Disagree. I think our speech laws here in the US are the best in the world
I'm gonna report your ass to Scotland Yard for making hateful remarks about my German heritage!FatherTed wrote:
enough of that chat mr. german descendant wot wotJay wrote:
Makes me glad we kicked your ass back in dubya dubya two
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i'd probably get extradited too lmaoJay wrote:
I'm gonna report your ass to Scotland Yard for making hateful remarks about my German heritage!FatherTed wrote:
enough of that chat mr. german descendant wot wotJay wrote:
Makes me glad we kicked your ass back in dubya dubya two
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
My grandfathers both fought for America anyway
Last edited by Jay (2012-03-31 16:53:49)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
After they betrayed the fatherland wot wot.Jay wrote:
My grandfathers both fought for America anyway
yeah that speech law is retarded. if he went to someones house or called their phones, that's harassment and its a bit different. nobody ever heard of blocking people on twitter or facebook?
Theres a difference between saying dumb stuff in a pub and posting it on a very public forum.RAIMIUS wrote:
Dilbert, there is a difference between picking a fight with angry drunks in a bar and having the police arrest you for saying idiotic things...I don't know if you realized this, but one has civil rights implications and the other is dealt with via assault and battery laws.
Its illegal, bad luck, either accept the punishment, don't do it in the first place or emigrate.
Fuck Israel
didn't you go from Merry Olde England to Australia?Dilbert_X wrote:
or emigrate.
Nah, its absolutely laughable that any British person could compare their democracy to the US after this ruling.
Yeah the punishment is retarded, almost as retarded as nuk here.
Its illegal to racially abuse someone, its not legal to shoot people because you don't like the look of them.nukchebi0 wrote:
Nah, its absolutely laughable that any British person could compare their democracy to the US after this ruling.
British democracy is fine and well.
Fuck Israel
I think the laws over here around this are almost perfect.
Inciting racial hatred should certainly be against the law and the crap he was saying I'm glad he got fucked over - I think the sentencing is a little harsh, but it simply reflects the public reaction to it. Lower profile cases would not be treated as harshly. Were this law not in place, he would have been prosecuted anyway, for libel - just as he most likely would in the US.
We don't have freedom of speech in the UK. We have freedom of expression and freedom of the press which are what is important. You can also say anything you like, provided you can demonstrate it is true.
Inciting racial hatred should certainly be against the law and the crap he was saying I'm glad he got fucked over - I think the sentencing is a little harsh, but it simply reflects the public reaction to it. Lower profile cases would not be treated as harshly. Were this law not in place, he would have been prosecuted anyway, for libel - just as he most likely would in the US.
We don't have freedom of speech in the UK. We have freedom of expression and freedom of the press which are what is important. You can also say anything you like, provided you can demonstrate it is true.
Why is being mean to someone based on their race worse than being mean to someone because they wear glasses or have a unibrow?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Because people don't get brutally murdered by people for wearing glasses or having unibrows, as has happened to people because of their race (or religion).Jay wrote:
Why is being mean to someone based on their race worse than being mean to someone because they wear glasses or have a unibrow?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2012-04-01 08:56:19)
You feel that your current arrangements for punishing murderers was insufficient? How often were these 'brutal murders based on race' taking place? Why is it any worse than a 'brutal murder based on socioeconomic differences'? Should rich people become a protected class because poor people outnumber them? Should I get special protection because I do not believe in god and at one point in the distant past I would've been burned at the stake?Bertster7 wrote:
Because people don't get brutally murdered by people for wearing glasses or having unibrows, as has happened to people because of their race (or religion).Jay wrote:
Why is being mean to someone based on their race worse than being mean to someone because they wear glasses or have a unibrow?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
All hate crime laws do is perpetuate divisions in society, divisions that lead to racist behavior. Treating people well based on their race is just as racist as treating them poorly.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No. But these laws have been very useful. Most notably in convicting outspoken racist pricks with links to terrorism - such as Abu Hamza (and lots of unpleasant neo-nazis).Jay wrote:
You feel that your current arrangements for punishing murderers was insufficient?Bertster7 wrote:
Because people don't get brutally murdered by people for wearing glasses or having unibrows, as has happened to people because of their race (or religion).Jay wrote:
Why is being mean to someone based on their race worse than being mean to someone because they wear glasses or have a unibrow?
Not very often. Far less often than in the US.Jay wrote:
How often were these 'brutal murders based on race' taking place?
They aren't - but you don't get those. Violence towards individuals based on their race happens, violence toward people based on their socioeconomic status doesn't - unless you're looking at full on revolution, like in France or Russia, but in this day and age it's not really a legitimate concern.Jay wrote:
Why is it any worse than a 'brutal murder based on socioeconomic differences'?
No. How are the numbers relevant? What determines who is rich or poor? What is the divide? It's purely hypothetical. What is the relevance of any of this?Jay wrote:
Should rich people become a protected class because poor people outnumber them?
Yes. You should have your right to hold and express those beliefs protected.Jay wrote:
Should I get special protection because I do not believe in god and at one point in the distant past I would've been burned at the stake?
However, if you believed in a god that demanded all Chinese people be set on fire because they have no souls (or any such similar nonsense which promotes harm to others), then your rights to express those beliefs should not be protected.
You did zero to justify the laws, sorry. Breaking my post down line by line did nothing but make you look pedantic.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That's not what such laws do at all. They don't mean people are treated differently. It's not like afirmative action or any rubbish like that.Jay wrote:
All hate crime laws do is perpetuate divisions in society, divisions that lead to racist behavior. Treating people well based on their race is just as racist as treating them poorly.
It's just one of the many categories of incitement law, such as inciting a girl under 16 to commit incest or inciting to commit perjury. Do you have any problem with those laws?
Yes, people are treated differently. If someone attacks a black man he faces a more severe punishment than if he attacks a white man. It is precisely the same as affirmative action.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not what such laws do at all. They don't mean people are treated differently. It's not like afirmative action or any rubbish like that.Jay wrote:
All hate crime laws do is perpetuate divisions in society, divisions that lead to racist behavior. Treating people well based on their race is just as racist as treating them poorly.
It's just one of the many categories of incitement law, such as inciting a girl under 16 to commit incest or inciting to commit perjury. Do you have any problem with those laws?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Convincing your cousin to sleep with you and lying in court are the same as being a prick on Twitter.
Okay
Okay
lowing is back?
Tu Stultus Es
No they don't. Where did you get that from?Jay wrote:
Yes, people are treated differently. If someone attacks a black man he faces a more severe punishment than if he attacks a white man. It is precisely the same as affirmative action.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not what such laws do at all. They don't mean people are treated differently. It's not like afirmative action or any rubbish like that.Jay wrote:
All hate crime laws do is perpetuate divisions in society, divisions that lead to racist behavior. Treating people well based on their race is just as racist as treating them poorly.
It's just one of the many categories of incitement law, such as inciting a girl under 16 to commit incest or inciting to commit perjury. Do you have any problem with those laws?
That's something that happens in the US - not over here.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2012-04-01 09:35:09)
Your post did nothing to make any sort of point against those laws.Jay wrote:
You did zero to justify the laws, sorry. Breaking my post down line by line did nothing but make you look pedantic.
Socioeconomic divides? Seriously?
the laws serve to exist to reinforce the fact that our society does not tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia or basically anything ending in -ism or -bia
i'm not sure i see a problem with this
i'm not sure i see a problem with this
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Why did this man receive 56 days in jail?Bertster7 wrote:
No they don't. Where did you get that from?Jay wrote:
Yes, people are treated differently. If someone attacks a black man he faces a more severe punishment than if he attacks a white man. It is precisely the same as affirmative action.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not what such laws do at all. They don't mean people are treated differently. It's not like afirmative action or any rubbish like that.
It's just one of the many categories of incitement law, such as inciting a girl under 16 to commit incest or inciting to commit perjury. Do you have any problem with those laws?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat