Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

FIRST DAY OF SUMMER!!! THE JAPS SURRE...

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum » The Monkey Hole » FIRST DAY OF SUMMER!!! THE JAPS SURRENDER!!! « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through July 2, 2003Jack Collins (_black25 7-2-03  2:25 pm
Archive through June 28, 2003Quidam (Artemis)25 6-28-03  3:56 pm
Archive through June 25, 2003George Beatley (Ledi25 6-25-03  2:55 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Karl (Raschied)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Raschied

Post Number: 334
Registered: 3-2002


Posted on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 12:53 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Another Sign of the Apocalypse.

More Cow mutilations as well...
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago.
Pontiac - We build Excitement.
Mrs. Head (Admin)
Madame Guillotine
Username: Admin

Post Number: 1163
Registered: 1-1998


Posted on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 12:03 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

That is the most exciting news item I've seen for a very long time.


A lady who has a secure seat is never prettier than when in the saddle, and she who cannot make her conquest there, may despair of the power of her charms elsewhere. - THE MANNERS THAT WIN, 1880

http://www.feeverte.net
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1100
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 11:30 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2987963.stm
Pataphysician (Pataphysician)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Pataphysician

Post Number: 613
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 11:24 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

...though I can't think of any right now.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 817
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 10:54 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Stranger things have been known to happen.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1099
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, July 7, 2003 - 6:15 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I mean, if Head and Kallisti can find love, whose to say me and LH can't...?
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1098
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, July 7, 2003 - 6:14 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Should we rip off each other's clothes and rassle in the water now?
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1097
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, July 7, 2003 - 6:02 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Tastes great!
Mssr. Kallisti (Head_prosthesis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Head_prosthesis

Post Number: 3638
Registered: 1-2001


Posted on Monday, July 7, 2003 - 5:31 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I like the way my boys stay focused.
GO LIVE !!!
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1095
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, July 7, 2003 - 12:20 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

So you are ok with prosecuting a person for causing doing something that may cause a person to fear that violence will occur (regardless of whether violence occurs or not).



Only if it is a reasonable fear of IMMEDIATE, specific harm.


quote:

If hate-filled speeches can cause people's rights to free from fear of violence to be undermined then it is reasonable for governments to take action against such hate-filled speeches and literature in order to allow people be able to live free from fear of such violence.



I don't think that a right to be free from fear exists, and I think it would be a dangerous concept, since it would empower governments to interfere with individual liberties on almost every level. Fear is a part of the human experience, and, indeed, one of the prime motivations for human action.

The rationale behind criminalizing assault and specific threats is not a universal right not to be afraid, but to give the government the power to intervene when specific acts of violence are immenant, and to prevent the use of threats as a means of specific coersion.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 815
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Monday, July 7, 2003 - 11:26 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"The reasonalbe threat of immediate violence does not require that violence takes place, only that a reasonable person would fear that it would."

So you are ok with prosecuting a person for causing doing something that may cause a person to fear that violence will occur (regardless of whether violence occurs or not).

The same could be applied to hate-filled speeches which deliberately intend to prompt others to commit acts of violence on specidic groups of people. This causes fear, amongst the groups targetted, that violence will occur. Organising an anti-immigration, facist rally on a deprived public housing estate with sizable minority of immigrants, give a vicious hate-filled anti-immigrant speech to a gathered group of local jack-booted skinheads (but stop short of directly calling for violence against the immigrants) and you can be guaranteed that the vast majority of immigrants on the estate will fear for the safety of themselves and their families (and with good reason). Hate-filled words can be as powerful an implement for instilling fear of violence as any burning cross. Governments put limits on what people can do in order to protect the rights of people to live safely without fear of violence. If hate-filled speeches can cause people's rights to free from fear of violence to be undermined then it is reasonable for governments to take action against such hate-filled speeches and literature in order to allow people be able to live free from fear of such violence.
ENORMUS DICK (Louched_liver)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Louched_liver

Post Number: 2079
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Monday, July 7, 2003 - 11:02 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I exist only to meddle, fuss, and cause anxiety.
Over 2,000 posts worth of prickly heat.
Hi, what're ya havin'?
Mssr. Kallisti (Head_prosthesis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Head_prosthesis

Post Number: 3636
Registered: 1-2001


Posted on Monday, July 7, 2003 - 7:39 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

You leave my people alone!
You... You... INTERLOPER!!!
GO LIVE !!!
ENORMUS DICK (Louched_liver)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Louched_liver

Post Number: 2078
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Monday, July 7, 2003 - 6:09 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

You guys done chatting already?
Hi, what're ya havin'?
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1093
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, July 6, 2003 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Therefore the cross burning did not constitute a threat of immediate violence.



The reasonalbe threat of immediate violence does not require that violence takes place, only that a reasonable person would fear that it would. The crime of assault does not require that the victim ever be physically harmed; that is the seperate crime of battery. Assault is the act of causing a person to reasonably fear that they are about to be battered.

I'm not saying that all cross-burnings constitute a reasonable threat, but if a person tresspasses on your property just to burn a cross, I'd say you are reasonable to conclude that they mean you physical harm (which gets back to the earlier argument about use of force against trespassers...) However, the act of burning a cross, in itself, is not criminal. It is a question of intent and reasonable perception.

If silencing "hate speech" really stopped violence (which it would not), it would still not be worth the chilling effect it would have on civil discourse. We must be willing to grit our teeth and let ALL voices be heard, or we are dooming ourselves to only hearing the voice of the most powerful group.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 814
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Sunday, July 6, 2003 - 10:51 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Burning a cross on someone's lawn should be seen as equal to, not worse than, any other act that would be reasonably interpreted as a direct threat of violence. "

But in most of the recent cases of cross burning no immediate violence ensued. If it had then the perpetrators would have been charged with committing violent crimes. Therefore the cross burning did not constitute a threat of immediate violence.

By the same measure any hate-filled words or deeds could be viewed as a threat of violence. If we simply changed the title of our legislation from 'incitement to hatred' to 'incitement to violence' then perhaps you may be more comfortable with it.

"While such a display might make most people feel uncomfortable, I can't see how it is doing HARM to anybody."

Burning crosses are not just a quaint tradition practised by folk in funny costumes, they are messages to non-whites and Jews. If I was a black man living in 'White-Bubba-ville' and there was a 25 foot burning cross, surrounded by men in white hoods, in a field across the road from my house, I'd be nervous about the safety of my family and I'd make sure my gun was loaded and ready and that my children were all accounted for and safely indoors.

I grew up in Northern Ireland, and although Loyalist marches etc. are certainly not like the KKK, I've seen exactly what the results of hate-filled sectarian speeches are. The result is killings and beatings (not by the speakers but by those who are spoken to), and that's with incitement to hatred laws in force (prosecution under these laws is difficult). When a Loyalist march proceeds down a Catholic street beating drums (stopping to beat their drums very loudly outside the houses of those who have been recently murdered by Loyalist paramilitaries) the message is clear (and that's without them even uttering a single word or breaking any laws).
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1092
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, July 6, 2003 - 10:05 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

If the KKK sticks a burning cross on you, or your parent's lawn (and stand around wearing white hoods and gowns when you come out to see what is going on) then all they're guilty of is trespass and vandalism?



There are anti-cross-burning laws in a couple of states. I think the Supreme Court recently upheld one of them, not on the grounds that inciting hatred was criminal, but that cross burning constituted a threat of immediate violence. I am not comfortable with the idea that ANY act should be banned simply because of the CONTENT of the belief it intends to convey. Burning a cross on someone's lawn should be seen as equal to, not worse than, any other act that would be reasonably interpreted as a direct threat of violence.


quote:

Or if they burn a huge cross on private land in full public view they are only exercising their right to free speech? They're not causing any harm to anybody?




While such a display might make most people feel uncomfortable, I can't see how it is doing HARM to anybody. Sorry.

It is also worth noting that most of the appeal the KKK has in the US is based on a twisted belief that white people's "rights" are being stripped away in the US in the name of political correctness. Attempting to silence them, rather tha letting them speak and display their own ignorance, will only make them more appealing.

The reason it makes no sense that inciting hatred is a crime while hatred in itself is not, is simply that I can think of NO other instance in law where inciting an otherewise legal act is criminal. The closest I can think of is soliciting prostitution, and it is the commercial aspect that aggrevates the act there, not the incitement.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 813
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Sunday, July 6, 2003 - 12:50 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

It makes sense to us over here.

As for your agrument about 'crimes-by definition', the majority of criminal offences in your own country are 'crimes-by-definition'. You have incitement to violence as a crime, this is also a 'crime-by-definition'.

Incitement to violence will only succeed in catching extremely stupid people who incite violence, any shit-stirrer with half a brain can incite violence without actually directly saying words to that effect. Are you trying to tell me that the KKK don't incite violence. If the KKK sticks a burning cross on you, or your parent's lawn (and stand around wearing white hoods and gowns when you come out to see what is going on) then all they're guilty of is trespass and vandalism? Or if they burn a huge cross on private land in full public view they are only exercising their right to free speech? They're not causing any harm to anybody? Of course not; they know exactly what they're doing and so does everybody else.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1091
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Saturday, July 5, 2003 - 12:29 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

That makes no sense at all.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 807
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Friday, July 4, 2003 - 10:42 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hatred is not a crime in the UK, however deliberately inciting others to hate is.
silky slim (Sancho)
Mousquetaire
Username: Sancho

Post Number: 9
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Thursday, July 3, 2003 - 9:07 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"No. Incitement to hatred is a crime in itself so people would be prosecuted for an actual crime i.e. incitement to hatred."

is hatred itself a criminal offense? or just the incitement thereof?

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page