Thread: go to prison for insulting someone?

Originally Posted by Bruno

EDIT: to summarize: I am all for freedom of speech and religion, but if someone uses either of those as a weapon to directly cause acts of aggression (e.g. calling for a fatwa) then there is no reason we shouldn't deal with it.

Inciting hatred of any sort is not good but until that hatred turns into an act it should not be illegal likewise, any inciting of aggression should be put down quickly. All in all I agree wih your EDIT.

Wilders, OMG!
Don't fall for him like fox news did.
He's just provoking. A populist!

It's a sad fact of life even here in the U.S. The regulation of free speech is the one way to guarantee its loss. Free speech is just that, free speech. Once you say that someone is protected from someone saying anything against them you just lost the right of free speech. Like the NY Rangers saying that the Caps fans were using the worst language they've ever heard. Worse than Sean Avery's??

Originally Posted by JMS

Just found out that a bill has just passed the house and is going to the senate, A hate crimes bill that, among other things, would make it illegal for pastors to read portions of the bible that speak against homosexuality to their congregation.

This isn't true. Preachers can preach whatever they want. You are simply falling for the same propaganda that has been put out in a Republican attempt to defeat the bill.

Originally Posted by JMS

Just found out that a bill has just passed the house and is going to the senate, A hate crimes bill that, among other things, would make it illegal for pastors to read portions of the bible that speak against homosexuality to their congregation.
The Republicans tried to amend this bill so that the free expression of religion would not be abridged. they failed due to an overwhelming democratic opposition and an equally overwhelming contempt for our constitution, specifically the first ammendment. I am hoping the senate will show a little more respect for our constitution. I doubt they will though.

.

While I very well may be wrong, having not read the full text yet, I believe there might be some incorrect or misleading information in the source from which you heard these specifics.

Also, this is for HATE CRIMES, not simply speech. In the US, you can spew hate speech all you want and not be charged with a crime. (unless if gets to inciting VIOLENCE, etc...not just hatred). yes, in certain other countries, there have been cases of Churches running afoul of speech laws, they do not have the same right to free speech that we enjoy here.

Have no fear from this legislation, as I understand it. Religious leaders may continue to preach up to the limits that the rest of us enjoy our free speech.

I agree completely with Bruno.. Wilders is just using it to get some attention (again)..he hasn't even been convicted yet..

In the US you dont really have freedom of speech.. you cant even swear on the radio or television without a beep..

Maarten

"Hate Crime" laws are a friggin joke. Have you ever heard of a "love crime" or a "friendly crime"? They are an attempt to legislate thought, which is very dangerous. There is no difference between someone premeditating the murder of his/her spouse to obtain the life insurance proceeds or the premeditated murder of someone because of the color of their skin. they are both premeditated murder, and the perpetrator should ride old sparky into the everafter.

I will have to read the proposed law before commenting on it.

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

"Hate Crime" laws are a friggin joke. Have you ever heard of a "love crime" or a "friendly crime"? They are an attempt to legislate thought, which is very dangerous. There is no difference between someone premeditating the murder of his/her spouse to obtain the life insurance proceeds or the premeditated murder of someone because of the color of their skin. they are both premeditated murder, and the perpetrator should ride old sparky into the everafter.

I will have to read the proposed law before commenting on it.

Matt

The propriety of Hate Crime legislation is really a separate but of course related (and likely off topic) conversation, though, isn't it? This bill would add the same "protections" to classes that were previously not included in hate Crime legislation. Now...woud it also make them Federally protected classes for all other Civil Rights legislation, etc? Interesting legal stuff!

A new thread might be in order for this discussion...and I would love to have it. As a weirdo social liberal/individual rights/minority prtection/personal responsibility hybrid with some training in constitutional law (though not much since law school), I find it to be a difficult and fascinating topic.

Originally Posted by mhailey

"Hate Crime" laws are a friggin joke. Have you ever heard of a "love crime" or a "friendly crime"? They are an attempt to legislate thought, which is very dangerous. There is no difference between someone premeditating the murder of his/her spouse to obtain the life insurance proceeds or the premeditated murder of someone because of the color of their skin. they are both premeditated murder, and the perpetrator should ride old sparky into the everafter.

I will have to read the proposed law before commenting on it.

Matt

I have indeed heard of a 'love crime' but the accepted terminology is 'a crime of passion'

I don't think all 'premeditated' murders are built equally, in the same sense not all robberies are, and not all assaults are, it's important to identify the reason behind a crime so the just punishment can be served.

Originally Posted by droche

One doesn't have to go to Europe to find this phenomenon. Just a few hundred miles north of you mhailey, in Canada, one can be charged with a hate crime for saying pejorative terms describing certain "protected groups."

Actually, all groups are protected, not just a selection.

Quoted from the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms:

"Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. "

X