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.

 

Town's White Police Official Calls Obama N-word - Refuses to Apologize

page: 32
34
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: captaintyinknots

could you link me up to the evidence? i'm interested in reading it.
What evidence are you speaking of?


that caucasians are also protected under the hate crime laws
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.

Here, Ill cite some examples of the law and precedence:

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."

law2.umkc.edu...

Nope, no mention of any particular group there....


[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."

civilliberty.about.com...

Nope, no singling out there....


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."

Nope, none there....


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.


Still nothing.....


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.

Nada.....


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."


Nope.....




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."
hmmmm....

Here, the legal definition:

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.

definitions.uslegal.com...

Do you need more?




posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

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.






It was a generic you.

In English grammar and in particular in casual English, generic you, impersonal you or indefinite you is the pronoun you in its use in referring to an unspecified person.

Feel free to assume whatever you want. Just like I do!! LOL....



edit on 17-5-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

"Feel free to assume whatever you want. Just like I do!! LOL"

"Because we are free to do what we like, any old time" See after that I would say "How ya doing N word?" even though it's not in the lyrics as such. Hopefully you would not find that offensive just because i'm White. It would certainly not be ment as such whether you're black or white!


See how easy two people talking can alleviate a misunderstanding or introduce levity, rather than misinterpreted historically accurate or otherwise bigotry?

Or maybe i'm racist LoL, i like and have liked many women of multiple colours and creeds. Men also although not in the same manner.

Like that old BT advert claimed "Just keep talking!"


edit on 17-5-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

yes when i googled caucasians protected under hate speech laws, and pulled up a reference to holder in 2009 trying to pass hate speech laws that didn't protect christians, caucasians or other groups not deemed worthy of protection, i realized the report was a bit too old to determine what the results of it were. was hoping someone here knew if it went into effect as is



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

I just cited for you nearly half a dozen supreme court rulings as well as the legal definition.

There is ZERO mention of excluding ANY group from protection. In fact, most rulings have gone IN FAVOR of caucasians.
Is that not enough?

Seriously seems like you are digging for ANY source that could provide you with a gotcha moment, but none exists.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

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.


Intentions matter, comedians are making jokes, everyone in the club goes with the expectation of hearing jokes.

He didn't lose free speech. Free speech only protects you from government persecution. It does nothing for public opinion of you.

The right to an opinion isn't a one way thing. He can be offensive, people can be offended. His job is a public position, if the public want to take it from him don't they have that right as well?

how do you know the girl just wanted lime light? maybe she's a good person who wants her police department to be run by better people?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   

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?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

Im not treating 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
edit on 17-5-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   

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?


He's not treating you as inferior..I can go back in this thread just a page back and quote comments you've made that argue you've treated him the way you're feeling or do you not recall calling him of race baiting and trolling?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

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


yes i'm insecure in this thread, due to being part of a conversation in which i 'm being made to look like a racist because i don't understand how a person who is half white and half black is being prejudiced against but only his black half. what about his white half?? isn't that also being called the n word? le mew, le sigh.
before you watch this, understand that i don't agree with people being racist or bigoted, and that is frankly, my point




posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: undo


It's a strawman argument anyway; intended to lead away from the real OP thread that FF started. Totally off topic and not really seeking clarification...

Perhaps a reading of this might give you some insight.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 17-5-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Justwatchingyou

he doesn't need your help. back off.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

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...


true, it is somewhat off topic, although it does address the person who is being called the n word, namely our president.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Justwatchingyou

he doesn't need your help. back off.


Once again I can go back through this thread and cite postings where you have added to the comment of another member to add strength or "validity" to their post. This is an open forum much like a restaurant is.
There is no expectation of privacy here.

Thank you
edit on 17-5-2014 by Justwatchingyou because: typo edit



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

Youve already been shown that mulatos were considered less that, just like blacks. Youve already been shown both the legal definition, and precedence, proving caucasians are protected too.What is it you are looking for at this point?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
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 male and I am protected by the 1st Amendment to use the N-word as much as I want.


edit on 17-5-2014 by jrod because:




posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

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.

so, if its all me, why are you, and a few others, so vehement about coming at me?


Youre right, you are free to use it all you want. Just as those arou d you are free to react. Funny thing, though. All of you who proudly proclaim your right to use it are the same ones who wouldnt dare say it in mixed company.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

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.


the issue is not whether what a religious text says is bigoted or not (freedom of religion) but whether people of faith are equally protected under the law. he also noted that people who were in certain job classifications, appeared not to be covered, and i got the impression one of the senators was saying that it would unnecessarily breed more racism instead of less by giving the impression that the color of your skin determined whether you would be protected or not. holder didn't appear to disagree with this because he said, that it was to protect groups who have been historically attacked. i'm flabbergasted that he doesn't think white people are or have been attacked. who does he think fought the civil war? munchkins or something. what a disservice to the people of this country.




top topics



 
34
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join