up of Muslims”?

[Kowani]

I do not believe that "Hate Crime" legislation is at all justifiable, at least under US law.

First, It is punishment for thought, not action. The action that is being punished is already criminal under statutes for murder, manslaughter, or assault; the only reason for the additional punishment is what the perpetrator thought about the victim.

Second, it should be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. That guarantees equal protection under the law, yet if I am a member of a protected class I am protected more fully than if I am not a member of one. That is not, to me at least, equal protection under the law.

Reactions?

I agree, because it violates not only the 14th amendment, but also the first. Trust me: hate crime laws WILL lead to a slippery slope down the rabbit hole to 1984.

Well. Not at all. Hate crime laws only apply if what you had done would’ve been a crime anyway. If I punch someone off the street, that’s assault. If I punch him for being Irish, that’s a hate crime.

[Des-Bal]

So a stranger calling me a "faggot that deserves to be put to death" in the street should be legal? Fucking nonsense.

As long as they don't persist in it to the point of harassment? Yes.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Please quote the part where I said that.

Please, I beg of you.

Alternatively, react to the point I am making rather than the one I am not making.

I'm reacting to what your point ultimately leads to. You not liking it is not my problem. I do also recall you defending a blasphemy ruling against passing out anti-islamic pamphlets.

React to what I said, that will get you a lot further. Otherwise, I can start arguing that Muslims do not deserve to be put into concentration camps to ‘anticipate’ where you are going, and we would be going at this forever. So, better start debating the actual point.

Stop looking for an easy way out.

[Tornado Queendom]

It DOES happen, at least among the Jihadists (or "Earthquakists" in Tornado Queendom terms). The Shias might be a different story, but I'm not sure.

Can you link me to a story where someone was arrested for qoute on qoute “saying Muslim rape gangs are made up of Muslims”?

Remember Tommy Robinson

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Can you link me to a story where someone was arrested for qoute on qoute “saying Muslim rape gangs are made up of Muslims”?

Remember Tommy Robinson

Alright, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he was ordered by the Court not to interfere with the court proceedings because he was hurting the case of the prosecution. If the court ordered that, and Robinson would have violated such a court order, would you agree them sentencing him for contempt of court?

So, the difference being, he violated a court order instead of just reporting on the case?

[Tornado Queendom]

Remember Tommy Robinson

Alright, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he was ordered by the Court not to interfere with the court proceedings because he was hurting the case of the prosecution. If the court ordered that, and Robinson would have violated such a court order, would you agree them sentencing him for contempt of court?

So, the difference being, he violated a court order instead of just reporting on the case?

I wouldn't agree with him being arrested, because that would lead to a chilling effect on free speech.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Alright, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he was ordered by the Court not to interfere with the court proceedings because he was hurting the case of the prosecution. If the court ordered that, and Robinson would have violated such a court order, would you agree them sentencing him for contempt of court?

So, the difference being, he violated a court order instead of just reporting on the case?

I wouldn't agree with him being arrested, because that would lead to a chilling effect on free speech.

But it’s about violating the court order. If the court ordered him not to interfere, because his interference might mean the geooming gang went free, would you agree with him being sentenced for that particular court order? Or would you say that, as long as someone is talking, a court order cannot be violated?

[Tornado Queendom]

I wouldn't agree with him being arrested, because that would lead to a chilling effect on free speech.

But it’s about violating the court order. If the court ordered him not to interfere, because his interference might mean the geooming gang went free, would you agree with him being sentenced for that particular court order? Or would you say that, as long as someone is talking, a court order cannot be violated?

I would probably allow him to intervene, as long as he gave evidence.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

But it’s about violating the court order. If the court ordered him not to interfere, because his interference might mean the geooming gang went free, would you agree with him being sentenced for that particular court order? Or would you say that, as long as someone is talking, a court order cannot be violated?

I would probably allow him to intervene, as long as he gave evidence.

Intervene in what? The court case?

And again: if he violated the court order, would you let him off the hook for that crime?

[Tornado Queendom]

I would probably allow him to intervene, as long as he gave evidence.

Intervene in what? The court case?

Yes

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Intervene in what? The court case?

Yes

So every third party should just be allowed to intervene in a court case? That’s ridiculous. That would be chaos.

You are dodging a question: if he violates a court order, would you allow him to walk free or be punished for that crime?