Quote:
Originally posted by lumberjim
Lsyc seems to think she would be justified in physically harming someone for something they said. ( compelled even)
|
First off, let's get it correct...the question was:
"Is it "fair" that hatespeech isn't punishable by law but taking action against that speech is?"
Where was the "justification" or the "compulsion"?
If it was about assumption or implication, then that's on YOU, not me. I didn't mean myself LITERALLY! Just making myself clear on that. (should have put "assuming and implying something" under the bitch-switch topic) :p
Quote:
|
hateful words suck, but they're just words. lookout is right. say what you want, if noone listens, you're not going to hurt anyone.
|
The whole "sticks and stones" thing, to me (repeat:
TO ME) is a load of crap. Words
DO hurt, and I believe that everyone, and I mean
EVERYONE has a word/phrase that will turn on the "bitch button" no matter how many times you say that words don't hurt...even you Jim. It seems as though you got pretty upset at certain words when you and Sycamore were going toe to toe a while back..You may not get to the boiling point as quick as someone else, but there is that word floating out there...all someone has to do is to find out what it is and speak it. "If no one listens"? Kind of hard to do if that person is shouting the words right in front of your face or within earshot.
My thing is why do *I* have to "not allow" words to hurt ME? Why not get on the other person's case to not speak those types of words because they are rude, disresepctful, etc.? Has society forgotten the days of "if you have nothing good to say don't say it at all?" Obviously so, because
NOW it seems that people would rather get called all kinds of vicious names instead of teaching people the art of couth and "home training".
Oh well...*shrugs*
Thanks to lookout123 for actually answering the question I posed:
"is it fair? absolutely not. and i sure as hell wouldn't be on a jury that convicted you of assault. but ignorant people do have the right to espouse ignorant ideas. the difficulty for me lies in where to draw the line of what is a hateful thought put into the public forum vs one that is directed at an individual.
1) "there are n's in the world and they are what is wrong in america"
ignorant, he should be tarred and feathered, but not sued.
2) "john you are a loathesome N and the reason for problems here"
that is specifically directed at someone and there is room for some sort of repercussion there. i am not a lawyer, so i don't know where libel or slander comes into play.
it is a hard one and i think we will debate it until we just screw until we are all the same color."
Intesting answer. However, I saw both examples of contributing to a possible negative situation (whether that be more verbal mudslinging or actual physical violence...which I am
NOT condoning, but I won't lie...sometimes I think that beating the crap out of someone who has blatently disrepected me would be in short order, and think "boy if it weren't illegal..."). I mean come on: You don't think that at all those weak ass Klan rallies, that the counterprotesters aren't itching to beat the living fuck out of those clowns? Sure, but they don't, but yet they (the Klan) are allowed to continue their hatespeech, and no one says one blasted word about it (because of the First Amendment).
Maybe not punishable in the form of a lawsuit, but damnit, somebody do/say
SOMETHING!
