Bitcoin Forum

Note: Hate speech, not hate crimes. YouGov asked people about hate crimes for its poll too and found bipartisan support for the federal law that provides steeper penalties for crimes motivated by hatred of the victim’s race, religion, gender, or national origin. Sixty-four percent of Dems gave thumbs-up to that versus 54 percent of Republicans. A plurality of Republicans also support expanding that law to target hate crimes committed against gays: 44 percent say yes versus 30 percent who say no.

Hate-crimes laws matter in the sentencing phase. If you’re guilty of the underlying offense, then you can be punished more severely depending upon what your motive was. A hate-speech law is different in that it treats hate as the offense itself. All you have to do is verbalize your thoughtcrime against a protected group and you’re facing prison. Our intellectual superiors in Europe cherish their hate-speech laws but the First Amendment makes them anathema in the U.S.


Independents and Republicans are heavily opposed (although, alarmingly, not quite to a majority degree among GOPers) but Democrats and liberals — proud guardians of the free-speech movement in the 1960s — are ready to censor. The best spin I can put on this for lefties is that YouGov’s question asked if they’d support a law that criminalizes comments that “advocate genocide or hatred” against a particular group. Could be that some people who said yes focused on the first part of that, genocide, rather than the second and figured that “advocating genocide” is close enough to making a credible violent threat against a person that it can and should be made illegal too. It can’t (unless you’re doing your advocating in front of a mob that’s whipped up and ready to attack someone), but a question asking exclusively about “hatred” would have been better. An interesting footnote to all this: Given America’s history of racism against blacks, you would think they might support hate-speech laws more than any other group. They do support those laws more than whites (44/34 in favor among blacks versus 32/43 opposition among whites) but not as much as Latinos do. Latinos favor them 49/20, a wider gap in support than you find even among self-identified liberals. On the other hand, the left-leaning 18-34 group doesn’t support hate-speech laws much more than any other age demographic does. They break 38/37. Seniors breaks 35/39.


Support across the board. This is another question that could have benefited from better wording, though: “Desecration” could mean anything from aggressive vandalism, like smashing a religious statue or graffiting a church’s walls, to mockery that doesn’t involve property crimes. (I.e. a difference similar to the difference between hate crimes and hate speech.) The question was inspired by the case in Pennsylvania where a 14-year-old went up to a statue of Jesus and — well, see for yourself. Jonathan Turley has the photo. When YouGov asked whether that kid should spend up to two years in jail for that specific act of desecration, respondents split 36/47 against. Among Republicans, it was 40/46. Among Democrats, it was … 44/38. That’s appalling but it makes sense given their response to the hate-speech question. If you want to criminalize offensive expression, as many liberals seem inclined to do, why not hit the 14-year-old with prison time for insulting Jesus? Coming soon, presumably: Blasphemy laws.



http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/02/poll-51-of-democrats-support-criminalizing-hate-speech/

Remember who supports freedom of speech and who does not.

just what i was saying yesterday. jewish liberals are 100% behind efforts to bring in hate speech laws. they have done it in canada and most of europe already. they force third world muslim immigrants upon us then make it difficult to reverse the policy by banning any discussion of it.

I dunno, I was talking about hate speech laws in another thread, I think I made it sound like I was for them, but I'm not! I live in Canada, that lady with the Mohamed cartoon show would face charges here. I don't feel that would be the correct thing to prosecute her on. She should be charged with wreckless endangerment and disturbing the peace. She's going out of her way to incite this madness. It's like teasing the guy you know is on the edge. You know he'll explode soon enough. Problem is, there's collateral damage usually. The guy you teased loses it and shoots everybody there, bystanders included. He's guilty of murder but the person who goaded him on needs to take some of the responsability.
Meanwhile, I actually think that all the Islamist radicals should be killed though and maybe this type of stuff is just what we need to flush em all out. Was Pam Gellar even at that event? Bet she had Kevlar and full security backup

Anyone who supports this legislation is a coward and does not support freedom of speech, people are finally learning what real freedom is about and it's accepting the consequences of your actions.

Time will come, when heterosexual lifestyle will be illegal in the United States. USA is following the same mistakes committed by Scandinavian nations such as Norway and Sweden. As a result of rampant misuse of the government machinery by the homosexual lobby and the radical feminists, there are no real men left in either Norway or Sweden. It is up to the Americans to chose whether they want a nation of emasculated males or not.  >:(

Criminalizing "hate speech" is the direction things are heading. I can't imagine U.S. Republicans stopping it. They'll just "evolve" a little slower than the U.S. Democrats.

The only solution I can see to this is people adopting radical anonymity/pseudonymity. There should be no more of this "if you have nothing to hide" bullshit. The governments of the world, along with a majority of their citizens, have decided freedom of speech is bad. The solution is to speak freely but make it difficult to find them.

Maybe good choices of pseudonyms would be to use the names/addresses of the fascists who support these policies.

Looks like we need to make sure there are encryption tools out there for everybody in that case ;P

Not really surprising. Liberals, commies and other social injustice warriors are used to turn to the biggest f**kin' murderous nazis in the whole wide world if someone doesn't agree with them :/. Some sort of khazarian heritage, I guess :).

Climbing the pyramid from the left or right side.

Yes. Liberals are my favorite target. But also YES "conservatives" could also evolve, as the end result is ultimate power for whoever is in charge on top.


Remember who supports freedom of speech and who does not.

I thought hate-speech was already outlawed? Call someone a derogatory term for a jew or African American and you'll probably get arrested, but I bet you get a free pass on anti-muslim hatespeech. Guess there's always double standards.

Check it out. It's someone new who writes "jew" instead of "Jew." It's almost like there's one person with 100 alts.

"Hate speech" (i.e., speech powerful people want to suppress) is outlawed in most of the world. It's in the process of happening in the U. S. This is further evidence that the human race is earning extinction.

It is not. https://www.stormfront.org/forum/

Repeated demonization can inspire violence

There’s an important history behind America’s free speech laws to which the anti-Islam hate group behind the “Draw Muhammad Contest,” is wholly ignorant. While the Islamophobe leading this hate group believes she’s a free speech champion, remarkably comparing herself to Rosa Parks, in reality America’s current free speech model developed as an attempt to protect — not demonize — religious and racial minorities. “U.S. law only began to protect hateful speech during the 1960s,” writes Garrett Epps. “Southern state governments were trying to criminalize the civil-rights movement for its advocacy of change. White Southerners claimed that the teachings of figures like Martin Luther King or Malcolm X were ‘hate speech’ and would produce ‘race war.’”

Courts sided with American icons like Dr. King, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks, not because they advocated unpopular ideas of hatred or destruction — but because they faced ongoing hatred and destruction at the hands of racist white southerners. As the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and leading Jewish American Rabbis note, Geller represents the antithesis of the moral courage that was Rosa Parks.

Repeated demonization can inspire violence. This is a fact. “During the Holocaust, the Nazis went beyond making us social outcasts; they systematically slaughtered our people with unspeakable cruelty. Because we know so well what it is like to be outcasts, we must never, through our deeds or words, make others into modern-day lepers,” says Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the largest Jewish denomination in North America. “[W]hat [Geller] does, what she represents, has no place in a Jewish community that is built on tolerance and understanding.”



http://time.com/3848009/what-pamela-geller-advocates-is-not-free-speech/

Washington Post: Americans overwhelmingly support Muhammad cartoonists’ right to offend



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/04/americans-overwhelmingly-support-muhammad-cartoonists-right-to-offend/



-----------------------------------------------------------------

The “right to offend”, a.k.a The First Amendment...

What? What does failing to capitalize the J in Jews have to do with anything?


Well you could link to a site selling cp or some site that is hosted in a specific country whilst being illegal in others so that doesn't necessarily prove anything. What is and what isn't hatespeech will also depend on a persons agenda. Take the Charlie Hebdo situation. Many were exercising their free speech to criticize Islam then a french comedian merely made a joke and said 'Charlie Coulibaly' and got arrested for it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/french-comedian-dieudonn-given-suspended-sentence-over-charlie-hebdo-joke-10117120.html

There are a lot of accounts on bitcointalk that do this, even though they capitalize other things. For example, in your case you write "African American" right after writing "jew". People do this because they hate Jews. It's like having to spit after saying the word. I suspect many of these accounts belong to the same person (or group) whose purpose on here is to demonize Jews.

At this point in the U.S. it's difficult to arrest and charge someone simply because of what they said. The approach taken up until now is to find some other unrelated crime that has been broken. For example, in 2012 there was that guy who made a trailer for a film about Muhammed. The Obama administration decided to falsely blame that video for the Benghazi attack and demonize the guy who made the video. (One of the family members at the memorial service said that Hillary vowed, "We'll get the guy who made that video.") At this point in U.S. history they can't arrest him for making a video, but they did find that he had broken terms of his probation and were able to arrest him for that.

This is a temporary situation, of course. They want to be able to arrest and imprison people for criticizing certain off-limit targets (Islam, Obama, etc.). It's essentially like that in Canada already. (People are brought before a "Human Rights Commission" for ungood speech.) That's the direction society is heading.

Don't blame me. I voted for the Sweet Meteor of Death. (SMOD 2016!)

I can support this either =)) If you know what i mean. =))  There are some types of a hate speech that should not be tolerated. For example if some person threatening to kill you.

I don't know about that.  I've done it in the same comments I'm using to lambast those that are constantly attacking Jews, or jews, or Joooos.

Sometimes I capitalize and sometimes I don't.  For me I think it is simply a word I don't type as often, while my name or "American", for instance, is more ingrained already and my fingers do the capitalizing without me having to necessarily think about it.

may be the case in some cases, just saying beware the broad brush....

In this instance this thread is about freedom of speech in the USA only. The other countries and their laws do not matter here. In another thread? Sure.

The stormfront server is in the USA and is legal to operate because of the first amendment. A server with cp on it in the USA will be shut down as it is not free speech but a criminal enterprise with sick people that need to be destroyed, on sight.

Exhibit A: Islamic Imam Anjem Choudary told Pamela Geller tonight that she should be slaughtered for her Texas cartoon contest. Is that a threat... Or a direct threat?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3xuj-aJyaE


 8)

University of Minnesota Professors Told To Take Down Flyers For Event Featuring “Offensive” Mohammed Cartoon…






University of Minnesota faculty members were asked earlier this year to take down posters advertising an academic panel because they included an “offensive” recreated cartoon picture of Mohammed – the one made famous by Charlie Hebdo earlier this year.

The posters had advertised a panel discussion by various professors as well as a Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper cartoonist. Co-sponsored by a dozen academic departments in the College of Liberal Arts following the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January, it was titled “Can One Laugh at Everything? Satire and Free Speech After Charlie” and intended to generate an academic discussion of the tragedy and its consequences.

Flyers promoting the event featured the now-infamous image of the prophet as it was printed in Charlie Hebdo. The word “censored” was stamped in red diagonally across the cartoon image.

The organizers discussed whether or not to put the cartoon image of Mohammad on the flyer, but eventually decided it would be appropriate given the subject of the event—free speech and satire, Inside Higher Ed reported this week. But after the flyers were distributed online and hung around campus, some members of the Muslim student community wanted them taken down.

In phone calls and a petition, nearly 275 people complained to the campus Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, calling the flyer “blasphemous” and insulting to Muslims, the Minnesota Daily campus newspaper reports. The complainants included students, faculty, a retired professor and random individuals unaffiliated with the university, who called the flyer “very offensive.”

The petition read in part that the flyer “violated our religious identity and hurt our deeply held religious affiliations for our beloved prophet (peace be upon him). Knowing that these caricatures hurt and are condemned by 1.75 billion Muslims in the world, the university should not have recirculated/reproduced them.”


http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22367/

Regarding the University of Minnesota case:

I'm looking for the petition with the 260 or so signatures. I'd like all the names and whatever other information is on it. The only name I found by following links is Aisha Hassan, a freshman.

I'm also interesting in the names (and other information) of the university officials who made the decision.

This might be the same Aisha Hassan who signed the petition to take down the flyer with the Charlie Hebdo cartoon a the University of Minnesota. I don't know.

https://twitter.com/aishadenise08 (https://twitter.com/aishadenise08)

Can anyone confirm? She's obviously Muslim and has a problem with "right wing xenophobes," so she fits the stereotype of a left wing fascist.

Edit: No I don't think this is her. This one graduated from University of Minnesota in 2013. The article said the Aisha Hassan who signed the petition was a freshman. Obviously my doxxing skills need practice.

The “assassin’s veto”


New York Daily News columnist Harry Siegel may not be a fan of Pamela Geller, but he’s much less a fan of those rushing to condemn her for her speech rather than lay blame at the feet of terrorists seeking to silence her. Having lived through the last round of Mohammed cartoon publications, Siegel blasts the media elite for missing the real threat while stroking their own egos by prioritizing their sneering at Geller over the threat to freedom of speech. In doing so, they are embracing the assassin’s veto, Siegel warns — after indulging in a short bout of sneering himself:


But the assassin’s veto, as historian Timothy Garton Ash termed “the use of violence to impose your taboos,” is pointed at her neck. The nastiness of her words, about “the savages” trying to impose Sharia law here, is no longer the issue.

The threat to Geller’s life for speaking is.

Yet many among the literati, who typically fancy themselves truth tellers and idol smashers, spent the last week competing to disdain the obvious and explain why the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists weren’t worthy recipients of an award from a group dedicated to “defend(ing) writers endangered because of their work.”

One such useful idiot — who admits he’s never even read Hebdo — wrote “it seemed to me that ‘Je suis Charlie’ was a way for (Americans) to re-pledge their commitment to the War on Terror.” …

Flemming Rose, the editor who commissioned the 2006 Danish cartoons with little idea what he was getting into, and who a decade later still needs an armed guard (he and three colleagues are on an Al Qaeda-published hit list that also included Hebdo staffers), having survived several attempts on his life, explained why his paper didn’t run the French cartoons after those cartoonists were slaughtered: “Violence works. And sometimes the sword is mightier than the pen.”

He elaborated: “We caved in to intimidation. And I don’t think that we will get less intimidation because of that. Because we are telling the extremists that it works.”


We seem to have lost the sense of shared values we once held in free speech. At one time, that support for free speech had nothing to do with content — which is why the ACLU took the side of Nazis when they wanted to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois in 1977, for instance, a city with a significant Jewish population. We all understood that everyone had a clear right to speak their opinions, especially in the context of a private meeting such as Geller, Robert Spencer, and Geert Wilders put on in Garland. Those who don’t agree don’t have to show up, and others can certainly disagree and criticize the event.

But when the bullets fly, we used to understand that taste was no longer the issue, and liberty is. Now, media elites and others have made defending liberty contingent on content. These same elites would hardly have criticized the speech of some in Ferguson if a couple of pro-police nuts showed up to shoot the crowd, and yet in this case the content of the speech is somehow the bigger problem than the violence two people attempted to use to silence it. That’s because the elites have decided that violent rhetoric toward the police fits within their tastes, while cartoons satirizing and criticizing Islam constitutes dangerous “hate speech” that offends their tastes. They don’t want to protect dissent — they want to enforce groupthink by putting dissent outside the bounds of free speech, for which the First Amendment was crafted.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/07/nydn-the-rush-among-the-elites-to-embrace-the-assassins-veto/


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously: What happened to liberals? Defending the terrorists now (calling them 'killers', 'attackers'), and instead wanting to shut down the tools that made them so infamous during the viet nam war and in so many other political occasions...

I guess they are all dead.