Hate Speech Laws & Another Cross For Christians

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Bonnie, Mar 4, 2005.

  1. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Hate Speech Laws: A New Cross For Christians To Bear
    By Paul M. Weyrich (03/03/05)

    When Pennsylvania was amending its “hate crimes” law, the Ethnic Intimidation and Institutional Vandalism Act, a few years ago, proponents readily dismissed the concerns expressed by Christians about the inclusion of protection for “sexual orientation.” The reason the advocates of traditional values protested was not because they wanted physically to bash homosexuals – believing Christians do not operate that way -- but because they realized that their own First Amendment rights easily could be jeopardized.

    Such concerns were dismissed as the figment of overheated imaginations by those legislators and advocacy groups pushing for the hate crimes law. The idea of jailing the purveyors of tasteless jokes was derided; the amendment was about the throwing of sticks and stones, not name-calling. State Rep. Mark Cohen (D–Philadelphia) promised “This bill is not about what ministers or Sunday School teachers say. This bill is about what thugs, hooligans and murderers do.” It was about “blood in the streets” rather than bad jokes.

    Then came the homosexual sponsored “Outfest” in Philadelphia last fall.

    http://www.americandaily.com/article/6996
     
  2. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    wasn't this case dismissed though?
     
  3. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    I believe that it was dismissed because they did not want the Constitutionality of the law questioned. If the SCOTUS was to rule on the law it would be rendered unConstitutional.
     
  4. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Was anyone hurt when the ACLU stampeded to come to the aid of the Christians arrested for exercising their free speech rights?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    The entire idea of "hate speech" as a separate category from all speech needs to be rejected. Basically, liberals just call political speech they don't like "hate speech," and then try to ban it. It couldn't be any clearer what's going on, but the Supreme Court Jesters have accepted "hate speech" as a distinct category, subject to censorship.
     
  6. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    Just as a distinction is made between a shotgun and an assault rifle, so should there be a distinction between rhetoric and hate speech. Hate speech is designed to harrass, belittle, frighten, and demean. There is nothing defensive about it, it is purely offensive. Our government is obligated to take steps to protect us from those who would verbally accost others.
     
  7. Merlin
    Offline

    Merlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Ponchatoula, La.
    Ratings:
    +61
    I disagree!! When my Government tells me what I can and can not say, that is where we split the sheets and the war begins!!!!!!!!!!
     
  8. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    I think the hate speech laws are designed more to restrict when and where, not what is said. They are designed to prevent a person or group from being targeted for the sole purpose of harrassment. For instance, although hateful, signs that read "God hates fags" being carried in an anti-gay parade would not be hate speech. Carrying those same signs to a gay rally would be.
     
  9. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    You must seriously be kidding. Free speech means NOTHING if you ban any speech that is "offensive." The best speech DOES OFFEND. It's MEANT to harass and frighten. That's what "free" speech is all about!

    And anyway, WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THE DECISION about what's "hate" speech and what's "legal" speech? All you have to do to censor your enemies is declare whatever they have to say 'hate speech'!
     
  10. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    MissileMan Wrote:
    So according to your version of "free speech," missileman, a person would be more than allowed to express their views that homosexuality is a sin...just so long as they were nowhere near a gay person?

    How ludicrous.

    No one has the right to not be offended. No one has the right to not see anything that might upset them. This sort of thing is not protected anywhere in the Constitution, MissileMan...what IS protected is YOUR right to say whatever crazy thing you want, no matter how offensive to me, and MY right to call it such.

    Now, where you and I do agree, is when that speech becomes threatening, harrassing, or incites violence...it crosses free speech and becomes violence against another person. i.e. I don't have the "right" to cry "FIRE" in a crowded theater...nor does a person who is strongly against homosexuality have the right to say he is going to kill all gays while standing in front of a group of homosexuals. His statement would be making a threat...and we have laws about such things.

    While I personally find the statement, "God Hates Fags," repugnant in so many ways....you have the right to say it, I have the right to say it, and the people who actually believe it have the right to carry a sign with those words and stand beside a gay person...they are not threatening them...they are expressing their belief that homosexuality is a sin...and that their God hates that sin....and they are using their right to Free Speech to express that opinion....now carrying a sign that says "Kill All Fags," is enciting violence and is another matter altogether...

    To take away a persons right to disagree strongly, and perhaps offensively, with another person's views to their face, as you have suggested is to take away their right to free speech...and I find that as terrifying, if not more so, as an idiot with an offensive sign.
     

Share This Page