Freedom of Speech? Pfffft... Who Needs It?

[Cowhead418]

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/hate_crime_laws_dem_control_means_hate_bill_pass.htm

With the Democrats now in control of Congress, it is almost a certainty that the "hate crimes" bill will pass. So long to freedom of speech and the constitution. Merely criticizing Muslims or homosexuals or some other federally protected group could mean prison time. And we all know that no punishment will be given to anyone openly racist against whites or openly expressing their hatred of Christians.:furious3: This hate crimes bill will only give certain groups special rights over others, and completely go against the supposed "free" and "equal" country we live. With the Democrats now in control, the path to the Police State will come swiftly.:no:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think the path to Police State could come much quicker than under Bush, regardless:

1.) Most civilised countries already have these laws.

2.) This will allow the locking up of Phelps and Co.

3.) You shouldn't say nasty things about people unless they're true and if you can prove they are its a fact not an opinion.

[JimBob]

To start Infowars does not seem to be a reputable site, the Rev. Pike seems more concerned with getting people excited and angry at strawmen than you know, truth.
How will a hate crime bill be dangerous to freedom? Will it take away the right to say "F*** them N****** they only as smart as monkies" that is a right I can do without. Without seeing the actual bill I can't say much more. Will there be provisions for say comedians? Will intent need to play a role? Will it effect everyone?

Now if it passes and you hate it so much, fix it. Go out and protest, use civil disobedience, take it to court.

And this made me laugh

As a result, Frist (unbeknownst to supporters of the children's bill, such as Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and John Walsh of America's Most Wanted) would not let the children's bill onto the floor of the Senate. He would not allow Kennedy the opportunity to stand to his feet and demand reattachment of his hate bill to the children's legislation. Frist knew that if Kennedy got that opportunity, the Senate, having voted overwhelmingly 65-33 for the hate bill the previous spring, would certainly support Kennedy and pass it.
That is the incrediably anti-Democracy. "I, in my pure knowledge, will prevent this bill from being voted on because I know a majority wants it."

[Rurik the Chieftain]

I somewhat agree with you, JimBob and Wigferth, but I would be careful about the "saying nasty things" and "right you can do without" comments. As long as it is understood that it is an opinion, and it does not present a clear and present danger, people are and should be allowed under the Constitution to say whatever they want.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hate crimes laws seek to penalize thought.

There are already statutes which make efforts at discrimination illegal and actionable and we have laws which prescribe punishments for crimes.

In what way does labeling a crime a "hate" crime because its victim was a member of a government-identified "minority" render it more or less of a crime? It would, however, necessitate that juries evaluate the thoughts of another person and judge the rightness of their thought.

I'd prefer solid efforts at enforcing the existing statutes, thank you.

[Kralizec]

Hate crimes laws seek to penalize thought.

Incorrect, Gedanken sind frei. Many states already have laws that punish expressing such thoughts, but the comments would always be reviewed afterwards- as oposed to active censure.

I'm undecided wether "hate speech" that doesn't actually incite violence, but wich do contribute to creating a hostile environment should be punished at all. It's easy to say no, but in societies like Germany with a regrettable past I can understand it.
Still I'm inclined to say that the law shouldn't punish it, instead leave it to society (and by extension, the media) to rebuke them.

As for hate crimes that concern violence, people have motives for the deeds that they do and some motives are more repugnant then others. As such they should generally be punished more severely, but I wouldn't introduce special legislation for that and leave it to the judiciary to find an appropriate sentence.

[Reverend Joe]

I gotta say, this bill bothers me. Not that I don't loathe people who are racist; but limiting the freedom of speech is another matter altogether. Aside from directly threatening to kill another human being, there is no way for freedom of speech to be limited without it being subjective, and putting subjectivity into what can be said is never a good thing, regardless of the motives behind it. I would rather live with awful, racist comments than have to worry about infringement on a basic right.

Sometimes, you have to take the good with the bad.

[Brenus]

Err, if somebody say in the radio, on TV, in the papers, leaflets, books, speeches, kill the…, and then some people follow him and actually do what he/she told them, I think he/she is guilty as well. So according of most of you, the animator of the Radio des Mille Collines which launch the hate calls and de facto the genocide in Rwanda were just merely expressing an opinion, and the society would have dealt with it. Julius Striecher probably never killed a Jew himself. He just expressed his opinion in his newspaper Der Stuermer.
“I would rather live with awful, racist comments than have to worry about infringement on a basic right.” 6.000.000 Jews, 700.000 Gypsies (and Slavs) lost their basic right to live because it was ok to say they were worst than rats and sub-humans.

I don’t know in your countries, guys, but in France to plot to kill somebody is out-law. So to call publicly to kill people is an incitement to murder.

[Proletariat]

I don't think anyone's saying 'Let's kill all niggers' is acceptable speech. The argument against is that it's wrong to illegalize thought. If you kill someone because they're gay, it's still nothing more than murder. Who cares why you killed them?

'Your honor, I killed that gay man for his necklace! I'm just a murdering robber, not some homophobic murderer!'

[Cowhead418]

Err, if somebody say in the radio, on TV, in the papers, leaflets, books, speeches, kill the…, and then some people follow him and actually do what he/she told them, I think he/she is guilty as well. So according of most of you, the animator of the Radio des Mille Collines which launch the hate calls and de facto the genocide in Rwanda were just merely expressing an opinion, and the society would have dealt with it. Julius Striecher probably never killed a Jew himself. He just expressed his opinion in his newspaper Der Stuermer.
“I would rather live with awful, racist comments than have to worry about infringement on a basic right.” 6.000.000 Jews, 700.000 Gypsies (and Slavs) lost their basic right to live because it was ok to say they were worst than rats and sub-humans.

I don’t know in your countries, guys, but in France to plot to kill somebody is out-law. So to call publicly to kill people is an incitement to murder. I don't want this to go down this road, but Hitler did not allow free speech. Remember the Gestapo? Someone who criticized the Nazis could end up dead. And you are taking this to the extreme. I'm not condoning people who would say "Kill them N*****." Don't you see how groups are getting special rights over others? Say someone robbed a homosexual's house. Under this law, he could get a harsher punishment than if he had robbed a straight man's house. Don't you see the problem here?

Also, who knows what could happen under this law? Merely criticizing a homosexual or Muslim or African American could get you the racist or homophobe tag. People could get unfairly labeled or jailed for moderate criticism. This law leaves the groups not protected by Political Correctness in the dust. I don't want to be walking on eggshells with what I say. You know how easily people get offended these days and I don't want to end up in jail over a harmless joke.

[JimBob]

I don't want this to go down this road, but Hitler did not allow free speech. Remember the Gestapo? Someone who criticized the Nazis could end up dead. And you are taking this to the extreme. I'm not condoning people who would say "Kill them N*****." Don't you see how groups are getting special rights over others? Say someone robbed a homosexual's house. Under this law, he could get a harsher punishment than if he had robbed a straight man's house. Don't you see the problem here?

Also, who knows what could happen under this law? Merely criticizing a homosexual or Muslim or African American could get you the racist or homophobe tag. People could get unfairly labeled or jailed for moderate criticism. This law leaves the groups not protected by Political Correctness in the dust. I don't want to be walking on eggshells with what I say. You know how easily people get offended these days and I don't want to end up in jail over a harmless joke.
That's why there needs to be an intent part of the law. If intent can be proved, that he robbed the house because 'fags need to be taught a lesson' or that a white guy gets beaten up because 'whitey hold me down' then there should be added punishment.

[Redleg]

There has always been a restriction on speech that is meant to inflame, or advocate harm to another group. Passing a hate crime bill is un-necessary in my opinion. Current laws should be enforced adequately before new laws are made. If the state can not prove that the current laws are inadequate, the passing of a new law is just a smoke and mirrors trick to apease the uniformed voting public.

If this law makes it back on the congressional calender, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes law given the nature of politics. What politician wants to go on record voting against a hate law.

I will have to go withJimbob without defining intent of the speech the law is meaningless. A crime is a crime, without understanding the intent of the action, one can not adequately judge the action.

If I in a fit of rage stated a racial slur - does that make for a hate crime, or is it a act of frustation? To many grey areas for this law, it will have to be very well written in order to prevent stupidity in its enforcement.

[Cowhead418]

That's why there needs to be an intent part of the law. If intent can be proved, that he robbed the house because 'fags need to be taught a lesson' or that a white guy gets beaten up because 'whitey hold me down' then there should be added punishment.You make an interesting point. My fear is that the punishments for "hate crimes" against say whites will be far more lenient than the punishments for "hate crimes" against blacks.

[Reverend Joe]

6.000.000 Jews, 700.000 Gypsies (and Slavs) lost their basic right to live because it was ok to say they were worst than rats and sub-humans.

I don’t know in your countries, guys, but in France to plot to kill somebody is out-law. So to call publicly to kill people is an incitement to murder.
That isn't even remotely related to the subject. The Holocaust was vastly more complex than that, and is entirely inappropriate to bring up here because it can only really be studied on its own. Besides, the hate speech in your cases is directly linked to murder. Hate speech should only become prosecutable when it can be directly linked to actual violence and/or murder.

In other words:

A man grows up hearing racism from everyone in his town; he becomes a violent racist. He kills a black man because he wants to get rid of the blacks. The man is responsible, because no one person directly contributed to his actions; it was his own beliefs that motivated him.

A man hears a speech from a man on the radio saying that the Blacks need to go, and decides, hell yes. He kills a black man. Both the murderer and the radio speaker are responsible, because the radio speaker convinced the man that what he did was right; but still, definite cause needs to be established.

In your example of "the animator of the Radio des Mille Collines", direct cause is obvious and easy to establish, and so prosecution should definitely follow. But if it is a general idea that contributes, then the idea itself should be fought against, not the speakers of the idea.

[Aenlic]

I'm sorry, but this is just too funny to let stand.

Did anyone actually read the article? Did you happen to notice that it never actually specified what this supposed "hate crimes" bill would include? Instead it went off on a tangent talking about laws in other countries. Interesting, isn't it, that the only specifics given were from laws in other countries, countries which don't necessarily have the same strict Constitutional protections for free speech? Such an omission was pretty clearly intentional. :wink:

The hate crimes bill I'm familiar with deals only with violent hate crimes, racially motivated violence, etc.; not a word in it about hate speech. But why let facts get in the way of a good partisan rant. :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm sorry, but this is just too funny to let stand.

Did anyone actually read the article? Did you happen to notice that it never actually specified what this supposed "hate crimes" bill would include? Instead it went off on a tangent talking about laws in other countries. Interesting, isn't it, that the only specifics given were from laws in other countries, countries which don't necessarily have the same strict Constitutional protections for free speech? Such an omission was pretty clearly intentional. :wink:

The hate crimes bill I'm familiar with deals only with violent hate crimes, racially motivated violence, etc.; not a word in it about hate speech. But why let facts get in the way of a good partisan rant. :laugh4:

Yeah, the whole article was a bit of an exercise in verbal diarrhea -- definitely lacking in substance.

I addressed my post to the concept behind it, since the referenced site was trash.

[Kanamori]

Well, premeditated murder has the defining characteristic of being thought out... The difference between manslaughter and murder is intent, ie thought. This has nothing to do w/ free speech, it only makes punishment larger for certain violent crimes.

That said, I'm not too sure about the notion of "hate crime". My guess is that most murders are done out of hate... So, what's the point of giving harsher punishment for murder out of hate for some group of people?

[Cowhead418]

Well, premeditated murder has the defining characteristic of being thought out... The difference between manslaughter and murder is intent, ie thought. This has nothing to do w/ free speech, it only makes punishment larger for certain violent crimes.

That said, I'm not too sure about the notion of "hate crime". My guess is that most murders are done out of hate... So, what's the point of giving harsher punishment for murder out of hate for some group of people?Exactly. Find a murder that isn't done out of hate. And as I've been trying to point out several times now, do we really think that there is going to be similar punishments for a black man who kills a white man out of hate and for a white man who kills a black man out of hate? Regardless of whether free speech will be targeted or not, this bill is still giving certain protected groups special privileges over others. A violent crime is a violent crime anyway you slice it, and the race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion of the victim should be irrelevant if you want to treat everyone equally. Otherwise some groups are going to inevitably get shafted.:thumbsdown:

[AntiochusIII]

Exactly. Find a murder that isn't done out of hate. And as I've been trying to point out several times now, do we really think that there is going to be similar punishments for a black man who kills a white man out of hate and for a white man who kills a black man out of hate?While I don't exactly disagree with your position, I think using this lucky black vs victimized white hypothetical example of preferential treatment isn't such a good angle to take.

You see, it is something of a possibility -- which I'd say quite likely -- that, in some places, blacks and Mexicanos still aren't treated that well by the jury in criminal courts when they happen to appear to fit the "gangsta" image. People usually go "these criminals deserve it!" on them while those young can't-possibly-be-gang white teenagers with the same crime got it easier in juvies and all that.

And vice versa in other situations. For you to assert that this law, whatever is in it, would somehow "further" encourage the discrimination against whites for the sakes of minority is not exactly something that stands up very well. For me, discrimination is just that, discrimination.

I don't know any details about this particular law; not that I think it has any point when there clearly are provisions out there that should theoretically be adequate.

[Brenus]

“That isn't even remotely related to the subject”. No? Well, you are saying a hate speech is just an opinion. I gave you an example when the hate speech went to its natural conclusion, and you don’t see the connexion. Without years of hate speeches, the brain washing wouldn’t have worked, and perhaps more criminals would have hesitated.
“Hate speech should only become prosecutable when it can be directly linked to actual violence and/or murder.” Ooops, too late...

[Reverend Joe]

“That isn't even remotely related to the subject”. No? Well, you are saying a hate speech is just an opinion. I gave you an example when the hate speech went to its natural conclusion, and you don’t see the connexion. Without years of hate speeches, the brain washing wouldn’t have worked, and perhaps more criminals would have hesitated.
“Hate speech should only become prosecutable when it can be directly linked to actual violence and/or murder.” Ooops, too late...
Well, it isn't related. The Holocaust was only possible because of 2000 years of Jew hatred, not 30 or so years of hate speech. Jew hatred started when the bible was forced to blame the Jews rather than the Romans for the death of Jesus. It was accepted tradition long before it was "hate speech."

Okay, let me try to explain this another way- it is useless to prosecute people for what they say, because you are only attacking the branches of the problem. You have to go after the roots to defeat evil -- i.e. the beliefs themselves, and that is extremely difficult.

I think the greatest danger here is having a subjective definition restricting freedom of speech. That, in itself, is extremely dangerous, because who says what is hate speech?

By the way, I have spent plenty of time studying the Holocaust (too much, in fact) and I do have some semblance of what the hell I am talking about. And frankly, it disgusts me that people wheel the holocaust out on a whim to use to their own ends, and afterwards they simply tuck it back into the closet. It's extremely simplistic thinking.

And what the hell does "oops, too late" mean? I was trying to explain my own beliefs there. Do you mean my beliefs are too late? :confused: