[mamelukesabre]

There’s no profanity in that post. There’s no vulgar language. That post should stand, in my opinion. Free speech and all that, right? IF the recipient is offended, it’s that person’s responsibility to defend themselves or launch a counter-attack that also falls below the indecency radar.

[bbruit]

Vulgar language is not necessarily “hate”, just uncouth.

[r9etb]

There’s no profanity in that post. There’s no vulgar language.

So you're saying it requires profanity before one can interpret it as "hate?" I don't think so. And the language of the example I posted is undeniably vulgar.

IF the recipient is offended, it’s that person’s responsibility to defend themselves or launch a counter-attack that also falls below the indecency radar.

The topic, however, is whether somebody from the outside would be justified in calling FR a "hate site." Posts like the one I posted are all they'd need to form such an opinion -- and there have been a LOT of posts like that in the past year or two.

Free speech is all well and good -- but with freedom comes responsibility. And FReepers who abuse their freedom of speech to the point of sounding like Klansmen are not only hurting themselves, but they're hurting the rest of FR as well.

[singfreedom]

I really must agree.  There is a great deal of resentment in the post, yes, but, on the other hand, the acts perpetrated by these people were so heinous, comparatively, that I can understand the venom.  It is not entirely unearned.
  ANY parent, who could raise, not one, but 2 children who could force 4 young people to kneel in a schoolyard and shoot them point blank in the head, has a SERIOUS lack of parenting skills——and probably deserves any venom they receive——PARTICULARLY, if the writer believed the murders would never have happened if this “family” had never been allowed into the country.