Thursday Next Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Generally, there are no laws against being a bit of a dick (lucky me). "Hate Speech" laws are pretty much phrased as "Inciting Racial Hatred" etc. So yeah, it's the whole getting a bunch of like minded idiots to rally around you and beat up a queer sort of speech as opposed to "I disagree with x". Europe is pretty harmonised on this point, the rules are pretty similar everywhere. Places like Germany (who have a somewhat unique history wrt minority groups) are very careful to promote tolerance of personal beliefs and freedoms which can sometimes and somewhat ironically limit freedom of expression. France on the other hand is a bit more bullish about the whole thing (hence the thrice cursed Toubon law). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Well, there are some of the same rules in america although they usually don't have to do with hate speech. You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater for no reason to start a panic which could lead to people getting hurt or killed and claim it's free speech. You also can't phone in death threats to people and such. It's usually not race related though as far as I know. There are some hate crime laws but I'm not an expert in what makes a crime a "hate crime". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 This is just a generalization, but usually "hate crimes" are specifically defined as such in the state laws. So like State X might have a law that defines battery as "willfully or intentionally causing physical contact with another in a rude or insulting manner" and then might have another "hate crime" definition of battery that would be "willfully or intentionally causing physical contact with another in a rude or insulting manner because of that person's race" and would carry a harsher penalty than regular battery. (I just made those laws up as an example.) So if somebody beat up a black guy in order to convict them of the hate crime the prosecutor would have to prove not just that they beat up a black guy but that they did it because of he's black. Regarding hate speech, the first amendment absolutely prohibits the government from punishing you from espousing political or religious viewpoints in a generalized way (i.e. "God hates fags"). In other situations it's a lot more complicated, and you have to start weighing whether the interest in protecting the type of speech involved outweighs any interest in preventing it. So for instance it's okay to make fraudulent speech illegal even though it's speech because the interest in preventing fraud outweighs the interest in protecting your right to say those things, and the same is true of Yant's "fire" example. When you start talking about individuals it gets even more complicated; you probably can't get away with advocating harming an individual, and it's definitely illegal (at least everywhere I know of) to threaten individuals, but you can get away with saying things about them (i.e. "Steve is going to hell because he's a fag" is probably okay as long as Steve actually is gay; if Steve's not gay then it's slander). But generally the idea that someone could get in trouble for expressing a viewpoint is very alien, and even shocking, to most Americans, hate speech or not. @6264: The Swedish court overturning a ruling because it violates a European law doesn't seem any weirder to me than an Oklahoma court overturning a ruling because it violates a Federal law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 @6264: The Swedish court overturning a ruling because it violates a European law doesn't seem any weirder to me than an Oklahoma court overturning a ruling because it violates a Federal law. Well, but legally, Sweden isn't totally subservient to Europe. They're caving based on a treaty, and it seems like it's none of Europe's business. This is a Swedish issue, and the European civil liberty whatever people can fuck off. It seems weird to me that a full-fledged nation, not just a state, isn't allowed to enforce its own laws. Kinda conjures the question of why they even have those laws if they'll just get overruled by the looming European courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 But that treaty establishes that the member states of the EU are bound by certain provisions regarding the rights of their citizens, and establishes a court system for ruling on disputes. It could also be argued that the US Constitution is really just a treaty between (what were at the time) sovereign states, but the states are still bound by it. At their core both the EU and the US are dual-sovereignty entities, and while EU member states (they're referred to as states in the treaties in question) may have have a lot more autonomy than US states do, US states were also once almost entirely autonomous. The parallels are more than just superficial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I assume the "primaries" are coming to an end cos Obama is now stepping up to the plate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16913174 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Well Super Tuesday's not for another month, and a few scattered states have primaries after that even I believe. Now that Paul's chances are diminishing, it's pretty clear we're in for another 4 years of Obama, as there's no chance Romney will beat him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Now that Paul's chances are diminishing, it's pretty clear we're in for another 4 years of Obama, as there's no chance Romney will beat him. Paul? He never had a chance, not against Romney and Gingrich. I wish he did, as he's the only Republican candidate out of all of these I'd vote for, but I think most people have been thinking it'll come down to Romney vs. Obama regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Wow, maybe we need a sweedish politics thread... Morals existed before religion, and they'll exist long after religion is gone. A statment assumed by your belief in evolutionary theory. Nonsense. If I remember my theology, the majority of Christian philosophers, theologians and clergy believe that morality exists outside of religion and man, but not outside of God. Edit: A completely materialistic or empirical understanding of the world is more likely to result in beliefs that morality is contingent, relative or a fabrication. Is not the Word eternal? Edited February 7, 2012 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/03/ron-paul-campaign-denies-white-supremacist-ties-alleged-by-anonymous/ Take that how you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I thought it was pretty clear Paul took advantage of riling up racists back in the day in order to make a little more scratch for his political ambitions. It's a long GOP tradition dating back to Nixon's Southern Strategy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Well Super Tuesday's not for another month, and a few scattered states have primaries after that even I believe. Now that Paul's chances are diminishing, it's pretty clear we're in for another 4 years of Obama, as there's no chance Romney will beat him. I agree. Also, it's strange that people call the Republican party racist when as I recall it's primarily been the democratic party that was opposed to integration and if you really want to go back, abolition. It was also Democrats who passed the minimum wage not as a law to protect the poor but as a law to keep contractors from hiring black workers for cheaper labor than white workers in a move they thought sure would help keep jobs white. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party#1964-72 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Yup, until the late 60's the Dems were pretty awful. In the teens and 20's, the Dems were the party of the KKK. And you had holdouts even until the 2008 election in some states. But, seriously, racist dog whistle politics has been part of the GOP Southern Strategy. Back when the GOP was staunchly anti-libertarian yet loudly proclaiming for States' Rights in the wake of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a way to overturn said Act. Also the birther movement. Edit: Wait, what? Citation for the claim that minimum wage laws were meant to somehow keep black people from working is needed. I've never heard this claim before and I've studied the development of such laws. Sounds like a crackpot theory to me. Edited February 7, 2012 by Mr. GOH! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Well, if it makes you feel better there are plenty of conservatives who hate the birther movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 This is gonna be the first election I don't give a flying fuck about any candidate. I'm actually hoping Obama stays. None of the other candidates remotely interest me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) This is gonna be the first election I don't give a flying fuck about any candidate. I'm actually hoping Obama stays. None of the other candidates remotely interest me. You say that like it's unthinkable. I feel that Obama's done a solid, not perfect, job, and I'm quite content to re-elect him. I know some others here will disagree, but thinking that you're willing to give Obama another four years isn't a bizarre thought by any means. Edited February 7, 2012 by SixTwoSixFour 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Well, there's plenty in the republican party who think that this election should be a slam dunk for a strong republican candidate and are currently lamenting the two frontrunners Romney and Gengrich. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Romney seems pretty strong to me. Who would your pick be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 As I've seen it, Romney has been the only Republican candidate capable of going against Obama. He has been at the top for a long time, and typically the next nomination has gone to prior runner-ups. A few months ago if you told Republicans that Gingrich was part of the "Final Two," you'd get a chuckle or confused look with people wondering what happened to Perry or Cain. Truth of the matter is Gingrich has become the last hope for a "non-Romney" candidate. I mean, there was even an SNL skit where the character playing Gingrich just left the debate because, at that time, no one ever thought Gingrich would get to where he stands now. Of course, no one saw Rick Perry's trademark "Oops" debating skills and Herman Cain having a handful of sex scandals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Romney is the only GOP candidate even remotely palatable to independents, as I see it. I think independents are not overly fond of the idea that the federal government should be dismantled and financial regulations abandoned. Most Americans still believe in the idea of governance; they're just disgusted by the current situation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I think it's a misconception that independants are generally intellectuals with a moderate stance directly center. My personal experience is they're more impulse buyers who go after what strikes their fancy in the checkout aisle. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I think it's a misconception that independants are generally intellectuals with a moderate stance directly center. My personal experience is they're more impulse buyers who go after what strikes their fancy in the checkout aisle. Or maybe they're intelligent people who see that both parties are supremely fucked up right now and only vote for the least terrible choice, because that's all they can do. I refuse to subscribe to a party because I understand that both are in shambles (one more so than the others), and I don't want to be associated with certain ideas that each side carries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I thought we'd already established that all intellectuals went Democrat because Republicans are a bunch of evolution denying, science hating, hill-billies. I suppose indies could be less-idiotic Republicans, or less intellectual Democrats? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Well, if it makes you feel better there are plenty of conservatives who hate the birther movement. And if it makes ANYone feel better, the Birther stuff started in the Hillary Clinton camp. Also, I always wondered why states rights was always such a dirty word to people. Quite frankly I think 95% of what goes on in Massachusetts and needs any government action should be governed by the local towns and counties and the state. To me the Federal government as it stands is much too big and controlling. It's a huge waste to have 50 individual departments of education and then a massive Federal one. The states can take care of themselves, for the most part. The problem is we look to the Federal government to solve all woes when it should I'm backing either Gingrich or Santorum but would vote for Romney if he were the nominee. As a former (and possibly soon to be) citizen of the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Romneycare has a bad taste in my mouth and I fear he wouldn't support repealing Obamacare, which for many people I know, that's one of their main issues this election (that and seeing real improvement in the economy, not BLS adjusted statistics that say 15+% unemployment (depending on which poll you read) is really 8%. Remember when John Kerry was saying 4.5% was unacceptable under Bush? I also really question anyone who says Obama has done a good job. Hell, I know a lot of dyed in the wool liberals who swear they are staying home this November but of course, that's anecdotal evidence. Still, when I see many of my friends out of work or only working part time, my health insurance has gone way up, the military being sent on extra excursions to places like Libya (how's that for an anti-war president), seeing the debt so deep our great-grandkids will be paying it off and just seeing my paycheck buy less and less all the while the king and queen vacation in exotic places on separate taxpayer funded jet, golfing instead of legislating, regulate ours kids' school lunches, making illegal recess appointments, creating czars who have no Congressional approval or oversight and the only answer we get from the president is that it's a rich man's fault for not paying enough taxes. Really? But what do I know? I must be a racist who doesn't recycle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I thought we'd already established that all intellectuals went Democrat because Republicans are a bunch of evolution denying, science hating, hill-billies. I suppose indies could be less-idiotic Republicans, or less intellectual Democrats? Correction, Pseudo-intellectuals tend to vote Democrat. So do anti-religious bigots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.