BF2S Forums Black Philadelphia police sue over message board

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

[-DER-]Omega wrote:

stereotypes and the truth are two different things. while the assumption that black people in urban areas are undereducated, violent, good-for-nothing freeloaders, the formula definitely doesn't apply to 100% of the (black) individuals of said area, therefore, is this "truth" not unfair, untrue and discriminant toward the good, hard-working, honest black individuals even if they're the minority?

You really need to get over the "you're generalizing" argument. It is weak/ What they speak of is the truth and just because there might be a small percentage that does not fit the bill, it does not negate what was said.

I can assure you that, if the majority of the black population was lazy and criminally minded, our crime would be even higher than it already is.

Now, it is true that a significant minority of blacks are either incarcerated or have been at one point.  Still, that's far from being the majority.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
It's pretty bad already considering how small of a group they are.

S3v3N wrote:

they're only mad because its the cold hard truth.

Damn, I hate it when PC is removed and all you have left is truth.

http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/ … is-it.html

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-20 11:52:46)

Red Forman wrote:

Freedom of speech is a very odd thing.  Everyone in this world is free to say what they want.  But, everyone in this world is also subject to the consequences of their speech.  People bring up the constitution and such in arguments, but I think they are misusing that in their argument.  Freedom of speech meant people could voice their opinions against the government.  It does not mean you can go around calling people names and inciting dissension.  But, that is my interpretation of what the founders meant.

Nice very nice, thanks you sir.

Turquoise wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

Freedom of speech is a very odd thing.  Everyone in this world is free to say what they want.  But, everyone in this world is also subject to the consequences of their speech.  People bring up the constitution and such in arguments, but I think they are misusing that in their argument.  Freedom of speech meant people could voice their opinions against the government.  It does not mean you can go around calling people names and inciting dissension.  But, that is my interpretation of what the founders meant.

The First Amendment covers more than just speech against the government.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It leaves the door open to interpretation because of its vagueness.  Still, the use of the word "abridging" would seem to imply that offensive speech is covered, with the exception of inciting riots (because other laws deem that illegal).

So, there are no laws against making racist speech, and therefore, what the forum members are doing has no legal precedent for prohibition or punishment.

I am not talking about the forum members.  I am talking about my interpretation of what the founding fathers meant by that amendment.  Given the period in which it was drafted, I'd say I would be correct.

Please tell me that you think they meant you could racially degrade someone.

Macbeth wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

Please tell me that you think they meant you could racially degrade someone.

I think they meant you could racially degrade somebody.

Oh sorry I was busy laughing.  No really.  Well done chap.

Turquoise wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

Please tell me that you think they meant you could racially degrade someone.

Please tell me that you think they wanted the government to censor people's opinions.

Answer my question then I will answer yours.

Turquoise wrote:

Jefferson's view of slavery is especially conflicted.

Gee I wonder why

Red Forman wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

Answer my question then I will answer yours.

I think that their definition of racial degradation depended on which Founder you spoke with.  Most of them had slaves.

Jefferson's view of slavery is especially conflicted.

I would agree with that.  But, why would people use the first amendment in an argument that was drafted by racists and slave owners?

Would you agree laws reflect the times?  I mean the word amendment makes that quite clear correct?

If you're implying that the Constitution is a living document, yes.  I'm not a strict Constitutionalist.

However, I'm suggesting that if you want to make racist speech illegal, you must pass a law that specifically bans it.

So far, there are laws against racist hiring practices, racist housing practices, and inciting racist violence.  Also, the government is not allowed to act in racist ways.

Still, there is no law against expressing a racist opinion.

Red Forman wrote:

Remember that guy who got sued for swearing on a golf course?  I agree with you there is no law banning it.  Well, that depends where you live I guess.  But, I was just simply trying to say using the constitution and the 1st amendment in an argument is pointless.

Not really.  By most legal interpretations, something is legal as long as no specific law bans it.  The vagueness of the First Amendment is what opens the door to allowing offensive speech, which is why it's often used to defend various forms of speech.

The reason why I side with allowing hateful speech is because I've seen what happens when you go in the opposite direction.  Right now, Europe is in the process of banning various forms of expression if they can be construed as "hate speech."

I'd much rather live in a society where racist speech is allowed than live in one where "thought crimes" are right around the corner.  In general, it is much better to err on the side of freedom than on the side of security.

Red Forman wrote:

The vagueness allows decisions to be made by individual judges.  But, let's be real for a second.  Can you go on a plane and say I wish this thing would blow up and kill everyone?  No.  You sure as hell can't.  I mean you can say it, but your ass would be dragged off the aircraft.  Is that statement a threat?  Not really.  Well it depends who you ask I guess.  What if you were on that same airplane and started yelling the N-word at someone.  Do you think you would be allowed to fly?  Nope.  Isn't that a violation of your rights?

No, none of those are a violation of your rights because it's a judgment call made by a private company (the airliner).

All the First Amendment does is keep the government from restricting your speech.  Private companies can implement whatever policies they want regarding speech, as long as they don't violate any governmental laws.