> SaPeIsMa wrote: >> So basically you want to punish for a thought crime
> That old bit of tripe again...
ONLY true when you dishonestly cut the rest of the answer to change the context
here is the FULL response
So basically you want to punish for a thought crime Too bad that one can claim that the burglar just HATES the fact that you have something he does not., and therefore decides to take it away from you Ooops, there goes your claim ...
> I can think of smacking you upside the head.
First off, you need to be able to think Something that clearly is a problem for you
>That's a thought. It is not a crime to merely think something though. Crime >is something that is actually done. There is no such thing as a thought >crime. Were we a telepathic species, then that might be different.
Stating the obvious and still unable to come to an intelligent conclusion So sad.
> So, got any voices in yer head? (Other than your own, that is.) If so, > charge 'em with the thought crime of trespassing if they refuse to leave. > Just be sure not to murder the voice in your head... That could get ugly. > ("This court has found you guilty of the thought crime of murder. You are > hereby sentenced to have Barney the Dinosaur's theme song play endlessly > in your head for the next 15 years. <gavel smacks wood block>.")
And here we go into defamation again Clearly you can't address the issue
>> It's really about THOUGHT crime >> When you start attacking the right of the people to think anything they >> want, you are really attempting to control what people are thinking >> How much more intrisuve can you get into people's pricvacy.
> Even you admit that you're pro thinking. Where you get tripped up is > thinking that actions are merely thoughts. Actions are based on thoughts, > yes. But thinking about assassinating Barney the Dinosaur with a > thermonuclear device is far different than actually placing a 15 > kagilliton nuclear device under his trailer and detonating it whilst he's > inside.
BZZZZT Still having problems following a simple thought chain Maybe you should avoid the verbal diarhea and you might be more successfull
>> It's so simple >> But it proves the failure of our educational system to teach people how >> to actually THINK, instead of something that I call "intellectual >> emoting"
> Says the champion of "thought crimes" LOL!
When the idiots can't argue the issue, they go into stupid defamation
In article <a_KIm.151903$ua.145...@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com>, moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says...
> tankfixer wrote: > > moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says... > >>"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> > An admirable goal to strive for. > > I'm sorry you don't understand it and are using it out of context.
> Uh, huh...
> I'm advocating murder? I'm promoting hate? I'm against enhanced punishment for enhanced > crimes?
It is obvious you don't understand what the statement means.
> Sorry, but I don't think I am.
> If I kill someone merely because I think they're "vile scum of the earth and deserve to be > killed one-and-all until they're all dead"; Well that's a bit different than if I kill > someone because they were trying to kill me.
> What part(s) of that don't you understand?
WWhen did self defense creep into the discussion ? Oh wait, just now when you tried to divert attention ..
> >>Return terror with terror. > > Existing law already handle the crimes. > >>Remember Ronald Reagan and Mutually Assured Destruction? Seems to work...
> > Sounds like you are in favor of citizens carrying a means of protection. > > Saw a firearm...
> Grew up with them. Have no problems with them. Well, in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
In article <c1LIm.151937$ua.145...@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com>, moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says...
> tankfixer wrote: > > moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says... > >>Gray Ghost wrote: > >>>Based on that and the postings of many of your olk on this newsgroup, > >>>Conservatives should have special protections, too. > >>Curiously, they seem to resist being relocated to preserves.
> > Curious you think they should be...
> Curiously, you missed the sarcasm.
I saw no indication the statement was meant as sarcasm. Given the amount of leftist hate speach I see in newsgroups one has to take statements like yours at face value unless you are clear when you make them they are sarcasm.
In article <y7LIm.155626$Jp1.107...@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com>, moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says...
> tankfixer wrote: > > moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says... > >>Telling the truth is a hate crime?
> > In the 1930's and 40's there was a group that felt like you appear to.. > > That their version of the Truth was the only one and anyone who > > disagreed should be relocated..
> Rumor has it that they lost...
Not a rumor.. Unless you are a member of that group and didn't like the outcome. Then I could see you wanting to ignore reality.
In article <kfLIm.148559$Gs.8...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>, moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says...
> tankfixer wrote: > > moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says... > >>Ah, confused by my use of a common tactic to expose idiocy and sophistry, eh? > >>Changed a couple words in the original poster's screed, and suddenly it's "RACISM!" > >>Ask yourself, what was it before I changed a couple words to illustrate a point.
> > Altering what another person writes is, dishonest.. > > Expected from a leftist but dishonest none the less..
> I openly and willfully announced, advertised, and made explicit the FACT that I altered > the words. I made no attempt to hide that, there was no subterfuge, no obscuration: It was > blatant, upfront, and in the open.
If you didn't write it you have no business altering it.
> That's hardly what folks call "being dishonest."
I forgot, you leftists and your moral relativism's...
> SaPeIsMa wrote: >> It's interesting, but not surprising, that you also try to hide behnd the >> fallacy of justified homicide and murder being the same.
> Oh, playing the game you accuse me of playing, eh? Homicide is murder. > Murder is murder, yes? A "justified homicide" is simply murder with a > sugar coating, yes?
> Why do you try to hide behind such tricks?
They're not tricks, dummy But it's proof of your IGNORANCE , once again
Murder is a subset of homicide Homicide NOT ALWAYS murder When you are ignorant of the meaning of the words you use, then you are unable to argue intelligently The other requirement for intelligent argument being INTELLIGENCE. Another problem area for you
> Well, No One will simply have to haul his carcass back here and inform us > of that himself.
> (The regulars will get the joke. You're too noob to understand.)
Sonny, If I'm a "noob" then you;re name must be Hopper. (The regulars will get the joke. You're too noob to understand.) I've been working with computers and accessing computers and networks remotely since 1971 At which time your parent's probably still hadn't made the mistake of conceving you
> SaPeIsMa wrote: >> You are the one trying to claim that because you attach a lable of "hate" >> to a particular crime, it deserves more severe punishment >> So far you have failed to support any reason to do so other than a desire >> to discriminate in favor of your pet prejudices
> LOL! "My" pet prejudices? The vast majority of this discussion has been > about the aftermath of Scout and his pet prejudices. He objects to his > words being demonstrated as what they are. He wrote about homosexuals. I > substituted a few other things like religion and race, and suddenly he > thinks I'm a racist. They were his words, his sentiments, his -- > dramatic pause -- thoughts. But to expose his animus is apparently a > thought crime which he objects to most strenuously.
So I was right in my point about YOUR pret prejudices But why did you need to blather so much to admit to it ?
> I wonder if he'll send the Psi Corps after me...
> Since you're against "thought crimes" I trust you'll assist...
> Oh wait, you'd have to fight your pet prejudices, wouldn't you? Couldn't > have that.
> ROTFL!
Apparently you're easily entertained You appear to be working on the level of a budgie and a mirror
> SaPeIsMa wrote: >> It appears that your application of the the label 'hate" is just an >> excuse to discriminate for your political agenda
> Ah. So hate is good? Hate should be protected, sanctioned, championed? Is > that what you stand for?
Your strawman YOU feed it
> My "political agenda" is to point out absurdities.
Since I have made no claims other than to point out YOUR absurdities It's YOUR political agenda that is on the block
> You will no-doubt claim that *your* "political agenda" is the same.
Hevane forbid that I share the same stupid political agenda as a dishonest little ignoramus like you
> Odd that.
Indeed that would be odd It would requires some serious mental regression to lower myself to your level
>> Murder is murder >> The victim is just as dead or injured no matter the motivation >> The mens rea is no different whether you attach the label "hate" to a >> particular crime
> Really? Murder is murder? That's it? There's no Premeditated Murder, no > Aggravated Murder, no First Degree Murder, no Murder in Self Defense, it's > all just Murder...?
LOL
And elsewhere you wrote:
"Oh, playing the game you accuse me of playing, eh? Homicide is murder. Murder is murder, yes? A "justified homicide" is simply murder with a sugar coating, yes?"
Apparently you can't keep up with which bullshit you blather at one time or other
> Right.
> Pull the other one.
Since you can't even grasp the first one, no reason that I should confuse you even more by adding to it
> > It's really about THOUGHT crime > > When you start attacking the right of the people to think anything they > > want, you are really attempting to control what people are thinking > > How much more intrisuve can you get into people's pricvacy.
> # Sorry but it is not a thought crime. No one is being punished solely > # on the basis of their thoughts.
> If you want to be taken seriously, then avoid weasels and strawman arguments > NOBODY claimed ANYTHING about "solely" > Such a claim just demonstrates intellectual dishonesty or sloppiness > Considering your past performance, I lean towards dishonest
> # You can be a complete bigot and hate everyone who is different from you. > # You can say so in public and on the web and there are those who do so. > # Chick Publications publishes a number of religious scripts which are > # notoriously bigoted in their references to Roman Catholics, Mormons > # and Wiccans for example but no one is goiong to prosecute Joe Chick > # for hate crimes. If you do a simple search in the internet you can come > # across thousands of websites accusing Jews of all sorts of evil actions > # and intentions.But no one is prosecuted simply because he hates Jews > # and writes about his hatred.
> At least in the US, there STILL is a First Amendment > But what you and your ilk are trying to do is do an end-run around is by > connecting speech to >>SOME<< other crimes > You either have or have not free speech > The moment you attempt to qualify other crimes dependent on speech, then you > are in effect infringing on free speech > Simple concept, that you are trying to ignore
Silly nonsense. We qualify crime all the time based upon speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a crime that can get you prosecuted. A prosecution for First Degree Murder can be based upon the speech of the perpetrator. It goes to the intent of the perpetrator and we consider the intent of the perpetrator of the crime as important in determining the level of the punishment.
> # > # But if someone goes out and based upon their hatred of all Roman > # Catholics, went into a Catholic Church on Sunday morning and started > # shooting the members of the congregation, he could be prosecuted for a > # hate crime. Similarly if someone went to a Jewish day care center and > # opened fire on the children, killing some based upon his hatred of all > # Jews the he too could be prosecuted for a hate crime.
> Why ? > The punishment for killing people is the highest level of punishment, even > when idiot do-gooders get involved, in which case there is no capital > punishment for it. > So what are you achieving by prosecting and convicting because of what > killer thinks about his victims > Just plain STUPID
Well according to you it is stupid. Society thinks differently. Not all murders are going to result in the death penalty. Often they are less than life for a variety of reasons. The prosecution of the perpetrator is based upon is intent and his intent is shown by his words in some cases. Where that intent shows a certain animus against people because of his perceptions of his victims' affiliation in certain enumerated classes, we enhance that punishment.
> > It's really about THOUGHT crime > > When you start attacking the right of the people to think anything they > > want, you are really attempting to control what people are thinking > > How much more intrisuve can you get into people's pricvacy.
> # Sorry but it is not a thought crime. No one is being punished solely > # on the basis of their thoughts.
> If you want to be taken seriously, then avoid weasels and strawman > arguments > NOBODY claimed ANYTHING about "solely" > Such a claim just demonstrates intellectual dishonesty or sloppiness > Considering your past performance, I lean towards dishonest
> # You can be a complete bigot and hate everyone who is different from you. > # You can say so in public and on the web and there are those who do so. > # Chick Publications publishes a number of religious scripts which are > # notoriously bigoted in their references to Roman Catholics, Mormons > # and Wiccans for example but no one is goiong to prosecute Joe Chick > # for hate crimes. If you do a simple search in the internet you can come > # across thousands of websites accusing Jews of all sorts of evil actions > # and intentions.But no one is prosecuted simply because he hates Jews > # and writes about his hatred.
> At least in the US, there STILL is a First Amendment > But what you and your ilk are trying to do is do an end-run around is by > connecting speech to >>SOME<< other crimes > You either have or have not free speech > The moment you attempt to qualify other crimes dependent on speech, then > you > are in effect infringing on free speech > Simple concept, that you are trying to ignore
# # Silly nonsense. We qualify crime all the time based upon speech. # Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a crime that can get you # prosecuted.
Silly nonsense indeed Surely you can state the statute that makes shooting "FIRE" in a crowded theather Also what is the crime if the theater is not crowded ? And is it a hate crime to do it in a Black theater ? Your ignorance is showing again
# A prosecution for First Degree Murder can be based upon # the speech of the perpetrator. It goes to the intent of the # perpetrator and we consider the intent of the perpetrator of the crime # as important in determining the level of the punishment.
Really ? And naturally you can provide the reason for doing so.. Take as many screens as you need Don't forget to also cite a case where this allegedly occurred..
> # > # But if someone goes out and based upon their hatred of all Roman > # Catholics, went into a Catholic Church on Sunday morning and started > # shooting the members of the congregation, he could be prosecuted for a > # hate crime. Similarly if someone went to a Jewish day care center and > # opened fire on the children, killing some based upon his hatred of all > # Jews the he too could be prosecuted for a hate crime.
> Why ? > The punishment for killing people is the highest level of punishment, even > when idiot do-gooders get involved, in which case there is no capital > punishment for it. > So what are you achieving by prosecting and convicting because of what > killer thinks about his victims > Just plain STUPID
# # Well according to you it is stupid.
It is indeed stupid to declare that the same crime deserves different punishment because you bimbos come along and declare that "hate" was involved
# Society thinks differently.
You do NOT speak for "society" Therefore your declaration is a lie
# Not all murders are going to result in the death penalty. Often they are # less than life for a variety of reasons. The prosecution of the # perpetrator is based upon is intent and his intent is shown by his # words in some cases. Where that intent shows a certain animus against # people because of his perceptions of his victims' affiliation in # certain enumerated classes, we enhance that punishment.
You need to look up the (legal) meaning of murder, sonny Your ignorance is showing again
>> > It's really about THOUGHT crime >> > When you start attacking the right of the people to think anything they >> > want, you are really attempting to control what people are thinking >> > How much more intrisuve can you get into people's pricvacy.
>> # Sorry but it is not a thought crime. No one is being punished solely >> # on the basis of their thoughts.
>> If you want to be taken seriously, then avoid weasels and strawman >> arguments >> NOBODY claimed ANYTHING about "solely" >> Such a claim just demonstrates intellectual dishonesty or sloppiness >> Considering your past performance, I lean towards dishonest
> I love you too.
>> # You can be a complete bigot and hate everyone who is different from >> you. >> # You can say so in public and on the web and there are those who do so. >> # Chick Publications publishes a number of religious scripts which are >> # notoriously bigoted in their references to Roman Catholics, Mormons >> # and Wiccans for example but no one is goiong to prosecute Joe Chick >> # for hate crimes. If you do a simple search in the internet you can come >> # across thousands of websites accusing Jews of all sorts of evil actions >> # and intentions.But no one is prosecuted simply because he hates Jews >> # and writes about his hatred.
>> At least in the US, there STILL is a First Amendment >> But what you and your ilk are trying to do is do an end-run around is by >> connecting speech to >>SOME<< other crimes >> You either have or have not free speech >> The moment you attempt to qualify other crimes dependent on speech, >> then you >> are in effect infringing on free speech >> Simple concept, that you are trying to ignore > # > # Silly nonsense. We qualify crime all the time based upon speech. > # Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a crime that can get you > # prosecuted.
> Silly nonsense indeed > Surely you can state the statute that makes shooting "FIRE" in a > crowded theather
"Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."
"Justice Douglas's concurrence reflected the absolutist position that... the phrase "no law" in the First Amendment ought to be interpreted very literally, and that all speech is immune from prosecution... In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for [falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic], Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech."
Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre has, in the past, resulted in fatalities during the subsequent rush to evacuate, with the majority of the victims being children. The imminent likelihood of such actions endangering others makes it reasonable to ban such speech. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_Public_Hall_Disaster (16 children died- the oldest was 9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster (59 of the 73 fatalities were children) -- Society, like water, needs to move and change to remain fresh. To keep it from doing so is to allow it to become stagnant and malodorous. The religious right would have us all living in a swamp to assuage their own fears.
The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
"Never trust a man who puts his words in the mouth of god and says it's absolute truth" -Voltaire, "/God Thinks/"
>>>> It's really about THOUGHT crime >>>> When you start attacking the right of the people to think anything >>>> they want, you are really attempting to control what people are >>>> thinking How much more intrisuve can you get into people's >>>> pricvacy.
>>> # Sorry but it is not a thought crime. No one is being punished >>> solely # on the basis of their thoughts.
>>> If you want to be taken seriously, then avoid weasels and strawman >>> arguments >>> NOBODY claimed ANYTHING about "solely" >>> Such a claim just demonstrates intellectual dishonesty or sloppiness >>> Considering your past performance, I lean towards dishonest
>> I love you too.
>>> # You can be a complete bigot and hate everyone who is different >>> from you. >>> # You can say so in public and on the web and there are those who >>> do so. # Chick Publications publishes a number of religious scripts >>> which are # notoriously bigoted in their references to Roman >>> Catholics, Mormons # and Wiccans for example but no one is goiong >>> to prosecute Joe Chick # for hate crimes. If you do a simple search >>> in the internet you can come # across thousands of websites >>> accusing Jews of all sorts of evil actions # and intentions.But no >>> one is prosecuted simply because he hates Jews # and writes about >>> his hatred. At least in the US, there STILL is a First Amendment >>> But what you and your ilk are trying to do is do an end-run around >>> is by connecting speech to >>SOME<< other crimes >>> You either have or have not free speech >>> The moment you attempt to qualify other crimes dependent on speech, >>> then you >>> are in effect infringing on free speech >>> Simple concept, that you are trying to ignore >> # >> # Silly nonsense. We qualify crime all the time based upon speech. >> # Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a crime that can get you >> # prosecuted.
>> Silly nonsense indeed >> Surely you can state the statute that makes shooting "FIRE" in a >> crowded theather
> "Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme > Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It > held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is > directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."
> "Justice Douglas's concurrence reflected the absolutist position > that... the phrase "no law" in the First Amendment ought to be > interpreted very literally, and that all speech is immune from > prosecution... In order to explain why someone could be legitimately > prosecuted for [falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a > panic], Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded > with action." In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the > only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech."
> Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre has, in the past, resulted > in fatalities during the subsequent rush to evacuate, with the > majority of the victims being children. The imminent likelihood of such > actions > endangering others makes it reasonable to ban such speech. > See: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_Public_Hall_Disaster (16 > children died- the oldest was 9) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster (59 of the 73 > fatalities were children)
<yawn>
I'm looking but I seem to have missed the cite for the statute.
>>> > It's really about THOUGHT crime >>> > When you start attacking the right of the people to think anything they >>> > want, you are really attempting to control what people are thinking >>> > How much more intrisuve can you get into people's pricvacy.
>>> # Sorry but it is not a thought crime. No one is being punished solely >>> # on the basis of their thoughts.
>>> If you want to be taken seriously, then avoid weasels and strawman >>> arguments NOBODY claimed ANYTHING about "solely" >>> Such a claim just demonstrates intellectual dishonesty or sloppiness >>> Considering your past performance, I lean towards dishonest
>> I love you too.
>>> # You can be a complete bigot and hate everyone who is different from >>> you. # You can say so in public and on the web and there are those who do >>> so. # Chick Publications publishes a number of religious scripts which >>> are # notoriously bigoted in their references to Roman Catholics, Mormons >>> # and Wiccans for example but no one is goiong to prosecute Joe Chick >>> # for hate crimes. If you do a simple search in the internet you can come >>> # across thousands of websites accusing Jews of all sorts of evil actions >>> # and intentions.But no one is prosecuted simply because he hates Jews >>> # and writes about his hatred.
>>> At least in the US, there STILL is a First Amendment >>> But what you and your ilk are trying to do is do an end-run around is by >>> connecting speech to >>SOME<< other crimes >>> You either have or have not free speech >>> The moment you attempt to qualify other crimes dependent on speech, then >>> you are in effect infringing on free speech >>> Simple concept, that you are trying to ignore # >> # Silly nonsense. We qualify crime all the time based upon speech. >> # Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a crime that can get you >> # prosecuted.
>> Silly nonsense indeed >> Surely you can state the statute that makes shooting "FIRE" in a >> crowded theather
> "Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme > Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It > held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is > directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."
> "Justice Douglas's concurrence reflected the absolutist position that... > the phrase "no law" in the First Amendment ought to be interpreted very > literally, and that all speech is immune from prosecution... In order > to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for [falsely > shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic], Douglas called it an > example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In the view of > Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a > person could be prosecuted for speech."
> Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre has, in the past, resulted in > fatalities during the subsequent rush to evacuate, with the majority > of the victims being children. The imminent likelihood of such actions > endangering others makes it reasonable to ban such speech. > See: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_Public_Hall_Disaster (16 children > died- the oldest was 9) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster (59 of the 73 > fatalities were children)
And how is that in any way relevant to a blockhead shouting "nigger" while beating a black man to death? It's not inciting since he's already occupied in the beathing.
-- Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill
>>>Subject: Homophobes, a madeup faggot word that really means nothing. Nothing >>>fears faggots
>> What it means is obvious. But can you name for me a word that was not "made >> up"?
> A phoebe is a fear of something so faggotism does not fit in the > category of phoebes. People don't fear faggots, they are just repulsed > by them.
Actually a phoebe is the blond on "Friends". Also one of the girls on "Charmed". The word you're going for is "phobia" - an irrational fear of something or someone.
Some people are repulsed by homosexuals, others fear them. They might fear that they will seduce their children, they might fear that they themselves are homosexual. It depends who you talk to.
-- So, how's that whole "hopey - changey" thing working out for you so far?
>>>Subject: Homophobes, a madeup faggot word that really means >>>nothing. Nothing fears faggots
>> What it means is obvious. But can you name for me a word that was not >> "made up"?
> A phoebe is a fear of something so faggotism does not fit in the > category of phoebes. People don't fear faggots, they are just repulsed > by them.
Err,
Phoebe or Phebe is a female given name (Ancient Greek: ?????), meaning 'bright,' deriving from Greek 'phoibos' (??????). Phoebe is also the name of a bird or a woman's name from the Book of Romans.
Phobias, however are irrational fears.
Maybe you shouldn't help.
-- Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill
>>> > It's really about THOUGHT crime >>> > When you start attacking the right of the people to think anything >>> > they >>> > want, you are really attempting to control what people are thinking >>> > How much more intrisuve can you get into people's pricvacy.
>>> # Sorry but it is not a thought crime. No one is being punished solely >>> # on the basis of their thoughts.
>>> If you want to be taken seriously, then avoid weasels and strawman >>> arguments >>> NOBODY claimed ANYTHING about "solely" >>> Such a claim just demonstrates intellectual dishonesty or sloppiness >>> Considering your past performance, I lean towards dishonest
>> I love you too.
>>> # You can be a complete bigot and hate everyone who is different from >>> you. >>> # You can say so in public and on the web and there are those who do so. >>> # Chick Publications publishes a number of religious scripts which are >>> # notoriously bigoted in their references to Roman Catholics, Mormons >>> # and Wiccans for example but no one is goiong to prosecute Joe Chick >>> # for hate crimes. If you do a simple search in the internet you can >>> come >>> # across thousands of websites accusing Jews of all sorts of evil >>> actions >>> # and intentions.But no one is prosecuted simply because he hates Jews >>> # and writes about his hatred.
>>> At least in the US, there STILL is a First Amendment >>> But what you and your ilk are trying to do is do an end-run around is by >>> connecting speech to >>SOME<< other crimes >>> You either have or have not free speech >>> The moment you attempt to qualify other crimes dependent on speech, then >>> you >>> are in effect infringing on free speech >>> Simple concept, that you are trying to ignore >> # >> # Silly nonsense. We qualify crime all the time based upon speech. >> # Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a crime that can get you >> # prosecuted.
>> Silly nonsense indeed >> Surely you can state the statute that makes shooting "FIRE" in a >> crowded theather
> "Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme > Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held > that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to > inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."
<YAWN> 1) That's NOT a Statute.... 2) It's a VERY RESTRICTED decision as it applies to someone shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre. 3) It in NO WAY is applicable to ANTHING OTHER THAN a CLEAR attempt to "inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action." 4) Clearly it would NOT APPLY to, for example, an actor shouting Fire and running down the aisle as part of the play..
Did the other MORON specify that it was an attempt to incite a riot ? NO ! So his claim was WRONG in trying to give the impression that it is ILLEGAL to do so...
I leave the text that follows with the appropriate section underlined
> Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre has, in the past, resulted in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KEY WORD ---.> >>falsely<< Again the idiot did NOT restrict humself to THAT definition He just declared that it is COMPLETELY illegal to do so.. Which is PATENTLY FALSE..
Why don't you come back after you have improved both your READING and COMPREHENSION skills
>>>> > It's really about THOUGHT crime >>>> > When you start attacking the right of the people to think anything >>>> > they >>>> > want, you are really attempting to control what people are thinking >>>> > How much more intrisuve can you get into people's pricvacy.
>>>> # Sorry but it is not a thought crime. No one is being punished solely >>>> # on the basis of their thoughts.
>>>> If you want to be taken seriously, then avoid weasels and strawman >>>> arguments NOBODY claimed ANYTHING about "solely" >>>> Such a claim just demonstrates intellectual dishonesty or sloppiness >>>> Considering your past performance, I lean towards dishonest
>>> I love you too.
>>>> # You can be a complete bigot and hate everyone who is different from >>>> you. # You can say so in public and on the web and there are those who >>>> do >>>> so. # Chick Publications publishes a number of religious scripts which >>>> are # notoriously bigoted in their references to Roman Catholics, >>>> Mormons >>>> # and Wiccans for example but no one is goiong to prosecute Joe Chick >>>> # for hate crimes. If you do a simple search in the internet you can >>>> come >>>> # across thousands of websites accusing Jews of all sorts of evil >>>> actions >>>> # and intentions.But no one is prosecuted simply because he hates Jews >>>> # and writes about his hatred.
>>>> At least in the US, there STILL is a First Amendment >>>> But what you and your ilk are trying to do is do an end-run around is >>>> by >>>> connecting speech to >>SOME<< other crimes >>>> You either have or have not free speech >>>> The moment you attempt to qualify other crimes dependent on speech, >>>> then >>>> you are in effect infringing on free speech >>>> Simple concept, that you are trying to ignore # >>> # Silly nonsense. We qualify crime all the time based upon speech. >>> # Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a crime that can get you >>> # prosecuted.
>>> Silly nonsense indeed >>> Surely you can state the statute that makes shooting "FIRE" in a >>> crowded theather
>> "Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme >> Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It >> held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is >> directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."
>> "Justice Douglas's concurrence reflected the absolutist position that... >> the phrase "no law" in the First Amendment ought to be interpreted very >> literally, and that all speech is immune from prosecution... In order >> to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for [falsely >> shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic], Douglas called it an >> example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In the view of >> Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a >> person could be prosecuted for speech."
>> Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre has, in the past, resulted in >> fatalities during the subsequent rush to evacuate, with the majority >> of the victims being children. The imminent likelihood of such actions >> endangering others makes it reasonable to ban such speech. >> See: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_Public_Hall_Disaster (16 children >> died- the oldest was 9) >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster (59 of the 73 >> fatalities were children)
> And how is that in any way relevant to a blockhead shouting "nigger" while > beating a black man to death? It's not inciting since he's already > occupied > in the beathing.
Well obviously it makes the beating far more "hatefull" Notice though that if some black guy beats up a white guy while shouting "whitey", "honkey" or some other such epithet, then it's just a plain beating with no hate involved.
>>>>Subject: Homophobes, a madeup faggot word that really means >>>>nothing. Nothing fears faggots
>>>What it means is obvious. But can you name for me a word that was not "made >>> up"?
>>A phoebe is a fear of something so faggotism does not fit in the >>category of phoebes. People don't fear faggots, they are just repulsed >>by them.
DITTO!! Only females should be giving head to men and bending over grabbing their ankles; not males! It's a severely mentally disturbed lifestyle that has been punishable by death for tens of thousands of years. Only in the last 30 years have they put their heads together and managed to sneak their people into high legal positions where they have the power to change the natural law into something unnatural and unhealthy.
One day the White majority will wake up and realize how dangerous they are and make them an offer they can't refuse. Then it will really quickly become a shitty deal for youse folks.
> > > It's really about THOUGHT crime > > > When you start attacking the right of the people to think anything they > > > want, you are really attempting to control what people are thinking > > > How much more intrisuve can you get into people's pricvacy.
> > # Sorry but it is not a thought crime. No one is being punished solely > > # on the basis of their thoughts.
> > If you want to be taken seriously, then avoid weasels and strawman > > arguments > > NOBODY claimed ANYTHING about "solely" > > Such a claim just demonstrates intellectual dishonesty or sloppiness > > Considering your past performance, I lean towards dishonest
> > # You can be a complete bigot and hate everyone who is different from you. > > # You can say so in public and on the web and there are those who do so. > > # Chick Publications publishes a number of religious scripts which are > > # notoriously bigoted in their references to Roman Catholics, Mormons > > # and Wiccans for example but no one is goiong to prosecute Joe Chick > > # for hate crimes. If you do a simple search in the internet you can come > > # across thousands of websites accusing Jews of all sorts of evil actions > > # and intentions.But no one is prosecuted simply because he hates Jews > > # and writes about his hatred.
> > At least in the US, there STILL is a First Amendment > > But what you and your ilk are trying to do is do an end-run around is by > > connecting speech to >>SOME<< other crimes > > You either have or have not free speech > > The moment you attempt to qualify other crimes dependent on speech, then > > you > > are in effect infringing on free speech > > Simple concept, that you are trying to ignore
> # > # Silly nonsense. We qualify crime all the time based upon speech. > # Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a crime that can get you > # prosecuted.
> Silly nonsense indeed > Surely you can state the statute that makes shooting "FIRE" in a crowded > theather
Depends on the state in question.
> Also what is the crime if the theater is not crowded ?
The same issue and the same crime.
> And is it a hate crime to do it in a Black theater ?
Depends on the intent of the perpetrator.
> Your ignorance is showing again
Please explain. Inquiring minds want to know.
> # A prosecution for First Degree Murder can be based upon > # the speech of the perpetrator. It goes to the intent of the > # perpetrator and we consider the intent of the perpetrator of the crime > # as important in determining the level of the punishment.
> Really ?
Yes, really.
> And naturally you can provide the reason for doing so.. > Take as many screens as you need > Don't forget to also cite a case where this allegedly occurred.
Well sweetie I am not going to go through all 50 states and all the territories to quote case law to you. Let's just take the federal definition shall we? Murder is the unlawful killing of human being with malice aforethought. 18 U.S.C. § 1111. Note that this statute provides death for murder of a child under 18 years of age where that death comes about as a result of a sexual assault or child abuse. Malice can be expressed (intent to kill) or implied. Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies (the felony murder rule). Expressed malice means exactly that, words said or actions taken prior to the actual act of murder. See for example Cal. Penal Code, section 188, Express malice exists "when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature."
Even you can understand that if X announces to the people sitting inside a bar room that the next time he sees Y, he intends to kill him and then next day does exactly that, his intention is shown by his announcement that he intended to kill Y made the night before.
> > # > > # But if someone goes out and based upon their hatred of all Roman > > # Catholics, went into a Catholic Church on Sunday morning and started > > # shooting the members of the congregation, he could be prosecuted for a > > # hate crime. Similarly if someone went to a Jewish day care center and > > # opened fire on the children, killing some based upon his hatred of all > > # Jews the he too could be prosecuted for a hate crime.
> > Why ? > > The punishment for killing people is the highest level of punishment, even > > when idiot do-gooders get involved, in which case there is no capital > > punishment for it. > > So what are you achieving by prosecting and convicting because of what > > killer thinks about his victims > > Just plain STUPID
> # > # Well according to you it is stupid.
> It is indeed stupid to declare that the same crime deserves different > punishment because you bimbos come along and declare that "hate" was > involved
Again this is merely a statement of your opinion that you disagree with the decision that society has made.
> # Society thinks differently.
> You do NOT speak for "society" > Therefore your declaration is a lie
You certainly seem to love that word "lie" don't you? Any difference of opinion is always a lie to you? As for my statement that society thinks so is based upon the fact that these laws have been passed by states and upheld as constitutional by the courts. There has been no overwhelming wave of outrage at the local level to repeal them. Simp [ly a bunch of cranks who when they are not arguing about the "men in black", Obamam's birth certificate or other such topics, go off on this issue.
> # Not all murders are going to result in the death penalty. Often they are > # less than life for a variety of reasons. The prosecution of the > # perpetrator is based upon is intent and his intent is shown by his > # words in some cases. Where that intent shows a certain animus against > # people because of his perceptions of his victims' affiliation in > # certain enumerated classes, we enhance that punishment.
> You need to look up the (legal) meaning of murder, sonny > Your ignorance is showing again
Odd you think that. I have been an attorney for 27 years. Where did you get your law degree?
