Racial slur as man calls Welsh woman "English"

I agree that we don't really know if such an approach will work.

It might well lead to a rather different outcome than we would want. If so, then the law should be changed, but I'm all for experimenting socially.

I guess you're an american style libertarian. eeek! haha.

I think governments can make good and bad choices in how they interfere in society. But they should try to make a difference. My opinion, of course.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I feel offended that you'd call me a racist.

At no point did I call you a racist. At every opportunity I have said that you are happy for people to use racist comments to attack members of the public.

Coud you please show me where I have said 'you are a racist'?

[edit on 10/12/2007 by skibtz]

My mistake,

You called me a "vile defender of racism". I'm sure you could see where I made the mistake.

Still more insulting than being called and 'English Bitch'

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
My mistake,

You called me a "vile defender of racism".

reply to post by Rasobasi420


Please don't misquote me.

I called you a 'defender of racism' - as you think people should be allowed to abuse members of the public with racsim if they want to without retribution by the law

I found the thought of fighting for racism 'vile'

Originally posted by skibtz
And what do we have here?

Another defender of racism perhaps?

You must feel so proud of yourself.

Maybe you could tell your grand kids one day how you fought valiantly in years gone by for the right to dehumanise people with racist comments.

Oh dear.

I tell you what we don't have, someone who bandies the phrase "defender of racism" about like some debate surpressing nazi.

I defend being offended, no law should elevate actual crimes with the added baggage of possible "thought"

Try responding to the post instead of right on cliched s hite like yer last line, ok popsy

Originally posted by melatonin
Eh? Do you not think that prejudice and racism goes a bit beyond keeping the likes of Jesse Jackson off the streets?

I'm not sure if you misunderstood my comment- I am saying some people make livings out of perpetuating racial division, and by dehumanising people into racial groups, such as the good ol reverend.

I'm starting to see a trend now...
How is studying the neurobiological basis of prejudice problematic?

When you come up with terms such as "outgroups" you just reinforce segmentation and divsion, regardless of such erstwhile sounding studies as "neurobiological"

I consider social categorisation a pretty normal process, we are 'cognitive misers' and tend to group people for simplicity. But this can become a virulant tendency in some.

indeed, it is a virulent tendency with those involved in the race industry

Of course, we should allow this stuff to happen without any recourse, because apparently even considering the existence of racists and bigots is dehumanising, heh.

again you misunderstand, racists and bigots, be they black, white or asian, will always exist til the last human pops his clogs- the term "dehumanising" was in reference to those who perpetuate the division and segmentation in the race industry.

I think most killers get the same sentences these days. It's not about elevating people, but about lowering people. Lowering racists and bigots, giving them a similar level of special attention they give particular social groups.

erm, no they don't- are you from the UK- sentences (due to recent changes in the law) receive longer terms if a judge can assess "thought crime" and bung in a motive of race, religion or sexual orientation- do you need links, because this is actually the case?

Your point is also bogus- we are talking, in this instance about murderers, they are already lowered to the vermin that they are, you then decide to classify some murderers as worse than others because of a thought crime, thereby elevating one victim above another

Heh, 'race industry'. Racism was a big problem during the earlier parts of the 20th century, however, legislation did appear to reduce some of the more excessive examples. But, we were still seeing bananas thrown at football palyers in the 1980s. We rarely see that in the UK now. That's super, smashing, great - a good start.

More contradictions, banana throwing stopped without legislation for thought crimes- they stopped due to people considering it rude- the recent legislation has bugger all to do with it, just more government control.

Ironically enough, much of this hate legislation was brought in to appease people segmenting two particular groups (homosexuals and muslims)- what is quite funny is that the very legislation which protects muslims from being offended can also end up with muslims being prosecuted due to their teachings about homosexuality- super smashing nicey

Hasn't solved the issue in total, as we tend to find that bigots and racists channel their negative attitudes other ways, into what can be called 'symbolic racism'. Usually quite easy to spot though...

Spluttered my coffee there "symbolic racism"- do behave, another term invented by people who thrive on racial difference, how ironic. A term also coined to be specifically anti white.

Check out racism in Darfur kiddo, how about you stifle your pretentious waffling and go defend black africans from murderous Arabs, with no bad whitey in sight!

I don't particularly care whether you think these laws are good or bad. They are for a purpose, and they have been doing their job to a degree. It makes the more embarrassing members of the human race think twice before exhibiting their stupidity in an open fashion.

I don't care if you care or not.

You are incredibly stupid in your defence of the law, and here is why- the law will apply to murders, and give higher sentencing to some based on possible "hate" thought crimes. Now, far be it from me to be stating the obvious here, but the vermin have committed murder, that is the salient point, a murdered person, whatever God style attempts we try to employ to read mines for possible "hate" motives.

So, a woman just murdered because some dude has a #ing sick sexual deviancy receives less justice than someone who is murdered because some doddering ould fart judge decides he was murdered over race- spare me your perverted moral high ground.

Rest assured such laws will be repealed, because they are just about extending government control- they will be moved on from issues such as race, religion etc- little sheep like you, involved in the race industry just go along with it

Originally posted by skibtz

Please don't misquote me.

I called you a 'defender of racism' - as you think people should be allowed to abuse members of the public with racsim if they want to without retribution by the law

I found the thought of fighting for racism 'vile'

You asked me if I was a "defender of racism"- no, I dont support people being called "'n-word's" or me being called "paddy"- but I sure as # don't want a law to reinforce it, okey doke.


Such laws are "vile"

Originally posted by blueorder
I defend being offended, no law should elevate actual crimes with the added baggage of possible "thought"

Sorry to break it to you, but in the Westminster-derived legal systems of this world both "thought" and "action" are required for a crime to have been committed.

Which is why we have "manslaughter" for when a killing was not premeditated. "Murder" wasn't committed because the killer did not plan for death as the outcome of the action.

This bloke's "thought" was that, in his estimation, being English is lower than being Irish. His action was insulting and assaultive, his thought was racist, making his criminal action racist assault.

So, all those people bleating about Eric Arthur Blair's "Thought Crimes" becoming a reality can take a deep breath and get down off their soapboxes.

Thought crimes have always existed. Whether they are "conspiracy to commit" or "incitement" or "racial abuse". Not so long ago the majority of peole resident below the Mason-Dixon Line thought it was no crime to murder blacks and their "Yankee" white supporters. Not so long ago Aborigines weren't even Australian citizens and the citizens never gave it a second thought. Not so long ago it was official government policy in Rwanda for "cockroaches" to be exterminated and the Interahamwe thought they were doing their patriotic duty.

I don't think any of these situations are acceptable.

I also don't have a problem with racial vilification laws in a system of free speech. I am a sea of mutually supporting contradictions. I love beer and hate drunks. My bike does 215 and I hate speeders.

My Khmer wife is married to a foreigner, but hates the Vietnamese and Thais. I love her, but I don't indulge her rants. I find them short-sighted, ignorant, historically unsupportable, politically suspect, cheap and xenophobic (well, duh!), all the things I associate with party-supervised education.

Should she be foolish enough to use the word "Yuon" on the streets of Australia, she could well end up in a similar situation to our foolish truckie. We have a fairly simple unwritten rule in Australia: You leave your nationalist/religious baggage at immigration when you check in. This isn't Serbia or Sudan or Iraq or Sri Lanka. You came here to get away from that crap, don't bring it with you.

Unless you happen to see a former camp guard walking down the street. He/she doesn't get to leave their past behind...

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Sorry to break it to you, but in the Westminster-derived legal systems of this world both "thought" and "action" are required for a crime to have been committed.

actually not a fair assessment, a hallmark of our system has been to deal with people's actions, not thoughts

Which is why we have "manslaughter" for when a killing was not premeditated. "Murder" wasn't committed because the killer did not plan for death as the outcome of the action.

I knew the manslaughter reference would be made by some- it is a mute point, because the sentence is on the premeditated decision to kill, this is the ultimate crime, the crime of murder is as big as it gets- to then INCREASE certain murders over possible separate thought processes is just a nonsense.

Your defence means 3 scenarios- manslaughter (defendant does not have the malice aforethought, but their state of mind is such that the law still deems them culpable), murder (including malice of aforethought), or SUPER MURDERS (malice of forethought including bad thoughts about race, sexual orientation and religion).

This is the problem when people take the logical manslaughter/murder distinction and pervert it to this new "hate crime" agenda.

This bloke's "thought" was that, in his estimation, being English is lower than being Irish. His action was insulting and assaultive, his thought was racist, making his criminal action racist assault.

The law should deal and act only on assault- if he thinks the english are lower than the welsh, however cretinous a thought, it should in no way be an issue with our legal system

So, all those people bleating about Eric Arthur Blair's "Thought Crimes" becoming a reality can take a deep breath and get down off their soapboxes.

odd, when you have just admitted the sentencing involved a thought crime

Thought crimes have always existed. Whether they are "conspiracy to commit" or "incitement" or "racial abuse".

This is a quantative difference- people can THINK that the English are lower than the Welsh (they would never have been prosecuted for such thoughts), but if they were to INCITE hatred by saying "I CALL FOR ALL WELSH PEOPLE TO ATTACK ENGLISH PEOPLE", then this isnt "thought" but incitement- totally different

Not so long ago the majority of peole resident below the Mason-Dixon Line thought it was no crime to murder blacks and their "Yankee" white supporters. Not so long ago Aborigines weren't even Australian citizens and the citizens never gave it a second thought. Not so long ago it was official government policy in Rwanda for "cockroaches" to be exterminated and the Interahamwe thought they were doing their patriotic duty.

This sideshow has nothing to do with the sensible debate at hand, if you want to get ridiculous fire away

I don't think any of these situations are acceptable.

I don't think rape is acceptable, nor murder, now back to "hate " crimes and "thought crime

I also don't have a problem with racial vilification laws in a system of free speech. I am a sea of mutually supporting contradictions. I love beer and hate drunks. My bike does 215 and I hate speeders.

I do, I defend the right of someone to have the most idiotic views- you think you are contradictory, well how about this- I am most proudly "islamopphobic" ( a nonsense term invented by some muslim rabble rousers and adopted by their liberal wet dreams), but I dont think that airport girl should have been jailed for her idiotic poems

My Khmer wife is married to a foreigner, but hates the Vietnamese and Thais. I love her, but I don't indulge her rants. I find them short-sighted, ignorant, historically unsupportable, politically suspect, cheap and xenophobic (well, duh!), all the things I associate with party-supervised education.

okey doke

Should she be foolish enough to use the word "Yuon" on the streets of Australia, she could well end up in a similar situation to our foolish truckie. We have a fairly simple unwritten rule in Australia: You leave your nationalist/religious baggage at immigration when you check in. This isn't Serbia or Sudan or Iraq or Sri Lanka. You came here to get away from that crap, don't bring it with you.

they should be permitted to have idiotic thoughts and use words which offend you- people should get over it

Unless you happen to see a former camp guard walking down the street. He/she doesn't get to leave their past behind...

Whether one can leave their past behind or not is no business of yours, and nor should it of the state, too many nosey people playing God


See many "camp guards" walking down the street btw? How do you spot them?


Such laws will ultimately be repealed, as people get fed up with such oppressive state intrusion-

[edit on 11-12-2007 by blueorder]

Originally posted by blueorder
I'm not sure if you misunderstood my comment- I am saying some people make livings out of perpetuating racial division, and by dehumanising people into racial groups, such as the good ol reverend.

Errm, OK.

So, it's the old rev's problem, nothing to do with him reacting to the situation, heh.

When you come up with terms such as "outgroups" you just reinforce segmentation and divsion, regardless of such erstwhile sounding studies as "neurobiological"

Not at all. We are decribing a phenomena in society. Ir you think this is a cause of the problem, then I think you are way off target.

We have ingroups and outgroups. We know they exist. We can see it in numerous ways. We self-define in this way.

indeed, it is a virulent tendency with those involved in the race industry

Heh, whatever.

Nothing to do with Tutsi's & Hutu's and genocidal acts. It's caused by the damn scientists, rofl.

again you misunderstand, racists and bigots, be they black, white or asian, will always exist til the last human pops his clogs- the term "dehumanising" was in reference to those who perpetuate the division and segmentation in the race industry.

If you say so. As an area of social psychology, it is a suitable area for study.

I guess it would be better to just ignore racism and prejudice, heh.

erm, no they don't- are you from the UK- sentences (due to recent changes in the law) receive longer terms if a judge can assess "thought crime" and bung in a motive of race, religion or sexual orientation- do you need links, because this is actually the case?

I think that would be fair enough. But most murderers get the normal life sentence (i.e. 15 or 30 min). The worst get the higher sentence, sexual, racial, police killers etc. That's cool by me.

Not a thought crime, but a behaviour crime.

Your point is also bogus- we are talking, in this instance about murderers, they are already lowered to the vermin that they are, you then decide to classify some murderers as worse than others because of a thought crime, thereby elevating one victim above another

Yes, we already class some murderers as worse than others. So, not an issue. Context will always be important, whether it be an alcohol-fueled murder, a murder of a child by a parent, a murder of a child by a sexual predator, a murder of passion, a murder of race hate.

We already do this. I'm sorry but if you were murdered whilst on the razz with a group of chavs in a drunken brawl over a can of stella, I will place that of less consequence than a man killing someone solely due to race. Amazingly, I would likely be more bothered by the child being killed by a sexual predator than either.

Oh well. We all have attitudes. So shoot me.

More contradictions, banana throwing stopped without legislation for thought crimes- they stopped due to people considering it rude- the recent legislation has bugger all to do with it, just more government control.

Yah, yah.

It wouldn't be a thought crime. It is a behaviour crime.

Spluttered my coffee there "symbolic racism"- do behave, another term invented by people who thrive on racial difference, how ironic. A term also coined to be specifically anti white.

Nope it describes particular behaviours. The channelling of negative attitudes into other areas, particularly politics and other non-explicit indirect forms of racism. As I said, easy to note.

Check out racism in Darfur kiddo, how about you stifle your pretentious waffling and go defend black africans from murderous Arabs, with no bad whitey in sight!

What? You mean that these sort of social groups exist? That would be an interesting area to study, rofl.

Whoever said it was just whites who did this?

I don't care if you care or not.

You are incredibly stupid in your defence of the law, and here is why- the law will apply to murders, and give higher sentencing to some based on possible "hate" thought crimes. Now, far be it from me to be stating the obvious here, but the vermin have committed murder, that is the salient point, a murdered person, whatever God style attempts we try to employ to read mines for possible "hate" motives.

OK.

Not hate thought crimes, hate behaviour crimes.

You can hold negative attitudes to other races, I won't stop you. You can channel these attitudes into conversations like the one we are having, but if you act on these attitudes in a way that breaks the law, then your behaviour might be censured. Cool.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Errm, OK.

So, it's the old rev's problem, nothing to do with him reacting to the situation, heh.

erm no, he is perpetuating the problem and consequently PART of the problem- making a living out of it by perpetuating racial division, and often stoking the flames

Not at all. We are decribing a phenomena in society. Ir you think this is a cause of the problem, then I think you are way off target.

never said it was the cause- the cause is human beings and their capacity for stupidity, hatred and bigotry- there are many stupid people out there with stupid thoughts, I just don't think they should be punished for them

We have ingroups and outgroups. We know they exist. We can see it in numerous ways. We self-define in this way.

"WE" don't, we are individuals

Heh, whatever.

Nothing to do with Tutsi's & Hutu's and genocidal acts. It's caused by the damn scientists, rofl.

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately evasive- the genocide in Rwanda was down to human nature , hatred and bigotry (without even going into wider political discussions about Rwanda and it's history)- this evilness within humanity is then fed on by people in the race industry, some are undoutedly genuine in their involvement, others are mere charlatans, who encourage division, victimhood and dehumanisation, and gain personal wealth out of it (again refer Jackson)

If you say so. As an area of social psychology, it is a suitable area for study.

I guess it would be better to just ignore racism and prejudice, heh.

not at all, but one must balance studying such stupidity with similar fascist like oppressive behaviour as shown by many of the division merchants

I think that would be fair enough. But most murderers get the normal life sentence.

NO- a crime is given a heavier sentence if a judge determines a "hate" motive

Yes, we already class some murderers as worse than others. So, not an issue. Context will always be important, whether it be an alcohol-fueled murder, a murder of a child by a parent, a murder of a child by a sexual predator, a murder of passion, a murder of race hate.

"we" personally may class some murders above others, we are talking about the law with set tariffs. Murder is murder, if it has been determined to be pre meditated (ie not manslaughter) then life should mean life, end of- justice for all murder victims I say

We already do this. I'm sorry but if you were murdered whilst on the razz with a group of chavs in a drunken brawl over a can of stella, I will place that of less consequence than a man killing someone solely due to race. Amazingly, I would likely be more bothered by the child being killed by a sexual predator than either.

I personally spare a particular slot of hate in my heart for those who kill children, but I am talking about legal tarrifs- life meaning life for all murderers (see above)

Oh well. We all have attitudes. So shoot me.

No, I defend your right to have an attitude

Yah, yah.

It wouldn't be a thought crime. It is a behaviour crime.

can't seem to connect your response with what I posted- quite simply, once again, banana throwing stopped not due to new legislation but because people on the terraces policed themselves and got fed up with such moronic behaviour (thanks in no small part to most teams having their own black players)

What? You mean that these sort of social groups exist? That would be an interesting area to study, rofl.

they are not "social" groups, these are racially classified groups- the arabs attacking blacks and vice versa

Whoever said it was just whites who did this?

pretty much the driving force behind the industry

OK.

Not hate thought crimes, hate behaviour crimes.

You can hold negative attitudes to other races, I won't stop you. You can channel these attitudes into conversations like the one we are having, but if you act on these attitudes in a way that breaks the law, then your behaviour might be censured. Cool.

Quite simply hate laws are an "ass"- I look forward to them being repealed.

Originally posted by blueorder
erm no, he is perpetuating the problem and consequently PART of the problem- making a living out of it by perpetuating racial division, and often stoking the flames

never said it was the cause- the cause is human beings and their capacity for stupidity, hatred and bigotry- there are many stupid people out there with stupid thoughts, I just don't think they should be punished for them

We are not punishing people for thoughts. We are punishing people for their behaviour.

I think some people do aim to create more divisions, people in the BNP, people like the dudes in the mo cartoon debacle. But this is not the case by simply studying a social phenomena.

"WE" don't, we are individuals

Of course you are. You will also identify with certain groups more than others.

Whether it be sex, race, nationality, politics, religion, school, class etc etc. Some will be more salient than others.

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately evasive- the genocide in Rwanda was down to human nature , hatred and bigotry (without even going into wider political discussions about Rwanda and it's history)

Yes, and this hatred and bigotry was enacted along the lines of social groups.

This is why we study such behaviours, they are important. they are normal in human nature, but they can be destructive in their extremes.

- this evilness within humanity is then fed on by people in the race industry, some are undoutedly genuine in their involvement, others are mere charlatans, who encourage division, victimhood and dehumanisation, and gain personal wealth out of it (again refer Jackson)

I couldn't care less about Jackson, I really couldn't. If he breaks the laws by committing crimes that can be considered racially aggravated in the UK, he should also be treated appropriately.

Just like the muslim dudes and the denmark cartoon business were.

NO- a crime is given a heavier sentence if a judge determines a "hate" motive

Yep, I clarified it. This is really not an issue, as was hopefully clear, context is important in judging the severity of crimes. Sexually and racially motivated crimes are given greater status, so what? So are crimes that are premeditated.

"we" personally may class some murders above others, we are talking about the law with set tariffs. Murder is murder, if it has been determined to be pre meditated (ie not manslaughter) then life should mean life, end of- justice for all murder victims I say.

If you want to put all murderers in prison for true life sentences, then maybe. But that's not the case at the moment, run of the mill murders are given about 15 years, others more. It depends on context, that is just the way it is - number of deaths, premediatation, motivation.

Context is important. If we want to make all life sentences truly life, then OK. But I think some, such as crimes of passion or love (i.e., euthanasia-type) should be given different weights - context should still be assessed.

I personally spare a particular slot of hate in my heart for those who kill children, but I am talking about legal tarrifs- life meaning life for all murderers (see above)

OK, so you have a bit of extra hate for child-killers, so do I. I also have a smaller level for hate crimes. That's where I come from, and like your attitude of kid-killers, it is just my opinion. Obviously, my attitude is common throughout policymakers and law-givers. Sorry.

In some ways I agree that life should mean life, but maybe we should give people a chance to redeem themselves in society. Different issue methinks.

No, I defend your right to have an attitude

And I yours.

can't seem to connect your response with what I posted- quite simply, once again, banana throwing stopped not due to new legislation but because people on the terraces policed themselves and got fed up with such moronic behaviour (thanks in no small part to most teams having their own black players)

Haha, John Barnes had bananas thrown by his own supporters.

The point is that you again said it was a thought crime, it wouldn't be, it would be a behaviour crime.

they are not "social" groups, these are racially classified groups- the arabs attacking blacks and vice versa

Yes, and they are defined in society. You can also view it as racial, but we see it from a different context than this, thus hutu and tusti's are social groups, and so are black and white individuals. One of them is a racially-defined social group, one of them is ethnically-defined social group.

Thus, a bigot who has a negative attitude because someone is black, is not that different from a person who has a negative attitude because someone is gay/scottish/jewish. Psychologically, we can define them as biases defined through social group categorisation - it is just easier to categorise by skin colour.

Quite simply hate laws are an "ass"- I look forward to them being repealed.

OK.

This is why I repeated a particular comment, I pretty much knew you would ignore it. So, in sum:

They are behaviour crimes, not thought crimes. You can think what you like, but if your behaviour breaks the law then you might be censured.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


I had a massive quote ready to reply, and that was only half way through, and Ive had a tough day at work, so cannot be bothered

Suffice to say, agree with some but not all, anyways, good chatting

Originally posted by blueorder
I had a massive quote ready to reply, and that was only half way through, and Ive had a tough day at work, so cannot be bothered

Suffice to say, agree with some but not all, anyways, good chatting

No problem, we can agree to disagree. You think the laws are ass-like, I think they can help reduce prejudice in society. If we all thought the same, the world would be pretty boring.

cheers.

For reference, I'd like to post this Wiki-link
en.wikipedia.org...

This page is just a description about the differing laws and customs regarding hate speech in varying countries.

I think we should all read this page to get a better understanding of where some of the other sides are coming from. I'll post the paragraph about hate speech in America, and how US law defends against it.

In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can address the harmful effects of speech through laws such as those against defamation or incitement to riot.

It goes on to say...

Since such laws often apply only to the victimization of specific individuals, some argue that hate speech must be regulated to protect members of groups. Others argue that hate speech limits the free development of political discourse and ought to be regulated, but by voluntaristic communities and not by the state. Still others claim that it is not possible to legislate a boundary between legitimate controversial speech and hate speech in such a way which is just to those with controversial political or social views.

I'll also post this list of laws according to country so that we may gain some cultural as well as historical perspective.

* In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.

* In Germany, Volksverhetzung (incitement of hatred against a minority under certain conditions) is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).

* In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i). However, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation."[1]

* In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).

* In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Criminal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:

"Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)

And one more quote from the above page which I find to be the most telling that I've read so far.

Freedom of speech is argued by many writers to be the most basic freedom. The essayist and novelist George Orwell said “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Orwell argues that a society that is too careful not to offend cannot be truthfully expressive, artistic, or diverse. Taking offense to speech is an arbitrary response. To account for every possible way a phrase may be found offensive is not only impossible, but a hindrance to freedom of expression and even thought.

reply to post by Rasobasi420


Yawn.

Srop it with the selective quotes already!

Wikipedia this. Wikipedia that.

Formulate your own opinions. Make your own mind up.

Oh gimme a break dude, I did formulate my own opinion long before posting that link. I linked to Wiki to show that this is not a new debate, and that many of the points that are being made here are not the only points for either side.

A brief read could tell you the history of the laws, and why they were made in the first place.

Yawn to furthering your knowledge. Yawn to world history. Yawn to opposing opinion.

And although I think of myself as fairly intelligent and articulate, I do think that the quote by Mr. Orwell is germane and no matter how much you *yawn* at it, I certainly believe it still applies.

Ignoring points won't make them go away.

Originally posted by blueorder
Try responding to the post instead of right on cliched s hite like yer last line, ok popsy

The kind of cliched sh*t you do not have an answer for obviously.

Popsy?

Is that a typo?

[edit on 11/12/2007 by skibtz]

reply to post by skibtz


As for selective quoting, I chose a quote that reflected my personal beliefs. I also posted a lot of quotes and information that I didn't agree with. Did you read the post, or the wiki link?