Race-hate words found not illegal

Race-hate words found not illegal

www.goldcoast.com.au

A SOUTHPORT magistrate has found the terms 'sand'n-word'' and ''n-word'' are not offensive to a reasonable person.

Magistrate Michael O'Driscoll made the ruling yesterday when he dismissed a case against a Gold Coast retiree charged with sending an offensive facsimile to a local politician.

(visit the link for the full news article)

After lengthy consideration, Mr O'Driscoll ruled that Mr Mulheron's words were not enough to invoke criminal sanctions.

"The words used were crude, unattractive and direct but were not offensive to a reasonable person," he said.

Another case of 'sticks and stones will break my bones, but names can never hurt me.'

Although, in this instance, I am a little surprised that the Judge took a common sense approach to how the word was used.

As we all know from reading lots of ATS news articles, free speech isn't always free.

www.goldcoast.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

The -N- word....Oh No! Not the -N- word....I can feel the sweat pouring off my body at just the mention of it...No No NOOOOOOHOHOHOHO OH GOD! The -N- word....Neocon!

Originally posted by tezzajw
Another case of 'sticks and stones will break my bones, but names can never hurt me.'

Perhaps, although I'd bet many broken noses and black eyes hurt quite a bit after someone gets punched in the face for using them against someone else. Use those words against myself or any other member of my family and I'd likely be up on assault charges.

Although, in this instance, I am a little surprised that the Judge took a common sense approach to how the word was used.

Yeah... and I sure hope I'd get a different judge than that robed racist when my assault case comes up for trial.

Common sense: read lowest common denominator. No intelligence rqd.

As we all know from reading lots of ATS news articles, free speech isn't always free.

Yeah. Yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre, joking about bombs in a suitcase at the airport or even picking on redheads are rights too, as much as making racially disparaging comments in an ethnic community should be, correct? Go ahead and try to use those rights. It might be enlightening.

Unbelievable. That retiree needs his meds boosted a bit and that judge needs a refresher in civil law.

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by tezzajw
Another case of 'sticks and stones will break my bones, but names can never hurt me.'

Perhaps, although I'd bet many broken noses and black eyes hurt quite a bit after someone gets punched in the face for using them against someone else. Use those words against myself or any other member of my family and I'd likely be up on assault charges.

Although, in this instance, I am a little surprised that the Judge took a common sense approach to how the word was used.

Yeah... and I sure hope I'd get a different judge than that robed racist when my assault case comes up for trial.

Common sense: read lowest common denominator. No intelligence rqd.

As we all know from reading lots of ATS news articles, free speech isn't always free.

Yeah. Yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre, joking about bombs in a suitcase at the airport or even picking on redheads are rights too, as much as making racially disparaging comments in an ethnic community should be, correct? Go ahead and try to use those rights. It might be enlightening.

Unbelievable. That retiree needs his meds boosted a bit and that judge needs a refresher in civil law.

And maybe you need to read the bill of rights and the constitution again. When you start deciding what is free speech and what is not. It is a bad thing. Because people like you will mix personal feelings with the common good. These are bad things and lead to one place. Check out Germany in the 1930s. They also thought they were doing the so called right thing.



BIG

Originally posted by masqua
Perhaps, although I'd bet many broken noses and black eyes hurt quite a bit after someone gets punched in the face for using them against someone else. Use those words against myself or any other member of my family and I'd likely be up on assault charges.

Sometimes it takes a bigger person to just walk away. Circumstances depending, of course.

Throwing the first punch can escalate to all out war. Don't complain when the person you hit has relatives who then try to get some payback on you.

It can work both ways, masqua.

I found that one of the best responses to being teased with bad words was "Yeah, so I am, but what are you?"

I kind of learnt that in school...

[edit on 10-8-2010 by tezzajw]

reply to post by Subjective Truth


The US Bill of Rights covers Australia, too?

I knew the place was basically a bigger, goofier Texas, but, really now.

Point one... I'm not an American and neither were the judge/retiree. Read the article.

Point two... Common good? Germany in the 1930's? Interesting combination. I'm sure many Germans thought it was quite cool to call a certain groups rats and vermin during those per-war years. Jews, Gypsies, invalids... anyone not 'pure' as they saw it.

The common sense of that age, I suppose.

Originally posted by masqua
Point one... I'm not an American and neither were the judge/retiree. Read the article.

Point two... Common good? Germany in the 1930's? Interesting combination. I'm sure many Germans thought it was quite cool to call a certain groups rats and vermin during those per-war years. Jews, Gypsies, invalids... anyone not 'pure' as they saw it.

The common sense of that age, I suppose.

Your missing the point so I will make it more clear. Many bad things come from good intentions. Like making it illegal to use racial slurs even though it goes against free speech.


All speech should be free no matter what. Because political correctness is subjective. Do you see my point? Who draws the line?



The founding fathers of America I believe felt the same way that is why they protected all speech.



[edit on 10-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Throwing the first punch can escalate to all out war.

The first 'punch' would be the personal attack on myself. The second punch (mine) would be retaliation.

Don't complain when the person you hit has relatives who then try to get some payback on you.

Oh, goody... common sense ala Hatfields vs. McCoys. Yuppers. Well, news flash for you: I have family too.

It can work both ways, masqua.

Absolutely agree.

I found that one of the best responses to being teased with bad words was "Yeah, so I am, but what are you?"

I kind of learnt that in school...

I learned that in school too. Never bought into it myself because it was usually followed quickly by running away and hiding. I prefered standing up to them and 'working it out' the old-fashioned way.

reply to post by masqua


I can see by your last post you have a personal stake in this argument. I respect that. But is it clouding the way you see free speech?



Sometimes you need to look outside of yourself to see the truth because the wounds are to deep. I truly understand this one. I have to struggle with it also.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by tezzajw
Throwing the first punch can escalate to all out war.

The first 'punch' would be the personal attack on myself. The second punch (mine) would be retaliation.

Interesting.

I'd love to see your trial defense when your 'king-hit' punch kills the person after they hit the floor. "But, but... he called me a N___" ???

We have had a couple of high-profile cases in Victoria where some 'king-hit' victims have died. There's currently a massive campaign to educate younger people about the consequences of what they do.

Still, if you think that potentially killing or disabling someone is worth the risk, because they called you a name - then you go for it. Wind up and swing, masqua. Make it worthwhile!

Well, Masqua, I believe you have the right Idea, but are looking at it the wrong way. The words themselves shouldn't be illegal. They're just words. However if YOU are offended by them, by all means adjust the speakers attitude. I think way to many problems are going to courts these days when really all it would take is a little bit of old fashioned ass whoopin to make sure you aren't affronted again.

Whoop an ass, save a lawyer..

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
Many bad things come from good intentions.

So, then GOOD things can come out of BAD intentions, right? Like, if you lose your wallet and I find it and get it back to you, then you have every right to say: Thanks, N-word, how are your n-word wife and kids today?

Like making it illegal to use racial slurs even though it goes against free speech.

Yeah... just like that 1930's 'rats and vermin' things. That worked out real well in the long term, didn't it?

All speech should be free no matter what. Because political correctness is subjective.

So is civil law. Who needs laws... they're just 'made up' for the fun of it, right?

Do you see my point? Who draws the line?

No, I don't. I believe your point has no merit and those laws are made up by polititians and judges in response to the trouble not having those laws cause. Go ahead... go to a crowded place full of people of a different ethnic group and practice your 'right' to call them 'common names' as this story is all about. See what happens and then come back here and tell us all.

The founding fathers of America I believe felt the same way that is why they protected all speech.

Oh, America again. Free speech, huh? Well, I bet there's people who get killed for that right every day in America. I suppose you figure them to be soldiers on the battle for the right to call someone names.

Originally posted by midnightbrigade
Well, Masqua, I believe you have the right Idea, but are looking at it the wrong way. The words themselves shouldn't be illegal. They're just words. However if YOU are offended by them, by all means adjust the speakers attitude. I think way to many problems are going to courts these days when really all it would take is a little bit of old fashioned ass whoopin to make sure you aren't affronted again.

Whoop an ass, save a lawyer..

I would agree with you but....... Look the times we live in. 30 years ago this is how it worked for the most part.



Many people are missing the little voice inside them that says stop. I still have it and I will teach my children right so hopefully they will have it also. But to many people dont have it and one thing quickly leads to another in this messed up society we live in today.



But I will say it again all speech should be free intolerant or not.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
Many bad things come from good intentions.

So, then GOOD things can come out of BAD intentions, right? Like, if you lose your wallet and I find it and get it back to you, then you have every right to say: Thanks, N-word, how are your n-word wife and kids today?

Like making it illegal to use racial slurs even though it goes against free speech.

Yeah... just like that 1930's 'rats and vermin' things. That worked out real well in the long term, didn't it?

All speech should be free no matter what. Because political correctness is subjective.

So is civil law. Who needs laws... they're just 'made up' for the fun of it, right?

Do you see my point? Who draws the line?

No, I don't. I believe your point has no merit and those laws are made up by polititians and judges in response to the trouble not having those laws cause. Go ahead... go to a crowded place full of people of a different ethnic group and practice your 'right' to call them 'common names' as this story is all about. See what happens and then come back here and tell us all.

The founding fathers of America I believe felt the same way that is why they protected all speech.

Oh, America again. Free speech, huh? Well, I bet there's people who get killed for that right every day in America. I suppose you figure them to be soldiers on the battle for the right to call someone names.

No offense but. It is hard to argue with logic like this so I think I am going to just walk away from this one. To much anger on your side and I believe you are to personally vested to have a logical argument about this topic.



Words are just that words. Freedom of speech is not subjective. And you want it to be because of pain in your past and or present. This is on you. And only you can see past it to the truth I see. I wish you could see it also. Hopefully someday you will see it for what it is. This right is not given or taken by man.



[edit on 10-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]

Ah, the good old days of the 1950's/60's. I miss them so much.

Yup... grew up learning how to fight. Not real proud of it, but that was then and this is now. I never backed down from a fair fight and, if someone had a problem with me, well... we worked it out however we could.

Never picked a fight, though... too much trouble. There were enough loud-mouthed fools who thought they could say anything to me and get away with it though... so my youth was spent being someone who wouldn't put up with it.

My bad.

...Free Speech or Freedom to be an abusive prick...

...thats the question...

reply to post by Subjective Truth

All speech should be free no matter what. Because political correctness is subjective. Do you see my point? Who draws the line?

Can I start shouting "Fire! Fire!" in a crowded theatre or football game?

Like it or not, lines are drawn between my freedom of speech and my responsibilities.

Instead of 'political correctness' the Judge has missed an opportunity to bring the old guy up to date. He could have pointed out that some words are unacceptable in this day and age. Instead, he chose to validate the terminology on the grounds of a generation gap. Absurd.

Obviously making a word, or any set of words, functionally illegal is just preposterous. But the fact that certain words aren't made illegal will never change that they are reprehensible and in the worst of taste.