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.

 

Race-hate words found not illegal

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 




Like I said when freedom of speech becomes subjective it is a very bad thing and leads to corruption. And the person taking that freedom away might think they are perfectly justified.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]
*Mod Edit: No need to bring someones Mod Status into this discussion. Cheers -alien

[edit on 10-8-2010 by alien]




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Use those words against myself or any other member of my family and I'd likely be up on assault charges.


Then I suggest that's your problem for not being able to control yourself.

The problem here is that using a plethora of non-racial slurs will induce a similar physical response in other people, too.

Do we outlaw every single cuss-word, then ?

For example, I hate the flippant and mocking use of the word ''retard'' that is all too common.
I believe that mocking the mentally disabled is about the lowest of the low.
However, people should be allowed to use it if they want - it's not for me or anyone else to decide what other people can or can't say.



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


Why is he a racist ?
I'm not sure of the Australian law regarding free speech and ''hate speech'', but if his ruling has gone against it, then I'm sure it'll be overturned on appeal.



Originally posted by masqua
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.


Shouting ''Fire'' and saying you've got a bomb, are prohibited for safety reasons, I believe. They are not prohibited because they cause ''outrage'' or ''moral indignation''.

I'm pretty sure calling a redhead ''carrot-head'', ''duracell'' etc. is still commonplace, and there's no legislation against it.

What exactly has violated ''civil law'' in his ruling ?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
IMO if you talk like a man, then you deal with the consequences. People don't want to live by this philosophy anymore.

There is never a time or place to call someone derogatory words, but they seem to be used by everyone.

Everyone should be held responsible for there own words, that should be a way of life, if you cant stand by what you say, then what do you stand for??

If you stand for freedom, then stand, if you stand for offensive words, well, then stand, sit or lay, but the crying out for understanding may not apply.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
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.





We can all agree with the theater example. But there are very few times speech should be limited. And racial slurs are covered under free speech. I dont agree with that kind of mindset. But I will forever agree with their right to say what they want.


The point everyone should be looking at is who draws the line. And if you say lawmakers do you feel the can be corrupted?


That is why it is a God given right and can not be taken or given.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
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.


Nonsense.
Why are the words quoted in the article any worse than calling someone the ''c-word'' ?
I'll answer that for you; they're not.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

The problem here is that using a plethora of non-racial slurs will induce a similar physical response in other people, too.

Do we outlaw every single cuss-word, then ?



Rocking up to someone and abusing them is actually illegal.
Try it some time. Walk into a shop and spout off some abuse at the shopkeeper.

The words themselves aren't the issue...the action is.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


As in 'works in poetry and literature' but not 'in the street'?

Too true. What the trend in this thread has been is to exonerate the reprehensible behaviour and to squash the anger it generates. If that's common sense, then Jim Crow belts make good soup in hard times.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by alien
Rocking up to someone and abusing them is actually illegal.
Try it some time. Walk into a shop and spout off some abuse at the shopkeeper.

The words themselves aren't the issue...the action is.


I'm pretty sure it could only possibly be illegal if it is done in a threatening manner.

I have never heard of anyone charged with calling a shopkeeper a ''****''.

If using derogatory slurs towards people is illegal, then we wouldn't need any separate legislation for racially-based slurs.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Does anyone think that perhaps the reason some words were made illegal is for the violence it generates in the wider community?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I completely agree with you.

I personally...and strangely enough coming from a brown minority who has been beat down, spat on, abused etc etc etc throughout a good deal of my life...don't see a huge need for any separate 'Race-based / Race-Hate' legislation.

Violence and abuse etc is violence and abuse. Hate is hate.
Be you a brown guy, a white guy, a pink with purple pokerdots guy...hate is hate, pain is pain, wrong is wrong.

So nope...I personally don't see the need for any special race-hate legislation...the current legislation is adequate enough if applied equally.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
It strikes me that there is little in the way of "hate speech" that is not provocative, and when used, intended to restrict another persons freedoms, by marginalising them and attempting to belittle them.

Bullies often try to marginalise their victims, by pointing out something that is different about them in order to exclude them from "thr group" - hate speech is simply another form of this, and shows not only a cowardly nature, but an ignorant mindset.

If people want to be free to be allowed ANY form of "free speech" they want, then they sgould also be allowed to bear the consequences of their actions.

Unfortunately, the law dictates that if someone walks up to me and calls me a word covered under "hate speech" law, then I have little choice but to report them to the police - who may or may not act.

The average idiot recognises this, and uses it to their advantage.

So when a judge comes out and basically says this kind of behaviour is OK, what is the average person going to do about it?

Call them names back?

In all likelihood, it would result in a fight - which means more civil unrest, which means more people criminalsed for standing up to idiots, and which means further wedges being driven between the different sections of society.

Like it or not, we live in a multi-cultural world in the west, and we have responsibilities to go along with that.

And I don't just mean caucasion people, I mean EVERYONE.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'm pretty sure it could only possibly be illegal if it is done in a threatening manner.


Umm nope. Public Profanity can cover it.

Also - definitions of 'threatening manner' can be quite variable...and also individualistic, often defined from the viewpoint of the receiver not the deliverer.

I may walk into a shop and think it a huge laugh to comment on the guys nose, hair, call them a few choice words...I may even have absolutely NO harmful intent with it...BUT, it the person themselves considers, perceives, that I do pose some real potential of threat, of harm to them...then I have committed Common Assault...

...without even laying a hand on the guy...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
These words only have whatever significance you choose to attach to them. Having said that, using these types of words is not my style, there is absolutely no reason why they would be in your go to volcabulary.

I do remember a fully grown 'man' calling me a taig when I was 9 years old (taig is a disparaging term for a Catholic) TBH I just felt sorry for the guy and thought he was kind of a loser



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Too true. What the trend in this thread has been is to exonerate the reprehensible behaviour and to squash the anger it generates. If that's common sense, then Jim Crow belts make good soup in hard times.


There's no need to exonerate the behaviour.

Every action has a consequence, and the consequence of someone casually throwing racial slurs around is bound to be them being ostracised by most people that know them.

I know I personally wouldn't want to be closely acquainted with someone who knowingly used racial slurs, as he or she probably wouldn't be that intelligent, and they probably have other ''issues'' that makes them see along racial lines everywhere.

There's nothing wrong with feeling anger if someone insults you, but is best not to act on that anger in most circumstances, because it could land you into trouble.

You can't just self-indulgently attempt to justify assault, because someone said some ''bad words'' to you.


The problem lies with actually making a word illegal because it might upset or morally outrage people.

That's just ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There's no need to exonerate the behaviour.

Every action has a consequence, and the consequence of someone casually throwing racial slurs around is bound to be them being ostracised by most people that know them.

Isn't that a sad aspect of Western society though? Having to walk on egg shells and watch what you say because you might offend a minority. Meanwhile, average Joe White can be ridiculed and denigrated in the media as stupid, selfish and mercenary.


I know I personally wouldn't want to be closely acquainted with someone who knowingly used racial slurs, as he or she probably wouldn't be that intelligent, and they probably have other ''issues'' that makes them see along racial lines everywhere.

Is it because they use the racial slurs or because you fear you will be linked to them via "guilt by association" when others hear them use them? I'm guessing it is the guilt by association link and that is a sad reflection on the society in which we live: fearing others will judge us by the words and actions of our friends.


There's nothing wrong with feeling anger if someone insults you, but is best not to act on that anger in most circumstances, because it could land you into trouble.

Couldn't agree more. It is the much harder yet better option in most cases.


You can't just self-indulgently attempt to justify assault, because someone said some ''bad words'' to you.

I think people are more worried about being sued for saying something wrong than reacting violently to provocation.


The problem lies with actually making a word illegal because it might upset or morally outrage people.

That's just ridiculous.

Agreed.

[edit on 10/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by alien
Umm nope. Public Profanity can cover it.


I doubt that law is enforced too often. I've certainly never heard of anyone charged with anything along those lines where I am, in Britain.

Otherwise we'd have a prison population of about 40 million.



Originally posted by alien
Also - definitions of 'threatening manner' can be quite variable...and also individualistic, often defined from the viewpoint of the receiver not the deliverer.

I may walk into a shop and think it a huge laugh to comment on the guys nose, hair, call them a few choice words...I may even have absolutely NO harmful intent with it...BUT, it the person themselves considers, perceives, that I do pose some real potential of threat, of harm to them...then I have committed Common Assault...

...without even laying a hand on the guy...


The validity and fairness of any charge along these lines would be decided by the due process of law.

I would hope that your hypothetical ''Common Assault'' charge would be thrown out by the courts.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Does anyone think that perhaps the reason some words were made illegal is for the violence it generates in the wider community?


The violence it may cause will undoubtedly lead to a criminal offence being committed.

It seems illogical and draconian to ban something legal, because it may cause another person to do something illegal.

As previously mentioned there are a number of non-racial slurs that would induce similar violent responses when aimed at people.
I don't need to gratuitously print what slurs those are !

People can get violent in regards to terms about politics, religion, and even sport.
In fact, if you wear a team's football shirt in an area that's largely populated by fans of that teams' rival, then you may well find yourself in a violent altercation.

Perhaps we should ban people wearing football shirts, too ?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Mate. Tell me about it.

If the Cops did actually charge everyone who swore in public...gees...the city I live in would be a ghost-town...

Any given day would have sailors rushing away covering their ears...



Think really its like anything...most times the Cops around here will just maybe give you a warning, or not even worry about it if people aren't getting hugely upset with it...or they'll act and lay charges if you fail the good ol' 'Attitude Test'.

"Excuse me Sir, but please watch your language in public"
"Oh sorry officer, my bad, won't happen again"
= all good

"Excuse me Sir, but please watch your language in public"
"What? I can say whatever the hell I wanna say damn it!"
= not likely to go too well for ya...

*coughexperiencecough*


[edit on 10-8-2010 by alien]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Perhaps we should ban people wearing football shirts, too ?


Only if its a Man-U one...




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by alien
 


An interesting side note to this, is that under the labour government in the UK, swearing (and being arrested for it) under section 5 public order, was re-classified for a few years as a violent crime.

Of course, what they then did after a few years was re-classify it as non-violent, and pointed to the drop in violent crime figures


Yes you can be arrested for swearing, but most times it won't happen.

However, use any number of racial, homophobic or derogatory terms aimed at a minority group, and you'll get nicked - and rightly so.

For some reason though, this doesn't seem to apply equally across the board, and to all racial groups.

Being called a "paddy C*** " by a large group of afro-caribean males didn't warrant much attention even though there were plenty of police stood around - and they didn't even know I was irish, it seems it's just a genrally disparaging term in some quarters.

So, let's have a level playing field.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join