General Discussion

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)

39. I understand under current law that is the way it is.

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:23 AM

Jan 2015

That is understood by all. I am saying, if legislation was written properly, I could support making the motivation itself criminal during the commission of a violent crime. If a couple of guys are standing outside of what is know to be a gay bar, then assault an individual in the parking lot while making bigoted comments, I feel there should be an additional charge somehow related to hate speech that was the motivator behind the crime.

You simply stated the way current law works. Basic. "The criminal action is the crime not the expression of the motivation."

There are already laws on the books that actually take motivation into account. Terrorism for example. There are specific federal laws for terrorism. They aren't simply charged with multiple murders, they are also charged by the motivational forces behind there actions. Seems easy when it is directed at everyone, not so simple when it is directed at smaller groups.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

83 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hate Speech should be forbidden. [View all] Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 OP

That's a great cartoon BeyondGeography Jan 2015 #1

There should be laws against inciting violence but not against offensive speech. Obviously, pampango Jan 2015 #2

"inciting violence" laws have been used to suppress legitimate political expression Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #4

"So if you think those laws are a good idea, please vote "yes"." No thank you. pampango Jan 2015 #8

There should not be a need for a law at all madokie Jan 2015 #3

So true - and that applies to the individual as well. NightOwwl Jan 2015 #16

Yup madokie Jan 2015 #22

I was really suprised at your response in another thread. NightOwwl Jan 2015 #38

NB that France has laws against "incitement to hatred". Spider Jerusalem Jan 2015 #5

Indeed they do. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #6

So do you want to use the French definition or is it also one you find makes no sense? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #21

It was ruled "not hate speech but legitimate satire" by a court, in case you missed that part (n/t) Spider Jerusalem Jan 2015 #25

I think their law is horrible. But if you would like to use it as a model Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #48

That would be OK, but you would have to change the OP to cite the full French law. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #49

Obviously.... sendero Jan 2015 #7

One man's hate speech is another man's bread and butter (Faux, Limbaugh, Beck, etc.). Vinca Jan 2015 #9

no because hate will defined by those in power dembotoz Jan 2015 #10

I can't answer the poll LWolf Jan 2015 #11

According to Google Translate el_bryanto Jan 2015 #13

Okay. LWolf Jan 2015 #14

OP used one of the mildest one, there are plenty more really gross ones...plenty.... Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #31

You just make up your own definition and vote on it...it is a free association poll...?? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #20

He clarified that if you oppose speech designed to incite violence you should vote yes el_bryanto Jan 2015 #58

People who demand such things are inciting hatred and they should be sanctioned. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #12

Good op and worthy of discussion. NCTraveler Jan 2015 #15

Using ones words to establish a state of mind Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #32

I understand under current law that is the way it is. NCTraveler Jan 2015 #39

Ironic that this is being discussed at Democratic Underground. onehandle Jan 2015 #17

How do they control our free speech? What opinions are not allowed to be expressed at DU? el_bryanto Jan 2015 #19

I suspect he's complaining that his threads about guns are constantly getting locked GGJohn Jan 2015 #57

Link? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #65

It's pinned right at the top of the GD forum. GGJohn Jan 2015 #68

What does freedom of speech have to do with du? NCTraveler Jan 2015 #40

Censorship and hidden posts because of rudeness at DU.....never have I heard of such a thing. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #79

No shit. And some people think that has something to do with freedom of speech. NCTraveler Jan 2015 #80

Hate speech apparently is the most precious form of free speech for some folks. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #81

True. NCTraveler Jan 2015 #82

The difference is, private websites like DU can set and enforce community standards. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #45

What well organized faction of right-wing trolls are controlling our 'free speech'? GGJohn Jan 2015 #51

You can not find a definition of "hate speech" that makes any sense, so what are you polling? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #18

I'm polling the sentiment expressed here that Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #33

With respect, without a definition of a poorly understood phrase, it is a push poll. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #36

I can't believe this is even an issue Ron Obvious Jan 2015 #23

Actually, I think as it stands now, you DO 'have the right to say' Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #30

That's a boundary case... Ron Obvious Jan 2015 #52

Isn't that how it should be? Can't I say what I want to say? prayin4rain Jan 2015 #69

You think that's bad... Capt. Obvious Jan 2015 #24

I don't recall if it was comedy central or cartoon network, but Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #28

I think it's cartoon network Capt. Obvious Jan 2015 #29

There are laws against hate speech, aren't there? In specific circumstances? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #26

"Hate speech" laws in the USA branford Jan 2015 #54

Thank you for the clarification. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #55

Similar issue to pornography and depictions (real or acted) of extreme violence. goldent Jan 2015 #27

Who is going to define what hate speech is? The government. No thank you dissentient Jan 2015 #34

How many of these same people are FOR "hate crime" legislation? Atman Jan 2015 #35

I have no problem with penalties for criminal acts that Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #37

Be specific. Atman Jan 2015 #41

Sure the laws have to be written correctly. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #42

What is a "hated class of person?" Atman Jan 2015 #46

Do you know the difference between trespassing and burglary jberryhill Jan 2015 #47

So why does the uniform you're wearing have a bearing on your death? Atman Jan 2015 #50

I'm not wearing a uniform jberryhill Jan 2015 #59

Thank you. Atman Jan 2015 #63

"I do understand where you're coming from" jberryhill Jan 2015 #71

At DU? Or generally jberryhill Jan 2015 #43

generally. Sorry thought that was clear. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #44

Oh, okay jberryhill Jan 2015 #61

what? NO! Amishman Jan 2015 #53

Most of the world does not believe in our notion of free speech. Quite the conundrum, isn't it? randome Jan 2015 #56

Who's going to define what is considered hate? mb999 Jan 2015 #60

I voted against laws for hate speech because like the author of this poll see the definition is too jwirr Jan 2015 #62

I don't need protection from words, any words, I need protection from people. bemildred Jan 2015 #64

It should be regulated. Orsino Jan 2015 #66

Well then - good to know we all agree on the same definition brooklynite Jan 2015 #77

Fuck No. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #67

The advocacy I see for 'hate speech laws' on DU seems intended to create anti blasphemy laws Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #70

Are you saying that racism, misogyny, and homophobia should be permitted? YoungDemCA Jan 2015 #72

Of course it should be permitted, while at the same time condemned. GGJohn Jan 2015 #74

Yes absolutely Man from Pickens Jan 2015 #76

It must be permitted LittleBlue Jan 2015 #78

No. While it is disgusting we must remember we have freedom of speech. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #73

Voted 'No' Rob H. Jan 2015 #75

Who needs butter? I've got plenty! Initech Jan 2015 #83