Should Legislation Be Passed Making Overt Racism a Criminal Offense?

[Correll]

There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level.

Newsvine is a troll who starts a thread and then just sits back to watch the feathers fly

I asked a serious question to which he/she/it will never reply

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

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...

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


I knew you guys were working up to it.


It was annoying when libs pretended that PC was just about being polite, when it was obviously laying the ground work for tyranny.


How many people do you see imprisoning, if you get your way? How long will you imprison them? Until they recant?

View attachment 356231

I will call out vile people like you, on your vile behavior and vile actions, until someone forcible stops me.


Your grandstanding means less than nothing to me.

 

[Mac-7]

How long in jail for holding the wrong opinion?

For at least as long as it takes for libs to decide that the offender got their mind right

 

[Mac-7]

and now a word from the holier than thou, non partisan, meek and mild fence sitters who just want everyone to think the same way as they do:

Make these ignorant, paranoid mouth-breathers go underground and it gets tougher, and we still haven't solved the root problem. And we'll almost certainly make it worse by making them even MORE feral.

 

[Mac1958]

and now a word from the holier than thou, non partisan, meek and mild fence sitters who just want everyone to think the same way as they do:

Make these ignorant, paranoid mouth-breathers go underground and it gets tougher, and we still haven't solved the root problem. And we'll almost certainly make it worse by making them even MORE feral.

Right on cue!

Hey, I'm defending your freedom of speech. You should be thanking me.

 

[Mac-7]

Hey, I'm defending your freedom of speech. You should be thanking me.

Thank you

with so many fascist lefties and their allies on the fence running around, free speech can use all the help it can get

even from libs who dont really mean it

 

[Correll]

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

Absolutely not.

Look at this board. Between the flat-out racists and those who blatantly cover for it -- enablers of racism -- we have a very clear picture of who we need to be aware of, and who agrees with them. And that demonstrates for us, loud and clear, how much work still needs to be done.

Make these ignorant, paranoid mouth-breathers go underground and it gets tougher, and we still haven't solved the root problem. And we'll almost certainly make it worse by making them even MORE feral.

Thank goodness for freedom of expression. Let the cockroaches shine the light on themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Dude. Your

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

Absolutely not.

Look at this board. Between the flat-out racists and those who blatantly cover for it -- enablers of racism -- we have a very clear picture of who we need to be aware of, and who agrees with them. And that demonstrates for us, loud and clear, how much work still needs to be done.

Make these ignorant, paranoid mouth-breathers go underground and it gets tougher, and we still haven't solved the root problem. And we'll almost certainly make it worse by making them even MORE feral.

Thank goodness for freedom of expression. Let the cockroaches shine the light on themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Matt, within your lifetime people like him will be sending the cops to arrest people like me, based on false accusations of racism.*


Your support of those false accusations of racism, is part of that process.



*(barring unforeseen changes in current trends)

 

[Correll]

How long in jail for holding the wrong opinion?

For at least as long as it takes for libs to decide that the offender got their mind right

That is the obvious answer. And these people think that they are the good guys.


THey are literally insane.

 

[Fang]

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...

Absolutely not.

For starters the term "racist" is used to broadly these days and is completely watered down. Last week we found out a bottle of syrup is racist. Even the black woman's descendants are upset her picture is being removed.

Second, I don't believe there can ever be a truly objective person to decide what is and isn't racist.

Third, decade by decade racists are being weeded out anyway. Legislation isn't needed. As a half Hispanic I can tell you things are 100% better in 2019 than in 1975. Notice I said 2019 and not 2020. 2020 sucks. Society took a major step backwards in 2020.

Fourth, government can't fix societal issues. That has to come from the people.

Fifth, this one is the harsh truth. But people are allowed to think how they want to think. We all come from different backgrounds and experience different things. I'll pause and listen to a 70 year old black woman talking about racism. There's no doubt she has experienced real racism. But I laugh at the black kids of today that hop in Daddy's BMW and drive to the latest BLM rally, or the mega-rich pampered black athlete with 5 cars in his driveway taking a knee.

Sixth, everyone has a motive for using the term "racist". Whether it's to win an election or just make someone else's life miserable. Those motives can't be trusted.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level.

Newsvine is a troll who starts a thread and then just sits back to watch the feathers fly

I asked a serious question to which he/she/it will never reply

In that case, if that happens, I'll be sure not to post on such threads.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level.

Newsvine is a troll who starts a thread and then just sits back to watch the feathers fly

I asked a serious question to which he/she/it will never reply

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

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...

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


I knew you guys were working up to it.


It was annoying when libs pretended that PC was just about being polite, when it was obviously laying the ground work for tyranny.


How many people do you see imprisoning, if you get your way? How long will you imprison them? Until they recant?

View attachment 356231

Where did I call you a troll?

 

[Mac-7]

Where did I call you a troll?

NewsVine was referring to me

 

[Unkotare]

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...

This would require a legally-binding definintion of "overt racism," which would be more complex and wide-reaching than a superficial musing might suggest.

 

[Unkotare]

Anyway, NO. The First Amendment would not allow for such a terrible idea.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How would you define OVERT Racism?

Exactly the point.

For Liberals/Democrats, it is a thought crime.....one doesn't think in line with their demands.

 

[irosie91]

Here is an example of existing legislation

RCW 9A.36.078
Hate crime offenses—Finding.
The legislature finds that crimes and threats against persons because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disabilities are serious and increasing.

The legislature also finds that crimes and threats are often directed against interracial couples and their children or couples of mixed religions, colors, ancestries, or national origins because of bias and bigotry against the race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin of one person in the couple or family.

The legislature finds that the state interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors such as criminal trespass, malicious mischief, assault, or other crimes that are not motivated by hatred, bigotry, and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias.

Therefore, the legislature finds that protection of those citizens from threats of harm due to bias and bigotry is a compelling state interest.

The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member.

In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror.

Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust.

Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.

The legislature also finds that attacks on religious places of worship and threatening defacement of religious texts have increased, as have assaults and attacks on those who visibly self-identify as members of a religious minority, such as by wearing religious head covering or other visible articles of faith. The legislature finds that any person who defaces religious real property with derogatory words, symbols, or items, who places a vandalized or defaced religious item or scripture on the property of a victim, or who attacks or attempts to remove the religious garb or faith-based attire of a victim, knows or reasonably should know that such actions create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the victim.

The legislature also finds that a hate crime committed against a victim because of the victim's gender may be identified in the same manner that a hate crime committed against a victim of another protected group is identified. Affirmative indications of hatred towards gender as a class is the predominant factor to consider. Other factors to consider include the perpetrator's use of language, slurs, or symbols expressing hatred towards the victim's gender as a class; the severity of the attack including mutilation of the victim's sexual organs; a history of similar attacks against victims of the same gender by the perpetrator or a history of similar incidents in the same area; a lack of provocation; an absence of any other apparent motivation; and common sense.

The legislature recognizes that, since 2015, Washington state has experienced a sharp increase in malicious harassment offenses, and, in response, the legislature intends to rename the offense to its more commonly understood title of "hate crime offense" and create a multidisciplinary working group to establish recommendations for best practices for identifying and responding to hate crimes.

[ 2019 c 271 § 1; 1993 c 127 § 1.]

NOTES:
Severability—1993 c 127: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1993 c 127 § 7.]

“Here is an example of existing legislation”

Actually not.

This legislation doesn’t criminalize being a racist or engaging in hate speech; rather, it concerns criminal acts such as assault or vandalism motivated by hate, racism, or bigotry.

It is un-Constitutional to subject racists and bigots to criminal prosecution for no other reason than being racists and bigots, regardless how ‘overt’ that racism or bigotry might be.

Likewise, it is un-Constitutional to preempt hate speech as a matter of First Amendment jurisprudence, where ‘overt’ and ‘imminent lawlessness or violence’ are not the same – the latter not entitled to Constitutional protections.

So what's the difference between committing a crime of assault, vandalism etc. and committing them when motivated due to hatred or animosity due to the race or other protected class status? Or rather WHY is there a distinction made in the statute if there is no difference? By the way this law used to be entitled "Malicious Harassment".

And why is racism actionable but not prosecutable? Is it simply due to the 51% versus 98% threshold required to prevail?

“Hate Crimes” are unconstitutional. So are “protected” classes.

ok.... could you say something about What is a "protected class" ???

 

[PoliticalChic]

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...

This would require a legally-binding definintion of "overt racism," which would be more complex and wide-reaching than a superficial musing might suggest.

1.Is 'racist' a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what Nazis/Bolsheviks....and Liberals..... have always sought to punish?
2. The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.
I'm an American, and honor the Constitution.

How about my definition: financial or physical damage.

Nothing to do with speech or thought.

That would be consistent with the first amendment.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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

why?

is it wrong to censor and punish SOME ideas?

should ALL speech be protected?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

why?

is it wrong to censor and punish SOME ideas?

should ALL speech be protected?

Is it true you still have that tribute set up to Adolph, with the autographed copy of "Mein Kampf" in front of it????

 

[irosie91]

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?

 

[Agit8r]

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?