free speech or hate speech/(crime)

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

I vigorously defend the right of any human in this country to make an a$$ of him or herself. How else are people going to believe that folks think like this if we don't let them open their mouths? And how are you going to know who they are and where they are if they can't speak up?

Defending their rights helps protect the rights of us all.

- Bill
sarosenc
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:22 pm

Post by sarosenc »

Well said Bill.

Today the Lambeth Commission condemned the liberal proponents of the U. S. Anglican Church for voting in an openly gay bishop and urged more conservative control.

For most people (IMO) perception is reality and they fail, through laziness or ignorance, to look deeper than the surface of the issue. It appears that a double standard has been applied to the actions of the 'Philly 11'. Advocacy groups tend to blow statistics of 'hate crimes/speech' way out of proportion. They don't have answer for their statistical liberties, because they are not governed by anything but their own conscious.
... small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mttw 7:14
sarosenc
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:22 pm

Post by sarosenc »

Ben
I don't subscribe to method/ideology of Repent America. I think they have action of repentance out of order.First comes fellowship just as Christ did, then repentance, then comes righteousness.

Aside from that, "Do you think that LGB's would really protest chuches?" I suppose it would be easy, churches post when they hold services. And actions against churches are not categorised by law enforcement as crimes against the parishoners, but against the property itself.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03K01
... small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mttw 7:14
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

What a sad little article from the FRC. They believe the numbers are wrong (over for LGBs, under for them, of course) but what's to be done? BOTH groups should be protected. Or so you'd think. They suggest that if a hate crime occurs around a bar, where an overture "MAY" have occured, it's not a big deal:

"For example, numerous officers report that much anti-homosexual crime occurs around bars, at restrooms, or in streets or parks where, according to police, homosexual men may make sexual overtures that go awry.[22] This muddies the waters for prosecutors."

Guess what? These are also the places to look for victims to beat. I'm not going to be attacked in my hospital, nor would anyone have any idea about me there. (FYI: I also do not visit any of the above sites either, except national parks for nature and "streets," for driving. You know how the gays are about frequenting "streets." :roll: ) Plus, if there WERE an overture that went wrong, that is NOT a justification for assault. Believe me, straight men would make an issue of this if they were shot or peppersprayed by a woman they "may" have made an overture towards. What nonsense.

Then, under "no proof of deterrence," (not something that's impeded conservative groups calls for the death penalty), they suggest prayer. Someone show me the study that shows deterrence with that. Lordie. PROOF of effectiveness is lacking for a lot of laws--would they legalize pot and underage drinking despite their ineffectiveness? No. Sum: FRC useless.

Anyway, in reference to my earlier claim, no beneficiary of hate crimes protection is "more protected." The laws DO NOT, for example, protect "gays." They protect against assaults based on "sexual orientation," which is something everyone has. Those Jeff, while you may be far far less likely to require the protection of this law, it applies as much to you as anyone else. To say otherwise is to accuse a flu vaccine of discriminating because it protects everyone from flu but those with emphysema who are more vulnerable benefit more.
--Ian
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

Wow... I never realized it...

If going to bars, parks, streets, and restrooms makes someone homosexual, then there's a lot more to it than I realized! Maybe I should have a serious discussion about this with my wife... hmmmmm...

A (gay, but that shouldn't make a difference) friend of mine is fond of saying to me (and I paraphrase so no one is offended), "Even if you're the best bridge-builder in the world, if you commit just one homosexual act in college, you won't be remembered as a bridge-builder... and that's the problem with the way things are."

My only response to that is simply, when I think of him (or Ian), my thoughts are that he's a good friend and Ian is a Uechi-ka MD...
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
Posts: 6069
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Contact:

Difficult subject

Post by gmattson »

I'm interested in learning exactly what "equal protection" really means. Can I carry a sign during a black church service saying that all N.....s are going to burn forever in Hell?

If this equal protection is only about something physical, then I guess we are not heaping "emotional" and other non-physical abuse into the equation.

Can anyone clarify this?
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
sarosenc
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:22 pm

Post by sarosenc »

Ian

Thanks for your informed and intelligent viewpoint. The ideas and references I raise are there just for the discussion. I hope that you do not feel as if the references I post are an attack on you personally, even though I realize they are personal issues. Just creating a polarizing discussion that can be rather heated.

Just to 'lay it on the line' I firmly believe in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and savior. I believe in the sanctity of all life, everyone of us has fallen short. It is the person first that matters, if you can't be a friend you have no hope of open discussions that can lead to a change of heart ...
... small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mttw 7:14
sarosenc
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:22 pm

Post by sarosenc »

Just a little something from the other side of the fence ... so to speak. Take special note of the last paragraph. Doesn't say much about the respect of free speech.

http://www.epgn.com/news/news1.htm
... small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mttw 7:14
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

So here, we have a news report you might expect to be biased AGAINST the protestors, which makes about no note of them being physically violent, or even clarifies what they did that was so heinous. Neither side appears to have been. While I don't think hate crime charges are appropriate when someone has been protesting peacefully or even disruptively (I would hold them in reserve for acts such as M. Shephard's killing which was cruel and purposeful), neither is the claim that christianity is being criminalized supported. Cops haven't been, in my experience, been disrupting sunday gatherings and making arrests. If they start, or otherwise harrass lawful demonstrators of whatever belief system, those demonstrators have my full ideologic support (I'm not going to spend a lot of time or effort fighting for Klansmen or Rev. Phelps, let's be honest :) )

Ever hear about someone on COPS who does what sounds like one thing, but then has 46 charges? Battery, assaulting an officer, resisting arrest, possession of a stick of gum used in a crime... it goes on. They get excited and throw the book at you. I wonder if that's happened here. Sounds for sure like overkill. Perhaps the best thing would have been just misdemeanor charges for disrupting the peace or whatever else would have been appropriate for demonstrators against disposable batteries or whtever the cause was. Avoids the appearance of favoritism.

My layman's understanding of the law that you can hold pretty confrontational demonstrations without breaking the law or getting arrested. Phelps does just that. Stays in the defined area for protestors (doesn't enter the church, for example). Quite nasty chants and signs at inappropriate events and times. And I support his right to continue. Not only would violating his free speech right be wrong, it would threaten that of us all, and there are better ways to handle him. Groups have learned that when Phelps plans demos, they can get pledges of support to roll in that are linked to that demo's length. Phelps therefore becomes a fundraiser for those he hates most. THAT is smart, polite, fair, and Constitutional counterprotesting, and the government doesn't even get involved!
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Here is "free speech" taken to an extreme. This is the anecdote everyone wants to point to when attempting to curb free speech.

Radical cleric charged with
urging killing of non-Muslims


- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

I mentioned earlier I was gonna say something about the idea that all crime is hateful, that stabbing person x is as violent as stabbing person y, and they shouldn't be punished differently. This DOES seem pretty reasonable when it's stated that way...

But here's another way to cast certain attacks. If some psycho goes out in the middle of the night with a baseball bat studded with nails and viciously killing the 13th pedestrian he sees at random, he clearly affects that person and their family but also affects the community. People are going to be terrified to walk around if there's a psycho killing randomly on the loose... they'll feel like targets. Think about the summer of sam and how much people modified their behaviors and appearances because they'd been successfully terrorized by the guy. Much more impact on the community than if a similar number of murders had occured in unsolved home invasions.

Let's say someone goes out and shoots a different middle easterner to death every night for a week in the middle of their community or at their gathering places. Two things have happened: 7 people were murdered, AND an act of terrorism has taken place. Deliberately, the killer has put the whole group on edge, perhap changing their lives, their voting habits, their ability to congregate, to feel safe being middle eastern in the USA. THAT second crime is the rationale for additional hate crime punishments. You get your jail time for being a killer, AND you get something for being a terrorist. No "thought crime" is created, because no thought is punished, only an act of terrorism. Hate whomever you want, all you want.

There's a precedent for this: kill a cop, and I don't think most value a cops life over anothers in and of themselves, and you get a bigger punishment because you also attacked law and order itself. There's punishment for second crimes. We also punish differently based on state of mind at the time of an act... 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder depending on how impulsive you were feeling.

There ARE problems with hate crimes laws... BUT they also reverse one legal issue that's been a problem, which is something i like about em. Laws have been a way we've told the little people we don't like them, prejudice enshrined in our government. Sends a big signal. A law that says discrimination is actively being discouraged contributes to the discussion that potential assailants hear and derive their opinions from. Helps contribute to cultural norms. That's a complicated little field, but, there's one perspective.
--Ian
Post Reply

Return to “Realist Training”