Yes, and I'm fine with punishing someone for murder.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
We punish all criminals. Including those who commit actual, non-thought crimes/
Originally Posted by ink
"Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"
RIP Jesse Helms