Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 04-14-2009, 01:55 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
There are plenty of things that the people of that area can do to shut up the Westboro Church. I just don't want the Federal government getting involved. It's a local matter that should be dealt with locally.

The Constitution is only meant to restrict the Federal government. There is nothing that says that a neighborhood or a family must respect someone's Freedom of Speech.

I've heard of biker gangs who surround the Westboro protests and rev their motors so that no one can hear them. That's perfectly legal. As would be pelting them with rotten fruit, eggs or paint.
See, I get what you are saying about letting the locals work it out. I totally do. Sometimes that is the best kind of justice.

However, what you are saying about biker gangs blaring their engines and people pelting them with fruit, eggs, and paint, while I find it very hilarious and totally awesome, that is FAR from LEGAL activity. In fact, that is why we have police forces in every state, county, and city. To enforce the law and to keep the peace. Rather than let things get out of hand, it would be much easier if there was a set of standards that our law enforcement could follow to handle certain situations like that. Basically give them the power to tell some of these groups to just STFU from time to time without fear of a headline on the prime-time news and a lawsuit from the ACLU.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-14-2009, 02:46 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake
See, I get what you are saying about letting the locals work it out. I totally do. Sometimes that is the best kind of justice.

However, what you are saying about biker gangs blaring their engines and people pelting them with fruit, eggs, and paint, while I find it very hilarious and totally awesome, that is FAR from LEGAL activity. In fact, that is why we have police forces in every state, county, and city. To enforce the law and to keep the peace. Rather than let things get out of hand, it would be much easier if there was a set of standards that our law enforcement could follow to handle certain situations like that. Basically give them the power to tell some of these groups to just STFU from time to time without fear of a headline on the prime-time news and a lawsuit from the ACLU.
The simple fact is that Westboro Baptist Church is an anomaly and you can't write legislation for the exceptions to the rule. That's just not good government.

So, excluding Westboro Baptist, why in the world do you think that this would be a good idea? How would you, personally, define "hate speech."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-14-2009, 03:03 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
The simple fact is that Westboro Baptist Church is an anomaly and you can't write legislation for the exceptions to the rule. That's just not good government.

So, excluding Westboro Baptist, why in the world do you think that this would be a good idea? How would you, personally, define "hate speech."
I never said we should write legislation for one small exception to the rule, and that is not what this legislation is going to do.

I simply said that in events where there are public displays that turn disruptive or hateful our police should be able to make the groups stop without fear of repercussion from groups like the ACLU. That goes for all groups, be it Westboro or some gay militant group.

How would I define "hate speech"? That is a tricky question, but I will bite...
I would say, generally anything that falls along the lines of being overtly demeaning, or nasty, or just outright rude with an intent to deeply offend or insight violence when generalizing a specific group or groups of people.

Does that work?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-14-2009, 03:26 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake
How would I define "hate speech"? That is a tricky question, but I will bite...
I would say, generally anything that falls along the lines of being overtly demeaning, or nasty, or just outright rude with an intent to deeply offend or insight violence when generalizing a specific group or groups of people.

Does that work?
That's way too general. Any lawyer could twist that to use against anybody.

Read this:

Quote:
Swedish Pastor Sentenced for 'Hate Speech'
By Dale Hurd
CWNews


September 10, 2004


CWNews.org –A lot of people think of Sweden as a 'tolerant' nation. But lately it's starting to show intolerance towards Christianity. A pastor there has been sentenced to jail for preaching against homosexuality and other sexual sin.

This place is probably not where you'd expect to find a man like Ake Green. In the little village of Borgholm, in southern Sweden, this quiet Swedish pastor of a small Pentecostal church decided to stand against what he says is his nation's 'embrace' of homosexuality.

But because of what he preached, Pastor Green has been sentenced to a month in jail under a 'hate speech' law.

Pastor Green said, "I was watching television, reading the newspaper, listening to high profile people - actors, singers - glorifying the homosexual lifestyle. And I was worried, and was concerned, and I felt a deep burden in my heart to speak on that topic."

Green prepared the sermon last year, on what the Bible says about homosexuality, with the intention that the townspeople of Borgholm come to hear him. But attendance was disappointing.

So Ake Green had his sermon published in the local newspaper. In it, he compared the sin of Sweden to the sin of Sodom.

He warned, "Our country is facing a disaster of great proportions! Of that we can be sure. God said the land would vomit out its inhabitants. Our country is facing a disaster."

But it was how he described sexual practices like homosexuality that brought the charge against him: Green told us, "What I said was that sexual abnormality was like a cancer of the society." In more precise English, a "cancerous tumor."

He ended his sermon speaking of God's grace and with respect for those living in sexual sin.

He said, "What these people need, who live under the slavery of sexual immorality, is an abundant grace. It exists. Therefore we will encourage those who live in this manner to look at the grace of Jesus Christ. We cannot condemn these people. Jesus never belittled anyone. He offered them grace."

But his ending didn't matter. The printed sermon was seen by local homosexuals and the district prosecutor, and Green was convicted in a district court and given a month in jail.

A sentence he has not yet served because he is appealing the conviction. Green's defense attorney is Percy Bratt, the Chairman of the Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights.

Bratt said, "The very basic question that is raised in this matter is: to what extent it is criminal to teach from the words in the Bible, so to say."

The hate speech law used to convict Green was first intended to protect Jews and other ethnic minorities from Nazi sympathizers. But in more recent times the law was amended to also protect 'sexual orientation.'

Bratt said, "The wordings of this provision are very general, so the area that shall be criminalized is up to the courts."

The district prosecutor in the case refused to speak with CBN News. But we were able to speak with Sweden's national gay and lesbian organization in Stockholm, the RFSL, which supports Green's conviction.

The RFSL spokesperson said, "Hatred and defamation is not to be accepted, just because it's based on religious beliefs or religious scriptures. You have some limits when it comes to the freedom of speech."

But the Ake Green case is becoming an embarrassment for a nation which prides itself on its tolerance. It may also be a catalyst.

Josef Östby is a noted Missionary and Pastor in Sweden's Pentecostal Movement. He said, "I felt it's like a prophetic message - for our time -in Sweden."

Östby also hopes God is using an unknown preacher from a small town to awaken a nation.

Östby said, "A kind person like Green, silent, is working in a small church. [Then he spoke up.] And today, the whole country is talking about it, and [even other] countries are touched by his simple message."

But support for Green among some Swedish evangelical leaders has been surprisingly lukewarm. Green blames them for acquiescing to the homosexual agenda. He said he draws his inspiration from the Old Testament prophets.

Green said, "We have read about Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, and Amos. They were living in times of spiritual decline. I believe we are dealing with a spiritual dimension here. The Evangelical churches don't want a confrontation with what's going on in Swedish society, and that makes them silent."

Green's attorney says the case will now go to an appeals court, and if necessary, to Sweden's Supreme Court, and even to the European Court, if necessary. He says the district judge misapplied the law.

Bratt said, "The court must, when applying this provision, make a balancing act between the right of homosexuals and the right of the freedom of religion and the right of the freedom of expression. And we say that the court has not made a proper such balancing."

But other nations are moving in the same direction or already have similar laws, including Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.

Östby calls Green's conviction a tragedy for democracy in Sweden. He said, "We cannot, in Sweden, be known for things like putting a pastor in jail for a sermon! This is impossible!"

But the spokesman for Sweden's national gay and lesbian organization said one month in jail is not long enough for Green. It hopes a higher court will impose a longer sentence.

The RFSL spokesperson said, "The district attorney has said 6 to 8 months would be more appropriate when it comes to this crime and we cannot do anything else but to agree with that."

Ake Green says he's not afraid to go to jail. Green added, "I am not a criminal, I don't feel like a criminal, but this new law makes us preachers 'as criminals' if we speak up."

Some say Pastor Green has awakened Swedish evangelicals on the issue of homosexuality. He's certainly created an uncomfortable dividing line for church leaders, whether to speak boldly what the Bible says about homosexuality, or not.

An otherwise overlooked pastor has done something to grab the attention of a nation. Ake Green says he was "only obeying God."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-14-2009, 03:37 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Thats why I said that is a tricky question to answer. It's kinda like a congressman said about pornography many years back, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it".

Of course the answer is somewhat general. However, I still don't subscribe to the ideology that because Sweden does something we are going to end up doing it too. That just would not fly over here, at least not at this point of our society.

In my opinion, that Pastor should not have called them a "cancer" in a public newspaper, that is just poor taste, but I also don't think he should be jailed for it either. Regardless, that is Sweden, not America. The bigger point of this is simply that allowing homosexuals to be defined under the current US laws we have against hate crimes is a sound idea. However, "hate speech" is not crime, but being violent or disrupting the peace IS.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-14-2009, 03:58 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Regardless, that is Sweden, not America.
Wow, you're head really is buried in the sand.

Okay, a little closer to home:

Quote:
Iowa Grandmother, Donna Holman, Jailed for Discouraging Abortion (judge ordered a Psych. Test)
Christian Newswier ^ | 01-18-08 | Kevin P. McVicker
Posted on January 18, 2008 6:59:17 PM CST by Coleus

In March, 2007, Donna Holman was convicted of a charge of "harassment" as she engaged in "sidewalk counseling" to discourage women from entering a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Iowa City, Iowa. Judge Karen Egerton found Mrs.Holman guilty on the hearsay testimony of Planned Parenthood employees. The woman Mrs. Holman allegedly harassed did not even show up for the hearing. Despite being unable to confront her accuser and offer exculpatory evidence, the Iowa Supreme Court declined to review the case.

"While murderers and rapists run free, a harmless 72-year-old Christian grandmother, Donna Holman, must languish in jail for having the temerity of speaking out on behalf of the unborn," said Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "The double standards of justice used against pro-life Christians are staggering. If Donna Holman had been a union or homosexual activist she would have been released and the trumped up charges dropped. Donna is only guilty of caring for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. The courts are guilty of aiding and abetting the abortion industry as it plies its bloody trade on bodies of innocent babies while harming unsuspecting women. It is especially troubling that she is beginning this ordeal on the eve of the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.
Quote:
Grandmother sues McCain for hate speech
David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Published: Friday October 17, 2008

A Kansas City grandmother is suing John McCain and Sarah Palin for promoting hate speech. Mary Kay Green told KSHB that some statements at McCain campaign rallies terrify her as much as the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

"I know the secret service is on this case, but John McCain and Sarah Palin can stop some of this by a statement that they abhor these death threats and will not tolerate them," said Green.

The 66-year-old civil attorney, a lifelong Democrat, claims in the suit that the McCain campaign has intentionally and recklessly portrayed Barack Obama as a terrorist.

Green said, "You have to take these things seriously."

Green believe that Palin has been working crowds into a frenzy. There have been reports from McCain campaign rallies with words like "kill him," "off with his head," and "Muslim terrorist."

According to Green, her father managed the Nebraska campaigns of John and Robert Kennedy. After both were felled by assassins, her father died "of grief."

"I think John McCain and Sarah Palin have no understanding of what we went through as a nation," she said. "[The lawsuit] will be dismissed as soon as I hear public statements from these two candidates that they abhor these death threats and that they will not tolerate these intruders in their audiences."
You can watch the video of her here:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Grandm...eech_1017.html

Just examples of how easily "hate speech" legislation can be perverted here at home.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-14-2009, 04:20 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
Wow, you're head really is buried in the sand.

Okay, a little closer to home:





You can watch the video of her here:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Grandm...eech_1017.html

Just examples of how easily "hate speech" legislation can be perverted here at home.
Those are horrible examples for your case considering one is lacking detail and the other is a fringe example that resulted in nothing.

If some lady wants to preach outside a planned parenthood clinic, she should understand that there is a chance she will be asked to leave and could be arrested if she breaks the law. That is cut and dry. Also, not to say the source is not credible, but without more info and another source I am not taking that one at face value.

As for the lady who tried to sue John McCain, I am sure that got really far... Which makes that point moot. Our court system see loads of BS lawsuits that get tossed all the time, that don't mean anything. Also, it was more likely a lawsuit under the guise of defamation, not "hate speech" seeing as we really have no laws on "hate speech" in the context of which we are discussing.

Here, this is what Wiki says for laws concerning "hate speech" in America.

Quote:
The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[36] and incitement to riot.[37] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement only qualify as criminal if the threat of violence is imminent.[38] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

"Hate Speech" in U.S. Professional and Educational Contexts

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[39] See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).

Both public and private educational institutions in the United States frequently adopt rules prohibiting stigmatization on the basis of attributes such as race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or national origin. In the 1980's and 1990's, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[40] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[41]
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-14-2009, 04:36 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake
Those are horrible examples for your case considering one is lacking detail and the other is a fringe example that resulted in nothing.

If some lady wants to preach outside a planned parenthood clinic, she should understand that there is a chance she will be asked to leave and could be arrested if she breaks the law. That is cut and dry. Also, not to say the source is not credible, but without more info and another source I am not taking that one at face value.

As for the lady who tried to sue John McCain, I am sure that got really far... Which makes that point moot. Our court system see loads of BS lawsuits that get tossed all the time, that don't mean anything. Also, it was more likely a lawsuit under the guise of defamation, not "hate speech" seeing as we really have no laws on "hate speech" in the context of which we are discussing.

Here, this is what Wiki says for laws concerning "hate speech" in America.
My point was to demonstrate how the seeds of abuse, by the left-wing, of hate speech legislation are already being planted.

Of course the courts are used to throwing out BS lawsuits, but remember those same courts did award a woman millions of dollars for spilling McDonalds coffee in her own lap. So, all it takes is for one case to slip through the cracks and fall into the lap of some activist judge looking to make a name for himself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-14-2009, 05:18 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
My point was to demonstrate how the seeds of abuse, by the left-wing, of hate speech legislation are already being planted.

Of course the courts are used to throwing out BS lawsuits, but remember those same courts did award a woman millions of dollars for spilling McDonalds coffee in her own lap. So, all it takes is for one case to slip through the cracks and fall into the lap of some activist judge looking to make a name for himself.
Point well taken, and I never disagreed that there are going to be people who try to abuse the law. However I do disagree with the notion that our Churches are going to start getting shut down for promoting hate speech against homosexuals because of including them into the pre-existing laws on hate crimes. It's two different things, yes closely related, but still different. If that did happen on any sort of scale, there would be outrage and it would not stand. We are granted freedom of speech and religion right in the constitution.

The Mcdonald's coffee incident was completely different. That woman ended up getting less that $600,000 and there was a plethora of evidence that showed McDonalds had already settled a bunch of lawsuits for serving their coffee WAY too hot and without proper warnings. The only reason that even made such headlines was because she was originally awarded like 2 million dollars, but then a judge reversed that. That case was a big catalyst in driving the debate over the amount of frivolous lawsuits.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-14-2009, 12:11 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
How would you, personally, define "hate speech."
Hate speech is speech that encourages its listeners to break the law of the land
Has ANY Church EVER done that with Homosexuals

If Your Church tells you that Homosexuality is wrong. Thats not Hate Crime, its an opinion (maybe a truthful one...but still its only delivering a statement)

If your Church tells you that you must hang homosexuals, that IS a Hate Crime...but how many churches do that
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.