Islam in Europe
POSTED BY: FutureMrsFIllion
UPDATED: Saturday, November 15, 2025 22:41
VIEWED: 7826
PAGE 5 of 7
Quote:
Besides, really? You'd lobby for the right to offend people in public?
Define "offend". Would you outlaw 400-pound people wearing Spandex? 'Cause I find them DEEPLY offensive. Will you outlaw cell phones? Idiots yelling into their goddamned phones in the middle of a restaurant are very offensive, and idiots talking into them or texting while driving are downright dangerous - far more dangerous than drunk drivers, in fact.
Where do YOUR right not to be offended and MY right not to be offended meet? And how many people will be offended by us trying to figure that out?
Mike
Let the wild rumpus start!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I don't even class indirect hateful threats (All Chinese deserve to die) as something I would take action against.
My particular line is in the category of personal statements of intent. (I am going to kill you. I am going to kill all Americans.)
Also, incitement to violence would be prohibited (Kill a Jew this Christmas) because these have an imminent and direct quality placing the speaker in the position of being a conspirator to murder.
I guess you would call this my gray area.
So, in Anthony's view: "Hispanics need to die" would be legal, and "Kill a Hispanic Tuesday" would be illegal.
I don't know where Frem or others with similar views might draw their own lines.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I spent years of my life enduring hateful harassment.
And yeah, I would lobby to protect the rights of anyone who calls me a Spic, Rafter, Rower, Floater, Marielito, Cube, Fob, or Island Beaner.
I would also lobby to protect the rights of anyone who calls me a cracker, as I have also often been referred.
Essentially, I would lobby to protect the rights of anyone. Because I consider them rights.
--Anthony
Name calling is not what I'm talking about. That to me is not hateful harassment. Hell, my friends call me names.
If your "hateful harassment" was greater then I assume that you would have been happy to have not had to experience it at all.
Fwiw - I'd be happy to *serve* anyone who decides that being offensive around children is "their right."
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
If you are referring to hateful harassment in the form of being attacked and beaten due to my genetic heritage or the color of my skin, I can attest to that level of harassment as well. Forgive me for couching this in terms of speech alone, since that was the topic primarily being dealt with.
If someone beats me up for being hispanic, or a white anglo saxon protestant (two contradictory and ironic experiences in my life) I'd be content for them to see assault charges. I don't want them prosecuted for hate. That indeed DOES litigate against thought. I don't want the law to care why he beat me up, why he broke my nose, dislodged a tooth, and left me embarrassed and bleeding on the ground. I do want the law to punish him for performing that violence.
Motive is only important insofar as it helps to prove guilt in a court of law by explaining why someone would assault someone minding their own business. I do not believe motive should tie into criminal punishment except insofar as the motive can be deemed to render the assault legally justified.
As for having the right to be vulgar around children in public space? I absolutely assert that right.
Meanwhile, I equally assert my responsibility to do no such thing. I feel many responsibilities as a human being that have nothing whatsoever to do with my legal rights.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Besides, really? You'd lobby for the right to offend people in public?
Define "offend". Would you outlaw 400-pound people wearing Spandex? 'Cause I find them DEEPLY offensive. Will you outlaw cell phones? Idiots yelling into their goddamned phones in the middle of a restaurant are very offensive, and idiots talking into them or texting while driving are downright dangerous - far more dangerous than drunk drivers, in fact.
Where do YOUR right not to be offended and MY right not to be offended meet? And how many people will be offended by us trying to figure that out?
Thx Mike - I was just about to reply to Frem with that very point: it all depends on definitions. I was going to say that his points show that it is about the definitions decided by the group and not the individuals that are the most important.
What I can imagine as "offense" is deeply offensive - not spandex bad - I was going to share examples and then deleted my post because I just don't want to go there.
For me to think of someone who is so tied to absolutes that they would defend that kind of behaviour just makes me think they haven't really experienced the kind of abuse that's out there or they lack the imagination or the innate cruelty (good for them!).
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony: I think I see where you're coming from.
"Death to Jews" would be offensive to many, but not really threatening, per se.
But "Kill THAT Jew" WOULD be threatening.
Sound about right?
At the same time, someone on this board saying "I wish Kwicko would die" is far different than someone coming at me in person, saying "I'm going to KILL you!" I'll defend your right to do the former, but if you try the latter...
Mike
Let the wild rumpus start!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Motive is only important insofar as it helps to prove guilt in a court of law by explaining why someone would assault someone minding their own business. I do not believe motive should tie into criminal punishment except insofar as the motive can be deemed to render the assault legally justified.
I can agree there. I was just explaining the way it's theoretically supposed to work.
Quote:
Anthony: I think I see where you're coming from.
"Death to Jews" would be offensive to many, but not really threatening, per se.
But "Kill THAT Jew" WOULD be threatening.
Sound about right?
At the same time, someone on this board saying "I wish Kwicko would die" is far different than someone coming at me in person, saying "I'm going to KILL you!" I'll defend your right to do the former, but if you try the latter...
Yes. Which is the spirit of the claim to motive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"'Death to Jews' would be offensive to many, but not really threatening, per se."
It would be considered hate speech by the UN, something two radio announcers were tried for in Rwanda.
It is part of the process of dehumanizing a group in order to make the people victims.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"'Death to Jews' would be offensive to many, but not really threatening, per se."
It would be considered hate speech by the UN, something two radio announcers were tried for in Rwanda.
It is part of the process of dehumanizing a group in order to make the people victims.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
Hello Rue,
I do not wish to see 'dehumanizing' people made illegal. Only specific acts of criminality.
I do think it is the responsibility of every sane, reasonable, and thinking person to speak out against dehumanization and present strong counteropinions whenever it surfaces.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME