We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
For me, speech about criminalizing incorrect speech amounts to fighting words. It provokes me towards evil, defiant ideas.
But maybe it can be taken further. Forget speech, how about criminalizing incorrect but unspoken thoughts? Government doctors and neuroscientists could decide who is guilty. "If my thought-dreams could be seen they'd probably put my head in a guillotine, but it's all right, Ma..."
Let him without thought crime cast the first stone.
There is something interesting in all this. Though Eric overlooks the idea that a principle might be so clear that a strong presumption might be reasonable even before the details are in, he does note that any such legislation would have to be based on actual wording. How would victimologists word such a thing in a fashion that did not saw off the very branches they sit on? As things are currently structured, with media hysteria and insinuation rather than fact, hate speech can be punished without having to go through the bother of making an actual prosecutable case. Admittedly, we can't put them in jail or fine them, but we can ruin their careers, which is something.
But with a law, some door that swings both ways, many courts in America have this unfortunate tendency of trying to be consistent and evenhanded. I think it was Gandalf who said "Oft evil will shall evil mar." Could be amusing.
Assistant Village Idiot
Let us talk of many things:
Suicide encouragement of Democrats for the right reasons, like evil rapists confronting reality for example.
Oh, and plagiarism: those words are criminal too.
What my point is is nearly everything is infinite, so to presume nearly everything, in the pursuit of truth I'll concede (though I don't believe that but for arguments sake...), with the idea someone who opposes you, to the point of calling you a bigoted racist sans humanness heartbeat, will understand you such that your existence in dialogue is justified, is null.
So, does that mean when Dems call the other party ReTHUGlicans they can be sentenced with a crime?
The leaders of the 'hate speech' issue don't spell out exactly what it is - how could they? But it will end up like the old definition of pornography, "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it." So watch out when they see it because they will see it everywhere except from themselves.
Would someone here please post a reference to the federal law that has been in place for many years--the law about not speaking in an anti semitic manner. It pertains specifically to Jewish interests. Thank you.
given that such laws always come down to the accusation of "hate speech" being all the evidence that's needed for a conviction thought becomes criminalised by them.
Or rather not being liked by other people becomes a crime, not looking like everyone else, having a better paying job than your neighbours, buying a new car when someone else in the street can't afford one, things like that...
Which is exactly what liberals are all about, enforcing grey uniformity.
" YouGov asked people about hate crimes for its poll too and found bipartisan support for the federal law that provides steeper penalties for crimes motivated by hatred of the victim’s race, religion, gender, or national origin. Sixty-four percent of Dems gave thumbs-up to that versus 54 percent of Republicans."
I believe this is another illustration of how far the PC rot has set in. When hate crime laws were first proposed, the opposition cited there were already penalties on the books for the crimes committed and that adding a hate charge was first unnecessary, and secondly prosecuting people for their thoughts.
Now, if this poll is correct, repubs are good with prosecuting people for hateful thoughts.
Given a precedent such as this, I don't see how hate speech laws can be far away. Given time, as with "hate crimes', I fear the majority will come to accept 'speech crimes' as well.
They may indeed do so, feeblemind. But the bullet box provides a cure. The Bill of Rights does NOT "grant" rights to the people. It merely defines unalienable rights that exist. It is way past time for Only Ones to understand what will happen to them and theirs if they persist with their treason. And it is indeed treason that they commit, for EVERY ONE OF THEM has sworn an oath to the Constitution before pinning on that badge. Yet NOT EVEN ONE OF THEM will bother to honor that oath, even though it is the ONLY thing granting them any authority whatsoever.