Trayvon Martin Shooting Target

[Berserker]

This is some sick shit. I'm not going to post a picture. I can't believe how some of these right wing hate mongering fuckers can do this. Most gun forums are extreme right wing bullshit. But this tops them all.
DKos put up a petition http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=144
The assholes blog is here http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2012/05/03/trayvon-martin-shooting-target/

[newfie11]

1. No words for such poor excuse for humanity nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Old News

Came out shortly after the shooting.

No one has the authority to stop it. Trademark/tradedress suit might be more than the publisher wants to deal with...sort of a SLAPP suit

[jody]

2. Agree. There are many such things, e.g toilet paper with Bush or Obama's picture on each sheet.

Don't know how you prevent such things and support Freedom of Speech.

If you don't believe in rights for everyone then you don't believe in them at all.

[Starboard Tack]

9. Many countries still support freedom of speech yet have sensible legislation against hate speech.

You will find few people in the UK, or any other democracy, who think freedom of speech is restricted by such laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Even in the US, 1A is restricted, though it prevents legislation to control hate speech.
In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words)

IMO, both 1A and 2A need to be revisited.

[kossp]

10. NO,NO,NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The 1A is just fine as it stands, we are not other countries, it has served us well and to start revisiting it will lead to who knows what.

Why should we care what other countries restrictions on speech are? Has nothing to do with us.

[Starboard Tack]

14. Why? So that we may learn from others, that's why.

What will it lead to? What has it led to in Europe, or Canada, or Australia or New Zealand.
It hasn't always served us well. If you enjoy watching KKK marches and swastika wearing assholes then I guess, for you, it is just fine as it stands.
Allowing that kind of shit led to WW2 and helped keep America out until it was too late for Europe's Jews and million of others. Let me recommend an excellent book I recently read, "In The Garden Beasts" by Erik Larson. It might change your mind about isolationism.

[kossp]

15. I'm not about isolationism, where did you get that?

I'm one hundred percent against any tinkering with the 1A, it is what sets us apart from the rest of the world.

I don't care what Europe's, Canada's, Australia or New Zealand's speech laws are, they're irrelevant to what our 1A right is.
The 1A is the most important right we have and I would strenously oppose any restrictions like you appear to be in favor of.

I don't know that much about the 2A because I'm haven't been really interested in it.

[hack89]

16. So when the RW in America gets to define "hate speech"

do you think you will be happy with the results?

Lets not forget that America is pretty evenly divided - you are assuming that people that think like you will be making those laws.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Try reading the laws as enacted in other countries

Then show me what danger you see.

[kossp]

20. I don't understand why you think that we should care about other countries laws

concerning speech. Why are their laws relevant to our 1A? I don't want it to be a crime to spew hate speech like in Germany, the UK or any other country. That's what sets our nation apart from other nations, the fact that we can say hateful things without fear of prosecution.
Hate speech should not be criminalized, it should be countered with counter points and education.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Ain't that great?

"That's what sets our nation apart from other nations, the fact that we can say hateful things without fear of prosecution." That is so fucked up. You are proud that this country allows hate speech. I guess we're done here.

[former-republican]

44. You are an odd fellow

[Starboard Tack]

45. Thanks! I take that as a compliment.

[Jenoch]

31. " I don't understand why you think that we should care about other countries laws".

Because he was a cop in Manchester, England which leads one to believe he's a British citizen and knows much about their laws and possibly less about ours.

I too agree that the 1st and 2nd Amendments should be left alone. I sure as hell trust our founding fathers more than the current legislators.

[hack89]

21. Why would the tea baggers pass laws identical to those laws?

I don't think you understood my post. How do you get Congress to pass hate speech laws without involving the right wing?

You start that process and you have no idea where it will end up.

[Starboard Tack]

30. If you read any of the laws enacted in other democratic countries you would know

These laws have nothing to do with politics. They are laws that protect individuals and minorities from abuse. You start any process and you have no idea where it will end up. The process here is 200 years old. It works pretty well, but still has kinks that need ironing out. When you have the experience of dozens of other democracies who have started that process, all with very positive results.
Believe me, people speak freely and demonstrate in all those countries and can call politicians any name they want.
I'll be happy to have the discussion, but you need to give me the points of law you disagree with.

The principle of free speech is a fine and noble ideal, but even here it does not cover everything. Do you think it's OK to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or any of the following that are restricted in the US.

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/FirstAmendment/WhatDoesFreeSpeechMean.aspx

[hack89]

33. They are created by a political process involving politicians

now think carefully - do you really think conservative right wing republicans will define hate speech the same way you do?

Consider this - what is the likelihood that the RW would exempt churches and religious leaders from such laws in the name of religious freedom? Do you think they would stand for any law that prevents the criticism of homosexuality?

There is a lot of free speech the RW can't stand - now you want to give them the opportunity to put their bigotry into law. No thanks.

Progressives stand for more freedoms, not less. Yours is a solution looking for a problem.

[Starboard Tack]

38. Tell me specifically what you have a problem with

Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

[hack89]

39. We don't need them

hate speech is protected speech in America and should remain that way. There is no right not to be insulted or have your feelings hurt.

[Starboard Tack]

51. It's not about getting insulted. Individuals can be insulted and insuly anyone.

It's about showing hatred toward an individual or group based on certain criteria, such as race, sexual orientation, religious affiliation etc., and expressing that hatred to such a degree that it is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.
It's a good way to convince the bigots of this world to learn some social values.

[hack89]

54. We have laws against threatening behavior

the content of the speech is irrelevant.

[MicaelS]

53. And if such a Hate Speech law got passed in the US...

Right Wing Christians would take such a law and use it to limit speech on DU and other Liberal / Progressives/ Leftist websites. There are plenty of people right here who regularly bash Christians and Christianity. The Right would do their best to get this place shut down.

[Starboard Tack]

57. Bullshit. Doesn't work like that.

Study these laws and find me an example you disagree with, then get back to me.

[kossp]

23. By the way.

what it has lead to in those mentioned nations is a curb on freedom of speech.
And no, I don't enjoy watching KKK or swastika wearing assholes march, what I do enjoy is the fact that they have the right to do so without fear of govt prosecution and that I have the right to counter march against them.

[Starboard Tack]

25. You always have the right to march. The restrictions are only on hate speech

Or do you also want the right to spew hatred against minorities?
Making hate speech a crime does in no way curb freedom of speech. Same as prosecuting someone for shooting a person does not make shooting guns a crime. It's about responsibility and accountability.
There is no such thing as an absolute right to free speech, even in the US.

[Jenoch]

32. Who DEFINES hate speech?

[Starboard Tack]

37. The laws do. Read them and get back. Let me know what you think.

[Jenoch]

42. You missed my point.

Who gets to define hate speech in your newly restrictive 1st Amendment? Specifically, who gets to define what falls under hate speech under your new 1st Amendment? That's the problem with new laws restricting speech. What laws protecting speech are there in the U.K.?

[Starboard Tack]

46. Speech doesn't need laws to protect it. It is a fundamental right.

Laws are made to restrict freedoms, both here in the US and elsewhere. The Bill of Rights is a great document and a great idea, but it is not a law. It is a codified list of rights. It is not perfect. The courts are there to iron out the kinks and the issue of hate speech has come up repeatedly, but as yet, not properly dealt with.
Nothing is absolute in terms of rights. They are always subject to interpretation.

SCOTUS will eventually be the one to determine whether any legislation passed is constitutional or not.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Take your bigotry somewhere else, like back to the Tea Party where you obviously belong

"As an immigrant, you could always leave" Real classy.
No wonder you have no problem with hate speech

[kossp]

41. There should be no restrictions on any speech

whether it be hate speech or any other speech. Making hate speech a crime is a curb on freedom of speech and I'm very sad that you can't, or won't see that.

The US has always led the way on freedom of speech, but I guess that some people just can't handle the 1A.
I will always oppose any restrictions on our 1A right.

[Starboard Tack]

47. Then you'd better start telling SCOTUS to review the following decisions

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/FirstAmendment/WhatDoesFreeSpeechMean.aspx

[GreenStormCloud]

55. You don't understand free speech very well.

The freedom of speech of a publication resides in the owner of the publication, not in the writer. Here at DU we are not free to say anything because the owners set the rules. (Those rules keep this place orderly so I support them.) Same with a student newspaper. The school owns the paper, not the kids. The kids can raise money and start their own paper off campus with no restrictions.

And the school owns the microphones at a school sponsored event so they get to set the rules. If the kids want to say something else they have to go outside the event and use their own sound system. The sponsor of the event is the one with the freedom to speak.

Consider what would happen if you went to a concept and tried to grab the singer's microphone to make a political speech. It isn't you speech that is being curtailed, it is your trespassing and grabbing something that isn't yours.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Oh boy! I'm speechless.

[Glaug-Eldare]

12. I don't really see the benefit.

"Hate speech" is bad, but I think it's a dangerous road to go down to say that speech can be criminalized for subjective, aesthetic reasons. There might be room for something, but I wouldn't want to emulate any part of the UK legal system. After all, their entire system of government is based on the elevation of Parliament over the people. There is no such thing as a guaranteed civil right in the UK, unless you go to EU courts, so the concept of "inalienable rights" doesn't really exist as a practical matter there.

[kossp]

13. I disagree with you on room for something else.

Maybe I'm a purist, but the 1A is fine as it is and to start tinkering with it will lead to unforseen consequences.
Hate speech is awful, but the way to counter that is dialog and education, not messing with our free speech right.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Maybe you don't see the benefit.

I'm sure there are millions who have been subjected to hate speech might disagree with you.
UK is only one country. Do you dislike all parliamentary systems?
US has a perfect system, right?
They are all experiments in people trying to live together peaceably and democratically. Parliamentary systems represent the people who elect them. I've no idea where you get the idea that "their entire system of government is based on the elevation of Parliament over the people". Such a nonsensical dismissal of a system of laws and government that the US grew out of.
There are all kinds of guaranteed civil rights. They have been evolving in the courts and parliament for 800 years since Magna Carta, not scribbled on some paper by a handful of guys 200 years ago. EU courts are also good. Europe is still evolving, while some here think America got it all figured perfectly 200 years ago. Naivete and hubris are not progressive ideals.

[gejohnston]

34. should we repeal the 17th Amendment

and let some monarch choose our senators too like Canada or should they inherit the job like UK?
our "handful of guys" created something radically new putting the ideals of the Enlightenment in practice as a grand experiment. The Magna Carta on the other hand, was something the king signed with a (figurative) gun to his head. Yes it evolved with common law, slowly.
Ours, we do have common law and slow evolution, but we also have statutes sometimes inspired by popular uprising.
Our system hasn't always lived up to the ideals, but it is moving more in that direction. It works for an individualistic society. Like guns, that is part of our culture. I happen to like it that way.

England/Wales and the commonwealth are more communitarian, less likely to question authority and on some level think the monarch is appointed by God. That is why the governments can order people, who committed no crimes, to surrender property without compensation because a rare event committed by someone else. Should we rewrite the 5A to accommodate for that as well?

[Starboard Tack]

36. In answer to your question. No!

It should be rewritten for other reasons, mainly the"B" part, which I think should be determined by the states and local governments. The people should have the right to determine public safety issues concerning their own community. This country is too diverse for blanket legislation regarding public safety. Local gun laws should be enacted by the residents of that community and respected by all those who wish to visit or live there.

I agree with your second paragraph and would add that what you said applies to both countries. The past 200+ years have seen much change both here and there, and in many ways we have learned from each other. Where they differ is always interesting and I find myself somewhat torn, at times, between my love of individual freedom and my desire for social harmony. There are times when they clash. The libertarian in me rejects government intrusion without just cause. The socialist in me seeks fairness without impinging on the rights of others. There is always room for compromise.

Now I'll address you 3rd paragraph.

"England/Wales and the commonwealth are more communitarian, less likely to question authority and on some level think the monarch is appointed by God. That is why the governments can order people, who committed no crimes, to surrender property without compensation because a rare event committed by someone else."

UK is more "communitarian", I agree. The rights of the community, as a whole, trump the rights of the individual more often than in the US. This is a point that all civilized societies eventually reach, whether you or I like it or not. The last to adopt societal norms will always be the more remote areas of a nation. Personal freedoms are diminished in proportion to the population level of the places we live or travel. It's always been like that.
I know nobody in the UK who thinks the monarch is appointed by God. The monarchy has it's usefulness. It is apolitical, mostly symbolic, there when called upon, an enormous tourist attraction and revenue stream.

[Glaug-Eldare]

35. I'm talking about Parliamentary sovereignty

Before EU laws became binding in the UK, there was literally no legal guarantee a British citizen had that couldn't be removed by a simple vote in the Parliament. Their "unwritten constitution" (the Magna Carta has been largely overwritten by various Acts) is effectively a scrapbook of various Acts made over the centuries that can be overwritten at any time. They wouldn't, but it's within their power to enforce Anglicanism, abolish elections permanently, apply the death penalty for criticism of Parliament, and so on. If one Parliament enacted an "Act to Guarantee Civil Rights," it could be erased by the next -- there are no legal restraints on Parliament's ability to violate their civil rights, except for those restraints imposed by the EU. I suppose that in a sense we did "grow out" of this system -- by replacing it with a system that recognizes that the people are sovereign, and not the Congress. It's definitely not perfect, and I favor a Parliamentary system, myself, with proportional representation (in each states' delegation). I hope that future generations will enjoy greater transparency and better representation than we did.

As for hate speech, you're right -- I haven't been subjected to much, and I'll readily admit that I don't grok what it's like to be in a group that is. Maybe my opinion would be different if I was. As I do see it, speech that doesn't actually advocate committing a crime should be protected. We may find it abhorrent, but ideas speak for themselves -- and hate is destined to lose. Criminalizing it only demonstrates that we consider its speakers to be a legitimate threat, and that we're afraid of them. I'd rather let them chase the wind and make fools of themselves than waste resources cracking down on bigots. The alternative, in my opinion, opens a dangerous door that leads to definitions of thought and speechcrimes determined by partisan politicians.

[jody]

18. How do you propose "1A and 2A need to be revisited" when they are unalienable/inalienable rights?

SCOTUS says they preexist our Constitution and do not depend upon words on paper.

To revisit them can only occur if a totalitarian government seizes all power and imposes its will upon a sovereign We the People.

I oppose such actions.

[Starboard Tack]

26. So you think Canada and all of Europe is totalitarian?

Everything is relative.

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

So, why should hate speech be protected?

[jody]

40. The Sedition Act of 1798 is one reason. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

22. 1A & 2A are fine just like they are.

Any 13 states can block a constititutional amendment so your desire for government censorship and civilian disarmament will not happen.

[Riftaxe]

24. Um...no they don't

They are good enough the way they are, sure it doesn't let the people on the fringe dictate to us what we can and can't say, draw, watch or read.

If you want those kind of things there are plenty of Totalitarian and dictatorships that will appeal to you and there is no law restricting emigration from the US.

[ileus]

3. Most dedicated gun forums don't allow politics.

Yeah these dumbass targets were posted on here back when this was still in the news.


They do some interesting product reviews at your EDNO site.

[rrneck]

4. Disaster capitalism at its finest. nt

[jody]

5. rrneck how do you get "Disaster capitalism" from some idiot's target? IMO we have enough idiots

already on both sides!

How could God whoever she is negotiate a compromise among people who have nothing but contempt and hate for each other?

Poor Obama!

[rrneck]

6. Capitalizing on human misery for profit.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

It's a win win for this asshole. He gets money from the assholes that think it's clever or feeds their racist outrage. And he gets exposure from sites like this expressing outrage about his outrage.

Human emotion is the world's oldest natural resource. If it bleeds it leads. There is no bad press. Etc, etc, etc...

[Eleanors38]

8. I would change it from "Shock Doctrine" to "Punk Doctrine"....

The folks who finger-paint in courthouse bathroom stalls, and run home giggling about everyone being "politically correct."

We live in the season of the Punk.

[Starboard Tack]

11. Yes this is some sick shit.

I find it interesting that you link to this "hate site", which is truly disgusting, yet make other claims about "anti-self defense hate groups", which do not exist.
You do understand that this puts your credibility and sincerity in question, especially as you have a tendency to post and run. Makes one wonder why you're really here? Obviously not to discuss anything.

[Berserker]

17. What the

hell I knew some anti would turn this. Go for it. I don't give a rats ass where my Credibility or sincerity stands with you. Are you someone special? Should I have asked you before I posted?
Please old wise one tell me what to do how will I ever continue without your advice.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Is that what you were hoping for?

"I knew some anti would turn this" Some anti what? Anti bullshit? Anti troll?
I'll tell you what to do, if that's what you want. Stop making shit up and throwing it in the hope that some might stick.

We are all still waiting for you to back up your assertion that there exists an "anti-self defense hate group"
You made the claim and you refuse to respond. Your silence speaks a thousand words.

Now you divert attention by digging into your bag of tricks to pull this ugly dated link to a real hate site. Not buying it, sorry.

[catbyte]

43. Words fail me.

[ManiacJoe]

50. We discussed this back in May(?) when it was news.

[Berserker]

52. Sorry did not

see it then.