USMB racial censorship question.

[Muhammed]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

Only they can tell you the actual reason and since the 1st amendment's protection of freedom of speech doesn't apply to this board because they are not a government entity, it would still seem to me that because of the history of the word and the racial hatred and violence against black people in the United States, it falls under the fighting words doctrine:

Fighting Words

Fighting Words​

Overview​

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."​

​

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.​

Non-Exhaustive List of SCOTUS Cases Invoking the Fighting Words Doctrine​

The following cases show some of the instances in which the Supreme Court has invoked the fighting words doctrine. As shown, the scope of the doctrine changes between various cases.​

Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)​

In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and causes unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).​

Feiner v. New York (1951)​

In Feiner v. People of State of New York, 30 U.S. 315 (1951), the Supreme Court held that akin to the fighting words doctrine, an incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment.​

Texas v. Johnson (1989)​

In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." In the case, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.`​

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)​

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.​

 

[Captain Caveman]

Cracker won't, it's aimed at whites. The current political mayhem on racism means it's only deemed racist if aimed at a black/brown person. I'm white British.

 

[Muhammed]

It would be really cool if USMB would make a statement regarding this matter.

But we all know they won't.

They are too chickenshit.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

First off, I'm seeing you have the word on the board, so it's not censored, at least not yet.
As to the difference between the words, it was the beginning of the left's goal of attacking the Constitution's First Amendment. In their eyes, "words that offend," especially offensive words to minorities, should not be protected speech. Eventually they amped it up to call words that offend, "micro-aggressions." They then amped it up again by claiming that "micro-aggressions," were actually "violence." To Marxists, the "freedom of speech" must be curtailed to ensure their success.
I don't use it myself, and I rarely swear, but, in your personal life, you are free to say it all you want, however, I'd suggest you be careful where you were and who you were with when you said it. You might end up with a large number of black fists raining down on you if you do.
As for the words honkey and cracker, they are words used by a supposed oppressed minority (which in actuality, they aren't) towards the majority whites, thus it is considered acceptable. It's just part of the ongoing Marxist agenda, with the goal being to divide the population to conquer.
Personally, if someone were to call me a honkey or a cracker, or any other negative or derogatory words towards me, I would just ignore it. They're just words and for some, words may cause hurt feelings, but they aren't actually violence. Bottom line is that I'm a big boy and can handle insults.

 

[JGalt]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

Only they can tell you the actual reason and since the 1st amendment's protection of freedom of speech doesn't apply to this board because they are not a government entity, it would still seem to me that because of the history of the word and the racial hatred and violence against black people in the United States, it falls under the fighting words doctrine:

Fighting Words

Fighting Words​

Overview​

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."​

​

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.​

Non-Exhaustive List of SCOTUS Cases Invoking the Fighting Words Doctrine​

The following cases show some of the instances in which the Supreme Court has invoked the fighting words doctrine. As shown, the scope of the doctrine changes between various cases.​

​

Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)​

In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and causes unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).​

​

Feiner v. New York (1951)​

In Feiner v. People of State of New York, 30 U.S. 315 (1951), the Supreme Court held that akin to the fighting words doctrine, an incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment.​

​

Texas v. Johnson (1989)​

In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." In the case, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.`​

​

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)​

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.​

Is that why so many black folks are killing each other?

They must use that word a lot. I've been called honky, cracker, peckerwood, hillbilly, redneck, whitey, bumpkin, good ol' boy, white trash, and trailer-dweller, but I've never had the urge to shoot anyone over it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

They must use that word a lot. I've been called honky, cracker, peckerwood, hillbilly, redneck, whitey, bumpkin, good ol' boy, white trash, and trailer-dweller, but I've never had the urge to shoot anyone over it.

Hell not only have I been called those names, I have been everyone of those names...

Not one person have I shot in this life...

 

[JGalt]

They must use that word a lot. I've been called honky, cracker, peckerwood, hillbilly, redneck, whitey, bumpkin, good ol' boy, white trash, and trailer-dweller, but I've never had the urge to shoot anyone over it.

Hell not only have I been called those names, I have been everyone of those names...

Not one person have I shot in this life...

The magic skin must be thin, indeed. But mine's a thick as a Rhino. The only thing anyone could call me that would piss me off, is late for supper.

 

[Muhammed]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

Only they can tell you the actual reason and since the 1st amendment's protection of freedom of speech doesn't apply to this board because they are not a government entity, it would still seem to me that because of the history of the word and the racial hatred and violence against black people in the United States, it falls under the fighting words doctrine:

Fighting Words

Fighting Words​

Overview​

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."​

​

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.​

Non-Exhaustive List of SCOTUS Cases Invoking the Fighting Words Doctrine​

The following cases show some of the instances in which the Supreme Court has invoked the fighting words doctrine. As shown, the scope of the doctrine changes between various cases.​

​

Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)​

In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and causes unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).​

​

Feiner v. New York (1951)​

In Feiner v. People of State of New York, 30 U.S. 315 (1951), the Supreme Court held that akin to the fighting words doctrine, an incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment.​

​

Texas v. Johnson (1989)​

In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." In the case, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.`​

​

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)​

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.​

Is that why so many black folks are killing each other?

Aren't you woke?

it's a vast right wing conspiracy of white supremacists who are murdering the blacks in ChicaGO.

 

[Votto]

To be fair, it is censored pretty much everywhere

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

Because we allow blacks to dictate words that are perfectly acceptable IF you are black.

And whites arent thin skinned

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Cracker won't, it's aimed at whites. The current political mayhem on racism means it's only deemed racist if aimed at a black/brown person. I'm white British.

All British are white. The rest are COLONIZERS

 

[JGalt]

To be fair, it is censored pretty much everywhere

To be fair, it is censored pretty much everywhere

Apparently if you're a rich liberal Jewish movie producer or a young black film maker, you get applauded for using the word.

I am now self-identifying as a young, rich, black, Jewish movie maker, so I can say that word as many times as I want.

 

[White 6]

They must use that word a lot. I've been called honky, cracker, peckerwood, hillbilly, redneck, whitey, bumpkin, good ol' boy, white trash, and trailer-dweller, but I've never had the urge to shoot anyone over it.

Hell not only have I been called those names, I have been everyone of those names...

Not one person have I shot in this life...

You are lucky. Sounds like you intentionally pissed a lot of people off.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Beyond that, there has always been a double standard in this forum based upon race where the black posters are held to no standard whatsoever. They can talk openly about wanting to kill white children, make personal threats against other posters, and troll relentlessly, yet not once have I seen even a single black poster temporarily banned.

 

[Rocko]

I never understood why the n word is the worst racial slur. As far as I’m concerned all racial/ethnic/religious slurs are equally as bad.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This is what happens when anyone gets into selective censorship..... cracker is just as offensive as the N word

 

[Larsky]

In before the lock!

 

[Sunsettommy]

It would be really cool if USMB would make a statement regarding this matter.

But we all know they won't.

They are too chickenshit.

The Moderators are not the ones to be driving the Forum policy system, that is the responsibility of the owners who are rarely here, thus the neglect of these Administrator forces some of the Moderators to step in and do something, that is why it isn't coherent.

The board is bloated, the policies are too numerous and contradictory and the chronic rulebreakers gets too many chances to continue here.

The real problem are the lack of active oversight of the Administrator team.

 

[Muhammed]

To be fair, it is censored pretty much everywhere

^
Typical Democrats.