ewmon Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 This is a thread on generic "hate" crimes, defined as comments suggestive of unlawful violence. brought this topic to light, and the recent Ted Nugent comments has continued it. What legitimate freedom of speech or constructive purpose exists to wish someone ill, especially by an act of unlawful violence? Against government officials such as Representative Giffords and President Obama, such acts come dangerously close to sedition (the stirring up of discontent, resistance, or rebellion against the government), or perhaps treason (violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state). But even -- or especially -- among common folk (them being the vast majority in this country), what legitimate freedom or legal purpose does it serve for one person to communicate a wish/desire/hope that another person gets AIDS, or gets beat up, or gets a bullet in the head? It's different for someone to say that President Obama should go to prison for what he's done to America, or that all pedophiles should be executed, because those statements are within the framework of legal proceedings (ie, Obama's actions should be illegal, or the lawful penalty for pedophilia should be a death sentence). Imagine taking a walk in your neighborhood, and you come across a paper stapled to a utility pole that depicts your face with crosshairs printed over it. Shouldn't that be illegal? Or you find out that one of your neighbors told another neighbor (or you directly) that someone should rape your daughters. I just don't know what legitimate freedom or constructive purpose such communications serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) Well if I found out who put the cross hairs on a picture of my face they should start worrying about cross hairs being on the back of their heads, i am sneaky and see no reason to give the other guy any chance at all if it comes to that, but I have to agree such statements or illustrations are or at least should be illegal... as for the rape or aids or what ever, if that's not good reason to at least detain the person for questioning I can't imagine what is... Edited April 19, 2012 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) From what I and other people I have concluded, much racism seems to be formed from environment and prejudices that aren't eve corrected. Seeing as how that is the case, with consistant education in youth, hate crimes at least in the US will be more of a thing of the past, and I've actually seen that development in my own city. Edited April 19, 2012 by questionposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The legitimate freedom it serves is freedom of speech. Whether or not it should be illegal is a matter of opinion, but as a matter of law wishing someone ill is legal. While I object to the occasional crosshairs map, I'd rather see it being self controlled than controlled by law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The legitimate freedom it serves is freedom of speech. Whether or not it should be illegal is a matter of opinion, but as a matter of law wishing someone ill is legal. While I object to the occasional crosshairs map, I'd rather see it being self controlled than controlled by law. I agree, if I had daughters and someone said they should be raped it would be self controlled, if someone was going around posting pictures of me or mine with cross hairs over their face it would be self controlled but I don't think that's what you have in mind is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I agree, if I had daughters and someone said they should be raped it would be self controlled, if someone was going around posting pictures of me or mine with cross hairs over their face it would be self controlled but I don't think that's what you have in mind is it? Well, yes actually. I think the Sarah Palin crosshairs issue was self controlled. Enough pressure came to bear on her to get rid of the map, and I haven't seen anything like it since from anyone else. I don't know what you would do in your scenario but I assume you would first give them a chance to do the right thing before something bad happened. That to me is self controlled. But I feel the same way you do. If someone did that to my family, one way or the other it would stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Well, yes actually. I think the Sarah Palin crosshairs issue was self controlled. Enough pressure came to bear on her to get rid of the map, and I haven't seen anything like it since from anyone else. I don't know what you would do in your scenario but I assume you would first give them a chance to do the right thing before something bad happened. That to me is self controlled. But I feel the same way you do. If someone did that to my family, one way or the other it would stop. I can honestly say that my tolerance has been tested to the max in recent weeks and so far no one has... been... hurt... it's a lot more difficult than it's possible to describe to allow some things to pass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I can honestly say that my tolerance has been tested to the max in recent weeks and so far no one has... been... hurt... it's a lot more difficult than it's possible to describe to allow some things to pass... I feel for you and the stress those type of things induce. I said this before in another thread but it's worth repeating. Stress is the body's reaction to the mind's decision not to choke the living shit out of some asshole who desperately needs it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I feel for you and the stress those type of things induce. I said this before in another thread but it's worth repeating. Stress is the body's reaction to the mind's decision not to choke the living shit out of some asshole who desperately needs it. Or who you desperately need to do it to... Stress is such a mild word compared to the reality of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Xenon Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) The legitimate freedom it serves is freedom of speech. Whether or not it should be illegal is a matter of opinion, but as a matter of law wishing someone ill is legal. While I object to the occasional crosshairs map, I'd rather see it being self controlled than controlled by law. It should be legal to expresses your wishes for harm to occur to your enemy. However, threatening to cause such harm is -- and should remain -- a criminally-actionable offense. For example, if you say "Joe [just a random person's name] deserves to die", that is [i would hope] totally-protected by 1st-amendement rights and you shouldn't face any legal hassles. On the other hand, if someone says "I'm going to kill Joe", that's a serious crime [criminal threat] and -- in all fairness -- should be prosecuted as such. Edited April 20, 2012 by Green Xenon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now