Posted on 01/21/2009 11:42:04 PM PST by stevelackner
It’s coming here too. We now have a leftwing government. Look for them to tell us within the coming year that we can’t say anything negative about Islam.
“I’ve wondered at terms such as “hate crimes”. Why isn’t the penalty for the crime itself sufficient?”
It seems that the primary motive of the advocates of the “hate crime” label is to force everyone to think like they think.
Coming soon to a republic near you...
Not exactly.
First of all, it is my understanding that there are objective truths that cannot be considered as a defense, such as referring to certain cases where someone has served his time for an old conviction. Plus, it doesn't matter if Liberace were gay...the defense is valid only if you can prove it (i.e., burden of proof is on the defendent).
The ability of “hate laws” to circumvent that long standing legal absolute is what makes them so potentially dangerous.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
You can say whatever you care to that disparages Christianity...
Yep. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE
Coming to our own soil already. Next up will be ‘hate thought’ which will be prosecuted upon evidence of:
1. Rolling. widening or narrowing of eyes toward intended victim.
2. Lifting of any part of lip toward intended victim.
3. Downward turn of either or both sides of mount toward intended victim.
4. Toss of head in any direction toward intended victim.
5. Release of breath at any pressure from nose or mouth in direction of intended victim.
6. Willful refusal to respond when intended victim confronts perpetrator and demands satisfaction for such vile behavior which dehumanizes, demoralizes and humiliates intended victim.
That’s a matter of semantics. Obviously I have to be able to show that my assertion was true, but then I couldn’t prove Liberace was gay if he wasn’t. If something is true, then there can be no slander or libel in disclosing it.
Similarly, if someone has done time for some offense, and you state they have done that time, that isn’t libel. Other people may very well jump to the wrong conclusions about someone based on that truthful statement you make, but that’s not your problem. You aren’t responsible for their prejudices.
I’m sorry I dont know what you mean by the disclaimer: IANAL comment...
Nothing so unsubtle. It will be a series of laws allowing prosecution for derogatory comments about someones sexual preference, gender identity, race & religion. Theoretically that means someone who says something negative about straights, whites and christians could be prosecuted, but in practice they never are. Then slowly, what constitutes an offense will be broadened, the severity of punishment will be increased. Then one day you wake up and you realise you can say and do nothing but the party “line”.
See FITNA here...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/03/watch-fitna.html
—
Someone else posted a YouTube interview of Geert Wilders
First part of 6 parts...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGh3WNsfTb4
“a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line”
I find this highly ironic.
Even Netherlands has adopted the stupid term “hate speech”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.