Censorship

[ink]

Here is the problem with your point...murder is a crime, cut and dried. Whether the guy is black, white, purple, or green it is a crime and will be punished as such. Is your point that this is worse because the guy was black? If he were white, would it be OK? Of course not, and I know you don't mean that, but if you argue it is worse because he is black, the direct correlation is that you think it is a lesser crime if he was white.

If I am sitting here at my desk hating black people, white people, left-handed people, people with bad breath, people with brown hair, people under 5'8", women, gays, movie actors, the Smurfs, whomever I am not committing a crime. I may be an ignorant douche, but I am not a criminal. If I decide to go out and kill left-handed people, then I am a murderer. I am not worse because I am targeting left-handed people. If I am publically encouraging others to murder left-handed people, then I am committing a crime. If I am just wishing them dead in my head, I am not.

It is patently offensive to a group of people to contend that if a crime were committed against you, it would not be as bad as a crime committed against a person of a different race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc. Can you imagine the uproar if public policy called for stiffer penalties for crimes against staright white males? Yet you are calling for exactly the same thing.

As far as censorship goes, it would be nice if we could make some common sense judgements about what gets into the hands of children, and let adults fend for themselves. Unfortunately common sense just isn't that common.

The flaw with your point is that you've made a bad assumption. The guy wasn't convicted because it was worse to kill a black man. He was convicted for killing a person, any person. My point, and the point of the article, was that the guy committed the crime to earn a "hunting badge" - a tattoo - as if he was shooting an animal. That's dehumanizing and it does make the crime worse.

And BB, you're wrong when you try to isolate these cases in distant time and place. If you listen to so many of the groups that continue to work on holocaust awareness (for example), they constantly make the point that the holocaust should not be forgotten. The same goes for racism. Since most of the free world has taken strong, clear stands on these issues, they continue to punish these kinds of crimes to the full extent of the law. They don't make the false assumption that these issues belong to the past. How can you even say that when 9-11 happened so recently? That was motivated by hate. What about hate crimes against immigrants in the US? Why is this even a debate? Hate-motivated crimes happen all the time. I've read that there are over 800 active hate groups in the USA right now.

To bring the point back around to censorship again ... it's important for parliament or congress or whatever elected body serving the people to demonstrate clearly what is acceptable and what's not. Yes, congress has a place telling you what to think. You elected your congress. The values they espouse have a basis in the history and beliefs of your country. That's why absolute individualism is foolish. Historical and legal precedent is important to a society. We don't need to rediscover a distaste for anti-semitism or racism every time it surfaces. We already know it's wrong. That's when censorship is appropriate.

[Eastside Scott]

The flaw with your point is that you've made a bad assumption. The guy wasn't convicted because it was worse to kill a black man. He was convicted for killing a person, any person. My point, and the point of the article, was that the guy committed the crime to earn a "hunting badge" - a tattoo - as if he was shooting an animal. That's dehumanizing and it does make the crime worse.
And BB, you're wrong when you try to isolate these cases in distant time and place. If you listen to so many of the groups that continue to work on holocaust awareness (for example), they constantly make the point that the holocaust should not be forgotten. The same goes for racism. Since most of the free world has taken strong, clear stands on these issues, they continue to punish these kinds of crimes to the full extent of the law. They don't make the false assumption that these issues belong to the past. How can you even say that when 9-11 happened so recently? That was motivated by hate. What about hate crimes against immigrants in the US? Why is this even a debate? Hate-motivated crimes happen all the time. I've read that there are over 800 active hate groups in the USA right now.

To bring the point back around to censorship again ... it's important for parliament or congress or whatever elected body serving the people to demonstrate clearly what is acceptable and what's not. Yes, congress has a place telling you what to think. You elected your congress. The values they espouse have a basis in the history and beliefs of your country. That's why absolute individualism is foolish. Historical and legal precedent is important to a society. We don't need to rediscover a distaste for anti-semitism or racism every time it surfaces. We already know it's wrong. That's when censorship is appropriate. And that common sense is not uncommon.

I just want to make sure I understand your point. If I as a white male am murdered by a black male because he thinks I was looking at his girlfriend's butt he is less of a criminal than the guy from your example? Am I somehow less dead? Can my family take solace in the fact that he didn't hate white people, he just hated me looking at his girl's booty?

Murder is murder, dead is dead. If someone plans to murder someone and then does it, that is a pretty open and shut case. Does motivation really matter that much? As we have the death penalty and mandatory life sentences in the US, what do you propose we do to the douuchbag trophy hunter? Hang him for the murder and then shoot his dead body for the hate? How about a life sentence with no parole for the murder, and then his corpse has to stay in a cell another 50 years for the hate?

There are crmes of the moment which have to be judged for motivation, state of mind, etc. Things like shooting the guy you catch screwing your wife, a bar fight that gets out of hand, etc. But if someone plans to murder another person, takes the time to decide to do it, and then carries it out, frankly I don't give a crap what the motivation is. There is no greater crime, and there should be the maximum punishment.

Again, I say it is unfair to declare that one persons murder is worse than anothers because thay by default devalues the life (and death) of the person that you do not identify as the victim of a "hate crime". It places greater value on the life of certain people, which is exactly what you seem to be trying to avoid.

[ink]

I just want to make sure I understand your point. If I as a white male am murdered by a black male because he thinks I was looking at his girlfriend's butt he is less of a criminal than the guy from your example? Am I somehow less dead? Can my family take solace in the fact that he didn't hate white people, he just hated me looking at his girl's booty?

Murder is murder, dead is dead. If someone plans to murder someone and then does it, that is a pretty open and shut case. Does motivation really matter that much? As we have the death penalty and mandatory life sentences in the US, what do you propose we do to the douuchbag trophy hunter? Hang him for the murder and then shoot his dead body for the hate? How about a life sentence with no parole for the murder, and then his corpse has to stay in a cell another 50 years for the hate?

There are crmes of the moment which have to be judged for motivation, state of mind, etc. Things like shooting the guy you catch screwing your wife, a bar fight that gets out of hand, etc. But if someone plans to murder another person, takes the time to decide to do it, and then carries it out, frankly I don't give a crap what the motivation is. There is no greater crime, and there should be the maximum punishment.

Again, I say it is unfair to declare that one persons murder is worse than anothers because thay by default devalues the life (and death) of the person that you do not identify as the victim of a "hate crime". It places greater value on the life of certain people, which is exactly what you seem to be trying to avoid.

You're missing the point. Of course a life is a life. But extenuating circumstances are always considered. If your best friend was murdered and the president was murdered, I guarantee the crimes would be treated differently. Some crimes signify more than others. There are times when the legal system (correctly) delivers messages that include strong societal messages. If a person kills in a fit of passion, it's treated differently than if the crime was motivated by open racial hatred. That's just a fact. You don't need anyone to make that clear.

[Eastside Scott]

You're missing the point. Of course a life is a life. But extenuating circumstances are always considered. If your best friend was murdered and the president was murdered, I guarantee the crimes would be treated differently. Some crimes signify more than others. There are times when the legal system (correctly) delivers messages that include strong societal messages. If a person kills in a fit of passion, it's treated differently than if the crime was motivated by open racial hatred. That's just a fact. You don't need anyone to make that clear.

Ah, but you are going to the extreme in comparing President vs. regular Joe. I will make it easier for you.

Scenario #1
-Jim from Gang X (a white gang) is tasked to kill a member of Gang Y (a black gang) he succeeds.
-Joe from Gang Y (black gang) is tasked to kill a member of Gang X (white gang)

Which is worse?

Scenario #2
-Jim kills his next door neighbor who is a gay man. He beats him for three hours and scrawls "I hate you" all over his walls in his own blood.
-Jim kills his next door neighbor who is a straight man. He beats him for three hours and scrawls "I hate you" all over the walls in his own blood.

Which is worse?

Scenario #3
-Jim kills a Hispanic man on the street because he feels he might be the guy who robbed him last week.
Jose (a Hispanic man) kills Joe on the street because he has an overwhelming fear of white people and feels threatened by Jim's mere presence.

Which is worse?

These to me are more reasonable analogies to make. In your view (as I understand it) all three of the first options are "hate crimes" while the second options are not. To me this makes no sense at all. I am not defending douchebags that do douchbag things. I am just saying that we have laws on the books to punish physical assaults, verbal threats, and other crimes. I am not really inthe market for more laws. Especially those that say as a white, straight male my life is less important to protect than someone of another race. You can say that is not what you mean, but by making one crime "more important" you by definition make another crime less important.

[ink]

Ah, but you are going to the extreme in comparing President vs. regular Joe. I will make it easier for you.

Scenario #1
-Jim from Gang X (a white gang) is tasked to kill a member of Gang Y (a black gang) he succeeds.
-Joe from Gang Y (black gang) is tasked to kill a member of Gang X (white gang)

Which is worse?

Scenario #2
-Jim kills his next door neighbor who is a gay man. He beats him for three hours and scrawls "I hate you" all over his walls in his own blood.
-Jim kills his next door neighbor who is a straight man. He beats him for three hours and scrawls "I hate you" all over the walls in his own blood.

Which is worse?

Scenario #3
-Jim kills a Hispanic man on the street because he feels he might be the guy who robbed him last week.
Jose (a Hispanic man) kills Joe on the street because he has an overwhelming fear of white people and feels threatened by Jim's mere presence.

Which is worse?

These to me are more reasonable analogies to make. In your view (as I understand it) all three of the first options are "hate crimes" while the second options are not. To me this makes no sense at all. I am not defending douchebags that do douchbag things. I am just saying that we have laws on the books to punish physical assaults, verbal threats, and other crimes. I am not really inthe market for more laws. Especially those that say as a white, straight male my life is less important to protect than someone of another race. You can say that is not what you mean, but by making one crime "more important" you by definition make another crime less important.

You're the only one who is assigning a value scale to the crimes. I'm saying that different crimes signify different things in a larger social context. If a person is murdered because they are black or gay, there's nothing wrong with sending out a strong message of disapproval about the REASONS that motivated the crime. And the patronizing tone you use just weakens your argument, though you might think it strengthens it. "I will make it easier for you".

The CNN article I posted didn't say anything about a longer sentence being handed out because it was a racially motivated crime. Neither did I. There is no value scale. The examples you gave are all of examples of crimes that deserve equal punishment. But in handing out that punishment it would be entirely correct if the judge and the media were to treat the coverage of the crimes differently.

Bringing it back to censorship, the point is that the message is what's at issue here. A message that contains hate of any kind will be met with an even stronger message of disapproval. It could result in censorship, and if the hate were to promote violence, physical attack or murder, then that censorship would be justified. An internet site that promotes hate deserves to have its right of expression taken away. If that hate site promoted the "hunting tattoo" as a reward for killing black people, it would deserve to be shut down. There's no value to society in promoting hate, especially when it leads to violence against other people.

Or perhaps you think it is alright for the "hunting tattoo" reward to be advertised on a website. Do you?

[Eastside Scott]

You're the only one who is assigning a value scale to the crimes. I'm saying that different crimes signify different things in a larger social context. If a person is murdered because they are black or gay, there's nothing wrong with sending out a strong message of disapproval about the REASONS that motivated the crime. And the patronizing tone you use just weakens your argument, though you might think it strengthens it. "I will make it easier for you".

The CNN article I posted didn't say anything about a longer sentence being handed out because it was a racially motivated crime. Neither did I. There is no value scale. The examples you gave are all of examples of crimes that deserve equal punishment. But in handing out that punishment it would be entirely correct if the judge and the media were to treat the coverage of the crimes differently.

Bringing it back to censorship, the point is that the message is what's at issue here. A message that contains hate of any kind will be met with an even stronger message of disapproval. It could result in censorship, and if the hate were to promote violence, physical attack or murder, then that censorship would be justified. An internet site that promotes hate deserves to have its right of expression taken away. If that hate site promoted the "hunting tattoo" as a reward for killing black people, it would deserve to be shut down. There's no value to society in promoting hate, especially when it leads to violence against other people.

I guess I just don't understand what you are advocating for here. If you feel there should not be longer sentences, or any other value scale, what do you want to see? You say you want to punish certain motivations, but then you say there shouldn't be a value scale. Am I the only one confused?

[blenderboy5]

The flaw with your point is that you've made a bad assumption. The guy wasn't convicted because it was worse to kill a black man. He was convicted for killing a person, any person. My point, and the point of the article, was that the guy committed the crime to earn a "hunting badge" - a tattoo - as if he was shooting an animal. That's dehumanizing and it does make the crime worse.

Yes, and I'm fine with punishing someone for murder.

And BB, you're wrong when you try to isolate these cases in distant time and place. If you listen to so many of the groups that continue to work on holocaust awareness (for example), they constantly make the point that the holocaust should not be forgotten. The same goes for racism. Since most of the free world has taken strong, clear stands on these issues, they continue to punish these kinds of crimes to the full extent of the law. They don't make the false assumption that these issues belong to the past. How can you even say that when 9-11 happened so recently? That was motivated by hate. What about hate crimes against immigrants in the US? Why is this even a debate? Hate-motivated crimes happen all the time. I've read that there are over 800 active hate groups in the USA right now.

I have nothing against punishing murderers to the fullest extent of the law. But what your side (from what you've written anyway) advocates doing is creating a special class of the law. If I kill a white guy, I get life. If I kill a black guy and call him a ******, I get executed. If two black guys get into a fight and one dies, it's 20 years. Same goes for two white guys, two asians, whatever. But you advocate creating different rules.

To bring the point back around to censorship again ... it's important for parliament or congress or whatever elected body serving the people to demonstrate clearly what is acceptable and what's not. Yes, congress has a place telling you what to think. You elected your congress.

That's why, and I mean this with the utmost respect, I think the hate-crime/thought police crowd is wacko. How can you advocate the government telling people what to think?

You do realize how crazy that is, right? That the will of 51% of the people can dictate what the beliefs of 49%. That the government can say "well, we won the election so now we're gonna believe this for the next two years." That's crazy.

The values they espouse have a basis in the history and beliefs of your untry. That's why absolute individualism is foolish. Historical and legal precedent is important to a society. We don't need to rediscover a distaste for anti-semitism or racism every time it surfaces. We already know it's wrong. That's when censorship is appropriate.

No, it isn't appropriate. Censoring is never appropriate. If someone says "eww black people smell and they're stupid," fine. Don't invite them to your house. Don't send them to jail for a thought. And it is just a thought, because most racists/sexists/neo-nazis/kkk members/etc are just functioning people in society who have committed no crimes.

And where do you draw the line? If I'm walking down a dark street at night and I see a hooded suspicious figure walking towards me and I cross the street, and I racist? Even though I didn't give a **** what color skin he has but rather that he's hooded and it's nighttime? Should I be jailed for it?

Nobody's saying that you can make a happy, hate free place. That's not the goal at all. But those that hate can be punished. And they are in most of the world, including the USA.

We punish all criminals. Including those who commit actual, non-thought crimes/

[ink]

I guess I just don't understand what you are advocating for here. If you feel there should not be longer sentences, or any other value scale, what do you want to see? You say you want to punish certain motivations, but then you say there shouldn't be a value scale. Am I the only one confused?

The issue is censorship. What crosses the line? When is censorship OK? BB would say never; I would say when the issue is serious enough to merit it.

BB said that neo-nazi and racist hate is not much of an issue anymore. I posted an article found in today's headlines that showed how a judge had recently handed out a sentence for a racially motivated murder.

We strayed off topic, talking about murder, when the point was about hate and the hate messages that might be found on a website.

So, the question is: what crosses the line?

If a white supremacist website offered a tattoo for the murder of a black man, should that site be censored? It definitely would be in Canada, and I'm glad of that.

[Eastside Scott]

The issue is censorship. What crosses the line? When is censorship OK? BB would say never; I would say when the issue is serious enough to merit it.

BB said that neo-nazi and racist hate is not much of an issue anymore. I posted an article found in today's headlines that showed how a judge had recently handed out a sentence for a racially motivated murder.

We strayed off topic, talking about murder, when the point was about hate and the hate messages that might be found on a website.

So, the question is: what crosses the line?

If a white supremacist website offered a tattoo for the murder of a black man, should that site be censored? It definitely would be in Canada, and I'm glad of that.

OK, I guess I get it. Yes any website that encourages people to perform illegal behaviors should be taken down and the authors prosecuted. Advocating for/aiding in the murder of another is a crime in and of itself.

I again just want to make the point that I feel that it is the same crime whether it is a racist group advocating the murder of black people, or a white guy advocating the murder of another white guy. Or a black guy advocating for the murder of another black guy. You get the point. To me a crime has been committed, the motivation is not my concern.

[Doc Fluty]

south park addressed this in the: Cartmans silly little hate crime episode

in the end... Cartman is cleared

now if we can get the supreme court to watch...

[ink]

I have nothing against punishing murderers to the fullest extent of the law. But what your side (from what you've written anyway) advocates doing is creating a special class of the law. If I kill a white guy, I get life. If I kill a black guy and call him a ******, I get executed. If two black guys get into a fight and one dies, it's 20 years. Same goes for two white guys, two asians, whatever. But you advocate creating different rules.

Not different rules. Remember, we're supposed to be talking about censorship, not punishment for murder. I'm not talking about a special class of law. I'm talking about the importance of society condemning such universally unacceptable things as racially motivated murders. Please tell me that you don't accept racially motivated murder.

That's why, and I mean this with the utmost respect, I think the hate-crime/thought police crowd is wacko. How can you advocate the government telling people what to think?

You do realize that in a lot of successful democracies hate is prosecuted. I gave the example of Ernst Zundel being extradited on the grounds of Canadian hate law, and tried in German court on the grounds of their hate laws. Nothing wacko at all. He's behind bars because he deserves to be behind bars. He's been a very public holocaust denier for a couple of decades. Both Canada and Germany have condemned him for it. What does that demonstrate? That both democracies have taken a clear stand against his brand of hate. It's Ernst Zundel that is wacko, not these two democracies.

And where do you draw the line? If I'm walking down a dark street at night and I see a hooded suspicious figure walking towards me and I cross the street, and I racist? Even though I didn't give a **** what color skin he has but rather that he's hooded and it's nighttime? Should I be jailed for it?

You know that's not a good example. I said about 20 posts ago that you can think whatever you want to think. So your whole "thought crime" parody doesn't work. If you cross the street because you don't like the looks of someone, that's your right. If you start an organization to prevent people "like that" from walking in your neighbourhood, it's not. In other words, if a person is so devoted to their racism that they want to continue with it, fine, as long as it remains their personal belief. But if you make it public and turn it into a website crusading those beliefs, then you are beginning to cross the line. It's a question of degree, not a black and white issue. The more harmful the message, the more deserving of "censorship" it becomes.

[Doc Fluty]

If you cross the street because you don't like the looks of someone, that's your right. If you start an organization to prevent people "like that" from walking in your neighbourhood, it's not

actually yes it is your right to form a group to stop people from walking in your neighborhood... you can march, protest, put up banners.. whatever you like

the problem comes when you try to implement your beliefs by attacking or harrasing people on the street...

then its a battery or false imprisonment charge.. not a hate crime thingy

[blenderboy5]

The issue is censorship. What crosses the line? When is censorship OK? BB would say never; I would say when the issue is serious enough to merit it.

That's not true. I said when something crosses the line from legal to illegal. Like child porn, for instance.

BB said that neo-nazi and racist hate is not much of an issue anymore. I posted an article found in today's headlines that showed how a judge had recently handed out a sentence for a racially motivated murder.

Oh please. To prove your case that neo-nazis are hurting our society today, you enlightened me to the horros of a 20+ year old case. But I don't believe neo-nazis in American are much of a threat to America. In this day and age. And you have yet to prove me wrong.

So, the question is: what crosses the line?

If a white supremacist website offered a tattoo for the murder of a black man, should that site be censored? It definitely would be in Canada, and I'm glad of that.

If that event happened today, and the person was actually murdered, everyone in the case should be treated like colorless people. The only way to move past race is to completely ignore it. That may sound contradictory, but the only way to have a non-racist society is to truly treat everyone equally. That means not treating some deaths as more important than others. That means not giving some people precedence in jobs because of their skin. That means not mentioning that person's skin everytime they achieve a goal.

Not different rules. Remember, we're supposed to be talking about censorship, not punishment for murder. I'm not talking about a special class of law. I'm talking about the importance of society condemning such universally unacceptable things as racially motivated murders. Please tell me that you don't accept racially motivated murder.

I don't accept murderers. I don't give a damn what their motivation is. To me, the life of a black man is equally as important as the life of a white man. And if someone, regardless of color, takes the life of another person, regardless of color, that's wrong. I don't care what the races are.

You do realize that in a lot of successful democracies hate is prosecuted. I gave the example of Ernst Zundel being extradited on the grounds of Canadian hate law, and tried in German court on the grounds of their hate laws. Nothing wacko at all. He's behind bars because he deserves to be behind bars. He's been a very public holocaust denier for a couple of decades. Both Canada and Germany have condemned him for it. What does that demonstrate? That both democracies have taken a clear stand against his brand of hate. It's Ernst Zundel that is wacko, not these two democracies.

Well granted Zundel's nuts. Anyone who denies the Holocaust is crazy. But that's my opinion. In fact, I'd like to see a world where everyone recognized the horrors the Jewish people went through. But the worst things Zundel ever did was flee conscription (the only real crime he committed), distribute packets, and deny the Holocaust. He didn't kill anyone. In fact, the only people who committed crimes were the Jews. Zundel's property was damaged with arson. A pipe bomb partially destroyed his garage. Jewish organizations claimed responsibility. That's terrorism. Now I recognize why the organizations wanted this man dead. But they committed the real crimes. Zundel's worst offenses were fleeing from conscription and having an unpopular thought.

And if you're advocating thought crimes (do tell me, has Canada ever heard of 1984?) I do hope you're on the unpopular side of something. Because you're advocating a policy that would have jailed abolitionists, people marching for women's rights, anti-segregationists, anti-kkk people, anti-terrorist folks, the ALCU (though that I'd be okay with), etc.

You know that's not a good example. I said about 20 posts ago that you can think whatever you want to think. So your whole "thought crime" parody doesn't work.

Yet you would throw me into jail if I denied the Holocaust.

[QUOTEIf you cross the street because you don't like the looks of someone, that's your right. If you start an organization to prevent people "like that" from walking in your neighbourhood, it's not.[/QUOTE]

That's perfectly acceptable. If you start an organization to get rid of people wearing hoods and sunglasses in your neighborhood, that's your right. Have tea parties. Read books. But if you form vigilante groups and begin harrassing people wearing hoods and sunglasses, that's illegal. And not because you're discriminating, but because you're harrassing.

In other words, if a person is so devoted to their racism that they want to continue with it, fine, as long as it remains their personal belief. But if you make it public and turn it into a website crusading those beliefs, then you are beginning to cross the line. It's a question of degree, not a black and white issue. The more harmful the message, the more deserving of "censorship" it becomes.

Unless someone gets hurt or slandered it's not a crime. If someone created a "Kill Blenderboy5" website I'd let them exist. I'd probably beef up my home security. But I'd realize that a vast majority of online threats go nowhere.

actually yes it is your right to form a group to stop people from walking in your neighborhood... you can march, protest, put up banners.. whatever you like

the problem comes when you try to implement your beliefs by attacking or harrasing people on the street...

then its a battery or false imprisonment charge.. not a hate crime thingy

You don't understand this. What is constitutionally a right isn't really your right. Because it makes people cry. And that's not nice. You don't want to be mean, do you?

[ink]

That's not true. I said when something crosses the line from legal to illegal. Like child porn, for instance.



Oh please. To prove your case that neo-nazis are hurting our society today, you enlightened me to the horros of a 20+ year old case. But I don't believe neo-nazis in American are much of a threat to America. In this day and age. And you have yet to prove me wrong.



If that event happened today, and the person was actually murdered, everyone in the case should be treated like colorless people. The only way to move past race is to completely ignore it. That may sound contradictory, but the only way to have a non-racist society is to truly treat everyone equally. That means not treating some deaths as more important than others. That means not giving some people precedence in jobs because of their skin. That means not mentioning that person's skin everytime they achieve a goal.



I don't accept murderers. I don't give a damn what their motivation is. To me, the life of a black man is equally as important as the life of a white man. And if someone, regardless of color, takes the life of another person, regardless of color, that's wrong. I don't care what the races are.



Well granted Zundel's nuts. Anyone who denies the Holocaust is crazy. But that's my opinion. In fact, I'd like to see a world where everyone recognized the horrors the Jewish people went through. But the worst things Zundel ever did was flee conscription (the only real crime he committed), distribute packets, and deny the Holocaust. He didn't kill anyone. In fact, the only people who committed crimes were the Jews. Zundel's property was damaged with arson. A pipe bomb partially destroyed his garage. Jewish organizations claimed responsibility. That's terrorism. Now I recognize why the organizations wanted this man dead. But they committed the real crimes. Zundel's worst offenses were fleeing from conscription and having an unpopular thought.

And if you're advocating thought crimes (do tell me, has Canada ever heard of 1984?) I do hope you're on the unpopular side of something. Because you're advocating a policy that would have jailed abolitionists, people marching for women's rights, anti-segregationists, anti-kkk people, anti-terrorist folks, the ALCU (though that I'd be okay with), etc.



Yet you would throw me into jail if I denied the Holocaust.

[QUOTEIf you cross the street because you don't like the looks of someone, that's your right. If you start an organization to prevent people "like that" from walking in your neighbourhood, it's not.

That's perfectly acceptable. If you start an organization to get rid of people wearing hoods and sunglasses in your neighborhood, that's your right. Have tea parties. Read books. But if you form vigilante groups and begin harrassing people wearing hoods and sunglasses, that's illegal. And not because you're discriminating, but because you're harrassing.



Unless someone gets hurt or slandered it's not a crime. If someone created a "Kill Blenderboy5" website I'd let them exist. I'd probably beef up my home security. But I'd realize that a vast majority of online threats go nowhere.



You don't understand this. What is constitutionally a right isn't really your right. Because it makes people cry. And that's not nice. You don't want to be mean, do you?

A lot of that is pretty silly BB. A lot of distortions of what I said. I'm not going to restate the same things only to have you do your distortion number again. I've given solid reasons and examples and you ignore them so I'll return the favour for the parody answers you continue to give.

[blenderboy5]

Way to dismiss numerous detalied responsed though