White Supremacist rams Car through Counter Protestors, Killing 1

That's pretty obvious.

Not sure what this had to do with the car ramming, though. You just like crying about censorship on this forum . Freedom of speech doesnt apply on privately owned forums anymore than it applies in someone's house. And I;m not sure why a baby whose mother put that tshirt on her is even remotely connected to what you said to Ash gal. People just look for racism in everything? I;m pretty sure that kid 1. cant read yet and 2. hasnt got a clue what racism is.

This is an assertion, not an argument.

See above. You're literally just saying "other countries have different laws about speech," which nobody disputes. What they dispute is that those laws are good.

I thought it was pretty obvious that his objection was not to "disliking" a comment, but to wanting to use the law to prohibit its expression.

It's called that here, too. But here, we make a distinction between decent and lawful, because legislating decency and morality is difficult, and highly prone to selectivity, subjectivity, and ultimately abuse.

I think he understands your point fine, he's just saying "racist" isn't the right word for someone who dislikes an ideology.

Might wanna clarify this. Kinda sounds like you're saying you think they deserve to, ya' know, die.

Probably ACLU honestly, just letting the hardcore PC win and not standing up and saying that what they think of the picture is wrong is just promoting this to happen again. It almost seems like a oppression tool, if you don't like something—even if it's not actually offensive, just scream "racist!" at it until it goes away...

It's been like that for a long time now though, it's really nothing new.

1) It's important that the government be allowed to prohibit speech it deems hateful.
2) The Trump Administration will abuse its power and cannot be trusted to enforce things fairly.

Pick one.

In America, virtually all speech is included in free speech. There are 7 exceptions and one of them is "hate speech", but the problem is in defining hate speech and when, where, how and why it's crossed the threshold of not being protected under the first amendment.
http://www.business2community.com/so...EzBPA7rEtCL.97

I'm not calling you a politcal correct person because you dislike comments of hate against a group of people. I dislike them too and I'm far from politically correct. You have just as much right to voice your disagreement to such speech as anyone else has to state or support it.

I identify PC as engaging in double standards (like in the case where announcer Robert Lee was removed from his job of calling a football game in Charlottesville due solely to his name - the PC camp made a statement about standing up to perceived racism by engaging in discrimination against a man over his Asian-heritage name of "Lee." To show how opposed to racism they were, they engaged in an act of racism against an innocent person.)

I'm sure you're exaggerating about people not deserving the air they breath for saying hateful things or being Trump supporters. Are you truly saying you want people to die over things they say or for voting for a candidate they may have simply viewed as the lesser of two evils?

That's news to me. "Hate speech" is just a rhetorical term people use to imply a distinction with free speech, but at least here, I don't think it's a legal term at all.

"Fighting words" is a legal term, but it bears no real resemblance to "hate speech" as it's being discussed here.

Staying out of this discussion but i hadn't heard that either. Apparently this is it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

The exception he's referring to is "fighting words and offensive speech" i believe.

Just going by what the article I linked said. But as it pointed out: "OK, it protects it sometimes — and sometimes it doesn’t."

Which is why I said there's a lot of ambiguity as to how to define which exceptions are included under "hate speech," when it's protected and when it's not. But yes, in the form of protests (especially those given legal permits) and as we're discussing it here, it's generally protected.

Actually in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights hate speech is condemned and not included in the freedom of speech, and the counties who sign it are obliged to consider it a crime.

The declaration of human right it's probably the closest we'll ever get to join morality and legality, and even if I understand what u are saying, that we may disagree with it, I just can't see why anyone would. Maybe I'm to stupid to see, I give u that, but that should be beyond questioning.

And that's the same to say that I don't understand why ashdoc is not being reprimanded by a mod after certains comments he made. And, again, I see your point, I just completely disagree that we should anyone say whatever they want and call it freedom of speech!


His objection was calling me a racist after I pointed at a hate comment.

But ok, racism was not the right word. Religious bigotry might have been better. But my point is that what ashdoc said was not right, and suddenly the name I called it it's what's being questioned?

I'll admit that is hard but somewhere the line must be drawned. And hate speech should definitely be beyond the line.


So, we're calling Muslims just an ideology now so we don't admit religious hatred?
Hey, Catholics should all burn in crosses. And I don't hate religions, Catholicism is just an ideology.


That was a response to ashdocs "overpopulating the world". You can not deserve the air you breathe and still breath it, so not exactly saying they should all be killed. But they're less than humans, to me, and should definitely have less rights than other people. Freedom for instance.

Someone who hates ALL people from another country, who happen to be the majority in an ideology, is both. What you said was correct. If someone hates all Pakistanis he's a racist. If he also hates all people with a particular religious belief he's a religious bigot. Telling you it was the wrong word was nit picking to deflect.

Now getting back to my earlier question seeing as this thread has taken a dog leg, about such a monumental rise of hate crimes against Jewish Americans, why is that happening?

Starting by the end. I included "many Trump supporters" on the ones behind hate speech, which is not the same to say every person who voted Trump is a hateful person. As for the "wanting people to die" I explained it above when answering to Yoda.

I don't get all the PC discussion you are having in USA at the moment... I mean, I know it exists but that doesn't happen in Europe, or at least not at the same level...

And about the first point: you admit hate speech is not included and yet you say it's impossible to know what's in it or not, so you argue that everything should be said. I don't get it... You don't draw a line anywhere?

Pakistani isn't a race, it's a nationality.

Just need a little help in deciphering some of your points here - one minute you ask what a direct response to one of your posts had to do with the car ramming (part of the OP topic).
Then you say the thread has taken a dog leg - but here you're not referring to the OP topic but to a recent tangent that bumped the thread about crimes against Jewish Americans.

So I'm just trying to ascertain, do you want people to stick to the original topic or will you allow them discuss additional tangential topics as the discussion evolves and as people respond to post points?

*thud* More nitpicking. Pakistanis are pakistanis just as Saudis are Saudis.

And I specifically said it had taken a dog leg so asked my previous question, and my previous question DOES relate to the OP. For goodness sake.

I don't have to draw the line because our legal system and Constitution has drawn it. But in cases where the line is so "thin" that the interpretation of what is protected under the law and what is not becomes ambiguous, the legal system has procedures in place to allow courts to make a decision on a case by case basis.

I understand that, but that was not my point when I standed against ashdoc's comment! Even if racist was not the best word, how is religious bigotry any better?

Saudi isn't a race, it's a nationality. So your analogy is correct.

Oh for god's sake. Are you going to answer the question about hate crimes against Jewish americans this year or continue on with this usual crap? Trying to have a discussion with you is like root canal.

No one said it was. You have the right to stand against any comment or any ideology.

Just curious: if I say, "I hate Nazis, I hate the KKK - I know their history, I know what they stand for, I know what they believe, I know what they teach and I know what they've done!"

Is that bigotry or simply taking the right side of standing up against known evils?

What do you think I'll answer?

And don't tell me that's just hating on an ideology just like they hate on a race or a religion! There are no good Nazis.

I'm still not sure what topic you want to discuss as you seem critical of me no matter who I respond to, which topic I address (according to you I'm on the wrong one even if I'm directly responding to something you just said - like when you brought up the Internet and then I talked about the net) or what I say.