BLACK GANG videotaped attack on LONE WHITE

This example is exactly why I am against "Hate Laws". Particularly when they are invoked in favor of one segment of society over the other. That, in and of itself does not equate to "equal treatment under the law." "Hate Laws", by their very nature, are prone to arbitrary application.

Whichever way it goes, White Gang vs Black or Black Gang vs White, if we are to have "Hate Crimes", it should be applied both ways, or not at all. Anything else is, de facto, discrimination. Hence, unequal treatment under the law.

Same goes for "Hate Speech". The concept of "Free Speech" is not only to insure that the freedom to express popular opinion is not thwarted, but also to insure that unpopular opinion is similarly treated. I submit a citizen does NOT enjoy free speech when the Government decides that you have free speech, EXCEPT for: an ever growing list thereof. How far does that go? Until we get to the point where we cannot even criticise the Government? OOOOOPS!

For those of you who think that cannot happen.... I cite certain Liberal Democrats who are searching for certain methods to silence Conservative "Talk Radio" (In a publicly acceptable mannor, of course.) No matter how "warm and fuzzy" and no matter how noble the reason given to curtail speech, it is STILL limiting of "free speech".

If you believe this is right and proper on the part of your Government..... well, your conditioning is coming along well.

Halfback

0 Replies

Halfback wrote:

This example is exactly why I am against "Hate Laws". Particularly when they are invoked in favor of one segment of society over the other. That, in and of itself does not equate to "equal treatment under the law." "Hate Laws", by their very nature, are prone to arbitrary application.

Whichever way it goes, White Gang vs Black or Black Gang vs White, if we are to have "Hate Crimes", it should be applied both ways, or not at all. Anything else is, de facto, discrimination. Hence, unequal treatment under the law.

Same goes for "Hate Speech". The concept of "Free Speech" is not only to insure that the freedom to express popular opinion is not thwarted, but also to insure that unpopular opinion is similarly treated. I submit a citizen does NOT enjoy free speech when the Government decides that you have free speech, EXCEPT for: an ever growing list thereof. How far does that go? Until we get to the point where we cannot even criticise the Government? OOOOOPS!

For those of you who think that cannot happen.... I cite certain Liberal Democrats who are searching for certain methods to silence Conservative "Talk Radio" (In a publicly acceptable mannor, of course.) No matter how "warm and fuzzy" and no matter how noble the reason given to curtail speech, it is STILL limiting of "free speech".

If you believe this is right and proper on the part of your Government..... well, your conditioning is coming along well.

Halfback

The radio frequency airwaves are under license by the gov't; there's no reason to believe that that same government cannot make rules to govern something they have the right to license.

For example, you could not get a license to put hate speech against minorities out on the public airwaves, or sexual content.

If people don't like the fairness doctrine, they are more then able to vote their representatives out and put new ones in who will repeal it. Isn't that the Republican line, that the 'accountability moment' is at th polls?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Halfback wrote:

Whichever way it goes, White Gang vs Black or Black Gang vs White, if we are to have "Hate Crimes", it should be applied both ways, or not at all.

The concept of "hate crime" does not simply mean: if a white guy kills a black guy, or vice versa. It's only a hate crime if the one guy killed (beat up, etc) the other because of his race/religion/etc.

Ergo, some gangster who happened to be white killing a kid that got in his way who happened to be black is not a hate crime. A white guy killing a black kid because he is black, is a hate crime. The same, of course, vice versa. If a black gangbanger shoots up a white kid just cause he got in the way, it's not a hate crime. If you have a black guy murdering some white kid because he was white, then it's a hate crime.

There's nothing inherently "arbitrary" here, it's fairly straightforward. And there's also nothing in the hate crime laws that prescribes that it only be used against white people. So you're barking up the wrong tree in your first paragraph here.

As for whether hate crime laws are needed in the first place, let's take a graphic comparative example. In a midsize Southern town, one hypothetical day, two murders take place. In one neighbourhood, some white gangsters rob an innocent black kid and kill him. In another, a lynch mob of white people pursue an innocent black guy because he's dating a white woman, and hang him. An extreme hypothetical example, for sure, but it does bring the point home: would you want the perpetrators of both murders punished equally, or would you want a higher punishment for the latter crime?

Same the other way round, of course. A hypothetical militant revolutionary black group kills an innocent white hostage, versus a black gang rob and kill an innocent white passerby. Wouldnt you want the former to be punished more harshly as a deterrent?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

michael1 wrote:
I want everyone under 30 who has grown up in a formerly white urban neighborhood taken over by nonwhites to mention how many times they have been attacked by non-white gangs (in unprovoked attacks)

As a child growing up in Houston, I was beaten on more then one occasion by gangs of black children. Whites were a minority in our community.

Even so - I didn't turn out to be a racist jerk like you are. I reported you for spreading racist comments on the site. I completely disagree with your attitude and assessments - though you have provided me with good fodder for my sig line in the past, thanks.

Cycloptichorn

Any form of not-policitally correct speech on A2K will be reported to the moderation staff as racism by the racists that are the politically correct.

0 Replies

shiksa wrote:

Any form of not-policitally correct speech on A2K will be reported to the moderation staff as racism by the racists that are the politically correct.

Shiksa is now re-writing the TOS for A2K?

0 Replies

Huh? RIF.

Just stating the policy of the PC crowd.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Huh? RIF.

Just stating the policy of the PC crowd.

Right, and you can direct me to the post/s that support your asinine conclusions?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Huh? RIF.

Just stating the policy of the PC crowd.
Right, and you can direct me to the post/s that support your asinine conclusions?

If you want to see an ass just look in a mirror. I already quoted the post. RIF....

0 Replies

Levels of malice in crime is already addressed in the leeway a judge is given to sentence a convicted felon. Moot point.

When did increased threats of "more time in the joint" prove to be a more effective deterrent? Shocked

Where in the world did the Government/citizens decide that the Government "owned" the airwaves? The original purpose of the FCC was to govern (read: organize) frequency allocation so transmitters would not be interfering with one another (also applies to persons transmitting).

Anything more than that amounts to "social manipulation" in my book. Not to mention infringement of free speech.

An equally silly arguement: If the Government owns the airwaves, then I submit that Christian Broadcasting violates the separation of church and state. I believe the ACLU should look into that. :wink:

Halfback

0 Replies

you know what i think you all are just mean and racist just because a couple of black children beat up some one white doesnt mean every black person out there is going to do the same thing and yes i am white and i think all races shoul be treated the same after all we are all human arent we you shouldnt judge people by there skin colour or where they come from you should judge them on there character what is wrong with you yeh sure there are black people out there that physically abuse white people but isnt there white people that physically abuse black people too or have you all forgotten that???? it annoys me so much how people are rasict its cruel and look at what white people did to blacks in the past it disgusts me like hitler with the jews its cruel and horrible imagine you being through what they went through the pain they felt and went through your all pathetic and need to get a life but dont worry your judgement will come one day im sure of that!!!!! Mad

0 Replies

Wow.

How about a little punctuation next time?

0 Replies

If people trivialize racist attacks of blacks on whites it will Marginalize more whites into white nationalist groups.

If you say "so some white kid got his ass kicked by a bunch of black kids, big deal you f$#ken racist."

It is the same as if you said "So the ni#%er got his ass kicked, he must have been doing something wrong" .

But like the racism the 50s people don't think about the victim or right and wrong they play it safe with whatever popular bull$hit everybody else is saying or doing.

It might feel good to show how much you are against racism by trivializing what very well might be a racist trend and calling the guy that brings it to your attention a racist whiner. This is not standing up for equal justice

Nobody is giving the problem of racism and equal justice any progress by using these things to prove how much of a cool non-racist white person they are.

Even black people know this. Equal rights, equal justice, people need to re-examine what this means and defend it.

Black people are not exempt from racism any more or less then white people are.

-------------------

Martin Luther King, Jr.

17 May 1957
Washington, D.C.

We must not seek to use our emerging freedom and our growing power to do the same thing to the white minority that has been done to us for so many centuries. (Yes) Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man. We must not become victimized with a philosophy of black supremacy. God is not interested merely in freeing black men and brown men and yellow men, but God is interested in freeing the whole human race. (Yes, All right) We must work with determination to create a society (Yes), not where black men are superior and other men are inferior and vice versa, but a society in which all men will live together as brothers (Yes) and respect the dignity and worth of human personality. (Yes)

0 Replies

BLACK GANG videotaped attack on LONE WHITE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know