Should hateful speech be illegal?

[Gromdor]

Just now, CrimsonKing said:

That's why i try not to get into "heated" arguments here on UM...90% of EVERYTHING is vague lol

Well, if it was cut and dry, it wouldn't be worth talking about.

[CrimsonKing]

Just now, Gromdor said:

Well, if it was cut and dry, it wouldn't be worth talking about.

I agree,but "speculation" is why 90% of  heated arguments get threads closed around here 

[CrimsonKing]

1 minute ago, Kismit said:

I'm not saying he should be charged with hate speech or assault.  I am just interested in what charges people think he should have been given.

If he didn't inflict physical harm on her but continued verbally assaulting and intimidation...30 days house arrest and a fine barring no past history of harrassment.

[Kismit]

22 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

If he didn't inflict physical harm on her but continued verbally assaulting and intimidation...30 days house arrest and a fine barring no past history of harrassment.

You are confusing the sentence with the charge. What charges should he have faced?

[CrimsonKing]

Just leave it at this,if this guy doesn't have a violent history of ignorance now...what does everyone think sending him to PRISON for 3-5 years on a HATE CRIME will lead him too...

"Department of corrections" doesn't really fit our prison systems success rate...

[CrimsonKing]

3 minutes ago, Kismit said:

You are confusing the sentence with the charge. What charges should he have faced?

No i'm not...

I already stated several times,it depends on how far he went...and his history.

Assault...Menacing...ect...

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by CrimsonKing

[Kismit]

27 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

I agree,but "speculation" is why 90% of  heated arguments get threads closed around here 

Not really.  The threads tend to get closed due to ad-homs and persistent political grandstanding or attacks. There is a lot of work involved in running a site like this one.  And the political section takes a disproportionate amount of time to run for a site with the main objective of mysterious phenomenon. So a thread will be shut if it requires too much moderator time.

[CrimsonKing]

Just now, Kismit said:

Not really.  The threads tend to get closed due to ad-homs and persistent political grandstanding or attacks. There is a lot of work involved in running a site like this one.  And the political section takes a disproportionate amount of time to run for a site with the main objective of mysterious phenomenon. So a thread will be shut if it requires too much moderator time.

And most of those ad-homs and persistent political grandstanding or attacks come from personal stances and opinions and not facts...

I was a mod several years back on a different site,luckily not here as half the people from the Unexplained-politics would be banned  

[Kismit]

2 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

No i'm not...

I already stated several times,it depends on how far he went...and his history.

Assault...Menacing...ect...

 

I'm not trying to offend you or argue with you.  I am measly pointing out that this

31 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

If he didn't inflict physical harm on her but continued verbally assaulting and intimidation...30 days house arrest and a fine barring no past history of harrassment.

Is a sentence. Ie: the length of time and type of punishment a person receives.  A charge is a  different thing. It is the legal definition of the act itself. 

I am not fully familiar with the laws in America and was genuinely interested in hearing opinions. 

[CrimsonKing]

Just now, Kismit said:

I'm not trying to offend you or argue with you.  I am measly pointing out that this

Is a sentence. Ie: the length of time and type of punishment a person receives.  A charge is a  different thing. It is the legal definition of the act itself. 

I am not fully familiar with the laws in America and was genuinely interested in hearing opinions. 

I gotcha...

But "Assault,assault and battery,menacing,ect" are Charges...

Correct a sentence is the punishment/length of time 

As i've said,it all depends on how far he went for the correct "charges"

[Kismit]

1 minute ago, CrimsonKing said:

And most of those ad-homs and persistent political grandstanding or attacks come from personal stances and opinions and not facts...

I was a mod several years back on a different site,luckily not here as half the people from the Unexplained-politics would be banned  

There are a few on slippery ground, but everyone is allowed thier points of view.  Moderating is hard and generally quite thankless. 

Damned if you do and Damned if you don't in many cases.

You definitely need broad shoulders,  especially in todays political climate. Where simply disagreeing can make you the enemy.

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, Kismit said:

I have seen this video.  The young lady had hired the area for a picnic.  And was followed and abused for a lengthy amount of time.  Her only crime was to wear a t-shirt with the Puerto Rican flag on it. I think we can all agree the man was ignorant, abusive, persistent, under the influence of alcohol and unpredictable, which is quite intimidating. 

What charges do you think would have been more suitable?

As long as he didn’t actually hit her, or even touch her, spending the night in a cell till he sobered up should do it. 

[preacherman76]

44 minutes ago, Kismit said:

 

I am not fully familiar with the laws in America and was genuinely interested in hearing opinions. 

This is an interesting one for sure. Wouldn’t be surprised to see this end up in a higher then original court, assuming he has the money to take it that far.

Heck this could end up in the Supreme Court as a major free speech case. 

[preacherman76]

43 minutes ago, Kismit said:

 Moderating is hard and generally quite thankless. 

 

Thank You Kismit.

[Kismit]

8 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

As long as he didn’t actually hit her, or even touch her, spending the night in a cell till he sobered up should do it. 

What if he has a history of this? Also the fact that the woman had paid money to enjoy the area and had a right to do that without molestation of person or personal space. 

I don't see this becoming a major case for free speech as the man in question was at the time infringing on the free speech rights of a woman on what was at that time her private (because she paid to use it) area. Again I am not familiar with American law but in my experience the purpose of law is to be judged and balanced.

[preacherman76]

Is this the same place those people torchered that handy cap kid and filmed it live on Facebook? They were out in just a few months, and they did FAR worse then what this guy did. 

[preacherman76]

2 minutes ago, Kismit said:

What if he has a history of this? Also the fact that the woman had paid money to enjoy the area and had a right to do that without molestation of person or personal space. 

I don't see this becoming a major case for free speech as the man in question was at the time infringing on the free speech rights of a woman on what was at that time her private (because she paid to use it) area. Again I am not familiar with American law but in my experience the purpose of law is to be judged and balanced.

Oh no doubt this women had to deal with a real jerk who ruined her party. If he would have just been charged with harassment, it would be cut and dry.

The only reason I think it’s possible this could end up going to higher courts is because of what they charged him with. A hate crime is obviously a very big deal. It, to me, is a way over reach of power. 

[Kismit]

1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

Is this the same place those people torchered that handy cap kid and filmed it live on Facebook? They were out in just a few months, and they did FAR worse then what this guy did. 

I don't know if it is the same place. What those young people did was disgusting and deserved jail time punishment.  With the view that they are young and entitled to and capable of rehabilitation.

I don't think this man deserves a big jail sentence. At least not based on what I have seen, but then we can not confuse charges with sentencing. This charge may not even stick.

I do believe this man is deserving of rehabilitation too, but for alcohol. It is quite clear he is not in control of himself after a few(mid day) drinks. 

[preacherman76]

He should also have to pay this women for the money she spent to reserve the place 

[Kismit]

Just now, preacherman76 said:

He should also have to pay this women for the money she spent to reserve the place 

He certainly should. 

[+and-then]

34 minutes ago, Kismit said:

What if he has a history of this? Also the fact that the woman had paid money to enjoy the area and had a right to do that without molestation of person or personal space. 

I don't see this becoming a major case for free speech as the man in question was at the time infringing on the free speech rights of a woman on what was at that time her private (because she paid to use it) area. Again I am not familiar with American law but in my experience the purpose of law is to be judged and balanced.

He was clearly guilty of assault.

DefinitionThe definition of assault varies by [wex:jurisdiction], but generally falls into one of these categories:1. [wex:intent|Intentionally] putting another person in [wex:reasonable] apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

He did not touch her or verbally threaten harm to her.  It was his presence, words and physical proximity to her that constituted the perceived threat.  Charging him with assault and disorderly conduct is appropriate.  Charging him with a felony for stating his opinion, no matter how ignorant it was, is a step down the road to thought-crimes.

[Farmer77]

8 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

Didn't we used to agree on government overreach...

I don't see punishing people for making society worse as overreach. 

8 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

I mean seriously,in todays world a person can be accused of ANYTHING and arrested and booked in turn costing said person hundreds to thousands in bail,court fees,ect. and eventually proven completely innocent...yet all those "fees" can never be returned...

 I would definitely say that this kind of law should only be used when there is definitive evidence, as in this case.

Man our system is broken but its what we have. The alternative is a descent into chaos. The constitution and hell our entire nation was predicated on human decency and individual responsibility being the standard which each citizen strove to live up to. The fact is our society is devolving quite rapidly in front of our eyes, as evidenced by our current POTUS, human decency and individual responsibility are no longer the self imposed restraints they used to be. 

Without those self imposed restraints and without any legal restraints the kind of incidents which we see here, and have increasingly seen across the nation, will eventually become violent on a large scale. What's scary is the proper end of that sentence is - rightfully so. 

 

[CrimsonKing]

15 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I don't see punishing people for making society worse as overreach. 

 I would definitely say that this kind of law should only be used when there is definitive evidence, as in this case.

Man our system is broken but its what we have. The alternative is a descent into chaos. The constitution and hell our entire nation was predicated on human decency and individual responsibility being the standard which each citizen strove to live up to. The fact is our society is devolving quite rapidly in front of our eyes, as evidenced by our current POTUS, human decency and individual responsibility are no longer the self imposed restraints they used to be. 

Without those self imposed restraints and without any legal restraints the kind of incidents which we see here, and have increasingly seen across the nation, will eventually become violent on a large scale. What's scary is the proper end of that sentence is - rightfully so. 

 

I dunno dude...

We have threads on Trumps "tyranny" and threads gone by on "prison for profit"...and yet here we are talking 3-5 years in PRISON for a guy being an ignorant big mouth 

"Punishing people for making society worse"...let me ask you this,if you think this guy was a ignorant piece of crap before,what do you think he will be like after 3-5 years at CRIME UNIVERSITY?

I'll say it again,"Department of Corrections" isn't a very fitting term...

[Paranormal Panther]

2 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

I dunno dude...

We have threads on Trumps "tyranny" and threads gone by on "prison for profit"...and yet here we are talking 3-5 years in PRISON for a guy being an ignorant big mouth 

"Punishing people for making society worse"...let me ask you this,if you think this guy was a ignorant piece of crap before,what do you think he will be like after 3-5 years at CRIME UNIVERSITY?

I'll say it again,"Department of Corrections" isn't a very fitting term...

We have too many caged Americans as it is. We lead the whole world in the total number of "caged people". We lead in the per capita statistic too. I propose a new law in which it would be impossible to incarcerate any American, for almost any crime, for a longer time than any creep or freak who is sentenced to prison for harming a child. 

[Michelle]

4 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

We lead the whole world in the total number of "caged people". We lead in the per capita statistic too

We've got so many potheads and other nonviolent offenders in prison, a violent felon on probation, who actually tries to shoot and kill another person again only gets a few months. What happened to getting tough on gun crime? No, that would make too much sense. Let's make a drunk idiot, spouting off his mouth a hate crime so he can spend more time in jail than a killer or child molester.