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.
After living almost all of my life in CA, we moved away 6 years ago and I've never looked back. I don't miss anything about Ca- and my sister (who still lives in the bay area) can't understand why I would ever have left- she's there for forever. We originally moved to Post Falls, ID but at the same time thousands of other Californians and Western Washingtonians moved there also, which sort of spoiled the area for us- many of them brought their California and West coast attitudes with them and that was what we wanted to move away from in the first place. So- we moved to Colville. It's been a nice quiet 4 years here now, but we're ready to move on. Heading to Alabama or MS or maybe even East Texas, as soon as we sell our house here and our 5 acres in Blanchard.
Those of you just now moving to ID- I'm sure you'll love it. No matter how crowded ID gets, it will always be head and shoulders above CA. (That's just my opinion, I know my sister will vehemently disagree!)
Why am I moving back to Idaho as soon as my enlistment is up...
Because in Idaho most of the people are actually nice and will take time out of there day for you and the weather/outdoor experience can't be beat.
Since it relates to this post, I have to share what happened during our recent visit to ID. We were walking around town in Sandpoint and stopped into Starbucks and then eventually Coldwater Creek. The 2 young women in Starbucks were very friendly and we had a fun chat about the area and the weather. One of them offered that she'd never lived in a place where the weather was so unpredictable--that the best way to dress everyday was a bikini under a ski jack jacket. LOL! Talking to them made me wish we lived there.
My entry into ColdWater Creek was also met wth genuine friendliness. I have to admit that at first it was disconcerting because here in CA that kind of overture is usually from agressive salespeople, but they were simply being nce!! It turned out someone in the store has her house for sale and it's in the area of Sagle we'd been snooping around that day. Small world!
You folks have a great state... Idaho rocks!
Ooops! edited to say thank you fearnofish Godspeed!
Last edited by AlwaysLooking; 05-29-2009 at 08:36 PM..
Location: Lover of reason and rationality. May just happen to live in idaho
10 posts, read 29,179 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalmom101
TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 79
MALICIOUS HARASSMENT
18-7902.Malicious harassment defined -- Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person, maliciously and with the specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin, to:
(a) Cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) Damage, destroy, or deface any real or personal property of another person; or
(c) Threaten, by word or act, to do the acts prohibited if there is reasonable cause to believe that any of the acts described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section will occur.
For purposes of this section, "deface" shall include, but not be limited to, cross-burnings or the placing of any word or symbol commonly associated with racial, religious or ethnic terrorism on the property of another person without his or her permission.
I will show how this law hurts truth itself. Don’t take that in the wrong way in judging Idaho. I believe there is life energy and diversity of spirit in the state. Anyway, several states have these hate crime laws, and there is intense activity at the national level to create such a law, which would thus be forced on all states, and such coercion would be un-Constitutional, some claim.
But returning to the topic in this discussion, I kept blasting the Idaho hate law as a strike against the heart of the process of truth itself. Others kept bringing up a Missouri-type question. Show me. Show me how the law is so bad for truth. Give an example where it hinders the speaking of truth.
I now do that and far more.
I make the case for the following. If an individual or organization wants to spend the money and time to take you to court, they can get lawyers who will pretty easily convict you in any of a vast range of situations, where you have spoken or written any of a wide range of even un-arguable truths. I will present examples of such un-arguable truths.
Example 1. Consider the statement “the bible says …” and the statement goes on to mention a certain group, and the statement says the bible says the people in this group should be stoned, or whatever it is the bible says. Someone who speaks this statement “the bible says …” is simply saying something that is un-arguably true: the bible does indeed say this - just look in the bible - and there it is. (There are some issues of different translations of the bible, so maybe the statement should be something like “the KJ bible says …” where KJ refers to the King James version of the bible.)
Now people can argue with is in the KJ bible, but they can’t argue that it says that. Some people can argue that what is in KJ bible is true, others can argue that things in it are false, but they can’t argue that it is in it. Or people can argue about whether this thing in the KJ bible is good, others can argue that it is bad. But they can’t argue that KJ bible does say this.
That the KJ bible says this is an un-arguable truth. It is un-arguably true. Someone who says or writes “the KJ bible says …” is saying or writing a thing that is un-arguably true.
If someone goes around saying this statement (“the KJ bible says ….”), or if they go around writing it, or carrying a placard with the statement on it, people in the offended group, and other offended people too, will get hostile and will want to punish the person to prevent them from saying such things; they want to silence the person from speaking something that is unarguably true.
As an aside, this particular group, decades ago, drove out those interested in truth. So today it seems there is only one option for the offended group. It must somehow attack the person who is saying “the KJ bible says …”. What easier way to attack a person than threaten them with having committed a crime according to some law.
Example 2. Someone speaks or writes the statement “X, who has the following credentials …, says the ball point pen that was used to write parts of the document did not exist till year xxxx”. If someone says this, or if someone writes it, or if some has this statement on a placard, they will be speaking an un-arguable truth - X did indeed say this, and X does indeed have the indicated credentials.
Similar to example 1, some people will get very hostile to the person making such a statement. They will very much want to silence the person from speaking or writing this statement that is un-arguably true.
They want to punish and silence the person from speaking a something that is un-arguably true.
Example 3. There is group, and regarding this group, a number of studies have done a scientific investigation and the investigation has found the group is 10 or 20 IQ points lower than other groups. Some other studies have stated in their results section that the group has more crime. If some one says “there are a number of studies which ….”, or they write this, or they put it on a placard they carry around, then they are speaking or writing something that is un-arguably true. One could even point out the publications of the studies.
People could argue about what to make of these studies. And others can argue back. But they can’t argue that there were a number of studies that …. It is an un-arguable truth that there were a number of studies.
As in the earlier examples, some people will get very hostile to a person who speaks or writes this. They want to punish and silence the person from speaking or writing this thing that is un-arguably true.
Example 4. Someone writes or says something that is un-arguably true, but it seems to undermine the 6 million number. Many people will get very angry that the person said or wrote such a thing. People could argue that what was said does not undermine the 6 million number. But they don’t do that. Instead they want to wap the person who spoke or wrote it. Of course, if they argued that this specific un-arguable truth did not undermine the 6 million, probably others would argue that it did.
These are just 4 examples. There are all kinds of things that are, like the above examples, un-arguably true, and which upset a number of people if someone speaks or writes the thing. Anyway, there are all kinds of offensive-to-some un-arguable truths, and any statement can be stated in many ways, or combined with all kinds of other statements. Thus: from the above, we have:
Deduction 1. There are huge number of things that a person can write or say, where the thing is un-arguably true, and where saying or writing the thing will cause a significant number of people (in our times) to feel completely ok if they can find a way to give the person a good wap for speaking or saying the thing. And this applies to any of a vast number of situations where the person is saying or writing the thing.
Actually, Deduction 1 applies (in our times) regardless of any laws. I will now go on and relate Deduction 1 to the Idaho hate law.
Concerning the people who want to wap the speaker or writer, as in the 4 examples above. There certainly are organizations who are willing to assist. These organizations are willing to spend the money and time to bring the situation to trial, where they can, I believe, successfully use the above law to achieve a guilty verdict against the person who spoke or wrote the something that was un-arguably true. Here’s why.
Let’s look at this Idaho law. For brevity I refer to two areas in it as “specific malicious intent” and “the spoken words could reasonably be believed to result in any one of any of a certain number of actions and one of those actions ‘deface’ would seem to itself include an unbounded number of kinds of actions” - I’ll abbreviate this to “the spoken words could reasonably be believed to result”.
See ( c) - also see the last sentence of (c) where “deface” would seem to include almost anything).
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalmom101
TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 79
MALICIOUS HARASSMENT
18-7902.Malicious harassment defined -- Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person, maliciously and with the specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin, to:
(a) Cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) Damage, destroy, or deface any real or personal property of another person; or
(c) Threaten, by word or act, to do the acts prohibited if there is reasonable cause to believe that any of the acts described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section will occur.
For purposes of this section, "deface" shall include, but not be limited to, cross-burnings or the placing of any word or symbol commonly associated with racial, religious or ethnic terrorism on the property of another person without his or her permission.
Our interest is in what the law implies about someone who speaks or writes something that is un-arguably true, as in the 4 examples above. So focus in on the word “word” in (c), and look at it as it applies to the rest of the law, because this is the part that deals with the spoken or written word.
As for “specific malicious intent”. The trouble is, if you look at any of the above 4 examples, it is not hard to imagine that the person carrying the placard or speaking the truth has somewhere in their psyche some ill-will toward some group. Even if they didn’t have at least some ill-will toward the group, it should still not be hard for a lawyer in court to successfully claim to find ill-will in the person speaking the one of the above truths. And let’s face it, even an honest philosopher can probably locate ill-will somewhere in the psyche of even the best of friends. So a lawyer, with the standard courtroom tools of the trade, can very likely get across enough of the idea to a jury. And what is the difference between ill-will and “specific malicious intent” while the lawyer is talking in many different ways to the jury. And even if this “specific malicious intent” has definitions somewhere in the law, the lawyer only needs to successfully allude to it in front of the jury, either dwelling on it, or maybe barely dwelling on it before moving off to another issue, as the lawyer talks to the jury.
Those worried about the above law should be concerned that there are a very wide range of situations where a lawyer could successfully get the jury to sufficiently go along with the “specific malicious intent” part of the law.
As for the section “the spoken words could reasonably be believed to result”. The more you look at ( c), the more challenging it becomes to untangle the different related terms and meanings. For instance, in the actual practice of a lawyer talking to a jury, what is the difference between “the spoken words could reasonably be believed to result in any one of any of a certain number of actions and one of those actions ‘deface’ would seem to itself include an unbounded number of kinds of actions” versus “reasonable cause to believe x could occur”. Can the jury get unconsciously somewhat mixed up distinguishing the two, in the specific situation of the case before the jury. As a further note, notice that the definition of one of the things that we are looking at to see if an action x will/could occur is “deface” in (b), and note that “deface” is defined in the last sentence of (c), and note that its definition is completely unlimited - there are no bounds whatsoever as to how many kinds of things “deface” can mean - “ ‘deface’ shall include but not be limited to …”
Here is another kind consideration. Maybe there are already some potentially emotionally charged elements in the situation under trial. Suppose that in the situation under consideration in the court room, something physical happened. In court, the lawyer can look even further back to perhaps something you said or wrote, and the lawyer can try to show how what you wrote or said contributed to the physical thing that happened - this would be a case where an action literally did happen (not just that it could be a result), and the lawyer is trying to get the jury to view that action in a way where what you wrote or said at that point in time before the action, contributed to the action: this would satisfy the “the spoken words could reasonably be believed to result”.
Those worried about the above law should be concerned that there are a very wide range of situations where a lawyer could successfully get the jury to sufficiently go along with the “the spoken words could reasonably be believed to result” part of the law.
I debated whether to include this paragraph, because my argument stands without it, but this paragraph buttresses the argument even more, in actual real court situations. Look at the video “Don’t talk to Cops, part 1” YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 . The video is, I guess, a presentation to a class of lawyers or law students. The video is about how you shouldn’t let your client talk to the police. But, when you watch 4 min 30 sec to 7 min 40 sec, and 13 min 15 sec to 25 min of this 27 min video, you, like me, may wonder that all kinds of things at a trial can get out of hand, regarding the influence of police in the court room, and I think, even more so, if in the trial there are emotions and anger. I can imagine that the same sort of negative influences of the police in court also occur with the possible actions of a lawyer in court.
In overall summary, if you think that the above arguments make it easy in practice for a lawyer in many situations to deal with the law’s “specific malicious intent” and the law’s “the spoken words could reasonably be believed to result”, and if you look at the 4 specific examples above, then I believe the following statement logically follows:
If an individual or organization wants to spend the money and time to take you to court, they can get lawyers who will pretty easily convict you under the above law in any of a vast range of situations, where you have spoken or written any of a wide range of even un-arguable truths. I have even presented examples of such un-arguable truths.
That concludes my presentation on the law itself. But I would like to point out some further issues related to stopping people from speaking truths.
Point 1) Just the fear of being brought to trial is a powerful silencer for speaking things that are true.
Point 2) Just the fear generated from an intimidating note from a lawyer can silence most people from speaking truths. (We all know this. But for those who want to argue against it: about 2 years ago I went to a presentation for one of these companies where, for a monthly fee, you get help and advice from lawyers. I am almost certain that one of the things they said was that they can have an intimidating letter from one of their lawyers sent to the person who is causing you trouble. I myself would imagine this is one of the standard skills of a lawyer if they are going to survive as a lawyer.)
Point 3) Anybody can sue anyone for anything. That’s what a lawyer friend told me long ago, and he offered the following case. A company x had not paid its bills to company y for a long time. Finally y sued. X sued back, claiming that y suing it, harmed x.
In analyzing laws which punish people for speaking things that are true: keep in mind points 1, 2, 3, and keep in mind deduction 1. These are a real concern for all kinds of laws, not just the above Idaho hate crime law.
Long live the freedom to speak truth. This post argues that the Idaho law can punish people speaking even un-arguable truths.
Since it relates to this post, I have to share what happened during our recent visit to ID. We were walking around town in Sandpoint and stopped into Starbucks and then eventually Coldwater Creek. The 2 young women in Starbucks were very friendly and we had a fun chat about the area and the weather. One of them offered that she'd never lived in a place where the weather was so unpredictable--that the best way to dress everyday was a bikini under a ski jack jacket. LOL! Talking to them made me wish we lived there.
My entry into ColdWater Creek was also met wth genuine friendliness. I have to admit that at first it was disconcerting because here in CA that kind of overture is usually from agressive salespeople, but they were simply being nce!! It turned out someone in the store has her house for sale and it's in the area of Sagle we'd been snooping around that day. Small world!
You folks have a great state... Idaho rocks!
Ooops! edited to say thank you fearnofish Godspeed!
Thanks guys.. We are stationed on the Oregon Coast and most of the people around here are nice but it sure seems like the drivers education courses in Oregon must be as simple as you can get because the majority of the people around here have no clue how to drive anywhere near the speed limit or drive in a safe manner. I don't want to sound like a 'old man' but it is crazy how peoples whole attitude can change from state to state or even city to city..what's with that?
We are in TN and the drivers here are for the most part rude. Everyone is in a hurry. Look out for the pickups behind you..they tailgate you. I drive the speed limit, it is too slow for them.
We are in TN and the drivers here are for the most part rude. Everyone is in a hurry. Look out for the pickups behind you..they tailgate you. I drive the speed limit, it is too slow for them.
Oh we have roads like that here. I drive how I intended on driving until they get right on my ass then I slow down to the speed limit. I can not stand people who tailgate like crazy when you are already doing 5 to 10 over the speedlimit. I have the non emergency number for the police in my phone and have been known to call in erratic drivers and sign citations against them.
Definitely leave. Everybody is racist nowadays. So what? boo hoo. I'm leaving CA for the same reasons. I really don't care if people are offended. I'm through being nice and pretending. I'm originally from CA but nowadays I feel like I'm an alien when I walk into a store. Definitely time to go!
I am from CA, I guess it depends on where you live and how much money you have. If you are living in less than a 700k home in CA YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THEM. The fact is that CA has pockets of wealth where people are predominantly white with good white collar jobs making a ton of money. The unfortunate situation is that if you are middle class you are going to be surrounded by Mexicans. The thing is, when white people leave and industry collapses in CA, they will all just move more inland. There are 20+ million illegals and their birth rate far exceeds ours so eventually, unless people step up, this country will turn into South and Central America. The whitest place on Earth is Scandinavia and Iceland but I refuse to pay $8 for a beer.
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.
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.
