Good God, Texas Has Done It
- Thread starter Mutai Sho-Rin
- Start date
You mean you've never seen Yellow Submarine? That's a Blue Meanie!
My “Argentina” remark was a reference to that movie.
Beatles music (aside from a few things by Paul McCartney) is like taking a Q-Tip and shoving it all the way through to the other ear, for me. I tend to avoid it as much as I can. So no, I have never seen Yellow Submarine. 
Beatles music (aside from a few things by Paul McCartney) is like taking a Q-Tip and shoving it all the way through to the other ear, for me. I tend to avoid it as much as I can. So no, I have never seen Yellow Submarine.
Ditto except to remove the "aside from a few things by Paul McCartney"
Great. Eva Braun lives.
You realize that all his hand waving in opposition to the advocacy of genocide is just so he can hide the fact that he himself advocates genocide, don't you?
It's like J. Edgar Hoover denouncing gays by day and wearing heels and a skirt by night.
Canadians only voice their opposition to genocide against carefully selected victim groups. Under the UN definition of genocide (in which Stalin had a lot of input, which is why it's not considered genocide to exterminate political opposition, one of Stalin's favorite activities) the Canadian treatment of Indians qualifies as genocide, as does the Australian treatment of aboriginies.
Likewise, the Canadian treatment of American hockey players qualifies as genocide, as they are willing to cause bodily harm to select US hockey players in an attempt to destroy them as a group. I've already detailed the extinction of the Canadian penguin (who were like little people in tuxedos) to satisfy the American craving for canned meats, and currently the Canadians are trying to destroy their indigenous population of tree nymphs - all to make a few bucks by selling us all their softwood timber.
I don't think any of us need to hear pompous, moralizing lectures about genocide from a Canadian genocidaire, one who openly advocates for the destruction of the Aztecs, now a gentle people who serve us taco platters with a smile, and I for one am not fooled by another bloodthirsty Canadian seal-clubber posing as a wide-eyed innocent.
Canadians are evil: Evil to the core, and the sooner the world is rid of them the better off things will be for the northern penguins, which ironically should've rebounded with the collapse of the Canadian seal population, but are doomed in the absence of genocidal Canadian seal-clubbers.
Show me a Canadian speaking out against genocide and I'll show you a Canadian genocidaire in a flannel shirt, suspenders, and a bra. That's what they are. That's all they'll ever be.
Oh yes, that's easy to say, innit? That kind of speech is easy to ban, because only psychopaths would make it.
But that's the very definition of a slippery slope."With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied – chains us all, irrevocably."
Would you be insulted if I screenshot this and put it on Fail Blog?
I'm not trying to be mean AT ALL, you're just trying to be a comedian right? None of this is real?
That's not the point. It's still using the argument that it's not protected speech because it's not popular speech, which is opposite to the intent of laws protecting free speech, and sets a dangerous precedent.
Indeed. As Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt (as portrayed by Woody Harrelson) said in The People vs. Larry Flynt, “If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you.”
Okay, taking a deep breath. thestrangequark said:
I don’t like "hate crime" as a concept because I would have a hard time arguing that bashing a gay man’s head in with a brick because he’s gay is somehow worse than bashing a prostitute’s head in with a brick because she’s a prostitute. I mean, I get the politics of it, but honestly, the victim sitting in front of me, on whose behalf I’m advocating, is the most important person in the justice system at that moment, even if he or she doesn’t belong to any special group.
Not an attack or defense, but an explanation.
Sentences don’t exist in a vaccuum. They are enhanced or lessened by aggravating or mitigating circumstances. If you choose to, say, defraud a particularly vulnerable victim or set of victims, e.g., elderly people, your sentence can (and should) be enhanced. On the other hand, your age or family circumstance, for example, might be used to decrease your sentence. These are facts, provable by a preponderance of the evidence. "Motive" can be strongly inferred, but not ever proven.
No, it isn’t. I do not have to prove motive, but I must prove the elements of the crime, each one, beyond a reasonable doubt. Frankly, I don’t care why you stole the whatever, or sold guns, or killed someone. I only have to prove that you did it, and that you intended to do it (that is, that it was not a mistake or accident).
Crime of passion does not go to why you committed the crime (usually murder - I’ve never seen theft defended under that theory). In essence, you, the defendant, argue that you didn’t have the ability to stop yourself from committing the crime because of your passions – emotion overtook you – and you didn’t have the rational thought to make the decision to kill. It's a type of temporary insanity, where you lack the mens rea to warrant conviction. That has nothing to do with motive. In fact, if you have a motive to kill, it’s not a crime of passion because motive requires some iota of reason and will.
I don’t like "hate crime" as a concept because I would have a hard time arguing that bashing a gay man’s head in with a brick because he’s gay is somehow worse than bashing a prostitute’s head in with a brick because she’s a prostitute. I mean, I get the politics of it, but honestly, the victim sitting in front of me, on whose behalf I’m advocating, is the most important person in the justice system at that moment, even if he or she doesn’t belong to any special group.
^^ Like I said upthread: Hate Crime = Thought Crime.
BTW, thoughts are not regulated; actions may be regulated, and speech may be an action, depending on the content. Regulations may be promulgated all people want, but whether they're constitutional in the US must be determined. "Free speech" is subject to all sorts of regulation.
The one that most likely applies here is "Advocacy of Unlawful Conduct." Such speech is NOT protected if it provides a substantial likelihood of imminent illegal activity AND the speech is directed towards causing it. Note that each element must be determined:
"substantial likelihood"--not absolutely will or maybe/possibly
"imminent"--at the moment, not next year, next month, or next week--and sometimes not even next day, depends on the circumstances
"illegal"--as in against the law, so a criminal act, not merely a tortious one, such as defaming someone
"speech is directed to cause [the illegal activity"--Saying "All [whomever] are crooks/liars/etc" is not directing anyone to any illegal activity. Even saying "All [whomever] should be killed/deported/etc" or "We should get our guns tonight and kill every [whomever] we find" is arguably not directing anyone to any illegal activity--or so the defense would argue. But saying "I have guns here, take them and kill every [whomever] you find"--now THAT would be directing someone to an illegal activity.
The law is squishy. While it can't be too vague or overbroad, it also must be flexible enough to cover all sorts of circumstances. That's why there's all these "terms of art" that common sense says mean one thing, but historically have meant a fairly specific thing.
It's why, when a person kills someone and confesses "I murdered him," the person may be [dead--pun intended] wrong--he may have killed someone, he may not have murdered him. If the killing is found to have been accidental or in self-defense, it's not murder, despite someone being dead. Yet we must have a law that covers the various permutations of circumstances.
So what is acceptable as speech and unacceptable as action is also subject to a law which covers the easily identifiable one versus the easily identifiable other plus everything in between. Not an easy task.
The one that most likely applies here is "Advocacy of Unlawful Conduct." Such speech is NOT protected if it provides a substantial likelihood of imminent illegal activity AND the speech is directed towards causing it. Note that each element must be determined:
"substantial likelihood"--not absolutely will or maybe/possibly
"imminent"--at the moment, not next year, next month, or next week--and sometimes not even next day, depends on the circumstances
"illegal"--as in against the law, so a criminal act, not merely a tortious one, such as defaming someone
"speech is directed to cause [the illegal activity"--Saying "All [whomever] are crooks/liars/etc" is not directing anyone to any illegal activity. Even saying "All [whomever] should be killed/deported/etc" or "We should get our guns tonight and kill every [whomever] we find" is arguably not directing anyone to any illegal activity--or so the defense would argue. But saying "I have guns here, take them and kill every [whomever] you find"--now THAT would be directing someone to an illegal activity.
The law is squishy. While it can't be too vague or overbroad, it also must be flexible enough to cover all sorts of circumstances. That's why there's all these "terms of art" that common sense says mean one thing, but historically have meant a fairly specific thing.
It's why, when a person kills someone and confesses "I murdered him," the person may be [dead--pun intended] wrong--he may have killed someone, he may not have murdered him. If the killing is found to have been accidental or in self-defense, it's not murder, despite someone being dead. Yet we must have a law that covers the various permutations of circumstances.
So what is acceptable as speech and unacceptable as action is also subject to a law which covers the easily identifiable one versus the easily identifiable other plus everything in between. Not an easy task.
^ Exactly, prop. Simply advocating genocide does not have to be immediate (and rarely is). If some loony is standing on a street corner saying that all members of [random group] should be killed, what's the risk that's actually gonna happen? There's nothing imminent there.
Getting back on the original topic
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/5/25/129192720751546797.jpg
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/5/25/129192720751546797.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
