Should Legislation Be Passed Making Overt Racism a Criminal Offense?

[toomuchtime_]

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...

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.

It was the USA who saved your asses in two world wars, also gave your nation a bucketful of money to help recover from WW2,

It was the American Constitution that spawned the great age for the rest of the world, while you European retards tried to steal a lot of land through Colonialism, which later gets rejected, sometimes violently.

Recall hyper racist South Africa, a long running British colony who disfranchised the black population for decades, overtly refused them to have a voice in the government.

You are one very ignorant jackass!

And Washington was a traitor and slave owner but none of this has anything to do with the op's question!

Still his point that you are an ignorant jackass stands. The legislation was passed in 1964 in the Civil Rights Act.

 

[freyasman]

Where did I call you a troll?

NewsVine was referring to me

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...

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.

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?

No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.
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 argue with anyone about practically anything.
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?

Because they’re frightened and ignorant.

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.

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 **** 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 **** 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?

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.
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.

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.

OMG. Where did you get lost in this analogy? Let's try again:

Confederate guy is driving down the road with his Confederate flag waving in the wind

Non-white cuts off the Confederate guy

A pissing match ensues

The non-white guy started the fight

Under U.S. law, the Confederate guy is guilty even though he did not start the fight and the Confederate guy presupposes he still had Freedom and Liberty. The Confederate guy is guilty because we have hate laws. By policy, only whites have the capacity to hate. So, where, exactly, did you get lost?

Thought you said the guy with a confederate flag (why do you assume he is a Confederate) was running down the road. But no matter as I said in the last post. Don't know what the laws are in America thought you said you didn't have any hate laws!

Our governor signed a hate law yesterday. It's basically a state issue at present. Much to the delight of the Monarchy we sought our independence from, it appears that your tyrannical asses have risen from the grave to now bury the descendants of those who fought, bled and died in the cause of Liberty. BTW, if you have a Confederate flag (mere possession) the liberals assume you are Ku Klux Klan member.

I got my wife a confederate flag bikini when we were down at Kure Beach in the Carolinas once.

She looked real, real good in it.

 

[Coyote]

I voted "no"...have not read entire thread though. My concerns are multiple.

It is hard to define, clearly and legally. What would constitute "overt racism".

It could raise serious issues with free speech.

I disagree with it for the same reason I also disagree with Holocaust Denial laws, it drives the hate underground, where it can fester and grow unchallenged, and it gives them "righteous victimhood" with which to gain support. Sunshine is best.

We already have laws against many forms of overt racist acts in housing, employment, etc.

 

[Coyote]

can you give some examples

Racism is about more than speech. Overt racism is illegal now, but the laws are poorly enforced, if they are enforced at all. So stronger penalties need to be assessed when there is a violation and lax enforcement should be penalized.

Can you give some examples of poor enforcement and penalties?

 

[Coyote]

So, you want to look people up for holding the wrong opinions?

Exactly so

libs want to revoke free speech

I've made the point that liberals obvoiusly hate us, and yet are angry that we don't support them politically.


Which really shows what delusional, and entitled assholes they are.


They generally claimed they did not hate us.


Now we see were they were headed all along. And we all knew it.


When will it stop being "loony" to call these people Marxists?

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...

There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level. I voted no. Hate crime laws are precursor to what was called "thought crimes" in the old George Orwell novel 1984 . When we begin legislating on what people can and cannot think, we are returning to what the colonists came here to get away from in the first place. What happens next? Will some ugly guy say that women who won't go out with him should be jailed because he thinks those women are haters?

Well thank you for at least letting me explain what I was trying to say. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with what anyone thinks, feels or believes, it's what they do but I will admit this was prompted by the 3 Wilmington North Carolina police officers who were fired for racist and violent comments they made while on the job.

The state of California has a certain category of defamatory offenses in which the harm caused by the defamation does not have to be proven, it's considered defamation per se.

In some states, libel can sometimes be charged as a crime and be punishable by a fine and jail time.

The categories of defamation per se are

• Charges any person with crime…;
• Imputes in a person the existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
• Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business…
• Imputes to a person impotence or a want of chastity; or
• Which, by natural consequence, causes damage

So I was wondering if something similar could be crafted along those lines with a similar concept. We know calling the police on people when the activity they were engaged in was not unlawful can be humiliating, traumatic, can result in lost wages or even a lost job which in turn can lead to late payments for housing or loss of housing, child care, etc.

I am aware that laws do not stop behavior however knowing that there is a pre-determined penalty or punishment for engaging in certain behaviors which causes harm to others that the targeted party can utilize may bring some sense of justice or move towards feeling whole again.

The opposition to legislation of this type is what I was wanting to hear mostly because from my perspective it could be helpful (for those targeted by racism, not for the racist, I can't believe I even have to say this).

I think it can be very difficult to prove. I see your point though regarding the damage false police calls can do. But how can you prove it is racism? The bar for proof in hate crimes is high for a good reason.

 

[Mac-7]

Make these ignorant, paranoid mouth-breathers go underground and it gets tougher, and we still haven't solved the root problem.

That reminds me a lot of the sign that reads “The beatings will continue till morale improves.”

the left silences free speech when they fire editors or expel college students for horrible racist quotes such as “all lives matter”

I dont agree with mob rule whether its the KKK or BLM

 

[Correll]

So, you want to look people up for holding the wrong opinions?

Exactly so

libs want to revoke free speech

I've made the point that liberals obvoiusly hate us, and yet are angry that we don't support them politically.


Which really shows what delusional, and entitled assholes they are.


They generally claimed they did not hate us.


Now we see were they were headed all along. And we all knew it.


When will it stop being "loony" to call these people Marxists?

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...

There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level. I voted no. Hate crime laws are precursor to what was called "thought crimes" in the old George Orwell novel 1984 . When we begin legislating on what people can and cannot think, we are returning to what the colonists came here to get away from in the first place. What happens next? Will some ugly guy say that women who won't go out with him should be jailed because he thinks those women are haters?

Well thank you for at least letting me explain what I was trying to say. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with what anyone thinks, feels or believes, it's what they do but I will admit this was prompted by the 3 Wilmington North Carolina police officers who were fired for racist and violent comments they made while on the job.

The state of California has a certain category of defamatory offenses in which the harm caused by the defamation does not have to be proven, it's considered defamation per se.

In some states, libel can sometimes be charged as a crime and be punishable by a fine and jail time.

The categories of defamation per se are

• Charges any person with crime…;
• Imputes in a person the existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
• Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business…
• Imputes to a person impotence or a want of chastity; or
• Which, by natural consequence, causes damage

So I was wondering if something similar could be crafted along those lines with a similar concept. We know calling the police on people when the activity they were engaged in was not unlawful can be humiliating, traumatic, can result in lost wages or even a lost job which in turn can lead to late payments for housing or loss of housing, child care, etc.

I am aware that laws do not stop behavior however knowing that there is a pre-determined penalty or punishment for engaging in certain behaviors which causes harm to others that the targeted party can utilize may bring some sense of justice or move towards feeling whole again.

The opposition to legislation of this type is what I was wanting to hear mostly because from my perspective it could be helpful (for those targeted by racism, not for the racist, I can't believe I even have to say this).

I think it can be very difficult to prove. I see your point though regarding the damage false police calls can do. But how can you prove it is racism? The bar for proof in hate crimes is high for a good reason.

The point is to use the power of the state against your political enemies. To silence them, either though actual force or fear of that force.


A terrorized population will submit to the needed reforms and the oh so smart liberals can finally create the utopia that has always been just out of reach, because of the Evul Wacist republicans.


I hope I live to see this wonderful world they are building. It must be fantastic to be worth such a price to pay.

 

[Aletheia4u]

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...

I thought that it was already against the law.

Hate crime laws in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yeah calling me a troll simply because I'm not interested in engaging in conversation with you i

One the first thread you posted in the bullring you never engaged anyone

this time you have at least dipped your toe in the water

We had an informal debate that lasted from midnight last Saturday night to midnight on Sunday. It was open for participation by the people who were invited for 24 hours, the thread titled just wasn't prefaced as the Bull Ring

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

but I will admit this was prompted by the 3 Wilmington North Carolina police officers who were fired for racist and violent comments they made while on the job.

Being fired for opinions that your employer disagrees with is far different from serving hard time for exercising your first amendment right to free speech

Are you aware that SCOTUS has determined that cross burnings by the Ku Klux Klan is protected first amendment freedom of speech? Even though they know that this is an intentional means of intimidation and terrorization of black people by white supremacists. But hey, white racists are gonna cover for other white racists.

You know this guy here, who is a white supremacist, claimed he was exercising his first amendment rights when he killed his victims:
Oregon man gets life without parole for killing 2 on Portland train after hate-filled tirade

Life without parole is too good for him as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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...

Stupid question. Make racism a crime? Aside from the fact that racism is a totally SUBJECTIVE thing, a thing of PERCEPTION, it is an ATTITUDE. You really think we want to go down that road of following Canada in making it a crime if someone doesn't LIKE what they think you said or did? Or their belief in the INTENT? Much less criminalize what you think, choose to LIKE or DISLIKE? Punish you for attitudes and wrong thinking?

Why don't you just go suck George Orwell's dick and be done with it. This is trying to shift America 180° from what it was founded to be---- tolerance of differences and protection of those whom disagreed with you. Just flush America down the toilet of fascism and be done with it.

Of course that's only a one way "crime." Blacks can never be racist

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually.

Are we talking about simple expression, or harrassment and acts of malice as well?

I'm not talking about thoughts, feelings or beliefs, I speaking of action which results in damages, which is why I was asking about the feasibility of statutory damages.

For example, there are two members of U.S. Message Board whom have racial and religious animosity towards me. Actually there are more but these two have been extreme to the point where I've asked them to stay off of my threads and to cease and desist their communications to/with/about me. Of course being told to stop only makes them take the stance of "who does she think she is, and I'm going to show her she can't tell me what to do or make me do ANYTHING".

Because I've asked them to discontinue there unwanted behavior towards me, they've acknowledged that they've been told to discontinue said behavior ONLY IN RESPECT TO ME, they're continuing to do so, if what the legal fields calls prima facie evidence (the evidence speaks for itself so to speak) that their behavior is INTENTIONAL after they've been told it's unwanted.

They've been doing this for several years and most recently just a day ago even after again being reminded of the cease and desist.

Every time they post a comment to/about/etc. me, they reset the clock on the statute of limitatation and the statute starts running again from the beginning. And each post is one more piece of evidence of deliberate harassment.

Now these two are just an example, and because it's online it's in a slightly different category, but I believe I've mentioned elsewhere people who call the police on you when you're not engaged in unlawful behavior, which can start a domino effect of consequences, which I will not outline here, is another example. If you access the case files for that police agency for these types of reporting and categorize them by gender, race, nationality, etc. you can use that data to support your case and or the case of others. You can also look into the person who made the call - we all remember Amy in Central Park behaving hysterically and falsely telling the police a black guy was threatening her. I would pull every tangible piece of documentation that exists, find out if and who else she has done this to, and talk to them, pooling resources and knowledge.

Legislation does not necessarily mean the criminal code. In fact sometimes you can get more done utilizing the civil system because you don't have to rely on the police & prosecutor's office to make a determination that your case is deserving of their assistance. And the threshold to prevail is only 51% versus the 98% it's said is needed to prevail in a criminal case (beyond reasonable doubt).

I'm just bouncing around a couple of ideas because after those 3 racist cops in Wilmington North Carolina stated to the investigator that they're not racist, we have to start working on something. Things can't go one the way they do.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The fact that you even asked this shows how truly fucked up you are as a person.

And your response indicates concern that you'd be adversely impacted by any such legislation (because you exhibit racist proclivitives).

So do you.
This is an example of how you're always trying to get an advantage over others; you want a charge you can level at anyone, anytime, for anything, so in the event they ever start to do better than you and yours, you can sic the power of government on them in order to destroy them, so you can take what they have.


The answer is "No." We won't be having these laws you fantasize about.

Well from that comment you're most definitely the one fantasizing lol.

You're waay off the mark, but all things in good time.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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...

Stupid question. Make racism a crime? Aside from the fact that racism is a totally SUBJECTIVE thing, a thing of PERCEPTION, it is an ATTITUDE. You really think we want to go down that road of following Canada in making it a crime if someone doesn't LIKE what they think you said or did? Or their belief in the INTENT? Much less criminalize what you think, choose to LIKE or DISLIKE? Punish you for attitudes and wrong thinking?

Why don't you just go suck George Orwell's dick and be done with it. This is trying to shift America 180° from what it was founded to be---- tolerance of differences and protection of those whom disagreed with you. Just flush America down the toilet of fascism and be done with it.

Apparently I have been giving you all far more credit than you've deserved since the legislation I mentioned already exists.

The potty mouth doesn't help your case at all.

Stupid idiot response. First asks a question then gets pissed when getting back an accurate, insightful, erudite answer because it doesn't fit your progressive agenda. F off, dickweed.

Okay, don't make me tell your mommy on you lol

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

By policy, only whites have the capacity to hate. So, where, exactly, did you get lost?

That is not true.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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...

No, because the next thing you'll is decide something is racist that you don't like, just like you are doing now, and then you're a criminal for no reason.

I don't know any decent people who "like" racism or racists.

 

[Issa]

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...

Most cons would be in jail.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I voted "no"...have not read entire thread though. My concerns are multiple.

It is hard to define, clearly and legally. What would constitute "overt racism".

It could raise serious issues with free speech.

I disagree with it for the same reason I also disagree with Holocaust Denial laws, it drives the hate underground, where it can fester and grow unchallenged, and it gives them "righteous victimhood" with which to gain support. Sunshine is best.

We already have laws against many forms of overt racist acts in housing, employment, etc.

Those laws allow for civil actions, not criminal although in the City of Seattle if your employer refuses to pay you, you can file a complaint against him with the prosecutor's officer and they can initiate a criminal case against him for wage theft.

Something like that would be nice, but then again this is fairly easily proven.

 

[freyasman]

The fact that you even asked this shows how truly fucked up you are as a person.

And your response indicates concern that you'd be adversely impacted by any such legislation (because you exhibit racist proclivitives).

So do you.
This is an example of how you're always trying to get an advantage over others; you want a charge you can level at anyone, anytime, for anything, so in the event they ever start to do better than you and yours, you can sic the power of government on them in order to destroy them, so you can take what they have.


The answer is "No." We won't be having these laws you fantasize about.

Well from that comment you're most definitely the one fantasizing lol.

You're waay off the mark, but all things in good time.

No, you just want to be able to sic the cops and the courts on people you don't like.

We won't be having any of that.

 

[freyasman]

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...

No, because the next thing you'll is decide something is racist that you don't like, just like you are doing now, and then you're a criminal for no reason.

I don't know any decent people who "like" racism or racists.

I don't know any decent people who call everyone they don't like racist.