Should hate speech be a criminal offense?

[MongGrel]

Evil libruuuls are coming to take away your hate speech along with your guns, before sending you to FEMA camps to be gay married.

I could shoot you with a liberal rifle from 500 yards out.

Ye Haaaaaaa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYDfwUJzYQg&list=RDaYDfwUJzYQg&index=1

J/K of course.

I always loved clever rednecks with electronics.

They must have listened to Zappa a bit growing up ....

 

[MongGrel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=953PkxFNiko&list=RDaYDfwUJzYQg&index=2

 

[waggy]

I could shoot you with a liberal rifle from 500 yards out.

Ye Haaaaaaa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYDfwUJzYQg&list=RDaYDfwUJzYQg&index=1

J/K of course.

I always loved clever rednecks with electronics.

They must have listened to Zappa a bit growing up ....

Nice table. but do you always leave your cock on it? tsk. people have to eat on that..

 

[michal1980]

Evil libruuuls are coming to take away your hate speech along with your guns, before sending you to FEMA camps to be gay married.

according to the poll it is liberals that want to play thought police.

 

[Jaskalas]

I oppose making "hate speech" criminal in the normal sense of the word, but things like "X group are cockroaches" might be worth a bit of push back. The law doesn't even have to be changed to make it apply, as I've argued such dehumanizing could be construed as inciting violence.

 

[sandorski]

Not in and of itself, but as a secondary charge to a more serious Crime I have no problem with it.

 

[nickqt]

You taking a break from shaming people for "manspreading" on the subway in order to defend hate speech laws?

Considering I haven't posted in that thread, delusional conservative, it appears as if you're not taking a break from spouting off bullshit because that's all you got.

Keep on keepin' on, hotshot.

 

[Atreus21]

Evil libruuuls are coming to take away your hate speech along with your guns, before sending you to FEMA camps to be gay married.

Uh, take a look at the graph in the OP.

 

[Karl Agathon]

Hell no. Don't like what someone is saying, move along.

This^^^

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'm wondering if anyone looked at the full poll results as they are, to my mind, more interesting than the graphs posted. The breakdown of support/opposition is rather more complex overall when you look at age, gender, race, income, and region as well as party loyalty.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n.../a6ywqpe9hl/tabs_OPI_hate_crimes_20150511.pdf

 

[Atreus21]

I'm wondering if anyone looked at the full poll results as they are, to my mind, more interesting than the graphs posted. The breakdown of support/opposition is rather more complex overall when you look at age, gender, race, income, and region as well as party loyalty.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n.../a6ywqpe9hl/tabs_OPI_hate_crimes_20150511.pdf

Thanks for finding this.

 

[nickqt]

And of course, all the f-ing way on page 3, let's be sure to state exactly what the ACTUAL POLL asked.

Just to clarify, you know, the actual wording of the poll, and not what some functionally illiterate partisan idiot looking for PartyPoints™ decided to misleadingly post in the OP to earn superultramega PartyPoints™

Because reality is fun.

"Do you support or oppose the federal law that requires increased penalties for hate crimes".

Not making...and I f-ing quote..."hate speech be a crime".

I. N. C. R. E. A. S. E. D. P. E. N. A. L. T. I. E. S.

So, the poll being discussed here, isn't about libruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuls taking away your hate speech and making it into a crime right before they intern you at a FEMA camp to gay marry you to your uncle.

Should saying stupid racist BS before you perform stupid racist BS crimes give you: increased penalties.

It's about increasing penalties for people who've already committed a crime if they also engaged in hate speech.

Go go gadget strawman, OP!

Libruls are comin' for ur'e freedumbs!

 

[waggy]

And of course, all the f-ing way on page 3, let's be sure to state exactly what the ACTUAL POLL asked.

Just to clarify, you know, the actual wording of the poll, and not what some functionally illiterate partisan idiot looking for PartyPoints™ decided to misleadingly post in the OP to earn superultramega PartyPoints™

Because reality is fun.

"Do you support or oppose the federal law that requires increased penalties for hate crimes".

Not making...and I f-ing quote..."hate speech be a crime".

I. N. C. R. E. A. S. E. D. P. E. N. A. L. T. I. E. S.

So, the poll being discussed here, isn't about libruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuls taking away your hate speech and making it into a crime right before they intern you at a FEMA camp to gay marry you to your uncle.

Should saying stupid racist BS before you perform stupid racist BS crimes give you: increased penalties.

It's about increasing penalties for people who've already committed a crime if they also engaged in hate speech.

Go go gadget strawman, OP!

Libruls are comin' for ur'e freedumbs!

I was wondering what the actual question was. I was shocked to hear over 50 % were ok with making any form of speech a crime.

so it's on hate crimes?


WTF OP...

 

[nickqt]

I was wondering what the actual question was. I was shocked to hear over 50 % were ok with making any form of speech a crime.

so it's on hate crimes?


WTF OP...

The poll question literally asks:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n.../a6ywqpe9hl/tabs_OPI_hate_crimes_20150511.pdf

"Do you support or oppose the federal law that requires increased penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person?

In essence, some asswad racist bigot commits a crime and it can be proved that the asswad racist bigot committed the crime because he/she/it is an asswad racist bigot, the asswad racist bigot can get "increased penalties".

This poll did not ask whether saying stupid shit that could be contrived as "hate speech" should be made a crime.

OP got away, until page 3 here, of literally making shit up, or being dogshit stupid.

 

[nickqt]

Just because I care. Here's how the divide and conquer works:

Say something, change how you say, it and keep asking questions.

 

[Venix]

The poll question literally asks:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n.../a6ywqpe9hl/tabs_OPI_hate_crimes_20150511.pdf

"Do you support or oppose the federal law that requires increased penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person?

In essence, some asswad racist bigot commits a crime and it can be proved that the asswad racist bigot committed the crime because he/she/it is an asswad racist bigot, the asswad racist bigot can get "increased penalties".

This poll did not ask whether saying stupid shit that could be contrived as "hate speech" should be made a crime.

OP got away, until page 3 here, of literally making shit up, or being dogshit stupid.

There were four poll questions. The third question from page 3 of that PDF asks whether hate speech should be illegal:

"Would you support or oppose a law that would make it a crime for people to make public comments intended to stir up hatred against a group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation?"

The question and its results are quoted verbatim in the OP's article. I'm a little confused about why you would rant for three posts about how the OP is lying without reading either the article or past page one of the poll results.

 

[Knowing]

oh hell no.

it will just evolve into a form of censorship.

Evolve? In plenty of the developed world, it's already to that point.

These. Donning my metallic headgear I don't think it's an accident.

 

[Atreus21]

And of course, all the f-ing way on page 3, let's be sure to state exactly what the ACTUAL POLL asked.

Just to clarify, you know, the actual wording of the poll, and not what some functionally illiterate partisan idiot looking for PartyPoints™ decided to misleadingly post in the OP to earn superultramega PartyPoints™

Because reality is fun.

"Do you support or oppose the federal law that requires increased penalties for hate crimes".

Not making...and I f-ing quote..."hate speech be a crime".

I. N. C. R. E. A. S. E. D. P. E. N. A. L. T. I. E. S.

So, the poll being discussed here, isn't about libruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuls taking away your hate speech and making it into a crime right before they intern you at a FEMA camp to gay marry you to your uncle.

Should saying stupid racist BS before you perform stupid racist BS crimes give you: increased penalties.

It's about increasing penalties for people who've already committed a crime if they also engaged in hate speech.

Go go gadget strawman, OP!

Libruls are comin' for ur'e freedumbs!

The poll question literally asks:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n.../a6ywqpe9hl/tabs_OPI_hate_crimes_20150511.pdf

"Do you support or oppose the federal law that requires increased penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person?

In essence, some asswad racist bigot commits a crime and it can be proved that the asswad racist bigot committed the crime because he/she/it is an asswad racist bigot, the asswad racist bigot can get "increased penalties".

This poll did not ask whether saying stupid shit that could be contrived as "hate speech" should be made a crime.

OP got away, until page 3 here, of literally making shit up, or being dogshit stupid.

...

I'll just wait until you've read page 3 in your link, hoss.

 

[MongGrel]

Nice table. but do you always leave your cock on it? tsk. people have to eat on that..

Nah, sometimes it has little cocks on it.

But off topic I guess...

 

[stockwiz]

Just goes to show you the disconnect between the mainstream sheep and the INTJ social libertarians that troll internet forums.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I imagine dehumanizing people can incite violence. I expect all a Judge has to do is look at it that way and hate speech is already illegal.

Calling people names and whatever is what comedians do. Will it be illegal to be a comedian because a minor (not minority) group of fucktards gets offended every time someone says something they don't like? At what point do we stop letting the minority be tyrannical?

 

[brandonb]

I have to wonder if a majority of these types of polls just are made up on the spot to push some agenda? I never get called for these polls or have ever been given the opportunity to participate in these. Has anybody else ever been polled for these types of questions? I wonder if the media just want you to believe everybody else wants a certain thing so people will just jump on the bandwagon. That is part of the human condition.

 

[TheSlamma]

I have to wonder if a majority of these types of polls just are made up on the spot to push some agenda? I never get called for these polls or have ever been given the opportunity to participate in these. Has anybody else ever been polled for these types of questions? I wonder if the media just want you to believe everybody else wants a certain thing so people will just jump on the bandwagon. That is part of the human condition.

You would be surprised what these polling agencies consider a "good base"

300 people is a "good base" for a city of 200,000 to call a vote on a mil increase. lol

 

[kinev]

And of course, all the f-ing way on page 3, let's be sure to state exactly what the ACTUAL POLL asked.

Just to clarify, you know, the actual wording of the poll, and not what some functionally illiterate partisan idiot looking for PartyPoints™ decided to misleadingly post in the OP to earn superultramega PartyPoints™

Because reality is fun.

"Do you support or oppose the federal law that requires increased penalties for hate crimes".

Not making...and I f-ing quote..."hate speech be a crime".

I. N. C. R. E. A. S. E. D. P. E. N. A. L. T. I. E. S.

So, the poll being discussed here, isn't about libruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuls taking away your hate speech and making it into a crime right before they intern you at a FEMA camp to gay marry you to your uncle.

Should saying stupid racist BS before you perform stupid racist BS crimes give you: increased penalties.

It's about increasing penalties for people who've already committed a crime if they also engaged in hate speech.

Go go gadget strawman, OP!

Libruls are comin' for ur'e freedumbs!

The poll question literally asks:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n.../a6ywqpe9hl/tabs_OPI_hate_crimes_20150511.pdf

"Do you support or oppose the federal law that requires increased penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person?

In essence, some asswad racist bigot commits a crime and it can be proved that the asswad racist bigot committed the crime because he/she/it is an asswad racist bigot, the asswad racist bigot can get "increased penalties".

This poll did not ask whether saying stupid shit that could be contrived as "hate speech" should be made a crime.

OP got away, until page 3 here, of literally making shit up, or being dogshit stupid.

There were four poll questions. The third question from page 3 of that PDF asks whether hate speech should be illegal:

"Would you support or oppose a law that would make it a crime for people to make public comments intended to stir up hatred against a group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation?"

The question and its results are quoted verbatim in the OP's article. I'm a little confused about why you would rant for three posts about how the OP is lying without reading either the article or past page one of the poll results.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Personally I don't agree with the idea that any non-immediately dangerous speech should be illegal.

But If hate speech is illegal, and money is speech, that mean that donating money to hateful organizations would be illegal.