Libs demand government study on hate speech

[hazlnut]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

First Amendment -- it's that thing that the Westboro Baptist Church, NAMBLA, Skinheads, and Anti-Americans like Alex Jones hide behind.

Time to take another look at "fire in a crowded movie house". How about "kill in a crowded chat room". Or "here's his home address" on Facebook?? Not okay. They should be seen as speech crimes just like Treason or incitement. Any reckless disregard for the safety of others -- left or right -- you try to cause harm through speech -- you should go to jail.

Another Stalinist reveals his cloven hoof.

Did you want to comment specifically on which examples I gave indicate I'm a "stalinist" ??

You realize that NAMBLA promote pedophile?

They claim they are just expressing their "views" when telling members how to seduce and molest boys.

Are supporting the potation of their "speech"?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are overreacting -- making assumptions based on your own fear of Government or whatever it is you fear.

Hate speech is like obscenity -- a clearly defined standard as having no socially redeeming quality or purpose.

A poster on this site refers to President Obama as a "chimp" -- that is beyond ignorant. It is playing into the lowest form of human being, the extreme and violent racist. This is not a two-sided "opinion", this is a universal truth. Like women having sex with pigs is obscene, this poster is obscene and his hate speech has no place in our society.

Intelligent people can discern between hate and hyper or extreme partisanship. Calling Obama ia socialist is hyper-partisanship or political speech that, though ignorant, is not likely to rally the those prone to violence. It is a legitimate (but weak) means to question left-leaning policies.

That is the difference.

And calling Sarah Palin a whore?
Yeah we thought so. Some pigs are more equal than others, eh Comrade? You should be institutionalized.

False analogy.

Try again.

Stop straw manning and stick to what I said.

Calling her a whore is just ugly and tasteless partisan speech.

So please explain the difference between calling Sarah Palin a whore and calling Barack Obama a chimp.
This ought to be good.

 

[The Rabbi]

First Amendment -- it's that thing that the Westboro Baptist Church, NAMBLA, Skinheads, and Anti-Americans like Alex Jones hide behind.

Time to take another look at "fire in a crowded movie house". How about "kill in a crowded chat room". Or "here's his home address" on Facebook?? Not okay. They should be seen as speech crimes just like Treason or incitement. Any reckless disregard for the safety of others -- left or right -- you try to cause harm through speech -- you should go to jail.

Another Stalinist reveals his cloven hoof.

Did you want to comment specifically on which examples I gave indicate I'm a "stalinist" ??

You realize that NAMBLA promote pedophile?

They claim they are just expressing their "views" when telling members how to seduce and molest boys.

Are supporting the potation of their "speech"?

Once you prohibit speech for skinheads, prohibiting it for everyone else you dont like comes next. There is no real way to distinguish the two other than "I dont like X".
If you dont like hate speech, don't engage in it.

 

[hazlnut]

They just want to create a huge government funded propaganda organ. that's all this will ever be. There is no objective definition of "hate." Anyone chose to work on this would necessarily be a quack.

You think so little of our country.

We came up with a legal standard and definition of Obscenity.

We can better define "hate" speech as something specifically intended to do harm.

Obscenity is easy to define....for even if your intent is to NOT be obscene, fucking in public is obscene.

But you can not use the same with speech. For how would one know what your intent was?

Logic - a close and reasonable examination of the context, the audience, the purpose, the outcome.

Example...

"don't go out with that guy. He is a jerk"

My intent was to protect the woman....but maybe her father heard me say it and decided to beat the shit out of the guy because he didn't want his daughter dating a jerk.

So am I at fault for inciting the violence?

I know...silly analogy.....but the point is there.

Bad example. No REASONABLE person would believe that you intended the person harm.

If the guy was black and you ranted about him being a "chimp", less than human, and then implied that he should be taught a lesson, then gave the father the address = hate speech.

People say things designed to motivate people toward political action, but sometimes they cross a line by playing on old fears and prejudices. When that speech includes suggestions about criminal action, then I think we need to block.

You can study the effect of homophobic speech on a community and find out how it increased the likelihood of violent action. Use that study when helping a jury to evaluate a specific case.

The more examples a jury has of legitimate and dangerous hate speech, then better able they are to deliberate and come back with a fair verdict.

 

[bripat9643]

"Hate Speech" is what is used in Europe and Canada to open the door to speech restrictions overall. Because what is "Hate Speech"? It is like "fairness". It can mean anything. So anything can be "hate speech." "Liberalism destroys lives and opportunities" could be branded hate speech.

"Republicans hate the poor" can be deemed as hate speech

Republicans hate America

Republicans are traitors.

Republicans are waging a war on women

Republicans hate minorities

Yada

Yada

Yada

 

[hazlnut]

And calling Sarah Palin a whore?
Yeah we thought so. Some pigs are more equal than others, eh Comrade? You should be institutionalized.

False analogy.

Try again.

Stop straw manning and stick to what I said.

Calling her a whore is just ugly and tasteless partisan speech.

So please explain the difference between calling Sarah Palin a whore and calling Barack Obama a chimp.
This ought to be good.

Honestly, if you need that explained to you, then nothing I say is going to help you better understand where I'm coming from.

 

[bripat9643]

This is all about restricting free speech and controlling people. Nothing more.

how have you arrived at that conclusion?

The only reason to label anything "hate speech" is to shut people up.

 

[bripat9643]

This is all about restricting free speech and controlling people. Nothing more.

how have you arrived at that conclusion?

Because it will restrict free speech and make people watch their words and only speak in a way that is deemed appropriate by legislators.

They are trying to criminalize disagreeing with liberal idiocy.

this is only the first step.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

how have you arrived at that conclusion?

Because it will restrict free speech and make people watch their words and only speak in a way that is deemed appropriate by legislators.

a study does no such thing. a study merely gathers information and presents conclusions.

then study it on your own nickel...

who are these 13 Dems anyway.....?

it says the bill is sponsored by Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) .....who the hell is he....?

a New Yorker.....that pretty much says it all.....

this guy was born in Brooklyn but his first name is Hakeem....a Muslim name but he claims to be Baptist....that's not suspicious at all....not to mention he sports a beard....

after becoming a lawyer he worked in the litigation department of a corporation.....then turned politician and now represents the 8th District of Brooklyn and Queens and is up for reelection in 2014...

one of his major goals is "eliminating the “crushing burden” of private religious school education costs".....(those Baptists have so many private religious schools you know)...

he also wrote and sponsored the bill that eliminated the NY stop and frisk program....

Hakeem is also the nephew of controversial black supremecist Leonard Jeffries....a professor of black studies at the College of New York....Leonard advanced a theory that whites are "ice people" who are violent and cruel, while blacks are "sun people" who are compassionate and peaceful...His lectures and talks have been characterized by ideological opponents as "racist rants"....

 

[bripat9643]

how have you arrived at that conclusion?

Because it will restrict free speech and make people watch their words and only speak in a way that is deemed appropriate by legislators.

a study does no such thing. a study merely gathers information and presents conclusions.

You are terminally naïve. Government "studies" are nothing more than propaganda. What the proponents of this request want is for the government to officially label some kinds of speech as unacceptable. From there it's only a short road to making it illegal.

 

[novasteve]

Racist and homophobes are worried their words may get them in trouble.

When you demean a person by constantly referring to them as something lower to human, you are dehumanizing them for the purposes of violence or motivating others to cause them harm.

When you that and post their address on the internet, you have committed a crime IMO.

The two elements of the crime should be dehumanizing rhetoric + pointing toward a specific act on a specific person. When you post someone's address, you are implying "go there and cause trouble".

You'd be a lot more at home in Cuba

 

[Jarhead]

You think so little of our country.

We came up with a legal standard and definition of Obscenity.

We can better define "hate" speech as something specifically intended to do harm.

Obscenity is easy to define....for even if your intent is to NOT be obscene, fucking in public is obscene.

But you can not use the same with speech. For how would one know what your intent was?

Logic - a close and reasonable examination of the context, the audience, the purpose, the outcome.

Example...

"don't go out with that guy. He is a jerk"

My intent was to protect the woman....but maybe her father heard me say it and decided to beat the shit out of the guy because he didn't want his daughter dating a jerk.

So am I at fault for inciting the violence?

I know...silly analogy.....but the point is there.

Bad example. No REASONABLE person would believe that you intended the person harm.

If the guy was black and you ranted about him being a "chimp", less than human, and then implied that he should be taught a lesson, then gave the father the address = hate speech.

People say things designed to motivate people toward political action, but sometimes they cross a line by playing on old fears and prejudices. When that speech includes suggestions about criminal action, then I think we need to block.

You can study the effect of homophobic speech on a community and find out how it increased the likelihood of violent action. Use that study when helping a jury to evaluate a specific case.

The more examples a jury has of legitimate and dangerous hate speech, then better able they are to deliberate and come back with a fair verdict.

Really?

And what if I knew the girls father...and knew he was a live wire...and hated the boyfriend....and knew that the father would beat the shit out of him...

Then my intent WOULD HAVE BEEN to incite violence..

But you already labeled it as silly....no one would think I wanted the guy to get hurt....and therefore I had no intent to incite violence...even though I did.

Sorry bro....it would never work.

 

[Jarhead]

Racist and homophobes are worried their words may get them in trouble.

When you demean a person by constantly referring to them as something lower to human, you are dehumanizing them for the purposes of violence or motivating others to cause them harm.

When you that and post their address on the internet, you have committed a crime IMO.

The two elements of the crime should be dehumanizing rhetoric + pointing toward a specific act on a specific person. When you post someone's address, you are implying "go there and cause trouble".

You'd be a lot more at home in Cuba

I have also noticed him using "calling the President a "chimp" " numerous times in this thread as an example of hate speech.

Funny....I never hear that crap anymore when referring to a black man.....

Except from folks on here that claim conservatives are racists.

 

[bripat9643]

a study does no such thing. a study merely gathers information and presents conclusions.

The study is preparatory to action. Otherwise why do it?

i can see lots of reasons. the study might yield ways for sites to better moderate their comment sections to keep things polite and on topic.

the study might show some correlation between engaging in (either reading or writing) vitriolic posts and ones personal health and happiness - or it might rule out that kind of thing

or maybe it won't produce any results worth mentioning - either way pretending that a study is going to lead the the repeal of the first amendment is at best silly.

All it will do is give left-wing cranks like you ammunition to attack anyone you disagree with. That's the purpose of the study. Government has no business telling websites how to moderate their comment section.

Repealing the First Amendment is exactly the intention of the people who want to do this study.

 

[hazlnut]

Is it the word "study" that is throwing the far-righties into such a tizzy?

They know what they know and don't want to hear new info!!

Kind of like the Muslim extremist in that regard.

 

[bripat9643]

Dehumanizing the President by calling him "chimp" (or any overtly racist slur) also has no place in our society? Less intelligent people are easily taken in by ignorant hate speech and motivated to toward violent physical acts. Anyone who promotes these acts by ginning up racial hatred should be under a microscope and on a watch list. Then, when they say or suggest something specific, we nab them and throw them in jail.

Thanks for your input, Comrade Stalin.

I propose government informants on every block. One quick phone call to the New and Improved KGB and you can make your neighbor disappear if he doesn't swallow your cock.

Again, in our system, we have specific legal standards and "tests" for things like obscenity. In communist russia they did not.

Therefore, your comment is ignorant.

FAIL.

Your belief that so-called "standards" on obscenity are in any way objective is hysterical.

 

[bripat9643]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

They just want to create a huge government funded propaganda organ. that's all this will ever be. There is no objective definition of "hate." Anyone chose to work on this would necessarily be a quack.

You think so little of our country.

We came up with a legal standard and definition of Obscenity.

We can better define "hate" speech as something specifically intended to do harm.

What is this objective legal definition of obscenity?

 

[bripat9643]

False analogy.

Try again.

Stop straw manning and stick to what I said.

Calling her a whore is just ugly and tasteless partisan speech.

So please explain the difference between calling Sarah Palin a whore and calling Barack Obama a chimp.
This ought to be good.

Honestly, if you need that explained to you, then nothing I say is going to help you better understand where I'm coming from.

WE understand perfectly where you are coming from.

That's what makes our skin crawl.

 

[The Rabbi]

False analogy.

Try again.

Stop straw manning and stick to what I said.

Calling her a whore is just ugly and tasteless partisan speech.

So please explain the difference between calling Sarah Palin a whore and calling Barack Obama a chimp.
This ought to be good.

Honestly, if you need that explained to you, then nothing I say is going to help you better understand where I'm coming from.

Translation: One is hate speech, the other is merely descriptive. Because I say so.
Yeah, I think we all see the problem, you obnoxious insane little twit.

 

[bripat9643]

Is it the word "study" that is throwing the far-righties into such a tizzy?

They know what they know and don't want to hear new info!!

Kind of like the Muslim extremist in that regard.

Info is one thing. Propaganda is another. Any "study" performed by government toadies on a controversial subject is inevitably going to be nothing but pure propaganda.