So Will You On The Left Call For Prosecution For Inspiring Violence?

[mantisman51]

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=108830
Wango, this is only the Federal law. California, New York and Massachusetts have similar laws BANNING anyone from saying anything that would incite "hate" towards minorities and homosexuals. Please read beyond the first paragraph about Canada. When I said I find the act of homosexuality (never once did I say people only the act) distasteful, I was attacked right here and people went on to say I was a hater and of course I was linked to the murderers of Matthew Sheppard. I had to step out of the thread because of the vile accusations thrown at me. There is no such thing coming from mainstream conservatives like the hate spewing venom thrown at people like me. Yes I am becoming more polarized personally, because the left in the media and places like this very forum make it clear any dissent to the prevailing PC norm is not welcome and must be silenced. That is coming from the left, not the right and I challenge you to find a single state or Republican that even slightly hinted at a law to silence the left like the example I posted there.

 

[wangotango]

The link you posted is of a story almost 2 years old. It mentions both the house and the senate supporting a bill that would give protection to people who are victims of hate crimes. It does not mention punishment for anyone who commits a hate crime either. Although the title is "Hate-Speech Law Declared Unconstitutional" the only mention of the supreme court is in the sentence "The Commission later ruled that, in general, "the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature, as defined by the Supreme Court." The link within the article talks about Holder being asked questions about said laws. The thing I find troubling with that is that say a priest says something negative towards homosexuals and is attacked, he is not covered under the protection, but if the homosexual person is attacked because of something the priest said then he is covered.
I guess I fail to understand why it should be "ok" to say things that may inspire hate or violence towards others. You wouldn't go into a crowded theater and yell "fire" that's just common sense. Why would you go around saying vile things about people or beating them? NY recently passed legislation that would prohibit protestors from within a certain perimeter (I don't remember how many feet) of military funerals, in the wake of all of the Westboro Baptist Church shenanigans. They are still however allowed to do what they would outside of that perimeter. Is that silencing people? They can still say what they want. Their being allowed to say whatever they want should not trump other people's right to gather peacefully.
I don't agree for a second that there is no vile coming from mainstream conservatives. Homophobia, Islamophobia, political radicalism, and racism are not solely products of the left. The left didn't make you polarized. You have your own beliefs which may not mesh with others. You can chose to respectfully disagree with them or stir the pot. Don't expect to stir the pot and then blame others for the backlash. I think scsi hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that both sides do it, blame the other for it, but don't take responsibility for when they are caught doing it. It's easy to play victim and blame it on everyone else.
As for the thread you mentioned; I re-read it and YOU were contributing to the pot stirring. To quote you "I don't care what other sickos want to do with their bodies." If you say things like that you're going to get called out on them. Had you just said "I don't condone homosexuality or support gay marriage" and left it at that, there wouldn't have been a problem. The person who mentioned Matthew Sheppard did not say that you were directly responsible for, or are comparable to or associated with the people who killed him. How were you linked?

 

[reefraff]

It is against the law to beat someone. Why should it be a harsher punishment if the beatee happens to be a minority or gay? Don't we all deserve equal treatment and protection under the law? The terms racist and homophobe are so recklessly thrown about they have become a joke. One can oppose things like affirmative action based on things other than bigotry. People can oppose the gay lifestyle based on religious views rather than hate. But express an opinion and you get branded.
It was perfectly fine for liberals to call Bush a chimp based on his looks. Try that with 0bama. People are never going to get past racism until people quit using race as a crutch.

 

[mantisman51]

For the sake of civility, I'll just say that you are artful in using words to avoid what you want and twist things they way you want. Again, I'll bail on this part of the conversation after this post. The Attorney General didn't say if the speech was violent, only if someone did something violent after hearing or reading it. So nice try. As the AG said, if a preacher merely states homosexuality is a sin and some who hears it does something violent, that preacher can be prosecuted. It was passed with the defense funding bill. I find many things people do sick and disgusting, regardless of sexual orientation. I don't want to see anyone harassed, hurt or killed for their lifestyle that isn't hurting anyone else. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it either. That doesn't make me a hater and that doesn't mean I should be impugned either. And someone who states they oppose any behavior should never be tried for !@#* hate speech or have the force of law used to silence them.

 

[aquaknight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/387067/so-will-you-on-the-left-call-for-prosecution-for-inspiring-violence/20#post_3403378
It is against the law to beat someone. Why should it be a harsher punishment if the beatee happens to be a minority or gay? Don't we all deserve equal treatment and protection under the law? The terms racist and homophobe are so recklessly thrown about they have become a joke. One can oppose things like affirmative action based on things other than bigotry. People can oppose the gay lifestyle based on religious views rather than hate. But express an opinion and you get branded.
It was perfectly fine for liberals to call Bush a chimp based on his looks. Try that with 0bama. People are never going to get past racism until people quit using race as a crutch.
We sorta already have this. Premeditated assault/manslaughter/murder/etc, and them typically carrying a higher sentence then a regular charge of each. IMHO, a person who goes out looking for a gay/minority, or vice versa, to beat/kill is infact premeditated. I don't think a "hate crime" should carry a higher charge. And I completely agree with your point that just because person of __ possible reason was beat up, doesn't always mean it was a hate crime, and is used far too often then I would believe.

 

[wangotango]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/387067/so-will-you-on-the-left-call-for-prosecution-for-inspiring-violence/20#post_3403380
For the sake of civility, I'll just say that you are artful in using words to avoid what you want and twist things they way you want. Again, I'll bail on this part of the conversation after this post. The Attorney General didn't say if the speech was violent, only if someone did something violent after hearing or reading it. So nice try. As the AG said, if a preacher merely states homosexuality is a sin and some who hears it does something violent, that preacher can be prosecuted. It was passed with the defense funding bill. I find many things people do sick and disgusting, regardless of sexual orientation. I don't want to see anyone harassed, hurt or killed for their lifestyle that isn't hurting anyone else. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it either. That doesn't make me a hater and that doesn't mean I should be impugned either. And someone who states they oppose any behavior should never be tried for !@#* hate speech or have the force of law used to silence them.
What did I twist? I didn't say that the AG said it was violent, you're implying that I did. I referenced what he said that if certain roles were switched then protection is not offered and that I have a problem with that (ie it has to work both ways not just one). If there was anything else that I twisted that you'd like me to try and justify then please point it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaKnight http:///forum/thread/387067/so-will-you-on-the-left-call-for-prosecution-for-inspiring-violence/20#post_3403382
We sorta already have this. Premeditated assault/manslaughter/murder/etc, and them typically carrying a higher sentence then a regular charge of each. IMHO, a person who goes out looking for a gay/minority, or vice versa, to beat/kill is infact premeditated. I don't think a "hate crime" should carry a higher charge. And I completely agree with your point that just because person of __ possible reason was beat up, doesn't always mean it was a hate crime, and is used far too often then I would believe.
Agreed, and people do cry wolf about everything and it's gotten out of hand. I don't think though that a true hate crime should just be lumped in with any other offense, because they are not on the same level. Like possession vs possession with intent to sell, murder vs premeditated murder, etc. I also don't think that sentence should be harsher just because it's a "hate" crime. At least make a distinction like arson vs arson with intent to intimidate minority? I don't know...
Something to consider though. How much of the shenanigans that goes back and forth between the left and right is in fun. Does every poke need to be blown out of proportion? Yeah in most political cartoons Bush looked like a chimp, but you can't say that Obama doesn't look like Dumbo the flying elephant in them either. Is that vile or slander? What about doing impressions? Is doing the Bush squint and laugh or Obama's slow talk and stuttering comparable to calling liberals/conservatives (insert word here ),or whatever?

 

[reefraff]

Context and delivery are important when it comes to political discourse. Leno is nearly as good as the old masters like Carson and Hope when it comes to political humor. Letterman sucks at it. Limbaugh can be very good at it as well. Just making a hateful statement ala Bill Mahr will fire up the partisans but taking a good natured shot at someone will generally get a snicker from folks on both sides.
Same deal with political speech. Some people are bomb throwers and some are tactful and think before speaking.

 

[mantisman51]

I will grant that my choice of "sickos" was quite inappropriate. I have had 2 close homosexual friends. Both of these guys were witty and caring guys. I deeply cared for them, as any of my friends. While I did think their predilections were immoral, I never treated them nor wanted to see them treated badly. I guess that's why I took such umbrage at the aspersions cast my way. Especially when such hateful things like "people like you" were thrown around by those on the other side. I find adulterers and philanderers repugnant, but wish them no harm either. My whole contention is that we should be able to exercise opinion without being accused of criminal or hateful behavior.