Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You can argue with anyone about practically anything.NewsVine was referring to meWhere did I call you a troll?No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.
oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?
That is the risk that it merely drives it underground, but at least we don't have to listen to it!Because they’re frightened and ignorant.You can argue with anyone about practically anything.NewsVine was referring to meWhere did I call you a troll?No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.
oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?
Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.
And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.
If we have to listen to libs like you then you should have to hear points of view that you dont likeThat is the risk that it merely drives it underground, but at least we don't have to listen to it!
But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.Because they’re frightened and ignorant.You can argue with anyone about practically anything.NewsVine was referring to meWhere did I call you a troll?No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.
oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?
Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.
And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.
But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.Because they’re frightened and ignorant.You can argue with anyone about practically anything.NewsVine was referring to meWhere did I call you a troll?No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.
oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?
Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.
And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.
And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.
Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the fuck out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......
If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then fuck it........why put up with any shit at all?
Racism is in the eye and certainly war of the beholder.
Three years ago I was in the Beverly Hills Vons. The seafood counter was unattended and a small group had gathered trying to find out when the clerk would be back. A young black employee responded to our questions by being very nasty. "It's not my problem. I don't get paid to answer your shit." As she flounced off I said "you are an exemplary employee. A real credit to the company. They should be glad to have you." She turned and came back demanding to know what I said. I happily repeated. She then went to get the manager as such racism was not tolerated. There were lots of witnesses to all confirmed to the manager what I said and quite happy to do so. The manager agreed with the employee that what I said was extremely racist there was nothing he could do about it. He got a clerk for the seafood counter,
That's what overt racism looks like,
Wouldn't be here if I didn't like to take on points I don't like.If we have to listen to libs like you then you should have to hear points of view that you dont likeThat is the risk that it merely drives it underground, but at least we don't have to listen to it!
Wouldn't be here if I didn't like to take on points I don't like.If we have to listen to libs like you then you should have to hear points of view that you dont likeThat is the risk that it merely drives it underground, but at least we don't have to listen to it!
The problem comes when criticism is made of a persons Race, Religion, based on nothing more than the fact they belong to it, or Colour, Sexuality something they were born with.
Someone calling me a white motherf***** however wouldn't be termed racist as I'm not in a minority!
Thats a good example of liberal insanitySomeone calling me a white motherf***** however wouldn't be termed racist as I'm not in a minority!
It depends partly on whether the Confederate flag is illegal, don't think it is here, But the non white guy would be arrested regardless for any one of a number of offences including attempted murder. At best he could hope for mitigating circumstances alleging he was provoked by a racist and it would be up to the jury to decide whether it was mitigation and to what degree But it would be unlikely to save him from a prison sentence.But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.Because they’re frightened and ignorant.You can argue with anyone about practically anything.NewsVine was referring to meWhere did I call you a troll?No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.
oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?
Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.
And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.
And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.
Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the fuck out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......
If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then fuck it........why put up with any shit at all?
I think you've expressed a lot of my personal sentiments right there.
Like everyone else I have my preferences, beliefs, etc. and don't shove them down other peoples throat. So, let me apply the laws to you in a hypothetical:
Suppose a white guy with a Confederate flag is run off the road by a non-white. They get into a tiff and the cops come along. So, did the fight happen because the guy with a Confederate flag "hate" non-whites OR was the result a fight ensued due to the fact that the non-white guy was an asshole and then made matters worse by engaging in mutual combat?
There no comparison between the UK where free speech does not exist and America where we are still free to speak our mind without going to jailIt depends partly on whether the Confederate flag is illegal, don't think it is here, But the non white guy would be arrested regardless for any one of a number of offences including attempted murder. At best he could hope for mitigating circumstances alleging he was provoked by a racist and it would be up to the jury to decide whether it was mitigation and to what degree But it would be unlikely to save him from a prison sentence.But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.Because they’re frightened and ignorant.You can argue with anyone about practically anything.NewsVine was referring to meWhere did I call you a troll?No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.
oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?
Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.
And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.
And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.
Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the fuck out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......
If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then fuck it........why put up with any shit at all?
I think you've expressed a lot of my personal sentiments right there.
Like everyone else I have my preferences, beliefs, etc. and don't shove them down other peoples throat. So, let me apply the laws to you in a hypothetical:
Suppose a white guy with a Confederate flag is run off the road by a non-white. They get into a tiff and the cops come along. So, did the fight happen because the guy with a Confederate flag "hate" non-whites OR was the result a fight ensued due to the fact that the non-white guy was an asshole and then made matters worse by engaging in mutual combat?
Running down the highway with a confederate flag would not be automatically seen as racist - he might just be a Dukes of Hazard fan.
We used to have Freedom of Expression as a written guarantee in this country. Since you don't have it, I realize you cannot relate to the question except to the extent that it is not unusual for a non-white to provoke a fight. Still, it is always the white guy's fault in the NEW WORLD ORDER.It depends partly on whether the Confederate flag is illegal, don't think it is here, But the non white guy would be arrested regardless for any one of a number of offences including attempted murder. At best he could hope for mitigating circumstances alleging he was provoked by a racist and it would be up to the jury to decide whether it was mitigation and to what degree But it would be unlikely to save him from a prison sentence.But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.Because they’re frightened and ignorant.You can argue with anyone about practically anything.NewsVine was referring to meWhere did I call you a troll?No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.
oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?
Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.
And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.
And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.
Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the fuck out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......
If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then fuck it........why put up with any shit at all?
I think you've expressed a lot of my personal sentiments right there.
Like everyone else I have my preferences, beliefs, etc. and don't shove them down other peoples throat. So, let me apply the laws to you in a hypothetical:
Suppose a white guy with a Confederate flag is run off the road by a non-white. They get into a tiff and the cops come along. So, did the fight happen because the guy with a Confederate flag "hate" non-whites OR was the result a fight ensued due to the fact that the non-white guy was an asshole and then made matters worse by engaging in mutual combat?
Running down the highway with a confederate flag would not be automatically seen as racist - he might just be a Dukes of Hazard fan.
A fight has nothing to do with freedom of expression. I don't believe you when you say the white guy is always at fault and would think like here both would be arrested regardless of who started it.We used to have Freedom of Expression as a written guarantee in this country. Since you don't have it, I realize you cannot relate to the question except to the extent that it is not unusual for a non-white to provoke a fight. Still, it is always the white guy's fault in the NEW WORLD ORDER.It depends partly on whether the Confederate flag is illegal, don't think it is here, But the non white guy would be arrested regardless for any one of a number of offences including attempted murder. At best he could hope for mitigating circumstances alleging he was provoked by a racist and it would be up to the jury to decide whether it was mitigation and to what degree But it would be unlikely to save him from a prison sentence.But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.Because they’re frightened and ignorant.You can argue with anyone about practically anything.NewsVine was referring to meWhere did I call you a troll?No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.
oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?
Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.
And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.
And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.
Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the fuck out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......
If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then fuck it........why put up with any shit at all?
I think you've expressed a lot of my personal sentiments right there.
Like everyone else I have my preferences, beliefs, etc. and don't shove them down other peoples throat. So, let me apply the laws to you in a hypothetical:
Suppose a white guy with a Confederate flag is run off the road by a non-white. They get into a tiff and the cops come along. So, did the fight happen because the guy with a Confederate flag "hate" non-whites OR was the result a fight ensued due to the fact that the non-white guy was an asshole and then made matters worse by engaging in mutual combat?
Running down the highway with a confederate flag would not be automatically seen as racist - he might just be a Dukes of Hazard fan.
Look up Terry Thompson in Harris county Texas.A fight has nothing to do with freedom of expression. I don't believe you when you say the white guy is always at fault and would think like here both would be arrested regardless of who started it.We used to have Freedom of Expression as a written guarantee in this country. Since you don't have it, I realize you cannot relate to the question except to the extent that it is not unusual for a non-white to provoke a fight. Still, it is always the white guy's fault in the NEW WORLD ORDER.It depends partly on whether the Confederate flag is illegal, don't think it is here, But the non white guy would be arrested regardless for any one of a number of offences including attempted murder. At best he could hope for mitigating circumstances alleging he was provoked by a racist and it would be up to the jury to decide whether it was mitigation and to what degree But it would be unlikely to save him from a prison sentence.But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.Because they’re frightened and ignorant.You can argue with anyone about practically anything.NewsVine was referring to meWhere did I call you a troll?No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.
oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?
Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.
And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.
And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.
Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the fuck out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......
If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then fuck it........why put up with any shit at all?
I think you've expressed a lot of my personal sentiments right there.
Like everyone else I have my preferences, beliefs, etc. and don't shove them down other peoples throat. So, let me apply the laws to you in a hypothetical:
Suppose a white guy with a Confederate flag is run off the road by a non-white. They get into a tiff and the cops come along. So, did the fight happen because the guy with a Confederate flag "hate" non-whites OR was the result a fight ensued due to the fact that the non-white guy was an asshole and then made matters worse by engaging in mutual combat?
Running down the highway with a confederate flag would not be automatically seen as racist - he might just be a Dukes of Hazard fan.
A fight has nothing to do with freedom of expression. I don't believe you when you say the white guy is always at fault and would think like here both would be arrested regardless of who started it.We used to have Freedom of Expression as a written guarantee in this country. Since you don't have it, I realize you cannot relate to the question except to the extent that it is not unusual for a non-white to provoke a fight. Still, it is always the white guy's fault in the NEW WORLD ORDER.It depends partly on whether the Confederate flag is illegal, don't think it is here, But the non white guy would be arrested regardless for any one of a number of offences including attempted murder. At best he could hope for mitigating circumstances alleging he was provoked by a racist and it would be up to the jury to decide whether it was mitigation and to what degree But it would be unlikely to save him from a prison sentence.But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.Because they’re frightened and ignorant.You can argue with anyone about practically anything.NewsVine was referring to meWhere did I call you a troll?No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.
oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?
Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.
And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.
And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.
Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the fuck out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......
If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then fuck it........why put up with any shit at all?
I think you've expressed a lot of my personal sentiments right there.
Like everyone else I have my preferences, beliefs, etc. and don't shove them down other peoples throat. So, let me apply the laws to you in a hypothetical:
Suppose a white guy with a Confederate flag is run off the road by a non-white. They get into a tiff and the cops come along. So, did the fight happen because the guy with a Confederate flag "hate" non-whites OR was the result a fight ensued due to the fact that the non-white guy was an asshole and then made matters worse by engaging in mutual combat?
Running down the highway with a confederate flag would not be automatically seen as racist - he might just be a Dukes of Hazard fan.
Look up Terry Thompson in Harris county Texas.A fight has nothing to do with freedom of expression. I don't believe you when you say the white guy is always at fault and would think like here both would be arrested regardless of who started it.We used to have Freedom of Expression as a written guarantee in this country. Since you don't have it, I realize you cannot relate to the question except to the extent that it is not unusual for a non-white to provoke a fight. Still, it is always the white guy's fault in the NEW WORLD ORDER.It depends partly on whether the Confederate flag is illegal, don't think it is here, But the non white guy would be arrested regardless for any one of a number of offences including attempted murder. At best he could hope for mitigating circumstances alleging he was provoked by a racist and it would be up to the jury to decide whether it was mitigation and to what degree But it would be unlikely to save him from a prison sentence.But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.Because they’re frightened and ignorant.You can argue with anyone about practically anything.NewsVine was referring to meWhere did I call you a troll?No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.
oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?
Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.
And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.
And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.
Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the fuck out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......
If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then fuck it........why put up with any shit at all?
I think you've expressed a lot of my personal sentiments right there.
Like everyone else I have my preferences, beliefs, etc. and don't shove them down other peoples throat. So, let me apply the laws to you in a hypothetical:
Suppose a white guy with a Confederate flag is run off the road by a non-white. They get into a tiff and the cops come along. So, did the fight happen because the guy with a Confederate flag "hate" non-whites OR was the result a fight ensued due to the fact that the non-white guy was an asshole and then made matters worse by engaging in mutual combat?
Running down the highway with a confederate flag would not be automatically seen as racist - he might just be a Dukes of Hazard fan.
He was attacked by a drunk, defended himself, held the guy down and the drunk died.
He was tried twice as the DA didn't get the politically correct verdict she wanted the first time.
He's doing 25 to life.
I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.
Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...
Conservatives are at complete liberty to engage in hate speech, to express their fear, ignorance, bigotry, racism, and hate absent government preemption or regulation – and no one seeks to change that fact.
