Is the term "r*****k" offensive?

[Timsup2nothin]

In USA hate speech laws are directed at the KKK and similar groups. More recently, the anti-communist pogrom of the 1950s.

IMO it is a two edged weapon. For example, a pizza restaurant declined to accept business from a gay wedding. The outcry forced the business to close. Would the restaurant have cause to claim a hate crime? They were forced to close their business because of their religious practices.

J

They were forced to close because they violated federal law. Let's drop the pretense that they are some sort of heroes.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You wanted to put the guy in jail, thats threatening violence against someone for expressing the wrong opinion.

No, it's putting someone in jail for breaking the law. And he didn't just "express an opinion." He indoctrinated his students in Holocaust denial and anti-Jewish hatred for years. If the kids didn't regurgitate his filthy lectures in their essays and term papers and exams, he would fail them.

IMO it is a two edged weapon. For example, a pizza restaurant declined to accept business from a gay wedding. The outcry forced the business to close. Would the restaurant have cause to claim a hate crime? They were forced to close their business because of their religious practices.

J

They would have been fine if they'd just baked the damn pizzas. Show me where, in any version of the bible, it says "Thou shalt not bake pizzas for the reception at same-sex wedding ceremonies."


I used to sell my crafts at fairs and various shops around town. Some people asked if I'd take on personal commissions for special items and I figured, sure. At one point someone asked me to make several dozen Christmas angels for tree decorations.

Did I rudely tell her, "No. I'm atheist, I think the Nativity is just a silly fairy tale, and how dare you insult me by asking me to sew Christian-themed things?"

No, I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was, "How many would you like, and what colors would you like me to use for their hair and the trim on their skirts?"

And then I did my usual excellent job on her order, because that's what a PROFESSIONAL does.

 

[Berzerker]

No, it's putting someone in jail for breaking the law.

So you advocate violence against people who express opinions you dont like, hiding behind "the law" cant hide that reality.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So you advocate violence against people who express opinions you dont like, hiding behind "the law" cant hide that reality.

NVM...thought you were talking about the pizza people.

 

[Formaldehyde]

In USA hate speech laws are directed at the KKK and similar groups. More recently, the anti-communist pogrom of the 1950s.

What?!?

Have you ever heard of the First Amendment and the ACLU before?

Here is one such example:

ACLU-EM DEFENDS KKK'S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

September 7, 2012

CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO – Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Cape Girardeau on behalf of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (TAK). TAK members had planned to place handbills on the windshields of parked cars on Sept. 28, until they discovered this is considered a crime by the City of Cape Girardeau.

“Our clients describe themselves as “a White Patriotic Christian organization’ that ‘believes in the preservation of the White race and the United States Constitution as it was originally written’,” says Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU-EM. “They’ve found that distributing leaflets is an effective way to recruit new members.”

“Defending the rights of groups that the government tries to censor because of their viewpoints is at the heart of what the First Amendment and the ACLU stand for, even when the viewpoints are not popular,” says Brenda L. Jones, executive director of the ACLU-EM. “If we don’t protect the free speech rights of all, we risk having the government arbitrarily decide what is, or is not, acceptable speech.”

Judge says KKK can leaflet in Cape Girardeau, Mo.

CAPE GIRARDEAU, Mo. • A Ku Klux Klan group won a preliminary injunction late Thursday afternoon allowing it to proceed with plans to leaflet vehicles in a southeast Missouri city.

The American Civil Liberties sued Cape Girardeau earlier this month in federal court on behalf of the Traditionalist American Knights of the KKK. The suit claimed the city’s ban on leafleting unoccupied vehicles violates Klan members’ free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The Traditionalist American Knights of the KKK had planned to place handbills on vehicles in Cape Girardeau on Friday and other dates that have not been determined. But the Klan group learned the city only permits fliers to be distributed when vehicle occupants are willing to accept them.

Judge John A. Ross noted that the KKK was likely to prevail and wrote that “the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in favor of granting the injunction so as to allow freedom of speech.”

IMO it is a two edged weapon. For example, a pizza restaurant declined to accept business from a gay wedding. The outcry forced the business to close. Would the restaurant have cause to claim a hate crime? They were forced to close their business because of their religious practices.

Nobody "forced" them to close. Not to mention their imaginary friend supposedly gave them over $800K.

Anti-Gay Pizzeria Says God 'Has Blessed Us' With Over $800,000 For 'Standing Up'

Earlier this week, Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, shut down after receiving backlash over anti-gay comments.

The pizzeria is co-owned by Kevin O'Connor and his daughter, Crystal O'Connor. And although they've said they "don't have a problem with gay people," catering gay weddings goes against their beliefs. “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” Crystal told local news station ABC 57. “We are a Christian establishment.”

Angry Yelp reviews and threatening messages started pouring in, and the O'Connors closed the pizzeria down. But a "Support Memories Pizza" GoFundMe campaign was created shortly afterward to keep the establishment open, and raised more than $500,000 in 48 hours.

As of Saturday morning, "Support Memories Pizza" had raised over $800,000. In an interview with Fox News Business' Neil Cavuto, Crystal said that although she's not quite ready to open the pizzeria again, she believes God is responsible for the support that's poured in.

Besides this has absolutely nothing to to with hate speech laws which are unconstitutional in the US.

 

[onejayhawk]

They would have been fine if they'd just baked the damn pizzas. Show me where, in any version of the bible, it says "Thou shalt not bake pizzas for the reception at same-sex wedding ceremonies."

The part that says that if you think it is sin, then it is sin. See Paul, various places.

Regardless, everyone is conceding it was an act in support of their faith. How is not a hate crime to ruin the business over it?

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So you advocate violence against people who express opinions you dont like, hiding behind "the law" cant hide that reality.

How about you actually attempt to understand my posts instead of accusing me of saying things I did not say.

Many people express opinions I don't like. You just did exactly that. Are you afraid I'm going to come up to your door with a barrel of tar and a bag of feathers?

Don't be ridiculous.

Keegstra broke the law. He violated his students' minds by forcefeeding them a steady diet of hatred against Jews. His intention was that they should come to believe as he did, and some of them ended up doing exactly that. Other kids were appalled and ashamed of themselves for believing what they'd been taught once they realized how twisted and wrong it was. Some of the kids said they were so confused that they didn't know what to think - how could such a popular teacher who so many in the town trusted, lie to them like that?

So yes, he deserved prison. As for "violence"... he committed mental violence on many, many high school students' minds. I do not feel sorry for him at all. He was a vile human being, and now that he's dead, it's no loss to the world.

The part that says that if you think it is sin, then it is sin. See Paul, various places.

Regardless, everyone is conceding it was an act in support of their faith. How is not a hate crime to ruin the business over it?

J

The people who acted against the business were acting against one particular business and against two specific homophobic bigots. They were not acting against Christianity.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The part that says that if you think it is sin, then it is sin. See Paul, various places.

Regardless, everyone is conceding it was an act in support of their faith. How is not a hate crime to ruin the business over it?

J

No one is conceding anything of the kind. Most people recognize it as a violation of federal law.

 

[Borachio]

Why does it need to be "OK"?

If it isn't actually illegal, a lot of people will precisely think that it is "OK".

 

[Berzerker]

How about you actually attempt to understand my posts instead of accusing me of saying things I did not say.

Many people express opinions I don't like. You just did exactly that. Are you afraid I'm going to come up to your door with a barrel of tar and a bag of feathers?

I live in the USA, we dont jail people for expressing opinions you dont like.

Keegstra broke the law.

And you're still hiding behind the law - you wanted him jailed for expressing an opinion you dont like. You threaten people with violence for saying the wrong thing and you think Canada's a better place for it.

 

[Berzerker]

If it isn't actually illegal, a lot of people will precisely think that it is "OK".

So you want to jail people who say the races are not equal because thats not OK. Do you think adultery should be illegal too? I dont think recreational hunting is OK, should that be illegal. I dont think its OK to ignore the 1st Amendment with hate speech laws. Maybe that should be illegal.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I live in the USA, we dont jail people for expressing opinions you dont like.

And therefore you sometimes have race riots because some racist in a position of authority spouted his opinions in public, the public reacted in anger, and everything escalated out of control from there.

And you're still hiding behind the law - you wanted him jailed for expressing an opinion you dont like. You threaten people with violence for saying the wrong thing and you think Canada's a better place for it.

Public Holocaust denial is a hate crime here. So it's much more than merely an opinion that I don't like. Ernst Zundel was a German citizen who lived here and published anti-Jewish, Holocaust-denying hate literature. He was jailed for awhile and then deported. David Ahenakew, a former Chief for the Assembly of First Nations (extremely prominent political position among the aboriginal groups) was stripped of his Order of Canada medal for his anti-Semitic, racist, remarks made to a newspaper reporter.

None of these people were fined, jailed, or stripped of their honors for what they thought. There is no thought control in this country; we're free to think whatever we want. But inciting hate/violence/death toward identifiable minorities or other disadvantaged groups is not something we're allowed to do in public whether by giving a speech, lecturing students, or in newspapers (either physical or online).

Going to jail means going to jail. It's not being sent to fight in an arena. Yes, there are some maximum security prisons in Canada that are notoriously violent places. That's why certain prisoners like Paul Bernardo are kept in segregation - he'd be torn apart by the other inmates who object to people who rape, torture, kill, and dismember teenage schoolgirls.

Keegstra would not have been expected to serve time in that kind of prison. He didn't physically kill anyone. He abused his students' minds, however, deliberately and systematically, over a period of years. That is waaay beyond merely "expressing an opinion." Teaching social studies students that the Holocaust didn't happen as history and eyewitnesses say it happened is not "expressing an opinion." It's a deliberate, malicious lie intended to perpetuate this attitude of hate to the next generation. I don't know what kind of training and ethics American teachers are expected to abide by, but that's not how it's supposed to be here in Alberta.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Regardless, everyone is conceding it was an act in support of their faith. How is not a hate crime to ruin the business over it?

Again, nobody forced them to close. They decided to do so because their statements made them the objects of ridicule in their own community.

It is actually against the federal law to engage in religious discrimination in the US. This is why Congress continues to try to pass laws allowing Christian business owners to discriminate against others based on religious beliefs.

Here is the latest incarnation:

Immoral Convictions

Republicans in Congress had many ways to demonstrate how much they disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. They could have passed a resolution condemning the ruling, whipped up votes for a constitutional amendment to overturn it, or encouraged states to ignore it. Instead, Republicans opted for the weirdest option: They introduced a bizarre bill that would legalize discrimination against not just gay couples—but also single mothers.

The basic purpose of the absurdly titled First Amendment Defense Act is presented squarely in its text. The federal government may not take “any discriminatory action against a person” who “believes or acts in accordance with the religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

As with most “religious liberty” bills, the real animus here lies in the details. The bill defines a “person” to encompass for-profit businesses and corporations. “Discriminatory action” includes revocation of tax-exempt status, grants, loans, benefits, or employment. “Acts,” not just beliefs, are protected. You can simply assert your “moral conviction”—not your actual religious belief—that “sexual relations are properly reserved to” a heterosexual marriage in order to claim a right to be protected. And, perhaps worst of all, there’s no balancing text weighing the expression of these religious beliefs against compelling government interests. Religion wins every time. As the ACLU puts it, the First Amendment Defense Act is like the anti-gay Indiana law on steroids.

What effect would all of this densely packed legalese have in practice? To start, it would instantly revoke every federal gay rights measure ever passed and pre-emptively nullify any future measures. President Obama’s LGBT nondiscrimination order would be entirely undermined: Federal contractors would only need assert that gay sex and gay marriage violate their “moral convictions,” and they could fire gay employees with impunity. Federal grantees, such as homeless shelters and drug treatment programs, could turn away gay people at the door. Businesses could refuse to let gay employees care for a sick spouse, in contravention of medical leave laws. Even low-level government employees could refuse to process gay couples’ tax returns, Social Security checks, or visa applications.

The drafters of the First Amendment Defense Act likely foresaw—and eagerly anticipated—these consequences. But it’s not clear whether they understood that their law’s discrimination wouldn’t stop with gay people. The bill commands courts to interpret the bill broadly and to avoid “narrow construction.” It overrides any legitimate nondiscrimination protections that came before it. And its text is quite sweeping, protecting people (and businesses) who believe “sexual relations are properly reserved to” a heterosexual marriage.

That language was probably designed to legalize discrimination against gay people, married or not. (Under the act, a contractor could fire a gay person for having had gay sex at some time or another.) But by its plain text, the First Amendment Defense Act’s secondary effect is clear: It would wipe out all federal protections for single mothers.

This consequence is so obvious that it’s difficult to see how the act’s drafters didn’t anticipate it. A mother who conceived a child out of wedlock engaged in “sexual relations” outside of a heterosexual marriage. Federal law currently protects single mothers from discrimination in many contexts—but the act would nullify those protections. A university could fire an unmarried professor for getting pregnant and continue to receive federal funds. Commercial landlords could refuse to rent to single mothers and face no legal ramifications. Government employees could refuse to process Social Security paperwork or passports for single mothers and their children. Individuals, institutions, and businesses need only state that they have a “moral conviction” that “sexual relations” must be reserved to a heterosexual marriage, and they are automatically exempted from federal law.

The First Amendment Defense Act currently has 134 co-sponsors in the House and 36 in the Senate, almost all of them Republicans. If any of these co-sponsors believe their bill should revoke protections for gays but not single mothers, they must explain why. Are gay people more deserving of discrimination than single mothers? Is it a greater infringement on religious liberty to force businesses to tolerate gay people than single mothers? Is straight sex outside of marriage more morally odious than gay sex within marriage?

These are the kind of questions that religion—not the government—is good at answering. Tellingly, more than 3,000 faith leaders have already called upon Congress to back out of this sort of judgment and to oppose the bill. They shouldn’t fret too much. Even if the legislation somehow musters enough votes in the Senate, President Obama would almost certainly veto it as a gross violation of civil rights. The First Amendment Defense Act is not a serious attempt at lawmaking. It is legislative grandstanding devised to toss red meat to the GOP base.

If Republicans do actually think their bill will draw mainstream appeal, they’re sorely mistaken. The act’s vision of “discrimination” is so backward that it strains the bounds of logic. The First Amendment Defense Act would force courts to contend with a whole new category of discrimination claims: lawsuits from businesses and contractors alleging that, by losing federal funds after firing a gay employee or single mother, they suffered from discrimination. Most Republicans in Congress still won’t acknowledge that LGBT workplace discrimination deserves federal attention—but they’re eager to create federal protections for corporations hoping to discriminate. Republicans should be working to outlaw discrimination. Instead, they’re protecting the discriminators.

 

[Kyriakos]

Another question is why would anyone insist on using a business that for whatever reason is not happy to have him as a customer? I mean it is not like the business in question is a monopoly, so they can choose another one. (let alone that routinely a business of quite small size may just choose to not serve you, due to 'reasons', and it would be petty to sue).

Perhaps this is more obvious in the case of the boy scouts being forced to include homosexual team leaders, which really is not a good idea given some parents and kids may feel they are not now comfortable to use that service, and in this case it is a sort of monopoly service. (not that i personally ever was in such an organisation, and do not see the appeal either).

Religions tend to not be logical, so if your constitution protects them then you should allow for some discrimination there, else you effectively are not protecting the religion/the religious in the first place. Again i am not of the view that religions do actual good inherently, but i am surely of the view that a number of people are dependent on them, and it is sort of dickish to erase that just cause other groups of people may feel offended as well. By eroding the religious code you already offend the religious people, so it is not a win-win situation but at best a win-lose one.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Another question is why would anyone insist on using a business that for whatever reason is not happy to have him as a customer? I mean it is not like the business in question is a monopoly, so they can choose another one.

That is precisely one of the arguments used by the people who were defending racial segregation (in restaurants for example) in the US during the Civil Rights era.

Perhaps this is more obvious in the case of the boy scouts being forced to include homosexual team leaders, which really is not a good idea given some parents and kids may feel they are not now comfortable to use that service

It seems to make sense to you that they might be uncomfortable. So why, in your opinion, might they be uncomfortable with a gay scout leader?

 

[Kyriakos]

That is precisely one of the arguments used by the people who were defending racial segregation (in restaurants for example) in the US during the Civil Rights era.

It seems to make sense to you that they might be uncomfortable. So why, in your opinion, might they be uncomfortable with a gay scout leader?

Well, why would a small boy be uncomfortable with a homosexual doctor?

In theory it is the same. In theory the other person is just there as a doctor.

Yet a small child is not something to play theories on the back of. They tend to be in a very intense situation emotionally, and it is better to not take chances if not needed. The argument is not that homosexual people are more rape-prone than non-homosexuals, but this does not matter if the event can be as psychologically oriented as experiences and views of small children are.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Another question is why would anyone insist on using a business that for whatever reason is not happy to have him as a customer? I mean it is not like the business in question is a monopoly, so they can choose another one. (let alone that routinely a business of quite small size may just choose to not serve you, due to 'reasons', and it would be petty to sue).

The real question is why would some podunk pizza shop decide to take a public stance that they would refuse to cater a gay wedding when they have likely never catered a straight wedding before.

They got their 15 minutes of internet infamy, and their god decided to award them with over $800K in donations from other homphobes.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well, why would a small boy be uncomfortable with a homosexual doctor?

In theory it is the same. In theory the other person is just there as a doctor.

Yet a small child is not something to play theories on the back of. They tend to be in a very intense situation emotionally, and it is better to not take chances if not needed. The argument is not that homosexual people are more rape-prone than non-homosexuals, but this does not matter if the event can be as psychologically oriented as experiences and views of small children are.

So I ask why would someone be uncomfortable with a gay scout leader and your answer is "the same reason they would be uncomfortable with a gay doctor" Yes but what is that reason? You havent answered the question. You said "take chances" take chances with what? If your argument is not that "homosexual people are more rape-prone than non-homosexuals" then what is your argument? Why even mention that if its not your argument?

Or is this a case of you just saying "The argument is not that homosexual people are..." as a disclaimer/innoculation against anyone asking you for some statistical support? Sort of along the lines of "Well I can't say that the little boys are gonna be raped, because I have no evidence whatsoever to support that, but regardless of the lack of evidence we all secretly know the risk is greater because gays are obviously pedophiles." Is that it? Not it? What is the reason?

 

[Borachio]

So you want to jail people who say the races are not equal because thats not OK. Do you think adultery should be illegal too? I dont think recreational hunting is OK, should that be illegal. I dont think its OK to ignore the 1st Amendment with hate speech laws. Maybe that should be illegal.

Well, no, I don't want to jail people who say the races aren't equal, and no I don't think adultery should be illegal.

Hunting is a bit of a tricky one, given that the hunting of foxes using hounds (which is what most people will understand by hunting in the UK, though I understand you probably mean hunting deer with a rifle) is at present outlawed. But hunting for sport is a really strange idea, imo. Where's the pleasure in tracking something down and killing it?

But the point I'm trying to make is that these issues about freedom of speech aren't particularly easy ones. It's all too easy, imo, to just say that freedom of speech should be sacrosanct - when in practice it really isn't.

And when you say things like "such and such isn't OK, and therefore shouldn't it be illegal?"... well yes, you're right in a way. The law, in its blunt instrument way, precisely establishes the norms of what is acceptable. That is its role (or, at least, one of them).

So if you don't have any hate speech laws, racists and the like can just shrug their shoulders when people object to them spouting racist nonsense and shelter behind the 1st amendment claiming, rightly, that there's no law against them saying exactly whatever they like.

It seems strange, to me, that a person could slander an entire "race" with impunity under the umbrella of free speech, but they can't do the same against an individual. Doesn't it seem strange to you, too?

 

[Kyriakos]

So I ask why would someone be uncomfortable with a gay scout leader and your answer is "the same reason they would be uncomfortable with a gay doctor" Yes but what is that reason? You havent answered the question. You said "take chances" take chances with what? If your argument is not that "homosexual people are more rape-prone than non-homosexuals" then what is your argument? Why even mention that if its not your argument?

Or is this a case of you just saying "The argument is not that homosexual people are..." as a disclaimer/innoculation against anyone asking you for some statistical support? Sort of along the lines of "Well I can't say that the little boys are gonna be raped, because I have no evidence whatsoever to support that, but regardless of the lack of evidence we all secretly know the risk is greater because gays are obviously pedophiles." Is that it? Not it? What is the reason?

Hm? If one gets raped that is sort of the most horrible end result. I am sure no one claims that rape will be the end result in a majority or in any large number of such cases..

However i noted that small children are not viewing things in an adult manner, and sexual things often indeed are experienced with very intense emotions from early puberty children, such as those in the summer camps or doctor appointments mentioned. A child is not really going to bother with statistics if he/she has heard that some adult there is homosexual. Yeah, that may be massively unfair to the homosexual person, but at worst it will be an issue of hurting his/her emotions. In the case of a child it can be a lot more serious than that given the state in life the child is.

Not sure why you deny that children have to be far more protected than any adult? Eg when i realise a person in some place i am in is homosexual i could not care less, but i am 36 and not in a position of weakness anyway, let alone not being in a critical stage of my development like an early-puberty kid is. The dynamic is not the same with a 13year old boy and a camp leader, or a doctor, surely? Figures of some authority are always dangerous even without playing with theories about them.