Hate Crimes Bill Will Criminalize Free Speech

On May 7, 11:51*pm, wrote:
On May 7, 6:47*pm, Jimbo wrote:

On May 7, 3:50*pm, "Cindi LaFontaine" wrote:
* * * Proponents of this so-called hate crimes legislation tell you that it
cannot be used to stifle speech or thought.

You're just another sputtering idiot. *The Hate Crime Legislation can
not be used to stifle speech or thought.

And you're psychic, so you know how courts will interpret the
legislation.

I know how the law reads, and I know how the courts have interpreted
similar legislation in the past. It doesn't take a phychic to
understand a law as it is written. Only a poo flinging idiot would
interpret this legislation to mean that their speech will somehow be
limited due to this legislation.

On May 8, 3:10*am, Anlatt the Builder wrote:
On May 7, 8:51*pm, wrote:

On May 7, 6:47*pm, Jimbo wrote:

On May 7, 3:50*pm, "Cindi LaFontaine" wrote:
* * * Proponents of this so-called hate crimes legislation tell you that it
cannot be used to stifle speech or thought.

You're just another sputtering idiot. *The Hate Crime Legislation can
not be used to stifle speech or thought.

And you're psychic, so you know how courts will interpret the
legislation.

This is a great reason to never have any laws at all! After all, we
are not psychic, so we can't predict how some court somewhere will
interpret some law somewhere. Therefo get rid of all laws!

Meanwhile, back on the planet Earth:

We have had hate crimes laws for years, based on race, religion, and
other criteria.

They have never been applied to stop hate speech, which, you may
notice, still exists in the United States. (Check it out on the web!)

There is absolutely no reason to believe that simply adding another
criterion (sexual orientation) to hate crime laws will suddenly cause
them to be applied to hate speech. Every court precedent goes the
other way.

Exactly. Well stated.

Mr. Jaggers wrote:
Jud wrote:

The First Amendment applies only to government suppression of speech, not to
private enterprise, so your argument is moot.

Good catch! Seems like I am FOREVER letting people know that fact. I
remember the Dixie Chicks complaining about cancelled concerts because
of their left-wing statements as "trampling on their First Amendment
Rights". However, we ARE talking about laws that would curtail free
speech. That would be a First Amendment violation.

However, I delight in being
able to say whatever I want to say to Cindi with impunity! If my ISP
disagrees with that, they can cut me off and that'll be that, because this
is their sandbox.

Yep, its their sandbox but I for one would complain if they cut
anybody off from speaking their mind.

Sorry, Jud, but when I am forced to sit and listen to Rush Limbaugh if I
wish to visit one of my favorite coin shops (on topic now, nya, nya, nya!!!)
and hear him call ME an idiot and a traitor for voting a certain way, that's
hate.

Miss California spoke out against gay marriage, and may have cost her
the Miss USA crown. That Hilton guy who asked her the question is
openly gay, and an activist to have his opinion heard, but apparently
not anyone elses. Do I detect some hypocracy? I don't agree with a lot
of what Limbaugh says, but as you state later, I agree that he has the
right to say it.

When I hear Christian radio in that same coin shop telling ME that I
will go to Hell if I vote the way that I intend to vote, that's hate. When
I hear rightwing hosts suggest that all liberals should be killed, except
for two on each college campus to be spared as museum curiosities, that's
hate. I grew up in a conservative, Christian, Republican home, and that's
what my mother, my father, and my grandmother all taught me, bless their
hearts. I don't go around wishing others to die, or to go to Hell, or call
them all kinds of names, and I expect the same courtesy shown back to me,
especially by so-called professionals.

Can't argue with that!

I don't endorse vitriol by anyone - right, center, of left. Franken and
Garofolo, as well as many others (ever listen to Randi Rhodes, jeez) have
spewed their share of it. But they don't advocate killing half of the U.S.
population who are law-abiding private citizens, and they usually
concentrate their attacks on a small number of individuals who are public
figures, and they do it by name.

You don't honestly think anyone truly advocates killing half the
population, do you?

BTW, leftwing talk radio is alive and well. Some of its stars are Lionel,
Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, and Norman Goldman. I don't
listen to much of it, because I don't feel the need.

Jud, you're a good guy in my book, even if we disagree on these issues. And
if you end up in a black helicopter, tell the pilot to swing by here and
pick me up. I'd love to take a flight over the City and talk coins all the
while!
James

Jim, I also hold you in the highest respect. Some of my closest
friends have philosophies quite different from mine, and I enjoy the
discourse. I guess the only difference we have is that you take
Limbaugh more seriously than I do, and that you see his rantings as a
hate crime, where I see it as provocative. He wants to incense people,
and apparently was successful.
The black helicopter went away after the pilot saw that I was wearing
my aluminum foil hat.

Jud the free thinker and strict Constitutionalist

"Jud" wrote in message
...


Miss California spoke out against gay marriage, and may have cost her
the Miss USA crown.

As well it should have. Miss USA is supposed to be a diplomat. She gave a
bad answer for that contest.

That Hilton guy who asked her the question is
openly gay, and an activist to have his opinion heard, but apparently
not anyone elses. Do I detect some hypocracy?

While I think she is wrong and her, uhhh, "logic" is seriously flawed
calling her a dumb bitch was crass and immature. Who is that no-name creep
anyway? I loathe both of them.

I don't agree with a lot
of what Limbaugh says, but as you state later, I agree that he has the
right to say it.


The sad and dangerous thing is that there are a lot of people that believe
what Rush says. I highly doubt Rush even believes everything he says. I
think what he does is sick and deranged. Some call it entertainment.

"Jud" wrote in message
...

Mr. Jaggers wrote:
Jud wrote:

The First Amendment applies only to government suppression of
speech, not to
private enterprise, so your argument is moot.

Good catch! Seems like I am FOREVER letting people know that fact.
I
remember the Dixie Chicks complaining about cancelled concerts
because
of their left-wing statements as "trampling on their First Amendment
Rights". However, we ARE talking about laws that would curtail free
speech. That would be a First Amendment violation.

Can you document exactly how so? I'm not trying to be contentious
here, I've just seen too many claims from both sides about dire
consequences for various proposed actions when it turns out that the
author grossly mischaracterized the facts.

However, I delight in being
able to say whatever I want to say to Cindi with impunity! If my
ISP
disagrees with that, they can cut me off and that'll be that,
because this
is their sandbox.

Yep, its their sandbox but I for one would complain if they cut
anybody off from speaking their mind.

Sorry, Jud, but when I am forced to sit and listen to Rush Limbaugh
if I
wish to visit one of my favorite coin shops (on topic now, nya,
nya, nya!!!)
and hear him call ME an idiot and a traitor for voting a certain
way, that's
hate.

Miss California spoke out against gay marriage, and may have cost
her
the Miss USA crown. That Hilton guy who asked her the question is
openly gay, and an activist to have his opinion heard, but
apparently
not anyone elses.

On what do you base that conclusion about his unwillingness to let
others exercise their First Amendment rights? Some fuzzy-headed
thinkers do in fact think that way; but you can mistakenly assume that
vehement, ardent expressions of opposition to another's views carries
with it an intolerance of anyone else expressing those "wrong" views.
I'd want to see clear evidence of that before accusing anyone of
censorship on an "apparently" basis.

Do I detect some hypocracy? I don't agree with a lot
of what Limbaugh says, but as you state later, I agree that he has
the
right to say it.

It's hypocrisy only if the expression of one's own views is coupled
with the expressed opinion that your opponents' views shouldn't be
heard.

When I hear Christian radio in that same coin shop telling ME that I
will go to Hell if I vote the way that I intend to vote, that's
hate. When
I hear rightwing hosts suggest that all liberals should be killed,
except
for two on each college campus to be spared as museum curiosities,
that's
hate. I grew up in a conservative, Christian, Republican home, and
that's
what my mother, my father, and my grandmother all taught me, bless
their
hearts. I don't go around wishing others to die, or to go to Hell,
or call
them all kinds of names, and I expect the same courtesy shown back
to me,
especially by so-called professionals.

Can't argue with that!

I don't endorse vitriol by anyone - right, center, of left.
Franken and
Garofolo, as well as many others (ever listen to Randi Rhodes,
jeez) have
spewed their share of it. But they don't advocate killing half of
the U.S.
population who are law-abiding private citizens, and they usually
concentrate their attacks on a small number of individuals who are
public
figures, and they do it by name.

You don't honestly think anyone truly advocates killing half the
population, do you?

With the possible exception of a few real nut cases, I'd say no. But
there's a fine line between using hyperbole strictly for rhetorical
and entertainment effect, and inadvertently (or "adverdently") egging
others into taking your words literally. To prove legal culpability
you have to prove that the speaker actually intended that others act
on his ravings. But can there be any doubt that such over-the-top
rhetoric creates an environment where others feel empowered (or even
obligated) to commit acts of violence against the perceived evil
threat? That's the whole basis of commercial marketing and
advertising. Why should we think that it doesn't also work here, even
if that wasn't the intent?

BTW, leftwing talk radio is alive and well. Some of its stars are
Lionel,
Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, and Norman Goldman. I
don't
listen to much of it, because I don't feel the need.

Jud, you're a good guy in my book, even if we disagree on these
issues. And
if you end up in a black helicopter, tell the pilot to swing by
here and
pick me up. I'd love to take a flight over the City and talk coins
all the while!
James

Jim, I also hold you in the highest respect. Some of my closest
friends have philosophies quite different from mine, and I enjoy the
discourse. I guess the only difference we have is that you take
Limbaugh more seriously than I do, and that you see his rantings as
a
hate crime, where I see it as provocative. He wants to incense
people,
and apparently was successful.

Perhaps. But as noted above, he is no more immune to the law of
unintended consequences than the rest of us.

The black helicopter went away after the pilot saw that I was
wearing my aluminum foil hat.

Works like a charm, don't it?

I found that painting "Quarantined - Swine Flu" on my roof keeps most
of them at a respectable distance. :-)

Jud the free thinker and strict Constitutionalist

- mazorj
"There's a reason why they made it the First Amendment"

PC wrote:

"Frank Galikanokus" wrote in message
...



I though Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Nazi, and Facist were all the
same
thing. After all - Barack Obama is all those things.

Nope.

Socialist, Communist, Marxist = extreme left.

Nazi, and Fascist = extreme right.


I guess I should have made a sarcastic indicator...

Maybe. Some people do think they are all the same thing.

JAM

"Frank Galikanokus" wrote in message
...
PC wrote:

"Frank Galikanokus" wrote in message
...



I though Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Nazi, and Facist were all the
same
thing. After all - Barack Obama is all those things.

Nope.

Socialist, Communist, Marxist = extreme left.

Nazi, and Fascist = extreme right.


I guess I should have made a sarcastic indicator...

Maybe. Some people do think they are all the same thing.

JAM

True, but understandable. There are more real-world similarities than
theoretical divergences between fascism and communism.

In their extreme forms, both sanction violence and authoritarian control.
Both routinely and almost entirely subjugate individual rights to the
interests of the state. Both embraced the invasion and overthrow of
peaceful neighbors to exploit their resources, acquire lebensraum for "their
kind," and provide security buffer zones. Both anathematized, terrorized,
and killed off entire classes of people on ideological grounds for being
"enemies of the state". Both were ruled by vicious cult dictators. When
you measure along such dimensions, the two tend to blend into one.

At the risk of oversimplification, the most salient theoretical difference
between the two is their approach to private property and enterprise.
Fascism preserves and co-opts the private economy (in form if not always in
fact). Companies and resources are coerced to serve the goals of the state.
Communism says to hell with that, private property and capital are part of
the problem. The state IS the economy and its component activities and
entities, i.e., nationalization in the fullest sense.

As a practical matter it makes no difference whether you were arrested for
saying bad things about the Fuhrer or Comrade Stalin. It makes no
difference whether you were enslaved by Krupps to work in a Krupps factory,
or sent by the state to colonize collectives on the Siberian wastes. It
makes no difference if you were starved and killed by the SS for merely
being a Jew or "non-Aryan," or you were deliberately starved and worked to
death on your farm so that the state could keep you docile while it fed your
grain to factory workers in Moscow. In view of such similarities, the
differences pale in comparison.

"mazorj" wrote in message
...
Both anathematized, terrorized, and killed off entire classes of
people on ideological grounds for being "enemies of the state".

Not unlike what the Zionists in Israel are doing to the Palestinians,
eh?

Nope.
Socialist, Communist, Marxist = extreme left.
Nazi, and Fascist = extreme right.
JAM

**********

Nazi = National SOCIALIST German Workers Party.
The Communist Party of Russia was actually a SOCIALIST party working
towards Communism.

Words are funny things. Maybe the Communists were actually the nasty
Right-Wingers and the Nazis the nice Left Wingers.

Chas Edwards

PC May 8

The sad and dangerous thing is that there are a lot of people that
believe
what Rush says. I highly doubt Rush even believes everything he
says. I
think what he does is sick and deranged. Some call it entertainment.

*****

I quite agree and am glad PC did not mention Keith Olberman who even
more sick and deranged than Rush. Olberman called Hillary Clinton a
"Turdblossom" dozens of times (and even had a little flashing sign
made for the corner of the screen) which I am sure that PC agrees with
or else he would have mentioned it. Olberman even devoted numerous
shows for the sole purpose of trashing Clinton to make sure she did
not win the nomination, just another polite example of our media.

Chas Edwards