It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So you have found NOTHING, by your own admission, that states only certain groups are protected by hate speech laws. Now you want me to show you proof that they cover everyone? Read the laws, my friend. The evidence is the fact that the laws do not single out any group.
originally posted by: undo
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
What evidence are you speaking of?
originally posted by: undo
a reply to: captaintyinknots
could you link me up to the evidence? i'm interested in reading it.
that caucasians are also protected under the hate crime laws
In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "God dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas."
[F]reedom of speech...," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the 5-4 majority, is "protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest ... There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view."
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) No organization has been more aggressively or justifiably pursued on grounds of hate speech than the Ku Klux Klan. But the arrest of an Ohio Klansman named Clarence Brandenburg on criminal syndicalism charges, based on a KKK speech that recommended overthrowing the government, was overturned in a ruling that has protected radicals of all political persuasions ever since. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice William Brennan argued that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977) When the National Socialist Party of America was declined a permit to speak in Chicago, the organizers turned to the small, ethnically Jewish town of Skokie—where 1/6th of the Jewish population was made up of families that had survived the Holocaust. County authorities attempted to block the Nazi march, but their efforts were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a terse ruling. After the ruling, the city of Chicago granted the Nazis three permits to march; the Nazis, in turn, decided to cancel their plans to march in Skokie.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) After a teenager burned a makeshift cross on the lawn of an African-American couple, the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance—which prohibited symbols that "[arouse] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender"—came into effect. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the ordinance was excessively broad.
Virginia v. Black (2003) 11 years after the St. Paul case, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue of cross-burning after three people were arrested separately for violating a Virginia ban. In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court held that while cross-burning may constitute illegal intimidation in some cases, a ban on the public burning of crosses would violate the First Amendment. "[A] State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," Justice O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm."
hmmmm....
Snyder v. Phelps (2011) Westboro Baptist Church has made a career out of being reprehensible. The organization, which came to national prominence by gleefully picketing the funeral of Matthew Shepard, later moved on to celebrating the 9/11 attacks and picketing military funerals. The family of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, killed in Iraq in 2006, sued Westboro—and its leader, Fred Phelps—for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Westboro's right to picket. While acknowledging that Westboro's "contribution to public discourse may be negligible," Chief Justice John Roberts's ruling rested in existing U.S. hate speech precedent: "Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were."
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: olaru12
"I could care less if you want to be a racist moron in the privacy of your own home"
Let understand one another, what exactly do you mean by "if you want to be a racist moron". One could assume by that statement you mean me.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: mahatche
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: FlyersFan
Well, I am going to post my response before reading the rest of the thread. This is beyond ridiculous! The waitress is completely wrong, and needs to mind her own business. A conversation in a restaurant is private, and the chief owes no one an apology. He's entitled to his opinion. No complaints about his job performance? No problem. leave him alone.
We have "comedians" (I don't find most of them amusing at all), various celebrities, and political activists going around making anti-white comments all the time, and they never apologize, or have their positions threatened as a result. The double standard MUST stop. We have a right to free speech, not a right to not be offended!
You just compared comedians, who typically make fun of everyone, to cops. If your standard for police behavior is equal to comedians, then it's pretty clear where you are having a problem here.
Both are people with a right to speak their minds. Being a cop doesn't mean you lose your right to free speech. This man made a comment about ONE person, not an entire race, and a waitress decided to get herself into the limelight by making a stink about it.
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo
Are you speaking of the Hate Crime Reporting Act? A proposal, not a law, intended to provide protection from hate speech through media?
Because, if you are, you need to understand a) the difference between a proposal and a law, and b) that it, too, offers the same protection to all.
originally posted by: undo
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo
Are you speaking of the Hate Crime Reporting Act? A proposal, not a law, intended to provide protection from hate speech through media?
Because, if you are, you need to understand a) the difference between a proposal and a law, and b) that it, too, offers the same protection to all.
please stop treating me like i'm somehow inferior to you, for just asking questions on the subject. also, that is not what i read - in fact, i also watch a youtube of holder describing it, and there was not allotment for groups that weren't historically attacked. attacked by whom, pray tell?
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo
Im not speaking to you like anything. Sounds like your own insecurities.
Im simply trying to figure out what nondescript, no title, generic proposal you are speaking of.
Its pretty clear that whatever it is, its not a law
originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: undo
It's a strawman argument anyway; intended to lead away from the real OP thread that FF started.
Perhaps a reading of this might give you some insight. Totally off topic imo
www.abovetopsecret.com...
originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Justwatchingyou
he doesn't need your help. back off.
so, if its all me, why are you, and a few others, so vehement about coming at me?
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: captaintyinknots
You are beating a dead horse. The vast majority of posts in this thread are from you and you have been at it for days. Take a break man.
If that town feels the cop is unfit for duty for dropping the N-word.
I am a white make and I am protected by the 1st Amendment to use the N-word as much as I want.
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo
Ok, so youre talking about this:
www.cnn.com...
(Which, for the record, simply extends hate crime laws to protect sexual orientation along with others)
Did you really listen to what was said? All he said is that the bill will not protect hate speech masquaraded as religion.
Thats it.