CDZ Hate speech leads to hate killings

[Tilly]

Tommy: We all have a responsibility to treat others as we would wish to be treated

OMG. Hypocrisy, thy name is TOMMY

 

[saveliberty]

and Trump doing more talk this morning on FOX . VIDEO !! --- Trump: 'I Think Islam Hates Us' --- good to see Trump exercising his Free Speech RIGHTS Tommy !!

People will get stirred up and innocent folk will die.
Thats probably not on his radar but it will happen.

So you can support hate talk and participate in spreading it, but at the same time you condemn it in others. Hypocrite heal thyself.

 

[saveliberty]

I would like the board to report Tommy to the proper international authorities as he spreads hate speech and has linked that to violence against others. He's a ticking bomb.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Its ironic that a thread about hate speech can be trolled with hate speech. I suppose name calling doesnt require any evidence to back it up ?

 

[saveliberty]

Its ironic that a thread about hate speech can be trolled with hate speech. I suppose name calling doesnt require any evidence to back it up ?

The thread is a troll thread by the OP. One person's troll is another's champion of freedom. Take a look around, no one is agreeing with you in the least. I on the other hand have considerable support.

 

[pismoe]

and Trump doing more talk this morning on FOX . VIDEO !! --- Trump: 'I Think Islam Hates Us' --- good to see Trump exercising his Free Speech RIGHTS Tommy !!

People will get stirred up and innocent folk will die.
Thats probably not on his radar but it will happen.

------------------------------------- Can't limit his Free and Truthful speech in the USA although limiting 'free speech' has been done in your homeland Tommy !!

 

[saveliberty]

The way I see this thread unfolding you have four choices:

1. Get all my posts deleted.
2. Get the thread deleted.
3. STFU.
4. Blabber on about how terrible hate speech is, while we look on knowing who and what you are.

 

[Tilly]

and Trump doing more talk this morning on FOX . VIDEO !! --- Trump: 'I Think Islam Hates Us' --- good to see Trump exercising his Free Speech RIGHTS Tommy !!

People will get stirred up and innocent folk will die.
Thats probably not on his radar but it will happen.

------------------------------------- Can't limit his Free and Truthful speech in the USA although limiting 'free speech' has been done in your homeland Tommy !!

Tommy is all for limiting free speech. He wanted Trump banned from the UK, and he refers to banning people such as Ben Shapiro from speaking at universities 'protecting students' and exhibiting 'a duty of care'.

 

[saveliberty]

In the mean time, shall we delve into how you plan to express your hatred in a physical act?

 

[Tilly]

Surprised ... he ... hasn't had the thread scrubbed yet...

Interesting study in internal conflict and free speech.

Note scrubbed post. Nick name taken as name calling. One person's hate is another's accurate nick name. Tommy reported it, just as I anticipated.

Awwww. Did you hate speech him???
Seriously though, can you post on the Tommy communism thread (Badlands) what this 'nick name' is? I'm intrigued as to what upset him so

 

[Tilly]

Its ironic that a thread about hate speech can be trolled with hate speech. I suppose name calling doesnt require any evidence to back it up ?

You refer to posters as bitches, slags, sluts, whores, wankers, fascists and nazis on a regular basis and without provocation. The irony and your sanctimonious whining here is just too funny. Thanks

 

[Tilly]

In the mean time, shall we delve into how you plan to express your hatred in a physical act?

Yes, because as we all know 'Hate speech leads to hate killings'.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The way I see this thread unfolding you have four choices:

1. Get all my posts deleted.
2. Get the thread deleted.
3. STFU.
4. Blabber on about how terrible hate speech is, while we look on knowing who and what you are.

An impassioned defence of the first amendment.

 

[Tilly]

Its ironic that a thread about hate speech can be trolled with hate speech.

It's ironic that a person who uses hate speech 24/7 starts a thread whining about hate speech.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The OP is not the topic of this thread. If you can't discuss the subject matter then leave

 

[Tommy Tainant]

This is a good example.
Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric spreads coast to coast, what are we becoming?

A few years ago there was a major campaign by a British paper to introduce a law to out Paedos. The language they used was inflammatory and roused up some of their more simplistic readers. None of them were particularly clever.

Anyway they went away and attacked the house of someone they thought was a paedo.

The problem was these thickos attacked the house of a local Paediatrician.

The press and politicos have a responsibility to measure their output when their audience is not bright.

Doctor driven out of home by vigilantes

 

[Agit8r]

The man deserves to be in jail for rest of his life. That being said, I find hate crime laws to be redundant and unnecessary.

That a take I'm not accustomed to encountering. How are hate crimes laws redundant?

We already have laws that punish criminal acts. The additional punishments added by these laws don't deter criminal acts and come hauntingly close to thought crimes in my opinion.

Well gee, I suppose that premeditation shouldn't affect murder sentencing either

 

[defcon4]

The man deserves to be in jail for rest of his life. That being said, I find hate crime laws to be redundant and unnecessary.

That a take I'm not accustomed to encountering. How are hate crimes laws redundant?

We already have laws that punish criminal acts. The additional punishments added by these laws don't deter criminal acts and come hauntingly close to thought crimes in my opinion.

Well gee, I suppose that premeditation shouldn't affect murder sentencing either

You just agreed to MDK's post. Motive, such as hate is covered under premeditation....

 

[320 Years of History]

That a take I'm not accustomed to encountering. How are hate crimes laws redundant?

There is no such thing as hate crime. Either an act is crime or not. So called hate crime was created to circumvent "double jeopardy" therefore one could be tried for the same action twice.

Although I recognize the "double jeopardy" principle as a legitimate one to consider in the evaluation of hate crimes legislation, where one should arrive after considering it is that it makes no sense that a primary aim of hate crime laws is to increase citizens' exposure to potentially being prosecuted multiple times for the same crime.

Your assertion, therefore, is implausible and unsubstantiated to the extent that it is not accurate, and it's not for several reasons:

• R.A.V. v City of St. Paul (1992) -- SCOTUS unanimously made it clear that the extent of expression that rises to the level of a hate crime is pretty hard to achieve. In that case, R.A.V. -- presumably a white person but R.A.V. isn't expressly identified as such; however, s/he certainly is not black -- burnt a cross on an African American's lawn. R.A.V. was a juvenile; however, the SCOTUS did not hold that minors are necessarily assumed to be incapable of hate or acting upon its motivations.
  
  Among the substantive impacts of that decision is greatly increased difficulty in proving the verity of a crime's having been motivated by hatred. No surprise SCOTUS saw it that way for one can do a whole lot of heinous things to all manners of person and property and not have been inspired to do so by one's hatred for one or several innate and unalterable qualities of the person's nature, that is, the individual's race, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or ethnicity. (Yes, one's religion is alterable, but eyes of the law, one's faith, almost without exception, has the same status as one's race, ethnicity, nationality, and gender.)
  
  One's 1st Amendment rights are what SCOTUS asserted impel a high bar pertaining to expression. Although whether** I agree with the SCOTUS is irrelevant, I do agree with the SCOTUS.
  
• Wilson v. Mitchell (1993) -- SCOTUS unanimously stated that increased sentences for such crimes, do not penalize the defendant for his or her bigoted beliefs or statements, but rather for the predicted ramifications of his or her crime.
• Dual sovereignty -- Hate crimes laws or not, one could already be charged in both state and federal court for the same deed. Thus the hate crimes legislation wasn't needed for the ostensible end of trying one twice for the same conduct.

Given the above (I'm trusting you'll read the linked content I provided, for to keep this post shorter, I haven't laid out all the details and discussion contained in that content.), what it makes sense to infer about hate crime laws is that they aim to allow judges/jurisdictions to impose stiffer sentences for conduct inspired by hate and/or bias. In contrast, there is nothing indicating the inference you've drawn and presented -- that hate crime laws exist to "to circumvent [the] "double jeopardy" prohibition of the 5th Amendment.

**Note:
Apologies for the ostensibly pedantic linking on "whether." I've observed a few folks' struggling with words that have doubt and/or conditionality as part of their meaning. Thus the link.

 

[saveliberty]

This is a good example.
Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric spreads coast to coast, what are we becoming?

A few years ago there was a major campaign by a British paper to introduce a law to out Paedos. The language they used was inflammatory and roused up some of their more simplistic readers. None of them were particularly clever.

Anyway they went away and attacked the house of someone they thought was a paedo.

The problem was these thickos attacked the house of a local Paediatrician.

The press and politicos have a responsibility to measure their output when their audience is not bright.

Doctor driven out of home by vigilantes

Hate laws do not reduce the fallout from the press or politicians comments, they simply add to the penalty if a conviction occurs. This post does not support your position. Also it is antidotal as not every inflammatory comment by the press or a politician results in violence as a response. Poor debating to be sure.