They are racist and go completely against 'equal protection under the law'.13/f/taiwan wrote:
how so john?
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-03-04 09:22:15)
I don't disagree on the wrongness of them, but they have been upheld by the SCOTUS. Thus--again--the inconsistency of the majority decision and the consistency of Alito's position.JohnG@lt wrote:
Absolutely not. Hate crime laws are unconstitutional (or should be).FEOS wrote:
Irrelevant. Hence the inconsistency in the ruling and the rightness of Alito's position.JohnG@lt wrote:
Hate crime laws are odious.
And im telling you that what constitutes bullying or harrassment is entirely subjective. What is offensive to one is funny or normal to another.lowing wrote:
I am against hate crime legislation as well. A crime is a crime, just like harassment is harassment, be it sexual, or other wise. It is all verbal abuse, when it is persistent, unwelcome, and intended to do nothing but intimidate or harm.
They don't burn a cross on their own property, no one gives a shit about that, they would burn a cross on the property of the the person they intend to harass. A different matter all together.Shahter wrote:
burning a cross on ones own front lawn would be a crime in usa? are there sarcasm tags in that post i'm not seeing?
You seem to fail to understand harassment is an unwelcome and unwanted, persistent interaction. Just like sexual harassment, it isn't how you perceive it that counts, it is how the person you are fucking with perceives it that matters. By your opinion sexual harassment is also subjective, and yet they manage laws against it.JohnG@lt wrote:
And im telling you that what constitutes bullying or harrassment is entirely subjective. What is offensive to one is funny or normal to another.lowing wrote:
I am against hate crime legislation as well. A crime is a crime, just like harassment is harassment, be it sexual, or other wise. It is all verbal abuse, when it is persistent, unwelcome, and intended to do nothing but intimidate or harm.
that plays right into the hands of the perpetually offended. Byebye freedom.lowing wrote:
You seem to fail to understand harassment is an unwelcome and unwanted, persistent interaction. Just like sexual harassment, it isn't how you perceive it that counts, it is how the person you are fucking with perceives it that matters. By your opinion sexual harassment is also subjective, and yet they manage laws against it.JohnG@lt wrote:
And im telling you that what constitutes bullying or harrassment is entirely subjective. What is offensive to one is funny or normal to another.lowing wrote:
I am against hate crime legislation as well. A crime is a crime, just like harassment is harassment, be it sexual, or other wise. It is all verbal abuse, when it is persistent, unwelcome, and intended to do nothing but intimidate or harm.
Easily solved, the loser of any file lawsuit pays regardless as to who filed it.JohnG@lt wrote:
that plays right into the hands of the perpetually offended. Byebye freedom.lowing wrote:
You seem to fail to understand harassment is an unwelcome and unwanted, persistent interaction. Just like sexual harassment, it isn't how you perceive it that counts, it is how the person you are fucking with perceives it that matters. By your opinion sexual harassment is also subjective, and yet they manage laws against it.JohnG@lt wrote:
And im telling you that what constitutes bullying or harrassment is entirely subjective. What is offensive to one is funny or normal to another.
The Phelps church uses the deaths of soldiers to spread a message. The evidence shows that the Phelps church had no prior connection to the diseased. They have been known to use US military death, and in prior cases, the deaths of homosexuals, to bring attention to their message. The message that they attempt to spread, that god is punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, while being obscene to most, does constitute a topic of "public importance", the discussion of which cannot be halted under the first amendment. If we decide that conversation must be stifled just because we find the content obscene, then we must throw out the first amendment. Furthermore, the church carried out their protest in the manner ascribed by local law and ordinances. Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself.Kmar wrote:
Especially when people hide under the free speech umbrella in order to harass someone.Ty wrote:
That quote is grossly abused.dark110 wrote:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
It seems like we were just talking about this,Kmar wrote:
[
There are limits set on free speech. You can have a restraining order placed on them. If their goal is to inflict emotional distress against someone who is grieving at a funeral you better believe that is harassment. In some instances verbal assault can land the attacker a charge of hate crime. The punishments associated with such a crime are serious. Personally, I will not defend anyone's right to verbally abuse someone who is in the weakest condition imaginable, at a funeral.
The Phelps church uses the deaths of soldiers to spread a message. The evidence shows that the Phelps church had no prior connection to the diseased. They have been known to use US military death, and in prior cases, the deaths of homosexuals, to bring attention to their message. The message that they attempt to spread, that god is punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, while being obscene to most, does constitute a topic of "public importance", the discussion of which cannot be halted under the first amendment. If we decide that conversation must be stifled just because we find the content obscene, then we must throw out the first amendment. Furthermore, the church carried out their protest in the manner ascribed by local law and ordinances. Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself.Kmar wrote:
Especially when people hide under the free speech umbrella in order to harass someone.Ty wrote:
That quote is grossly abused.dark110 wrote:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
It seems like we were just talking about this,Kmar wrote:
[
There are limits set on free speech. You can have a restraining order placed on them. If their goal is to inflict emotional distress against someone who is grieving at a funeral you better believe that is harassment. In some instances verbal assault can land the attacker a charge of hate crime. The punishments associated with such a crime are serious. Personally, I will not defend anyone's right to verbally abuse someone who is in the weakest condition imaginable, at a funeral.
If someone finds it offensive then its harassment. Think before you act.JohnG@lt wrote:
And im telling you that what constitutes bullying or harrassment is entirely subjective. What is offensive to one is funny or normal to another.lowing wrote:
I am against hate crime legislation as well. A crime is a crime, just like harassment is harassment, be it sexual, or other wise. It is all verbal abuse, when it is persistent, unwelcome, and intended to do nothing but intimidate or harm.
People today are too big of pussies to fight a duel.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Bring back dueling and this entire problem goes away.
That is exactly how sexual harassment is judged. No reason why harassment of any kind can't be judged the same way.Dilbert_X wrote:
If someone finds it offensive then its harassment. Think before you act.JohnG@lt wrote:
And im telling you that what constitutes bullying or harrassment is entirely subjective. What is offensive to one is funny or normal to another.lowing wrote:
I am against hate crime legislation as well. A crime is a crime, just like harassment is harassment, be it sexual, or other wise. It is all verbal abuse, when it is persistent, unwelcome, and intended to do nothing but intimidate or harm.
There's a difference between normal banter and harassment or bullying, both of which can take forms other than words.
Freedom from harassment by jerks is also a freedom.JohnG@lt wrote:
that plays right into the hands of the perpetually offended. Byebye freedom.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-04 16:08:16)
Because it is subjective and therefor undefinable. You're ok with laws that are undefined? I prefer nice strict wording in my laws so I know precisely what I can not do. It's why speed limit laws aren't written as 'roundabouts the posted speed limit but we'll let you do between 5 and 15 miles an hour over on a given day depending on how the officer is feeling'.lowing wrote:
That is exactly how sexual harassment is judged. No reason why harassment of any kind can't be judged the same way.Dilbert_X wrote:
If someone finds it offensive then its harassment. Think before you act.JohnG@lt wrote:
And im telling you that what constitutes bullying or harrassment is entirely subjective. What is offensive to one is funny or normal to another.
There's a difference between normal banter and harassment or bullying, both of which can take forms other than words.
Most civil suits are determined "on the balance of probabilities" and according to the view a "reasonable person" would take.Because it is subjective and therefor undefinable.
I don't go about harassing anyone. I just despise the nanny state crap that anti-bullying laws represent. Like I said, you can't legislate it so people are forced to be nice to one another. You can't legislate away competition and aggression. How is that even remotely healthy?Dilbert_X wrote:
Most civil suits are determined "on the balance of probabilities" and according to the view a "reasonable person" would take.Because it is subjective and therefor undefinable.
If you're scared of the view of a jury of 12 of your peers then be careful about who you harass.
You can legislate to force people to act with minimum civility though.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't go about harassing anyone. I just despise the nanny state crap that anti-bullying laws represent. Like I said, you can't legislate it so people are forced to be nice to one another. You can't legislate away competition and aggression. How is that even remotely healthy?Dilbert_X wrote:
Most civil suits are determined "on the balance of probabilities" and according to the view a "reasonable person" would take.Because it is subjective and therefor undefinable.
If you're scared of the view of a jury of 12 of your peers then be careful about who you harass.
How very Christian of you.Dilbert_X wrote:
You can legislate to force people to act with minimum civility though.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't go about harassing anyone. I just despise the nanny state crap that anti-bullying laws represent. Like I said, you can't legislate it so people are forced to be nice to one another. You can't legislate away competition and aggression. How is that even remotely healthy?Dilbert_X wrote:
Most civil suits are determined "on the balance of probabilities" and according to the view a "reasonable person" would take.
If you're scared of the view of a jury of 12 of your peers then be careful about who you harass.
Its very healthy, it prevents the aggressive dominating the weaker, we have moved on from trial by combat - at least im civilised countries.
Damn that's a good idea DB. Well, actually, some people might exploit it. How did the rules for that go back then?CC-Marley wrote:
People today are too big of pussies to fight a duel.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Bring back dueling and this entire problem goes away.
Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2011-03-04 16:44:44)
Well, as I said before ,it is no more or less subjective than sexual harassment, and those laws are defined and judicious.JohnG@lt wrote:
Because it is subjective and therefor undefinable. You're ok with laws that are undefined? I prefer nice strict wording in my laws so I know precisely what I can not do. It's why speed limit laws aren't written as 'roundabouts the posted speed limit but we'll let you do between 5 and 15 miles an hour over on a given day depending on how the officer is feeling'.lowing wrote:
That is exactly how sexual harassment is judged. No reason why harassment of any kind can't be judged the same way.Dilbert_X wrote:
If someone finds it offensive then its harassment. Think before you act.
There's a difference between normal banter and harassment or bullying, both of which can take forms other than words.
The very idea of broad, catchall laws should terrify you. THAT is tyranny defined.
