Should Legislation Be Passed Making Overt Racism a Criminal Offense?

[Desperado]

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?

YES

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Can you find any racism here???


BLM rioters shout 'Beat up every white person!' and 'Black power!'













"Shoot the white folks!!"







“BLM Leader: We'll 'Burn' the System Down If U.S. Won't Give Us What We Want” https://www.newsweek.com/blm-leader-well-burn-system-down-if-us-wont-give-us-what-we-want-1513422



“We are Trained Marxists,” says BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors
“We are trained Marxists,” Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said, during an interview with Real News Network, further adding to the parallels between her movement and the rise of Mao Zedong’s Marxist movement in China."

​

"We are Trained Marxists," says BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors - Back to Jerusalem

“We are trained Marxists,” Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said, during an interview with Real News Network, further adding to the parallels between her movement and the rise of Mao Zedong’s Marxist movement in China. Marxism is important for Christians to understand, because it...

backtojerusalem.com



NYT Pulitzer Prize Winner: White Race ‘Barbaric’ Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones once penned a polemical letter to her college newspaper denouncing the white race as "barbaric."
"The white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world," she wrote in a 1995 letter published in the Notre Dame Observer, according to a report by the Federalist. She added that white Europeans "committed genocide … in their greed and insatiable desire to destroy every non-white culture." NYT Pulitzer Prize Winner: White Race ‘Barbaric’

 

[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?

YES

Is it more shocking to see an alleged American write that, or that they come out of government school that way?

 

[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...

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.

I have this shirt. It is amazing to me that when I wear it, I always get asked at least once, "Who is Orwell?"

 

[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.

 

[Desperado]

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?

YES

Is it more shocking to see an alleged American write that, or that they come out of government school that way?

FREE SPEECH SHOULD BE PROTECTED you should be able to ssay what is on your mind no matter what it is

 

[freyasman]

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?

Yes, and yes.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

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.

 

[irosie91]

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?

 

[toobfreak]

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.

 

[22lcidw]

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?

For what did Thomas Paine make that statement? Surely it was for not watching a ghetto for at least 50 years kill and maim people from within it and outside it. And the massive amount of money that was invested for such poor results was not of to much common sense.

 

[Baron]

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...

Will be punished Chinese, Japan, Indian, Arab, Jewish, Turk etc. racists?
Or only white european males who refuse to share their wealth with black mobs?

 

[Papageorgio]

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...

Thought police here we come. Let’s toss the first amendment.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I voted no and I'll tell you why.

1.) There is no clear consensus on what constitutes racism. For that reason, anything can and will be deemed racism. As it is now, there is currently no apparatus in place to check the rampant paranoia. These people are caught up in a religious mania and are free to concoct and manufacture examples of racism just so they can join the mad circus and be counted as one of the moral chosen. And they already have.

2.) There are already laws on the books against racial discrimination and criminal acts such as assault, murder, vandalism and harassment, among other things. Which brings me to my next point:

3.) The more rabid and radical anti-racism extremists are themselves committing criminal acts against what they perceive as racism.

4.) It would bring us dangerously close to thought crime legislation, if we're not there already.

5.) If we create new legislation to protect some against racism, should we also create new legislation to protect against false accusations of racism? Because we know it will happen and is already happening.

6.) The right of free speech would necessarily have to be curbed and restricted.

7.) Everyone of every race and color would be subject to these new laws. Unless one suggests that we unfairly, unconstitutionally and unjustly make whites the sole race subject to these laws, that means that blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners and every citizen of this country could conceivably be prosecuted. Any suggestion otherwise would be, itself, racist.

I always say: Be careful what you wish for. You just might that you are the one impaled on the sword of righteousness.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Constitutional issues notwithstanding – from a political standpoint – seeking to ‘criminalize’ racism would only play into the hands of rightwing bigots and racists desperate for justification and vindication of their hate; that their own government would attempt to take away their liberty would do just that.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

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?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

This post illustrates well the folly of attempting to ‘criminalize’ racism and hate.

What constitutes hate speech?

What exactly is racism?

We don’t want politicians, law enforcement, and the courts trying to sort this out.

How to address racism and hate is the sole purview of private society and debate among private citizens – not the government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[Godboy]

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.

Yes, conservatives are free to do that, but we choose not to because, we arent into that stuff. Its democrats who preach hate and racism.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

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.

That is the risk that it merely drives it underground, but at least we don't have to listen to it!