USMB racial censorship question.

[sparky]

well, is my cracker a** supposed to be offended now?

~S~

 

[Muhammed]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

Only they can tell you the actual reason and since the 1st amendment's protection of freedom of speech doesn't apply to this board because they are not a government entity, it would still seem to me that because of the history of the word and the racial hatred and violence against black people in the United States, it falls under the fighting words doctrine:

Fighting Words

Fighting Words​

Overview​

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."​

​

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.​

Non-Exhaustive List of SCOTUS Cases Invoking the Fighting Words Doctrine​

The following cases show some of the instances in which the Supreme Court has invoked the fighting words doctrine. As shown, the scope of the doctrine changes between various cases.​

​

Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)​

In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and causes unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).​

​

Feiner v. New York (1951)​

In Feiner v. People of State of New York, 30 U.S. 315 (1951), the Supreme Court held that akin to the fighting words doctrine, an incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment.​

​

Texas v. Johnson (1989)​

In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." In the case, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.`​

​

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)​

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.​

Is that why so many black folks are killing each other?

Apparently they have contracts with National Geographic.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

This is what happens when anyone gets into selective censorship..... cracker is just as offensive as the N word

Well, to be honest, I'm not offended by it at all, EXCEPT for the different rules for white folks.

But you're right. Blacks really arent "offended" either or they wouldnt sprinkle it all throughout their conversations. They're not offended. It's just a club to beat whites over the head with

 

[L.K.Eder]

once again, old white men are persecuted by The Man.

 

[Toro]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

It’s the software, not the Admin.

This has come up before.

 

[Muhammed]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

It’s the software, not the Admin.

This has come up before.

Why would the software developers do something so racist like that?

 

[monkrules]

In America, the noisiest, most trouble-making, least educated, intelligent, productive, and patriotic members of our society are allowed to dictate how our language is used, what words are acceptable, and how our history will be written.

In other words, productive, patriotic Americans are allowing the imbeciles to take over their country.

This board's policies probably reflect that sad reality.

 

[Muhammed]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

First off, I'm seeing you have the word on the board, so it's not censored, at least not yet.

Could you please quit pretending to be an idiot?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

It’s the software, not the Admin.

This has come up before.

I owned a forum, I was at liberty to ban certain words...,I didn't though. The same would apply here

My belief in the First prohibited that

 

[Carl in Michigan]

In America, the noisiest, most trouble-making, least educated, intelligent, productive, and patriotic members of our society are allowed to dictate how our language is used, what words are acceptable, and how our history will be written.

In other words, productive, patriotic Americans are allowing the imbeciles to take over their country.

This board's policies probably reflect that sad reality.

Americans generally look out for the handicapped

 

[Confederate Soldier]

I'm a cracka ass cracka.

 

[Godboy]

Why does USMB censor the word "n!gger" but not censor the words "honkey" or "cracker"?

Only they can tell you the actual reason and since the 1st amendment's protection of freedom of speech doesn't apply to this board because they are not a government entity, it would still seem to me that because of the history of the word and the racial hatred and violence against black people in the United States, it falls under the fighting words doctrine:

Fighting Words

Fighting Words​

Overview​

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."​

​

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.​

Non-Exhaustive List of SCOTUS Cases Invoking the Fighting Words Doctrine​

The following cases show some of the instances in which the Supreme Court has invoked the fighting words doctrine. As shown, the scope of the doctrine changes between various cases.​

​

Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)​

In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and causes unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).​

​

Feiner v. New York (1951)​

In Feiner v. People of State of New York, 30 U.S. 315 (1951), the Supreme Court held that akin to the fighting words doctrine, an incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment.​

​

Texas v. Johnson (1989)​

In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." In the case, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.`​

​

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)​

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.​

More people have heard "white boy, honkey and cracker" just before they were murdered, than "n*gger".

 

[Donald H]

Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to demonstrate his racism?

It just gets sicker and sicker in America!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to
Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to demonstrate his racism?

It just gets sicker and sicker in America!

Well, Then.

I think your only real recourse at this point would be to quit usmb in protest, move back to Pakistan and marry whichever of your 83 first cousins that your father picks out for you.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to demonstrate his racism?

It just gets sicker and sicker in America!

Another leftist opposed to free speech

 

[Donald H]

Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to
Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to demonstrate his racism?

It just gets sicker and sicker in America!

Well, Then.

I think your only real recourse at this point would be to quit usmb in protest, move back to Pakistan and marry whichever of your 83 first cousins that your father picks out for you.

The only reply you deserve from me is that you're an asshole too.

You're going to have to change your behaviour if you want my attention.

 

[Godboy]

Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to
Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to demonstrate his racism?

It just gets sicker and sicker in America!

Well, Then.

I think your only real recourse at this point would be to quit usmb in protest, move back to Pakistan and marry whichever of your 83 first cousins that your father picks out for you.

Why would you think that leaving would be his only recourse? He literally just made a thread about it, so there is ONE recourse that is already officially on the books. The mere existence of this thread proves your post is wrong.

 

[Donald H]

Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to demonstrate his racism?

It just gets sicker and sicker in America!

Another leftist opposed to free speech

It could be stated as that by Americans.

Americans need to try not to dodge the issues that make them less free than the world's leading democracies.
We certainly don't see our lack of free speech as an issue. We are concerned with 'real' freedoms that we are granted and which Americans are denied.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to
Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to demonstrate his racism?

It just gets sicker and sicker in America!

Well, Then.

I think your only real recourse at this point would be to quit usmb in protest, move back to Pakistan and marry whichever of your 83 first cousins that your father picks out for you.

Why would you think that leaving would be his only recourse? He literally just made a thread about it, so there is ONE recourse that is already officially on the books. The mere existence of this thread proves your post is wrong.

Donald is an antisemitic, pro terrorist lunatic constantly hating on all things American.

Quite frankly, I am surprised you support that, and are as virulently opposed to free speech.

Since this thread was not started by the creature, what thread are you referring to?

 

[Godboy]

Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to
Why do the moderators allow this sort of thread to stand, when it's nothing more than a racist's attempt to demonstrate his racism?

It just gets sicker and sicker in America!

Well, Then.

I think your only real recourse at this point would be to quit usmb in protest, move back to Pakistan and marry whichever of your 83 first cousins that your father picks out for you.

Why would you think that leaving would be his only recourse? He literally just made a thread about it, so there is ONE recourse that is already officially on the books. The mere existence of this thread proves your post is wrong.

Donald is an antisemitic, pro terrorist lunatic constantly hating on all things American.

Quite frankly, I am surprised you support that, and are as virulently opposed to free speech.

Since this thread was not started by the creature, what thread are you referring to?

Ok, you made the claim that he hates jews, loves terrorists, and hates all American things. Now comes the part where you have to prove it. Good luck with that. I already know how im going to make you look like a fool when your predictable answers come rolling in.