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.

 

Tasteless jokes are now a crime?

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
Yes well fortunately, being able to spout racist crap does not affect one's survival.
And it's a relatively new law, so no fear of it disappearing

I know you would be annoyed if you couldn't air your racist views... but hey, never mind.


Yes but there is a HUGE difference between you and me. I do not post "opinion" and I do not back up my arguments with "emotion". I post facts and I back up my facts with legitimate historical or government statistics.

Scary huh? You had best hope your world remains based on emotion, because when facts come into play you might have to come up with real arguments.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by Sonya610]




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
It is a scientific fact.... that emotional pain is equal or greater than physical pain....


It's a scientific fact that we can choose our emotions indirectly by choosing how and what we think about.

If one is experiencing emotional pain, it is because one is making poor choices in how one is thinking about the experience, or choosing to give it the energy of thought at all.

If one is in mental pain, one is choosing it oneself.

See this thread for a discussion of this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Seriously...is it my job to educate you guys??

A thought is just that... an idea or opinion you have inside your head that nobody else gets to know about.
It causes no harm, misery, upset, turmoil or offense to anybody so long as it remains a thought.

thought:–noun
the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.



Words..

Words are things people say or write down.
When a word is said to somebody out of anger or spite, it CAN cause upset and misery and blah...
You are then involving other people... it goes beyond a THOUGHT and into an insult, or a verbal attack, or racial or sexual abuse.(verbally)



The fact i even have to explain it to you is quite worrying....



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
he would have only kept his job if he has a george bush racist rant. but considering it was making fun of Jesus Obama Christ, he was fired.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610
Yes but there is a HUGE difference between you and me. I do not post "opinion" and I do not back up my arguments with "emotion". I post facts and I back up my facts with legitimate historical or government statistics.
Scary huh? You had best hope your world remains based on emotion, because when facts come into play you might have to come up with real arguments.
[edit on 23-1-2009 by Sonya610]


What....


Seriously...?

Where...where are these facts and historical arguments.
And i don't post opinion...and back it up with emotion.

In this case i posted LAW and backed it up with HOME OFFICE FACTS.

I actually have a real argument... it's called law.

You have bigoted OPINIONS!!

That is the difference



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Seriously...is it my job to educate you guys??


Only as to your logic. We cannot deduce it by watching a carrot or something.


A thought is just that... an idea or opinion you have inside your head that nobody else gets to know about.
It causes no harm, misery, upset, turmoil or offense to anybody so long as it remains a thought.

thought:–noun
the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.

Words..

Words are things people say or write down.
When a word is said to somebody out of anger or spite, it CAN cause upset and misery and blah...


If the one hearing (or reading) the words chooses not to think of them in a way that creates pain, then they will not experience pain. I can cut anybody with a knife and it will hurt, but the same words will not hurt everyone equally, depending on THEIR choice of thought.

So words are not what hurt. The listener (reader) is choosing pain or not. And how is that the responsibility of the speaker (writer)?


You are then involving other people... it goes beyond a THOUGHT and into an insult, or a verbal attack, or racial or sexual abuse.(verbally)


Any social interaction involves others. How do you delineate what are "acceptable" words and what are not?

"Gee, Jimmy. We need to find out whether Betsy's words were "acceptable" or not. Did you choose to think in such a way that you are feeling pain? If you made that choice, BETSY IS TO BLAME!"

Is that the measure...?


The fact i even have to explain it to you is quite worrying....


The fact that you want to blame a speaker for the pain a listener chooses is all the more worrying.

[edit on 1/23/2009 by Amaterasu]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'm not talking about the case in the OP... I'm talking generally.

It's not a case of someone hearing or reading the words... I am talking about insulting someone or verbally attacking someone for these reasons...


Hate crime is any criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by an offender's hatred of someone because of their: race, colour, ethnic origin, nationality or national origins, religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, disability.

Are we clear now??



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
There is a VERY similiar situation that has happened when it comes to a Naval officer I have read about. Please watch for a new thread about free speech and a Naval officer I will post soon.This touches on the heart of what people have been arguing about in this thread but it deserves to be its own story.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
So words are not what hurt. The listener (reader) is choosing pain or not. And how is that the responsibility of the speaker (writer)?




Also, how does one CHOOSE pain??

that is too funny...


You've clearly studied psychology!!!

[edit on 23/1/09 by blupblup]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'm not talking about the case in the OP... I'm talking generally.

It's not a case of someone hearing or reading the words... I am talking about insulting someone or verbally attacking someone for these reasons...


Once again, we might bring up sticks and stones... And again, as long as it is not action, as long as it is words only, indicators of ugliness inside are irrelevant. The "attack" is only successful if the receiving ear makes a choice to take it as an attack.



Hate crime is any criminal]/b] offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by an offender's hatred of someone because of their: race, colour, ethnic origin, nationality or national origins, religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, disability.

Are we clear now??


Yep. And an offence is not criminal unless it involves that list I gave earlier. Talking trash is NOT criminal.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by Amaterasu
So words are not what hurt. The listener (reader) is choosing pain or not. And how is that the responsibility of the speaker (writer)?




Also, how does one CHOOSE pain??

that is too funny...


You've clearly studied psychology!!!


And you clearly did not study the info I linked to in the other thread.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'm not talking about the case in the OP... I'm talking generally.

It's not a case of someone hearing or reading the words... I am talking about insulting someone or verbally attacking someone for these reasons...


Hate crime is any criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by an offender's hatred of someone because of their: race, colour, ethnic origin, nationality or national origins, religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, disability.

Are we clear now??


And other crimes are committed against people for what reasons exactly?
The freedom of speech is about one group of people not being able to silence another group of people. You can't cherry pick.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Well fortunately here in the uk....it is.

It's a hate crime... CRIME being the operative word

Hate crime can take many forms including:

* physical attacks – such as physical assault, damage to property, offensive graffiti, neighbour disputes and arson
* threat of attack – including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging around to intimidate and unfounded, malicious complaints
* verbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace


[edit on 23/1/09 by blupblup]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES

Originally posted by RFBurns
That sounds like the words I would expect from a socialist dictator. Surpressing freedom of speech is not thinking of the nation as a whole, it is thinking of the select few.


I'm flattered. Thank you for noticing my stance with such clarity.

But here's the deal - "thinking of the select few"???

So what you're saying is that this Nation is better off under the rule of bigoted, rude, sensationalistic and trashy people than it is under people who conduct their greivences with a higher degree of class, tact and social conscience?

My gods man, do you really understand what you're advocating here?


*edit : spelling

[edit on 1/22/09 by GENERAL EYES]


You are hilarious and yet scary all at the same time. although I don't really fear you because you and others of your ilk I have come to find must be living in some alternative reality that appears to have crossed paths with real reality. Your a joke and your lack of grasp is quite entertaining.

If you consider any of what I have said as defamation of character perhaps you would like to take me to task. Move along.,,,Way along



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by badgerprints
 


So you honestly think people have the right to say absolutely anything they want??

Anything?


Sorry bub, It is unfortunate that it comes to that, but yes.
They have the right to say anything.
The place situation and reasoning for doing these things are regulated to certain degrees by law obviously, but there should be no absolutes here because we cannot give up our freedoms to prevent somebody from being offended.
Lies,bs and hateful words offend people but sometimes so does the truth. Will we sacrifice the truth to be socially or politically correct?
What goes next? The freedom to criticize your government?

Somewhere on this site is a thread about a politician who wants to be able to fine and imprison people for simple profanity. How about you get a jail term for cursing in public? Will you go that far?

How about they make it illegal to say one thing without having somebody with an opposite opinion to rebut? They've already legislated that for talk radio in the "Equal Time" law fiasco.

How long til your superior morality and judgement ends up leading to a law against us putting our opinions onto a forum like ATS? Some would like to do that already. Keep moving in that direction and you might not be happy with the results.

I don't care for what that idiot said but I will still stand for the right to express my opinion and for you to express yours. Unfortunately, that means the hateful moron gets a say as well.

It doesn't mean we have to agree with it.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

Sorry bub, It is unfortunate that it comes to that, but yes.
They have the right to say anything.


I disagree... for reasons I've mentioned.




Lies,bs and hateful words offend people but sometimes so does the truth. Will we sacrifice the truth to be socially or politically correct?
What goes next? The freedom to criticize your government?


Nope.... because the government is not an individual.
this law www.homeoffice.gov.uk... is there to protect the individual.



Somewhere on this site is a thread about a politician who wants to be able to fine and imprison people for simple profanity. How about you get a jail term for cursing in public? Will you go that far?


Nope... again for the same reasons, cursing/swearing is not an attack on anyone..and therefore it is not a hate crime or an attack on someone for prejudiced reasons.



How long til your superior morality and judgement ends up leading to a law against us putting our opinions onto a forum like ATS? Some would like to do that already. Keep moving in that direction and you might not be happy with the results.


I am not for censorship... i think you may have me confused..?
I am against harassing/abusing/bullying people because of their diferences.
I am against bigots.




I don't care for what that idiot said but I will still stand for the right to express my opinion and for you to express yours. Unfortunately, that means the hateful moron gets a say as well.
It doesn't mean we have to agree with it.



As i have repeatedly said, I am NOT talking about the story in the OP.
I am talking about being a BIGOT in general.
And specifically the laws surrounding hate crime here in the uk, which i am in favour of.

[edit on 23/1/09 by blupblup]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I think the issue people are looking at is if you limit one part of free speach, even though it might be something as distasteful as racial slurs, then where is the line drawn. I think society works similar to a free market. The way these terms and phrases are accepted will affect those that use them.

Jailing or fining people that use terms that others do not deem acceptable do little to help achieve the end goal, which is to not use them at all. I think some people are just too sensative and should lighten up. If the worse thing in your life is someone tossing a slur at you, then you are doing pretty good.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aaron_Justin
I think the issue people are looking at is if you limit one part of free speach, even though it might be something as distasteful as racial slurs, then where is the line drawn.


That is where the line is drawn... attacking someone for bigoted/prejudiced reasons.
It is a law here....the line has been drawn.




Jailing or fining people that use terms that others do not deem acceptable do little to help achieve the end goal, which is to not use them at all. I think some people are just too sensative and should lighten up. If the worse thing in your life is someone tossing a slur at you, then you are doing pretty good.



I think they should have to go work and mix with the people they have verbally attacked or insulted so that they see that we are all human.
that would be good rehab...

Jail is often not the answer to many crimes.... but as they say... if you can't do the time.. don't do the crime.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Let me put on the devil's advocate hat.

I believe that “bigoted” people should be allowed to say whatever they want (with the same limits as those “unbiased” people). I don't see how you, in good faith, can say that your government should go around punishing speech.

I also don't buy the “words are equal to actions” argument. Words are words; it really is that simple. I don't believe that it is fair to define an entire ideology as hate speech hoping to incite violence. Let me show an example.

There is a Neo-Nazi rally where the superiority of the white race is lambasted through bullhorns. The Nazis also have a message of changing the US government back to the way it was before the Civil Rights movement. Some of you would consider this hate speech, and it would be enough to be considered a crime.

“They are trying to overthrow the government!” is the cry of the politically correct. I say that any and all political parties are trying to “overthrow” the government, in that all are trying to change the way their current government functions. The Nazis vocalizing their wish for a different world, alone, cannot be considered a threat or other form of “hate speech”.

The time when speech should be restricted is when a direct and definable threat of force is made against a specific target.

Those who actively and explicitly call for violence are different from those who wallow in only the idea of “radical” positions.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
so i think everything worth talking about has been said. People dumb enough not to know the bill of rights vs people who use that right for what they please. Now i can only hope someone with money will have the balls to go after the FCC for restricting TV.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join