Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/11/01 04:55 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 8/11/01 06:35 AM, shorbe wrote: Murder or trespass, or whatever should be the charge. Hate crime is nonsense. It's a bit of the thought police really. It also says that if you were murdered just on the "boring old non-hate-crime" charge, then somehow, your death wasn't as important. Ooh...if I'm ever murdered, please let it be a hate crime so I can feel special!

Well, As I proposed, hate crime should be seperate from murder trespass etc..., It's not the act of hating someone but the violence used as a means to get a message to a specific racial/ethnic/other group

That's still a form of thought policing. Whether the charges are merged or separarte, criminalizing the nature of a person's motive is wrong and, furthermore, unconstitutional.

At 8/9/01 02:48 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote: If someone burnt a cross in their own yard made deorogatory terms to describe an ethnic or racial group, this would not be an example of hate crime, becuase its on their own land, and therefore freedom of speach would negate this.

You're a goddamned moron!

If you're saying that the right to free speech ends at your own property line, you're sorely mistaken. You're exercising your right to free speech on Tom Fulp's site right now.

If you're suggesting that our first amendment rights should be limited in any way, you need to move to communist China or somewhere else to make you realize precisely what kind of stifling oppression our forefathers were trying to escape and avoid by clearly outlining free speech as the people's natural right.

At 8/11/01 04:55 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

Well, As I proposed, hate crime should be seperate from murder trespass etc..., It's not the act of hating someone but the violence used as a means to get a message to a specific racial/ethnic/other group

So, you're saying that a person should be charged with assault, and separately charged with "the violence used"? We call that double jeopardy.

At 8/11/01 09:04 PM, Radam wrote:

At 8/11/01 04:55 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

Well, As I proposed, hate crime should be seperate from murder trespass etc..., It's not the act of hating someone but the violence used as a means to get a message to a specific racial/ethnic/other group

So, you're saying that a person should be charged with assault, and separately charged with "the violence used"? We call that double jeopardy.

No, please re read it becuase you obviously don't understand it. If a white man assualted a black man, this would simply be assualt. If A Member of a racist clan IE KKK assaulted a black man, and while doing so sent some message to the black community then this would be 1 charge of assualt and 1 charge of hate crime. No it wouldn't be double jepordy becuase there are two seperate crimes, such as if someone murders someone in 1st and is charged with conspircy to commit murder then these are two seperate charges, It's very similar acually.

At 8/7/01 08:40 PM, Radam wrote: My opinion is that the major issue to look at when judging a case is whether a person has committed a crime or has not committed a crime.

If it is determined that a person has committed a crime, motive is generally of little importance, and certainly, the nature of a person's motive should not be a crime in itself.

What are your thoughts?

I agree, the media should not give special coverage to "hate crimes."

1. They are prone to bias. Stories of whites killing blacks or gays are always around, however, the mainstream media ignores gays killing whites and downplays blacks killing whites. It does happen.
2. I feel that "minority leaders" are only separating races/groups more and more, adding to any discrimination. "Revs." Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come to mind at first.

Anti-You: Are your friends African or American, or do they hold dual citizenship for an African nation and also the United States of America? There's no such thing as an African American. It's like saying an Asian Antarctican. Even in a broad sense, an American must be from either North America or South America, but not from Africa.

By African American, I mean "black people" if that helps you any. I think you knew what I meant.

At 8/12/01 02:23 AM, KaneOfNod wrote: I agree, the media should not give special coverage to "hate crimes."

1. They are prone to bias. Stories of whites killing blacks or gays are always around, however, the mainstream media ignores gays killing whites and downplays blacks killing whites. It does happen.
2. I feel that "minority leaders" are only separating races/groups more and more, adding to any discrimination. "Revs." Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come to mind at first.

Word.

You're a goddamned moron!

If you're saying that the right to free speech ends at your own property line, you're sorely mistaken. You're exercising your right to free speech on Tom Fulp's site right now.

Acually I'm not saying it should; I'm saying it HAS and IS. Here on newgrounds you can't say the *N* word, you can't go to chat and do a number of things. Try going to a fancy restraunt and say vulgar things; You'll be kicked out. Go to a Air port and talk about bombs. You'll be arrested. Go to a public area and talk about how you would have sex with a woman etc... You might be arrested for sexual harrasment. Go to a play ground and talk about murdering children, You'll be arrested for lewd conduct.

If you're suggesting that our first amendment rights should be limited in any way, you need to move to communist China or somewhere else to make you realize precisely what kind of stifling oppression our forefathers were trying to escape and avoid by clearly outlining free speech as the people's natural right.

How about first you learn your facts, our first amendmant HAS been infringed upon, and I don't see how YOU can object to prosecution for burning a cross in a black mans yard to send a racist message, and not realize simple cenorship laws in the united states.

"People hardly ever make use of the freedom which they have, for example, freedom of thought; instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation."

-Kreikgaard

... Before you call me a goddamned moron, learn the truth.

At 8/13/01 02:02 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: How about first you learn your facts, our first amendmant HAS been infringed upon,

Is that why you're condoning further infringement? Does that mean you have to condone further infringement?

and I don't see how YOU can object to prosecution for burning a cross in a black mans yard to send a racist message,

I'm not personally down with threatening behavior like that, and I'm all for punishing the behavior; just not for punishing the reasoning behind the behavior.

and not realize simple cenorship laws in the united states.

I realize that there are censorship laws despite our first amendment rights. However, what they punish is the way one chooses to deliver his message and not what he's trying to say.

For instance, if I wanted to make the statement that I hate all black people (Let me interrupt here to firmly state, before I'm flamed into oblivion, that this is an illustration, and I do not actually hate all black people), I have the right to state my displeasure with the black race without fear of prosecution for the statement or my reasoning. This makes sense, because reason is generally not a crime. If, however, I assault this man to make the same point, I may be prosecuted for both my action (fine) and my reasoning (What the hell?). Motive by itself is not a crime in any dissimilar circumstance; why here?

"People hardly ever make use of the freedom which they have, for example, freedom of thought; instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation."

-Kreikgaard

Kreikgaard's blowing smoke. Freedom of thought is little comfort when you can be executed simply for asking your government, "Why?"

At 8/13/01 03:21 AM, Radam wrote:

At 8/13/01 02:02 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: How about first you learn your facts, our first amendmant HAS been infringed upon,

Is that why you're condoning further infringement? Does that mean you have to condone further infringement?

I don't consider the example I gave to fall under freedom of speach if outside of ones property, even that was a stretch inside ones property. Really I misspoke and should have said proptery rights.

and I don't see how YOU can object to prosecution for burning a cross in a black mans yard to send a racist message,

I'm not personally down with threatening behavior like that, and I'm all for punishing the behavior; just not for punishing the reasoning behind the behavior.

As I said the hate crime reform I proposed did NOT punish the resasoning but the messages to a group of people by means of VIOLENCE, if your going to make ad hominim attacks PLEASE read the argument and Understand it, if you don't ask questions.

and not realize simple cenorship laws in the united states.

I realize that there are censorship laws despite our first amendment rights. However, what they punish is the way one chooses to deliver his message and not what he's trying to say.

I disagree, espcially in terms of sexual harrassment and such, do I think that sexual harrasment is wrong? Irrelevant.

For instance, if I wanted to make the statement that I hate all black people (Let me interrupt here to firmly state, before I'm flamed into oblivion, that this is an illustration, and I do not actually hate all black people), I have the right to state my displeasure with the black race without fear of prosecution for the statement or my reasoning. This makes sense, because reason is generally not a crime. If, however, I assault this man to make the same point, I may be prosecuted for both my action (fine) and my reasoning (What the hell?). Motive by itself is not a crime in any dissimilar circumstance; why here?

"People hardly ever make use of the freedom which they have, for example, freedom of thought; instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation."

-Kreikgaard

Kreikgaard's blowing smoke. Freedom of thought is little comfort when you can be executed simply for asking your government, "Why?"

You're missing the point.

At 8/13/01 02:02 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

"People hardly ever make use of the freedom which they have, for example, freedom of thought; instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation."

-Kreikgaard

... Before you call me a goddamned moron, learn the truth.

I don't think most people think before they shoot off their mouth.

At 8/13/01 02:02 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Acually I'm not saying it should; I'm saying it HAS and IS. Here on newgrounds you can't say the *N* word, you can't go to chat and do a number of things. Try going to a fancy restraunt and say vulgar things; You'll be kicked out. Go to a Air port and talk about bombs. You'll be arrested. Go to a public area and talk about how you would have sex with a woman etc... You might be arrested for sexual harrasment. Go to a play ground and talk about murdering children, You'll be arrested for lewd conduct.

4 words : "Clear and Present Danger."

Down with bigger government! Up with Conservatism!

Most of the time, if a crime is commited by one major race group member against a minority people just assume the motive is racism. Unless the crime was specifically race related (such as burning a cross in a black guy's yard) I don't think it should be treated as such. I also think they should loss the term "Hate crime". It sounds too broad...

Anarchy: Censorship of any form is the thin edge of the wedge.

Censorship of the right is just as bad as censorship of the left, yet I doubt you'd want some McCarthyistic, conservative right wing agenda pushed on anyone. It's funny thought that those on the left often want the same thing through political correctness by telling us what's right or good.

shorbe

At 8/18/01 07:40 AM, shorbe wrote: Anarchy: Censorship of any form is the thin edge of the wedge.

Censorship of the right is just as bad as censorship of the left, yet I doubt you'd want some McCarthyistic, conservative right wing agenda pushed on anyone. It's funny thought that those on the left often want the same thing through political correctness by telling us what's right or good.

shorbe

Ehh... I wouldn't exactly say I'm a liberal or a democrat. I Consider myself a humanitarian Libertarian.

At 8/18/01 07:40 AM, shorbe wrote: Anarchy: Censorship of any form is the thin edge of the wedge.

I said specifically violent acts. I don't consider stoping violence to be censorship.

Censorship of the right is just as bad as censorship of the left, yet I doubt you'd want some McCarthyistic, conservative right wing agenda pushed on anyone. It's funny thought that those on the left often want the same thing through political correctness by telling us what's right or good.

We do?

Libertarians believe in the free market economy and don't distinguish between people and corporations in terms of rights and responsibilities.

shorbe

At 8/18/01 07:59 AM, shorbe wrote: Libertarians believe in the free market economy and don't distinguish between people and corporations in terms of rights and responsibilities.

Well to a point I've been for free market economy, but with restrictions such as sherman anti trust etc... I said Humanitarian libertrain essentially meaning a skelaton of a government phrame but with substaintual laws to prevent from anyones rights from being infringed upon. Esscentialy What my view are, is that no ones rights should be infringed but in some cases one right allows someone to infringe upon anothers right, and the one who is infringing should have the loss of that right in that specific case rather than the victim.

All crimes are a hate crime!! Aren't crimes motivated by hate already??????? No hate crime law would of stopped the Jasper dragging death or Oklahoma City Bombing. Of course, they were tried and convicted with the laws that were already in the book, which is capital murder!! Crime is crime!! End of story.

At 8/18/01 11:15 PM, NewYorkGuy wrote: All crimes are a hate crime!! Aren't crimes motivated by hate already??????? No hate crime law would of stopped the Jasper dragging death or Oklahoma City Bombing. Of course, they were tried and convicted with the laws that were already in the book, which is capital murder!! Crime is crime!! End of story.

Maybe the end of story in the mind of a 12 year old, but please look into it a bit further then just what you hear on the news or the first post on this topic. As it was said time and time again their are propositions for hate crime to be changed into persecution to anyone who sends a message to any group or ethinicity... etc. With the use of violence. Violence is persecutable so It wouldn't be freedom of speach, It's simply the diffrence bewteen one man killing one man in as an accident and one man killing another man in cold blood to get a message across.

All crimes are a hate crime!! Aren't crimes motivated by hate already??????? No hate crime law would of stopped the Jasper dragging death or Oklahoma City Bombing. Of course, they were tried and convicted with the laws that were already in the book, which is capital murder!! Crime is crime!! End of story.

Why couldn't this topic be called something else? Like racist crimesor racalist crimes :)

I already replied to this, but I have more content now.

At 8/13/01 02:02 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Acually I'm not saying it should; I'm saying it HAS and IS. Here on newgrounds you can't say the *N* word, you can't go to chat and do a number of things. Try going to a fancy restraunt and say vulgar things; You'll be kicked out. Go to a Air port and talk about bombs. You'll be arrested. Go to a public area and talk about how you would have sex with a woman etc... You might be arrested for sexual harrasment. Go to a play ground and talk about murdering children, You'll be arrested for lewd conduct.

NG is not subject to the first amendment, it is a private web site. To quote the SA fourms:
"General Overview: the SA forums are up and have continued to stay up because I, Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka, have decided to pay for the bandwidth, server bills, and equipment costs out of my OWN pocket. I lose money from MY PAYCHECK every month by hosting these forums. There are no ads, no pop-ups, no direct marketing, or anything else that generates money on the forums. These are MY forums that I pay money to host, and I have free control over them. I and the rest of the mods will ban who we see fit. I will ban you if you break the rules. I will ban you if I don't like you. I will ban you if you if I'm playing Scrabble and I get a triple word score on a word which starts with the same letter as your username. I will ban you just to ban you. If you think these rules are unfair, you can either leave or pay me the cost of my server / bandwidth bills each month. These boards are a free service to you which causes ME to lose MY MONEY each month, and nobody has any God-given right to bitch about how they are run.

long list here

If you're caught doing one of the above, don't whine about free speech and how this forum infringes upon your rights as an American / human being / jackass. This is a private forum and these rules are limits on what can be done by its participants. If you've broken a rule and are banned, you are obviously not wanted here."

As for the others, same idea, as well as other things like clear and present danger.

How about first you learn your facts, our first amendmant HAS been infringed upon, and I don't see how YOU can object to prosecution for burning a cross in a black mans yard to send a racist message, and not realize simple cenorship laws in the united states.

Uhh...private property, tresspassing, etc. You can burn crosses in your own backyard if you want.

At 8/9/01 01:07 PM, LaserBeamBandit wrote: There is almost no racism against blacks in America, especially in urban and suburban area in the north. This is what the law is really for. Pleasing the black community to get their votes. The blacks are the real racist ones calling every black man killed by a white man racist. A lot more white men are killed by black men. The reason you don't hear anything about this is because it's no big deal. The white community doesnt get up and start protestin about racism. I never had racism by whites (maybe becuase I'm white) but I sure have had a lot of racism by black. Blackes like that revern guy down in jail in Pueto Rico supports black claims before even having all the facts. They claim of being beaten and then a camera that was taping didn't show no police beating on the arrested black shit (he's shit because of what he did not his crime). The black protester leader didn't apologies or nothing even when asked to. It is Politically incorrect for whites to say what I said and am saying, but is okay for a black to say this. If I was going to go look for a drugh dealer or someone seling guns or pimps, I would go out looking for a black man becuase most of these places are filled by blacks.

Ditto. The democratic party (US) thrives off these votes.

Hate crime should only be charged if someone is attempting to extort a racial, ethnic or other type group, by means of violence.

So if I kill a black man because he is black, you would have me charged with both of the following;

1. I killed someone.
2. I killed a member of a racial group.

Now, #2 sounds like a completely different crime in the category of murder. So in other words, someone shouldnt be able to be charged with Murder and a hate crime, because they would 'overlap,' to say. By your definitions they do, anyways.

At 8/20/01 07:45 PM, matias wrote:

Hate crime should only be charged if someone is attempting to extort a racial, ethnic or other type group, by means of violence.

So if I kill a black man because he is black, you would have me charged with both of the following;

If you thought "I killed someone becuase he is black" no, If you killed someone becuase he is black that is one charge, then in some way sending a message, such as dragging the dead body chained to your car (happend last year in Alabama) to send a message, that would be another.

Now, #2 sounds like a completely different crime in the category of murder. So in other words, someone shouldnt be able to be charged with Murder and a hate crime, because they would 'overlap,' to say. By your definitions they do, anyways.

It's no diffrent then murder and conspiricy to commit murder. Double jeporady (as I heard someone say earlier) Refers to the same crime being punished twice, these are seperate charges.

Here's why it's different:

You can commit conspiracy to commit murder without murdering anyone.

You can NOT commit (the kind of) hate crimes (we are talking about) without murdering anyone.

At 8/20/01 11:16 PM, matias wrote: Here's why it's different:

You can commit conspiracy to commit murder without murdering anyone.

You can NOT commit (the kind of) hate crimes (we are talking about) without murdering anyone.

Go back and read the posts then. I already stated things such a burning a cross on someone elses property. this provides clear and present danger through violence and sends a message to a racial group.
No one is murderd and it's still what I proposed a hate crime should be.

Please acually read all the posts instead of jumping on the tail end of the debate

Every crime should get its own treatment, and lumping things into categories may mistake it. I agree with AP, there should be some kind of "rules" over crimes commited to send a message. But this should be limited to racial or ethnic groups alone, but also to social groups, clubs, and individuals. If I were a mother, and someone hated me, they might kill my child and leave it on the doorstep to send a message to me.

People are too offended and the media tends to label too many things as hate crimes, when in reality, most crimes are hate crimes. But what if I broke into a store, just because I like the stereo in the window? Could I be charge with a hate crime if the owners were not white?

Dammit, most people living in the US are American. We live in this country. We work here, go to school, have fun, suffer, etc. Fuck all this racial and religious bullshit. It's really starting to piss me off.

At 8/22/01 09:45 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: Every crime should get its own treatment, and lumping things into categories may mistake it. I agree with AP, there should be some kind of "rules" over crimes commited to send a message. But this should be limited to racial or ethnic groups alone, but also to social groups, clubs, and individuals. If I were a mother, and someone hated me, they might kill my child and leave it on the doorstep to send a message to me.

I agree with this compelelty.

People are too offended and the media tends to label too many things as hate crimes, when in reality, most crimes are hate crimes. But what if I broke into a store, just because I like the stereo in the window? Could I be charge with a hate crime if the owners were not white?

There is no message sent. If for example you then defiled the area with racial slurs then it would be.