Hate Speech...

[Confused-by-christianity]

It started over a decade ago with a baker who refused to bake a cake...it's gone way past that now. Pastor's have been incarcerated for preaching from the pulpits and everything.
Where have you been?

Can you post the sources?

 

[JohnDB]

Can you post the sources?

*Sigh*

I'm not sure what history book you need...

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

*Sigh*

I'm not sure what history book you need...

We can start with where you got that information from ? From there you can post the numbers that show this is happening a lot??

 

[JohnDB]

We can start with where you got that information from ? From there you can post the numbers that show this is happening a lot??

If only there existed a "World Wide Web" of information out there...*sigh*
I guess someone will need to invent it.

 

[Jamsie]

Can you post the sources?

I found this, it is not something I have given much time to researching:

18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

If only there existed a "World Wide Web" of information out there...*sigh*
I guess someone will need to invent it.

The www won’t tell me your source. Only you know that. Do you have it??

 

[NerdGirl]

Inciting others to commit crimes is unacceptable. Have you ever heard of aiding and abetting?

To each, their own opinion.

It's a slippery slope from this:
Person A says "Go kill that person" directly to Person B, and Person B goes out and kills the aforementioned person, and Person A is guilty of inciting crime/violence.

To this:
Person A says "Fight for what you believe in!" and Person B hears/reads this, interprets it to mean that violence is acceptable in achieving his personal aims, and goes out and kills someone. Person A is not responsible in any way, shape, or form, for Person B's actions.

 

[NerdGirl]

hate speech: speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of membership or perceived membership in a social group identified by attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability, and others. Hate speech involves epithets and slurs, statements that promote malicious stereotypes, and speech intended to incite hatred or violence against a group.

And who gets to define "denigrates", "perceived membership", "epithets", "promote", "intended" and "incite"? Start down the slippery slope, and you'll just keep sliding further and further.

Insults are not crimes.

 

[NerdGirl]

My first thought is that we don't have a problem with "not being free enough" to express ourselves.

The real problem is the poor quality of what comes out of our mouths.

I lean towards thinking free expression has duty with it. I think duty has been swept aside and people express themselves as they please with no regard for truth, fairness or really thinking about the issue. Nor do people seem to have much concern for how their expression affects others.

A little more research on the matter wouldn't do me any harm - but for now - I'm leaning towards lack of carrying out duty???

The moment you try to define what is a moral "duty" for another person, you're infringing on their rights. Nobody should be forced through the rule of law, to be "nice". Being nice is a good, moral, ethical thing to do. But it shouldn't be mandated by laws. Men should always retain their freedom to be imperfect, rude, stupid, etc. You can't legislate perfection.

 

[JohnDB]

And who gets to define "denigrates", "perceived membership", "epithets", "promote", "intended" and "incite"? Start down the slippery slope, and you'll just keep sliding further and further.

Insults are not crimes.

Oh yeah?

Well,
My momma is uglier than your mamma.

ROFL.

To me, this "respecting" of other people's feelings has gotten way out of control.

When you get confused with a person's decided gender for the day and then use some exclamitory remarks in frustration...that's one thing.

But to declare someone who is an elected official shouldn't be breathing....that's another altogether.

 

[Jamsie]

The www won’t tell me your source. Only you know that. Do you have it??

Should come right up when you click on it...did for me, try this:

18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda | Southern Poverty Law Center (splcenter.org)

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

The moment you try to define what is a moral "duty" for another person, you're infringing on their rights. Nobody should be forced through the rule of law, to be "nice". Being nice is a good, moral, ethical thing to do. But it shouldn't be mandated by laws. Men should always retain their freedom to be imperfect, rude, stupid, etc. You can't legislate perfection.

No, you can’t make a law regarding the heart. Still, I think freedom of expression which neglects duty is going to incur social penalties. (Please note: I am not saying laws should be made to force people to do their duty regarding freedom of speech, not an I saying that’s even possible)

 

[NerdGirl]

To be fair, SPLC is a bit of a meme to most people.

They tend to pick out individuals that are connected with groups, and then use that individual's comments as if they stand as the policies of the entire group, which is disingenuous at best, and ludicrous at worst.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

If only there existed a "World Wide Web" of information out there...*sigh*
I guess someone will need to invent it.

Ordinarily speaking, if you say something is true - it’s up to you to prove it or show it to be true, or at least provide a reason why you think it’s true (like an article or book or something). That’s if you would like others to believe it also. Without that, the claim might not be very persuasive and your point may be largely overlooked.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I listened to talk back - the level of raw hate being expressed presently was disturbing.

At the same time Governments are increasing legislation against 'hate speech'

What Hate is OK and what Hate is not ???

It depends on what we define as hate? Is reciting Leviticus 18:22 hate? According to the left it is.

I would submit that the state should stay out of the business of hate speech. It isn't their job to determine what it is, regulate it or punish it.

 

[SilverBear]

The moment you try to define what is a moral "duty" for another person, you're infringing on their rights. Nobody should be forced through the rule of law, to be "nice". Being nice is a good, moral, ethical thing to do. But it shouldn't be mandated by laws. Men should always retain their freedom to be imperfect, rude, stupid, etc. You can't legislate perfection.

if everyone were good, moral and ethical there would be no need for any laws much less lows concerning hate speech

 

[SilverBear]

It started over a decade ago with a baker who refused to bake a cake...it's gone way past that now. Pastor's have been incarcerated for preaching from the pulpits and everything.
Where have you been?

Please name the preachers in this country has been incarcerated and just what were they preaching

 

[JohnDB]

Please name the preachers in this country has been incarcerated and just what were they preaching

*rolls eyes and walks away*

I'm done.
I really have no interest in people who want to have disengenous conversation.

 

[NerdGirl]

if everyone were good, moral and ethical there would be no need for any laws much less lows concerning hate speech

That's the thing, though.

It's one thing to say "You can't murder another person".
It's another to say "You can't upset another person."

One is reasonable. The other is not.

 

[SilverBear]

To be fair, SPLC is a bit of a meme to most people.

They tend to pick out individuals that are connected with groups, and then use that individual's comments as if they stand as the policies of the entire group, which is disingenuous at best, and ludicrous at worst.

the people they do this with are founders and leaders of the group often acting as spokesperson for their group...why is that disingenuous?