Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Government priority and the Return of the White Knights

  1. #31
    Banned Sasquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    The Seventh Circle of Hell
    Posts
    1,760

    Default

    Where did you make the connection between "hate crimes" and freedom of speech? If somebody starts saying things like "you should kill all (group) because they're (insult)", that would be a crime, as it would be inciting violence. And why would it matter if it's against a certain race, or any other group of people? If I say "all lawyers must die", is that somehow better than saying "all black people must die"?

    There's a difference in somebody who walks around with a sign that says "these people should die" and somebody who murders somebody else. And having equal punishments for murders doesn't have anything to do with free speech.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dahlonega, GA (up in the mountains)
    Posts
    270

    Default

    f X kills Y because he wants Y's money, he's guilty of murdering Y. His motive was because he wanted money.

    If X kills Y because Y was white and X hates all white people, he's guilty of murdering Y. His motive was because he has a murderous hatred of all white people.

    No society needs that kind of extreme prejudice.
    All true, up to and including that we don't want this in our society. But, Person X has a right to have a murderous hatred of all white people. He has a right to join groups that have a murderous hatred of all white people, because the Bill of Rights guarantees us Freedom of Association. He has a right to speak against white people, because we have Freedom of Speech (granted, should he speak harmful lies about them (libel.... or slander, I never can remember which is which), or encourage violence against them, then these are exceptions to Freedom of Speech and he can be proscecuted.). Just like someone can scream about how the Zionists are responsible for 9-11 or about the black helicopters or a whole variety of other things. These are more than unfortunate--they're flat-out nasty, but they're necessary ills in a society that protects our freedom to say and think what we wish. Person X's crime is murder, not being racist. Being racist is nasty, and you're perfectly correct in that it's something we do not need and should not have in our society or any other, but it isn't and shouldn't be a crime.

    The people who murdered James Byrd had every right to be racist. That doesn't mean that you or I would want to hang out with them, or that they're in any way decent people, but our government does not have the duty or the right to prevent this. Where they violated the law--where the government can and should step in--is when they murdered somebody.

  3. #33
    ...you hot, salty nut! Recognized Member fire_of_avalon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    17,442
    Blog Entries
    34
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    No one has the right to have a murderous hatred of anyone. Murder isn't a protected form of expression.

    Haha! Your semantics are mine! *hordes*

    However, back to topic. This is an issue I'm very torn about. On the one hand, when you get down to the nitty gritty murder is murder is murder is murder... only it's not. There IS a difference when you murder someone for a few bucks and when you murder someone for running over your grandma. And yes, the law DOES see a difference in that. You'll get more time for killing the person who ran over your grandma, in all likelihood.

    So, if we differentiate between anykind of murder/violent crime at all, it doesn't make sense NOT to differentiate between a "normal" murder and a racially based murder.

    A human being who will kill another human being based on looks, intelligence, sexual orientation, gender, or beliefs or for their own personal amusment is a much worse person than someone who murders as a result of a hit and run accident. Well, that's not always going to be true, but based on motive... Argh, see! Confliction.

    Morally, I see it as worse crime. I see it as a crime against humanity. I see it as a psychological crime that attempts to get insides the heads of all people who classify themselves in a way similar to the person against whom the original crime was perpetrated. However, I am no where near well versed enough in law to know if there is a difference on the legal level.

    Signature by rubah. I think.

  4. #34
    Proudly Loathsome ;) DMKA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    11,306

    FFXIV Character

    Efes Ephesus (Adamantoise)

    Default

    Yeah...the government shouldn't limit people from forming groups that plot on and talk about killing people all day, but then when they're Arabs from the middle east "OMFG TERROR WE MUST INTERVESTGATE TO STOP IT FROM HAPPEN BEFORE HAPPENING!!11".

    God I hate how hypocritical people are.
    I like Kung-Fu.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •