Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should "hate speech" be a prosecutable crime?
Yes absolutely 1 1.92%
No people should be able to speak their minds even if what they say is stupid 51 98.08%
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2013, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,943 posts, read 17,272,636 times
Reputation: 4687

Advertisements

This is a taboo issue in America but in other leftist countries like Sweden it has already become a reality. Clergy can actually be jailed over there for preaching against homosexuality. Luckily we have the First Amendment in this country preventing such a thing from happening over here. I have no doubt some liberals and some far right conservatives would like to put limits on free speech to silence those they disagree with. That is why I strongly support the second amendment despite not being much of a gun person myself. As soon as the government chips away our second amendment rights, other Constitutional rights will follow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2013, 07:59 AM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,518,653 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Felony hate speech is not something to be smirked at like you are doing here.

It's not calling someone a bad name.

It's been applied to people of all races and creeds.

Imagine someone whipping a mob into a frenzy and sicking them on the local shop keeper who is then killed by the mob.

It's what Sharpton did once early in his career.
Well there ya go, someone who get's it!

The term "hate speech" is much too loosely bandied about for lack of being accurately described.

The 'inciting to violence against an identifiable individual or group' is the cornerstone of any law formed to handle this.

It's quite alright for an individual to stand on a soapbox and scream his lungs out using less than flattering characterizations of an individual or group as long as it fits within boundaries imposed about "illegal slander". It is not however, all right for David Duke to stand on a soapbox and exhort all white people of Anglo Saxon heritage within ear shot to rush out and start a "kristalnacht" that evening.

The first example allows for you to engage each other in debate fashion where you might be expected to get back as good as you give out. The second however, foregoes reasoned discussion altogether and encourages discriminatory behaviour up to and including violence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2013, 08:09 AM
 
78,571 posts, read 60,772,556 times
Reputation: 49887
An example of hate speech that someone got away with....

Al Sharpton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
In 1995 a black Pentecostal Church, the United House of Prayer, which owned a retail property on 125th Street, asked Fred Harari, a Jewish tenant who operated Freddie's Fashion Mart, to evict his longtime subtenant, a black-owned record store called The Record Shack. Sharpton led a protest in Harlem against the planned eviction of The Record Shack.[36][37][38] Sharpton told the protesters, "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business."[39]

On December 8, 1995 Roland J. Smith Jr., one of the protesters, entered Harari's store with a gun and flammable liquid, shot several customers and set the store on fire. The gunman fatally shot himself, and seven store employees died of smoke inhalation.[40][41] Fire Department officials discovered that the store's sprinkler had been shut down, in violation of the local fire code.[42] Sharpton claimed that the perpetrator was an open critic of himself and his nonviolent tactics. Sharpton later expressed regret for making the racial remark, "white interloper," and denied responsibility for inflaming or provoking the violence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2013, 08:17 AM
 
Location: Plymouth Meeting, PA.
5,735 posts, read 3,260,832 times
Reputation: 3147
I think in Belgium they recently passed a similar law like Sweden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02 View Post
This is a taboo issue in America but in other leftist countries like Sweden it has already become a reality. Clergy can actually be jailed over there for preaching against homosexuality. Luckily we have the First Amendment in this country preventing such a thing from happening over here. I have no doubt some liberals and some far right conservatives would like to put limits on free speech to silence those they disagree with. That is why I strongly support the second amendment despite not being much of a gun person myself. As soon as the government chips away our second amendment rights, other Constitutional rights will follow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2013, 08:23 AM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,518,653 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02 View Post
This is a taboo issue in America but in other leftist countries like Sweden it has already become a reality. Clergy can actually be jailed over there for preaching against homosexuality. Luckily we have the First Amendment in this country preventing such a thing from happening over here. I have no doubt some liberals and some far right conservatives would like to put limits on free speech to silence those they disagree with. That is why I strongly support the second amendment despite not being much of a gun person myself. As soon as the government chips away our second amendment rights, other Constitutional rights will follow.
Aah yes; the clergy preaching against homosexuality thingy. Perhaps, just perhaps their law which is deemed acceptable for their usage comes from a historical background of reasoned social intercourse constantly attempting to exclude any discriminatory behaviour. Whereas, in the U.S. of A., especially theologically,speaking, you have a completely different set of recent historical underpinnings? Only say'n.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2013, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Between Heaven And Hell.
13,660 posts, read 10,055,181 times
Reputation: 17032
Where does wrong end, and right start?

When someone stands up, tells of wrongs done to them, and points to a particular group of society, will that be labelled as hate speech?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2013, 08:56 AM
 
63,031 posts, read 29,235,885 times
Reputation: 18632
One man's so-called hate speech is another man's truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2013, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,889 posts, read 26,566,286 times
Reputation: 25788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Felony hate speech is not something to be smirked at like you are doing here.

It's not calling someone a bad name.

It's been applied to people of all races and creeds.

Imagine someone whipping a mob into a frenzy and sicking them on the local shop keeper who is then killed by the mob.

It's what Sharpton did once early in his career.
Once? He plays to the mobs and stirs up racial divisiveness nearly every day. From the Twana Bwaly (sp?) case, the Duke case and now the Zimmerman case, he has used the most vile hate speach to whip up a mob and try to ensure that non-blacks suffered great injustice. If "hate speach" becomes a felony, he will be one of the first they have to lock up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2013, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,088 posts, read 5,361,730 times
Reputation: 1626
legitimate "hate talk". . . spoken as truth and not opinion, should be highly illegal. I agree with those who think that everyone should be able to state their opinion, but it should be acknowledged as "opinion". . . . ..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2013, 09:58 AM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,134,618 times
Reputation: 8527
It's protected under the first amendment. Move on. Why don't you folks just get together and have one big thread on the subject of racial slurs and how you think they're not so bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:21 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top