On Thu, 03 May 2007 06:51:56 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 01:11:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:56:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:57:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:50:00 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:13:15 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".

Inciting to riot.

Hmmmm....

Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes,
encourages, or participates in a riot.

I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed
to breathe our air!

That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or
commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes".

No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech".

They are two seperate concepts.

Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert
a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it
becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech

I understand what you are saying, but they are different.

For instance:

If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers"
and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot.

If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate
speech?

Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get
it".

Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question.

To wit: What constitutes "hate speech".

Let's try something different then.

Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a
comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian
Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by
that comment.

Would that be hate speech?

Define "obscenity"

No changing the subject and answer the question.

Would that be hate speech?

I didn't change the subject. After your many evasive manuvers to avoid the
truth, I thought I would give you another possible way to look at things without
completely losing face.

Unfortunate that you can't seem to define what you claim you know.

Saying that you know it when you see it is not only infantile, it
shows a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

Sad really.

I'm not the one who seems to be having a very hard time understanding this. Go
ahead, tell us what you think "Hate Speech" is. We are all waiting.

It's pretty simple.

I don't believe it exists.

On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:47:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

(hate speech)

It's pretty simple.

I don't believe it exists.

Plug the words hitler streicher speeches into your browser.
Read.
Get back to me.

--Vic

On May 3, 12:26 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:47:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

(hate speech)



It's pretty simple.

I don't believe it exists.

Plug the words hitler streicher speeches into your browser.
Read.
Get back to me.

--Vic

I know I can not debate on the level you all can on this, but Hugly
was on tv last night and he made a comment that I will ponder for a
while. He said, "It's not what someone calls you, it's what you answer
to". Realizing he is a commedian, I still found many of his comments
on Imus and speech, pretty fair. Then he proceeded to say "Imus
shouldn't have called them ho's, they were not ho's, but they were
some nappey headed, ugly girls on that team...". Hugley words, not
mine.

On 3 May 2007 09:34:12 -0700, wrote:

On May 3, 12:26 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:47:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

(hate speech)



It's pretty simple.

I don't believe it exists.

Plug the words hitler streicher speeches into your browser.
Read.
Get back to me.

--Vic

I know I can not debate on the level you all can on this, but Hugly
was on tv last night and he made a comment that I will ponder for a
while. He said, "It's not what someone calls you, it's what you answer
to". Realizing he is a commedian, I still found many of his comments
on Imus and speech, pretty fair. Then he proceeded to say "Imus
shouldn't have called them ho's, they were not ho's, but they were
some nappey headed, ugly girls on that team...". Hugley words, not
mine.

I don't know Hugley, so I can't debate on your level with that, but
that makes sense. Somebody else - Tim? - said he knows it when he
hears it. Imus isn't a hater, just an ahole. Watched his show a lot
before he got canned and what was most amazing about it was how
so many bigshots of all political stripes would come on his show and
kiss his cocaine/alcohol riddled ass. Then he shot off his mouth
against the wrong target. Too bad for him. No sympathy from me,
except his show was sometimes entertaining and I miss it a bit.
Real hate speech has the goal to de-humanize a subset of people.
And if you ain't human you can be shot, hung, gassed, or otherwise
disposed of. The Germans were softened up for years by anti-semitic
propagandists before the exterminations began.
Nazis, white supremicists and black Nation of Islam are
the best known American practitioners, and get short shrift here.
Some European countries have laws against what they term hate
speech - holocaust denial, for example.
We don't need that here, because the 1st Amendment says you can say
what you want. If you get out of hand that same 1st Amendment allows
others with more sense to rip you a new one. If you get people riled
enough they will riot, and then incitement laws can kick in.
Those founding fathers knew their stuff.

--Vic

On May 3, 1:45 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On 3 May 2007 09:34:12 -0700, wrote:





On May 3, 12:26 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:47:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

(hate speech)

It's pretty simple.

I don't believe it exists.

Plug the words hitler streicher speeches into your browser.
Read.
Get back to me.

--Vic

I know I can not debate on the level you all can on this, but Hugly
was on tv last night and he made a comment that I will ponder for a
while. He said, "It's not what someone calls you, it's what you answer
to". Realizing he is a commedian, I still found many of his comments
on Imus and speech, pretty fair. Then he proceeded to say "Imus
shouldn't have called them ho's, they were not ho's, but they were
some nappey headed, ugly girls on that team...". Hugley words, not
mine.

I don't know Hugley, so I can't debate on your level with that, but
that makes sense. Somebody else - Tim? - said he knows it when he
hears it. Imus isn't a hater, just an ahole. Watched his show a lot
before he got canned and what was most amazing about it was how
so many bigshots of all political stripes would come on his show and
kiss his cocaine/alcohol riddled ass. Then he shot off his mouth
against the wrong target. Too bad for him. No sympathy from me,
except his show was sometimes entertaining and I miss it a bit.
Real hate speech has the goal to de-humanize a subset of people.
And if you ain't human you can be shot, hung, gassed, or otherwise
disposed of. The Germans were softened up for years by anti-semitic
propagandists before the exterminations began.
Nazis, white supremicists and black Nation of Islam are
the best known American practitioners, and get short shrift here.
Some European countries have laws against what they term hate
speech - holocaust denial, for example.
We don't need that here, because the 1st Amendment says you can say
what you want. If you get out of hand that same 1st Amendment allows
others with more sense to rip you a new one. If you get people riled
enough they will riot, and then incitement laws can kick in.
Those founding fathers knew their stuff.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, I think it is JJ Hugley, he is a black commedian, young guy,
known on the WB network and commedy variety shows. I think the guy is
hilarious. Anyway, I was the one that said "I know it when I hear it".
I was making a wisecrack based on the observations of a SC justice on
the topic of pornography. I tend to connect things differently than
others, OCD, ADD, I don't know, I seem to connect with them all