RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER

RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thishereboi -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/21/2013 7:05:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Oh and yea, there was probably a lot of hate speech before 9-11. But that really doesn't have anything to do with calling a murder a hate crime based on the victim and tacking more time on the sentence. Yes, the hate speech motivates the crime, but no, "it doesn't have anything to do" with the crime??? Has any one ever encountered a more moronic claim or stupider argument? [8\|] Ok, I am going to try typing slowly, maybe that will help. 9-11 was a terrorist attack. They were charge with terrorism. Matthew Shepard was a murder. And while the end result was a death, they are not the same. Bringing up 9-11 and hate speeches has nothing to do with what I was discussing. And I am sure anyone who has tried to talk to you has, why?

thompsonx -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/22/2013 9:50:12 AM)
Ok, I am going to try typing slowly, maybe that will help.[/quote] If the same moronic shit appears on the page then it wont help.

Marc2b -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/22/2013 11:38:26 AM)
There is no contradiction. The difference lies whether the speech in question calls for violence against others. When Fred Phelp's demented clan screams that "God hates fags!" that can be regarded as hate speech but absent any appeal to commit violence it falls under "free speech." The rest of us may find it contemptible but our only remedy is our own speech. Some might counter that God is more compassionate and loving than Freddy would have us believe. Others, myself included might counter that Freddy's god doesn't even exist. If Fredo and his demented clan go further than merely expressing their distaste of homosexuals and actually started screaming "kill fags!" then that would not be protected speech. Like wise, if some people protesting Freddy boy called for violence against him, then they too should be held accountable. So, in summary: Calls for violence - not protected. All other speech - protected.

Politesub53 -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/22/2013 12:00:00 PM)
So what am I suggesting that is any different then Marc ? Are you really suggesting calling someone a dirty <insert name> doesnt encourage violence ? The point is if you dont have a tough response it becomes acceptable, then violent attacks are not too far behind. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Marc2b -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/23/2013 1:06:05 PM)
Opps! Gramp's Super Secret Chili Recipe is hereby redacted (lesson learned: always pay attention when you cut and paste). Here's my actual response: quote: So what am I suggesting that is any different then Marc ? Are you really suggesting calling someone a dirty <insert name> doesnt encourage violence ? It might. Or it might not. It depends upon the individual which means an insult might only encourage contempt (and not necessarily at the intended target of the insulter but perhaps at the insulter himself). It might also mean that what was taken for an insult was not meant as an insult at all. Or perhaps the “insulter” doesn’t realize that what they are saying is insulting. It is too much of a gray area wide open for interpetation. Inside that gray area is too much space for the unscrupulous to use against those perceived as politically/socially unacceptable. quote: The point is if you dont have a tough response it becomes acceptable, then violent attacks are not too far behind. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. The slippery slope argument can be used to justify almost anything.

FirmhandKY -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/23/2013 3:11:37 PM)
Once you get into punishing anything except actions, it's an infringement on "free speech" and an exercise in thought control. There are certain situations with certain highly flammable words or phrases which almost "automatically" invoke violence or lead to danger to life in certain situations, and those are the historical exceptions to US free speech rights. Everything else - including so called hate crimes - are expansions past those above situations and therefore are further restrictions on the historical free speech rights of US citizens. Some feel that such extensions of the curtailment of free speech are valuable, needed and just. Others believe that such further extensions are an infringement and an unnecessary reduction of our free speech rights. It just comes down to how much you value free speech, and free thought. Firm

Politesub53 -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/23/2013 5:18:18 PM)
The fact some of some consider it okay to verbally abuse specific groups, which leads first to discrimination and then to violence staggers me. As does the fact some are splitting hairs over hate speech and hate speech not inciting violence. There is a very clear link.

Page: << < prev 9 10 11 12 [13]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125