Ok legal beagals on DU, I need help debunking this BS

[mrcheerful]

Free speech is free speech. I do believe there are already laws in place that don't allow cursing in public. What exactly constitutes cursing, I'm not exactly sure. To make it a hate crime is silly.

What's racist is saying it's okay for one group of people to call eachother ni**ers and to say it's not okay for another group. That's prejudice enforcement of the law. It's said that it's okay for one group of people to call eachother ni**ers because they are in the group of people that would be called ni**ers. A few problems with that. You have to show intent behind the message. To call it "hate" speech, you really have to prove hatred, don't you? If the intent was not meant to be hateful, it shouldn't be hate speech, should it? So how do you prove intent? How do you prove hatred? You either have to have a confession or you have to make the uncertain assumption that they indeed said what they did out of "hate". It's flawed at the core. You can't prove how somebody feels because only the person feeling can know for certain how they feel. Only they are 100% clear on intent. Hate speech is about making laws against speech without knowing the meaning. It's dangerous and it has no place in a free country.

We can't tell people how to feel either, can we? Isn't that what this is about? Removing intolerance from society? It's saying put up and shut up. Nothing can be done about the underlying feeling. To remove "hate" from society, you can't do it by force. To remove hate, you can only encourage.

The other thing about hate speech is that it's so lopsided. Minorities and women are the ones protected. In law, the law must apply equally to everybody. If a homosexual life style is to be protected, so must be the hetrosexual life style. If a minority is protected, so must the majority. If a woman is protected, so must a man be. If an athiest is protected, so must other religions be.

There's so much wrong with the idea about "hate laws" it's unreal. The law must apply equally to everybody and must never be in contradiction to the constitution. It fails both of those checks miserably. Call it what you will, but don't call it American.

Edited to add in no way shape or form am I the one who spewed this crap.

[demrabble]

1. Please.

Where in the world did you hear this nonsense?

"The other thing about hate speech is that it's so lopsided. Minorities and women are the ones protected. In law, the law must apply equally to everybody. If a homosexual life style is to be protected, so must be the hetrosexual life style. If a minority is protected, so must the majority. If a woman is protected, so must a man be. If an athiest is protected, so must other religions be."

Laws against hate speech are definitely NOT lopsided. Women and minorities are NOT the only ones protected. Making illegal committing a crime because of someone's gender protects BOTH men and women from crimes committed against them because they are men or women.

And making it illegal to commit a crime against a minority or against a non-minority because of who they are protects b oth minorities and non-minorities.

[mrcheerful]

3. Believe it or not but the person that wrote this crap was responding to

HRC being the first woman elected as president and was america ready for it. Scary that theres people out there who think this shit up.

[demrabble]

6. I'm Not Sure

I'm not really too sure why you -- or anyone else -- would need help debunking such nonsense.

It seems really rather easy and quite straighforward to debunk such silly statements about hate speech.

[mrcheerful]

12. This is only the last little bit of a rant that was posted over a weeks time

the guy has serious issues about women, gays, the poor and people of african heritage. He is pro life yet calls for the death for every crime from theft to murder. He believes women have no rights to child support and thinks they should be forced to marry the person that got them pregnant. Need I say more?

[demrabble]

17. So?

So why import his vile ravings and misguided thoughts here?

[H2O Man]

19. No. n/t

[NoGOPZone]

21. I believe it.

The thought of HRC being President always sends freepers into rants which have no connection to the topic at hand.

[Marie26]

2. Wow

Are you sure you're at the right place? I'm not sure what the actual question is in the midst of that rant.

[Lex]

4. "If a homosexual life style is to be protected, so must be the hetrosexual life style."

Yeah, get back to me when the "heterosexual life style" needs protecting.


Next!

[Geoff R. Casavant]

5. I don't see a problem here.

I'm a big fan of the First Amendment. For this reason, I too am against any and all laws that make speech alone, however reprehensible, a crime.

Every person has the right to his or her own thoughts and words. The best remedy for bad speech is not censorship or punishment for bad speech, it is good speech.

[Marie26]

7. Let's make something clear

"Hate speech" is not illegal in this country. You can deny the holocaust or use racial slurs as much as you want - that's the whole First Amendment thing. So I'm not sure what the point of this thread is?

[Geoff R. Casavant]

13. I think there was an attempt at it recently

I recall reading a news report about a town (in Texas? Colorado? I forget which state) that wanted to make saying the n-word illegal. The attempt failed, but possibly the person quoted in the OP was responding to that?

[Marie26]

18. God knows

What the OP is responding to. If you have some information about a law that specifically bans a word, I'd really really like to see it. It doesn't exist, outside right-wing anger sites. It seems that the OP's argument here boils down to "It's racist that white people can't call people the N word!!" :eyes: This is just thinly-disguised flamebait, IMO.

[northernsoul]

8. Can the author of this cite an actual law for us to analyze?

I have no idea what this rant is actually about... is there a specific statute or ordinance?

[Marie26]

9. Doubtful. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

10. Can you reference a law

that prohibits "hate speech"?

[Dedalus]

11. Okay, as far as I know...

..."hate crime" legislation only involves tacking a bigger penalty onto things that are already illegal, e.g. battery, destruction of property. It would not make anything illegal that is currently not a crime. As for "hate speech," it depends on whether you are saying it in general (e.g. on the web) or directly to someone's face. In the case of the latter, it is--once again--already illegal. It is legally assault to get in someone's face and say "I'm gonna kick your ass, fuck you, etc." regardless of motive.

And this (already existing) legislation DOES in fact protect majority groups too. That's why the Nation of Islam guys on soapboxes are covered by the law ONLY as long as they just shout their rhetoric to no-one in particular, but if they got off the box and said it to a specific white passerby then it is legally assault and they can be arrested. So his "who can or can't say n**ger" paradox is not really a paradox, since the same "paradox" existed in regular non-hate-crime law, i.e. getting in someone's face (assault) vs. saying it to a friend ironically, plus you are still free to say "n**ger" all you want in a neutral environment, i.e. not TO anyone.

But I should probably say that I am not a lawyer. I just have lawyer friends and read up on stuff like this, as well as write about it: www.the1585.com

[mrcheerful]

20. That is what I told him over the post before he said this. What he wants is to be able

to call blacks Ni**ers and gays Fags without repercussions to his actions. Another words walk up to a group of gays and scream anti-gay speech at them. He feels that by not being allowed to get into a gay persons face and yell "fags are giving my kids aids and corrupting them" is taking away his right to free speech.

[NoGOPZone]

25. Mention to him that he can't be

arrested or sued for using those words, so he already has considerable protection from repercussions. Of course, he'll complain about the public reaction to using those words, but First Amendment rights and what is considered socially acceptable are two different things.

[Jersey Devil]

28. Yes, generally speech must be "fighting words" before it can be illegal

Things that ordinarily might lead to violence if said to an 'ordinary' man or woman. As you and others have pointed out the original screed confuses hate crimes with hate speech. Speech advocating hate is not illegal unless said in a situation where it can be construed as "fighting words".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. ...

"What's racist is saying it's okay for one group of people to call eachother ni**ers and to say it's not okay for another group"

The word "nigger" is a racist word. People who use it are racist against black people, with a couple of exceptions: 1. Discussing the actual word like we're doing here, and 2. when black people use it. Obviously black people aren't going to be racist against black people. When they use it, they're taking the power out of the word.

If this person thinks that's racism, I think they've got a thing or two to learn about racism.

"To make it a hate crime is silly."

If they're talking about that backwards Texas town that wants to outlaw the word "nigger," that's a clear violation of the 1st amendment. Nothing to get worked up over.

"You can't prove how somebody feels because only the person feeling can know for certain how they feel"

This is untrue. Intent is an important part of law. For example, the difference between first degree and second degree murder is premeditation.

"The other thing about hate speech is that it's so lopsided. Minorities and women are the ones protected. In law, the law must apply equally to everybody. If a homosexual life style is to be protected, so must be the hetrosexual life style. If a minority is protected, so must the majority. If a woman is protected, so must a man be. If an athiest is protected, so must other religions be."

Minorities are the ones being protected because they are the ones that need protection. Have you ever been told that you can't get married because you're straight?

"There's so much wrong with the idea about "hate laws" it's unreal. The law must apply equally to everybody and must never be in contradiction to the constitution. It fails both of those checks miserably. Call it what you will, but don't call it American."

This person hasn't put anything on the table to show that there's anything wrong with hate crime legislation.

[donco6]

15. He's confusing Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.

Thus, setting up a straw man.

[cynatnite]

16. It's illegal to curse in front of a woman or child in Michigan...

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=9709

I wouldn't want to know the person who sprewed this garbage.

[NoGOPZone]

22. Can't help you debunk it because I need help UNDERSTANDING it

Seems like nothing more than a "it sucks to be a member of the dominant majority" whine.

[pinto]

23. Any citation on where this came from? It might clarify discussion.

[mrcheerful]

24. It came out of his misunderstanding of hate crime laws and the religious rights propaganda

he also spews.

[pinto]

27. You seem to be quoting this from somewhere. (?) A citation would help.

Thanks.

[DaveJ]

26. Sounds like a white guy who used the word n*** and now is embarrassed

He (assuming its a he) just needs to learn more about social graces. It can be a difficult adjustment to some.

I think when the African American population hears the word n--- it brings back tragic recolection of slavery and sadistic behavior on the part of whites. If the situation were reversed I would literally be frightened to be among others who's ancestors enslaved me, and then they began using that term.

Some things you just don't say or do in polite society. One simply has common sense not to talk about bombs at an airport. It's common sense not to talk about your tropical island vacation if you're volunteering at a homeless shelter. People generally don't talk about their embarassing rashes among strangers. Etc.

Again this person seems to simply lack social skills.