Anyone who would let the government or the courts decide what it is "OK" to say to another person is insane and doesn't deserve to live in a free country. Just imagine all the loony libs who'd be in prison when the courts decided that calling the President of the United States a "Nazi" or "Hitler" was a "hate crime."
On May 18, 10:45 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > jgg, > > Don't give a shit. I don't live and vote in Canada. > > On May 18, 8:50 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Canada has such laws, and they did seek to silence the press because > > of "hurt feelings"... They HRC was an extra-constitutional law onto > > itself.... > > > On May 16, 1:36 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > jgg, > > > > Guess that's something courts will have to figure out. > > > Wait a minute here, you've gone from "demand" to "want" already? No > > > laws, or proposed laws I know that would make it illegal to "hurt > > > someone's feelings". > > > > On May 16, 10:19 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What about the grey areas as "Obama is a Nigger"??? which contain NO > > > > bodily threats and cause merely hurt feelings??? Many want to make > > > > these "hate speech"... Yet your 1st example did just that FOR SOME > > > > FOLKS... If one argues "Rule of Law" the ANY speech that hurts anyone > > > > should be treated as equal (i.e. no special protected classes or > > > > minorities)... One problem with the proposed hate laws to date is > > > > that "hurt feelings" of only some groups is considered as justifying a > > > > specific speech as "hate speech"... > > > > > Second under current law speech without action is not a crime (with > > > > limited exceptions - yelling Fire in a crowded theater (as many > > > > politicians do) or slander damaging reputation)... Are we to > > > > overthrow that standard to shield bigots who shout "all whites are > > > > racist bigots"" who happen to be AA??? But to imprison a white bigot > > > > for the same??? > > > > > Was not the actions of the Duke professors organized "hate speech" > > > > deliberately aimed to defame innocent Duke Lacrosse players??? > > > > Should not they be inprisioned for their KKK like actions??? > > > > > But to include all offender would make a hate speech law > > > > impassable... Why??? The purpose of laws in fundamentally impose a > > > > speech code on only selected portions of citizens in the end... If > > > > Liberal bigotry and hate speech fell under the same law Liberals would > > > > vigorously oppose it... Just think of how many Liberals would be > > > > charged with hate crimes today for their remarks about Miss > > > > California... Or the comic at the WH who told a joke(non joke?) > > > > about wishing Rush dead).... > > > > > On May 15, 6:55 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > jjg, > > > > > > Please explain to me the positives of hate speech, how the world might > > > > > be worse if it were to be banned. > > > > > > Please do not confuse hate speech with exercising the Constituion > > > > > right of freedom of speech. > > > > > > Not a damn thing wrong to say "I despise George Bush/Barrack Obama > > > > > (whoeverthefuck)i urge all my fellow citizens to votes against him and > > > > > oppose his policies at every opportunity." Freedom of speech. > > > > > > "I despise George Bush/Barrack Obama (whoeverthefuck) and urge you to > > > > > KILL the S.O.B. and the traitors that voted for him". Hate speech. > > > > > > On May 15, 3:12 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I can say the same about hateful speech... Yet many Liberal demand > > > > > > an > > > > > > absolute ban... > > > > > > > On May 15, 12:50 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > Look at it this way. There can be absilutely no question that > > > > > > > firearms > > > > > > > are frequently used in immoral ways. > > > > > > > Shall we remove the right to own and carry firearms in an attempt > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > stop this immoral behaviour? > > > > > > > > On May 15, 11:17 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is a question that folks favoring abortion must face... > > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > > reason are "moral" for deciding to have an abortion??? If any > > > > > > > > reason > > > > > > > > will do, then clearly one sees a fetus as a life "without > > > > > > > > rights".... When do human right start and/or stop??? But > > > > > > > > morality > > > > > > > > is a tangled web of contrary rhymes and reasoning... > > > > > > > > > In Sweden, it is state approval was given to abort a female > > > > > > > > fetus... > > > > > > > > Should or Could the State make such decisions??? Is this what > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > meant by "State Religion"??? > > > > > > > > >http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/13/sweden-approves-gender-based-ab... > > > > > > > > > >> Swedish women will be permitted to abort their children > > > > > > > > >> based on the sex of the fetus, according to a ruling by > > > > > > > > >> Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare. > > > > > > > > > The ruling was spurred by a request from Kai Wedenberg, head of > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > clinic where a woman twice requested, and received, an abortion > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > on sex.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
