Free speech for... everyone?

[Ivory11]

So this discussion is about Free Speech, and the fact that some groups are not allowed free speech while other groups are given such a level of free speech that they can spout hatred and calls for ethnic cleansing and mass-genocide and not even be fined.

for these two cases, I will be using these two groups.
One, a group that has been visciously denied free speech - the MRAs or "Mens Rights Activists"

Two: Groups like "Sharia4Britan" and other Islamist groups.
(Note to the mods, thank you for removing the last thread I mentioned those groups in, I had no intention of that thread turning into some left-right political wing pissing contest.)

First the MRAs, a group I have kept an eye on for some time.
I have seen many videos and articles on this issue and, well, Feminists paint MRAs as some kind of "Rapists incorporated" an organization of wife beaters and rapists who want women chained with one leg in front of the stove and the other to the bed, and who want to shackle women into servitude. However I have spoken to many MRAs, seen seminars by Mens Rights Activists on youtube and read articles and I have found MRAs to be far more concerned with women's rights than feminists are with men's rights, I have seen them condemn openly and privately the men that those feminists claim them to be and I have seen feminist reactions to an MRA even breathing, I have seen feminists blatantly attack MRAs in public and seen in feminist-friendly programs, those programs spouting that same hate without any evidence to support it.

Below is a scene from outside an MRA meeting in Toronto Canada where feminists attacked an MRA seminar and had to be held at bay by police, the seminar however had to be called off after screaming feminists with megaphones broke in through the rear entrance and pulled the fire alarm.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0[/video]

So my question is... why are MRAs shunned and attacked brutally by feminists at every turn when MRAs only want to address real issues plaguing men? like the fact 93% of workplace deaths are men, the fact that 80% of suicides are men, the fact that 95% of those incarcerated both rightfully and wrongfully are men, and of course the fact that the extremely favorable nature of our modern schooling system for women has left young boys and men to be shunned for being boys, be punished for playing a bit rough and the such which comes naturally to boys and be punished for being competitive which comes naturally to young men.

All the while, MRAs only seem to be calling for equality in all areas, including areas that Femininst do not wish to acknowlege, like lower qualifying scores for female athletes, lower fitness test standards for women in the military, Affirmative action, the court system, the FAMILY court system (that's not even a gauntlet for men, it's just a wall of spikes and pain) you know, equality in the areas that women have benefited from being given special treatment and not being equal to men.
____________________________________________________________

the second, are groups that have so much freedom of speech that they can openly call for people's deaths, and the only ones punished will be those who disapprove of their message.

Now I know this is a sensitive subject, and I know this is a powder keg, a MASSIVE powder keg, but like all powder kegs in the middle of a ballroom, it must be addressed.

And before people start crapping on like last time I bought this up on my "Patronizing muslims" thread, please note that if it gets out of hand again, i'll just call in a mod and ask them to close this thread.

So, my prime examples are Arabic Imams, who speak from Saudi Arabia, north africa and the middle east, the homelands of Islam and who openly preach hate and yet it's not reigned in by the international community at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t6zy0eEfFs

and my other example, is the very blatant and open anti-semitism that is overwhelming in muslim society, even in Europe

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r192lTdusQ[/video]

________________________________________________________

Now back to my point, why are these groups treated this way? why is it that a hateful, racist, sexist pig with genocidal aspirations is given complete and total free reign without criticism so long as he or she does it under the banner of Islam?

and why is a group that dedicates itself to gender equality but not the feminist's idea of "gender equality" so harshly and unfairly attacked and dismissed without even been given a chance to speak?


PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ISN'T SOME PISSING CONTEST, I WANT SOME ACTUAL DEBATE IN HERE USING FACTS, EVIDENCE AND CIVILIZED OPINIONS!![/color][/size]

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

This topic presents a very interesting question. It is a sort of discrimination that has developed in perceived attempts at resolving past acts of discrimination. I know that this sounds a bit odd. But there really are legal responses to certain types of discrimination that allow for full blown discrimination in the opposite direction, to correct "historical instances of discrimination". To be honest, this is one of the most asinine aspects of the law to me. (It occurs in most western nations, but I can speak to the specifics of the American Judicial System).

Here, whenever these groups wish to bring forth a sort of discrimination issue (even when dealing with matters of free speech and equal representation), the first legal avenue they turn to is the Equal Protection Clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment. That little part of the Constitution is supposed to prevent discriminatory application of the law. Yet, in cases of racial discrimination, discrimination against religion, and gender discrimination, they openly allowed a second type of discrimination, what is colloquially referred to as "affirmative action" to occur. The actual legal term for it is cringe worthy―"De Jure Discrimination".

Its literal meaning is discrimination or segregation of groups by a legal action. However, in certain cases of "egregious past discrimination", the Supreme Court has allowed for certain amounts of "De Jure discrimination" to rectify the past instances thereof. Of course, this begs the question of how using new forms of opposite discrimination can rectify past forms of discrimination. I suppose it's possible, and I'm sure these programs have helped some. I just wish there was another, more positive way to achieve this.

So, what I think has happened, is that groups which suffered past forms of discrimination, such as the feminist groups you point to in this fine question, feel flushed with a sense of power. Whether or not the Supreme Court opinions in the past stand now, these groups remember that the trend of those in power stands in favor with their position. Also, like any other politicized organization, irrespective of political position or standing, they wish to maintain their power, and seek to demonize groups holding opposite views of their own.

The tragic thing is, some of these "masculist" groups, as many Mens' rights groups refer to themselves as, bring up some very startling, and realistic concerns. Such as the workplace death statistic you mentioned. Another good example is violence against men, or unfair treatment in custody/adoption/child support cases. I believe some of these issues will come to be addressed in time, as the pendulum swings in the other direction.

It seems to be the flow of political movements, the pendulum constantly swings, and at one point, it swings too far in one direction; at another, it swings too far in the opposite direction in an attempt to correct itself. So, a lot of what you're seeing, in the case of both the feminist groups mentioned, and the Islamic fundamentalist groups, relates to the position of the proverbial pendulum.

Now, in regards to the Islamic groups, some of the dichotomy of treatment seems to stem from a more bizarre place, bordering on pure hypocrisy on the part of some of the human-rights groups involved. It seems that these human-rights, or even self-proclaimed "open minded" groups, as you mentioned, have a unique ability to ignore some of the atrocious conditions that these extreme Islamic organizations or individuals call for. The term "political correctness" comes to mind here, but I find it far too charged to be of any use in trying to uproot this problem.

Again, I think it has more to do with the fact that "western society"―for lack of a better term―has found herself in a bit of an identity crisis with the end of the Cold War. During that time, many of the Middle Eastern nations were supported by the Soviet Union. Consequently, in that extremely two-dimensional era, with two supposedly diametrically opposed super-powers, many in the west came to regard the people from those regions in general as somewhat less than civil. (And I mean through a mental caricature, more so than some of the acts perpetrated by the members of that group.)

Couple with this some of the ill feelings left over from the Second World War, and the attempts to carve up the Middle East by Western Powers at the time of peace, and some mutual hatreds did develop. However, unlike the "West", the Middle East never seemed to have the sort of "Counter Cultural" revolution that swept over Canada, The United States, Britain, etc.

Rather, you have a group whose leaders doubled down on oppression, who view any signs of relent as a form of weakness, spot an opportunity to expand their power and run with it. The west continues to reel in horror at some of the things it has done in the past, and in an attempt to redress some of these past wrongs (both real and perceived), they are willing to go so far as to ignore some of the brutal things these groups are calling for.

Does this make it any more right? I don't think so. I fear that in attempting to rectify the problems of the past, we have gone too far in the other direction, thereby creating newer problems. The situation in itself creates a vicious cycle which continually refuels itself, and builds tension until something will explode. I think one way we can put it, when it comes to "offending any one" in the modern era, we've become a bit stagnant, like the Victorians were about sex.

I mean, you see signs of a desire to speak our minds freely, without these interventions, all over the Internet, and even in avatars on this forum. I think what we are witnessing here, is a counter revolution to the results of the former counter revolution. It's different, to be sure, but it exists because of the problems you brought to light in this question.

I'm sure I have missed some other causes behind it, and I hope I have not compacted it too much into a two-dimensional argument, but I do believe that this may be part of the root cause of the phenomenon your brought up here.

 

[Ivory11]

-applause- this site seriously needs a "Like" system just so I could use it on your comment

I guess luckily, in regards to these things, in the research I have been doing, I have found that MRAs and other "Equality with responsibility for BOTh genders" groups have very little in-fighting and seem to be growing quite rapidly, while politicians and feminists call these people "Dinosaurs of a long dead era" they all show all the signs of a growing movement that is quietly building momentum, in the same way that launching a rock at a flexible tree will launch the rock back at you harder, the harsh, brutal methods of many prominent feminists are making more and more young women refuse the label "feminist" and have made opposing groups stronger, in the University of Toronto there is a student group that has allied itself with a formally disbanded MRA group to oppose the feminists (I shit you not, the MRA group was banned because the university said that ANY gender rights groups must only focus on women's issues alone)

and with the muslim fundamentalists although the media harshly and feverently disowns groups like the EDL and the such as "Violent racist thugs" the statistics show that there are more attacks against the EDL than attacks on Muslims, and groups like the EDL have members not just from the white male demographic, but also from the Indian, Chinese and other such minority groups, and is largely made up of the families of raped girls and assaulted boys.

In short, all these opposing groups are in fact growing, some faster than others, they all show the signs of a counter-revolution, the last revolution took liberalism and left-wing ideals, made them mainstream, then took it even further and made them dogmatic, shutting out any opposing viewpoints in much the same way those left-wing views were shunned and attacked when they first got going.

I just hope the pendulum will swing back before it's too late, and with the age of information we live in, It should be easier for the pendulum to finish swinging right in the middle, where we can all be open minded, tolerant and accepting, but maintain a backbone and kick the asses of those who want to screw us over and sew seeds of dissent within our own society.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Yes, It would be nice if we could find a way to make the pendulum stop in the central position. There's far too much bickering on both sides of the aisle. Many Americans are locked into the notion that the polarization is something that seems to be limited to their country. But, looking at the developments on the global sphere, I think there's a drastic polarization that's occurring world-wide. I mean, look at some of the disruptions occurring not only in France, but also Germany, and even Great Britain, the coalitions formed in their Parliamentary systems seem to be torn between extremes. I suppose each generation in history faces a time like this. But, in all honesty, as a rabid student of history, I don't think we've seen such divisiveness since the 1930's. That, in and of itself, is enough to cause some alarm.

But, as the point of this topic goes to. We're struggling to find solutions, and it seems more than ever, that political officials, no matter what political position they hold, push aside the interest of a greater "National" good (And I don't mean this in the sense of a national collective, by any-means, rather, I'm focusing a bit on opportunities of choice for every individual within a society), in favor of self-interested political gains. In a sense, it doesn't matter what sort of a governmental system is in place, those who hold the reins of power, seem to be propping themselves up as some sort of separate, ruling elite. What's tragic about this, is not even something that should touch political ideology. If the entire notion behind government, is to provide a social contract for the people, where the people―via some initiative on their own accord―are able to flourish, then when politicians refuse to negotiate, instead of barking meaningless platitudes from the bully pulpit, they stand in breach of the social contract.

So, that, in turn, ties into the original observation of this post. It would seem that the dogma of certain groups has established enough power to keep certain politicians in their pockets. It's to the point where in my home state, Texas―we really do have odd politics here, and we're not as one dimensional, politically, as some might believe―that the candidates running for governor are flinging base personal insults at each other...about who has lived the most difficult life. I mean, on the right-wing side you have Attorney General Greg Abbott running for office. Politics aside, Abbott proved himself a fantastic private attorney, before entering the realm of politics. During his second year of law school, a heavy oak tree fell on him paralyzing his legs. Ever since he's been in a wheelchair.

The fact that he needs a wheelchair shouldn't matter a damn bit in the political arena, yet some of these groups you speak of (including one of the women's rights activists groups who threw their support behind Wendy Davis, for engaging in that filibusterer against the rather odd Texas abortion laws) have come out demanding that Abbott prove he actually needs to use his wheelchair. To her credit, Wendy Davis distanced herself from such conduct, but it sickens me to see these politicians run around trying to out maneuver one another in a race to the bottom. Decorum and decency have gone out the window, but the question remains why?

Is that we have allowed politics to become so polarized that the marketplace of ideas is shunned to such an extent that it no longer has a place in civil discourse and debate? I've often been described as being so far to the right I'm to the left. A radical minarchist if ever one walked the face of the planet, yet I'm realistic enough to realize that a singularity in making decisions, no matter where on the political spectrum one stands, is a horrible idea for the people. It drowns out debate, and, let's face it, some of the greatest governmental creations have come out of disagreement. The United States Constitution is a prime example. The Magna Charta in Great Britain is another example. Hell, the French Republic (I forget what number they're in now), was born from a multitude of debate, even breaking down into violence, when one thinks of the revolutionary terror of 1792.

But with each successive change in generational power, it seems that at some point, one side attempts to shut out the other, and we spiral back down to a chaotic pile of embers lacking any sensible measure of value. This brings me to an important thought, with regard to the spiritual meaning (not religious, but meaning the purest essence) of free speech. It's designed to force those in positions of power to separate themselves enough from their own self-conscious, or political dogma, to witness those things that work, and those things that do not. And, the way things stand now, there definitely seems to be a lack of national reflection by leaders.

Indeed, it rolls out nicely to another thing that worries me, the mens' rights group you mentioned in the opening of this post were attempting to have a speech at the University of Toronto. If ever there is a place that should support free speech it's a University. Yet, as I recall from my own time in University, (I was the radical libertarian whose best friend was a self-proclaimed Marxist...yeah, let's just say I'm very open minded), the victors of the counter culture revolution, became complacent. Many of the professors have allowed their subconscious to fall asleep. They still think things are like they were in 1969. Never even realizing that it was their side that won, at least for the most part, the "revolution". I remember placing a challenge to my Professor friend―"Terry (since he insisted we refer to him by his first name), if things are still as they were in 1969, then why is it that you have open protests to the way the government is handled (This was 2004, mind you, so Iraq was gearing up to the debacle that it wound up being), are openly allowed, with no need to concern ourselves with violence?

His response was "certain gains have been made over the years." But, I knew he missed the most crucial point, "Why is there not a group from the other side protesting on campus? They're gathered off campus." The answer, was that members of this group had received anonymous threats. It was a point of realization that made me understand that the system they protested against didn't really change, it just changed hands. What good is that? I firmly believe open discourse, and an exchange of ideas makes everyone better, but, some can't seem to divorce themselves enough from their own views, to let go of the past, and to step into the future.

So, as I think we have both pointed to here, the future will trample upon them, if they aren't careful. Because any time a group is truly oppressed, tensions boil over, and we're left with one hell of a mess. I suppose a good comparison to my point can be found in reference to the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39. The Republic of Spain was a huge coalition of differing views. You had traditionalist Basques, seeking autonomy; you had the Anarchists in Valencia, and the communists split into two factions: (1) The POUM which didn't share allegiance with Joseph Stalin; and, (2) The regular communist faction which sought direction from Moscow.

During the early stages of the war, after the reactionary armies of Francisco Franco (who really wasn't fascist. Rather, he was an opportunist, conservative monarchist...who decided he like power too much to let it go), when these factions tolerated each other, they managed to hold back the Nationalists for quite some time. However, the sort of divisions we see now, with groups, developed inside the Republic, and they tore themselves apart. The anarchists and the basques suffered the worst at the hands of the changing government from within. Once civil debate was closed, and hatred ruled the day, the forces turned on each other, and Franco crushed them.

But, on the Nationalist side you had a similar function happen. You had another Hodgepodge of factions, many whom were diametrically opposed to the system that developed, coming together. The Falange were the typical fascists modeling themselves more off of Mussolini than Hitler. Ceda, which was a sort of traditionalist Catholic Right, made up of mostly middle class citizens, who didn't want the return of the monarchy...to the extreme Monarchists of the Carlists, who, like the Basques wanted to be wholly separate from Spain. Franco did something bizarre, he compiled all of these groups under a Falange of his own making, that disillusioned many of the Falange members within the Nationalist faction; denied Carlist independence, and told Ceda that they must disband and join this new group. Yet, because the military backed him in such a staunch position, they all complied, and so they all claimed victory at the end, albeit a very hollow one.

But what this goes to show is, no one gets a truly meaningful resolution when the ability to engage in open discourse is quashed. And, in some of the ways that groups are silenced, I'm seeing reflections from the Spanish Civil War. We're breaking down into factions like that, and all because our leaders won't listen. I think, that aspect of it could make this change different too. I don't think it will come to an armed conflict like the Spanish Civil War, but I do fear things will get much uglier, before they get any better.

 

[Ivory11]

Well with the "who's the biggest downtrodden candidate with the hardest life" i think that largely has to do with the modern western age's "feelings over facts" where they need to win everyone's sympathy to get votes, instead of proving their mettle, I would say the only time a disability should be used politically is if a person was shot while in the army, and used as a point to show their loyalty and devotion to their country, and even that's pushing it BIG TIME.

Down here in Australia, Julia Gillard, Australia's first female prime minister pulled the "I'm a woman" card at every turn, it was her first, last and only line of defense against criticism, she regularly called on feminist groups to come to her defense and I tell 100% truth at this bit... she called EVERY SINGLE ONE of her political opponents and critics "Sexist" and "Misogynist" the man who recently took her out of office, Tony Abbott, she accused him of sexism, misogyny and more, and at first it worked with her supporters but over time it's effect faded and less and less people believed her, and how does this fit into the discussion, well like with feminists in regard to MRAs, she used accusations of sexism and lies to try and discredit those who didn't agree with her.

With your point on them not realizing they've already won... that is 100% completely and utterly TRUE! you talk to these extreme left-wingers and feminists and the such and so many of them think nothing has changed in the west since the 1950s, they have no clue that they won and are in charge of everything, that their big bad "patriarchy" and "sexist system" and the such have long since been abolished before most of them were born, in fact some even claim that things are WORSE now than in the 1950s... which is kinda true, but now the shoe is on the toher foot, now its the left-wing ideals that are stamping out the right-wing ones, and just like in the 50s, when the right-wing ones were saying the left-wing ideals are stupid, counter-productive and outright destructive, now the left-wing people are saying the exact same about the right-wing.

I guess, all those far-left ideals like merging our culture with foreign ones till no traces of our own remain, open borders to everyone (especially jihadis) and portraying one gender as useless, stupid, counter-productive, violent retards (which feminists portray men as now, and as much of our media portrays men as) is in no way a good thing.

With the Islamists, the problem is cultural/race guilt, we have this huge guilt complex over things that happened over a century ago and that has given those islamists an opening to walk right over us without us raising a finger, as whenever an opening of cultural and racial guilt appears, they are quick to attack it violently, if you talk to one of these islamists (which I did with one of them during the Melbourne riots over the mohammed film) they justify using children as human shields, attacking random civilians, burning down shops, attacking, raping and killing Christians, hindus, buddhists, atheists and jews etc... on the street, with "the killing of muslims in afghanistan" when the people we're killing over there are the same kinds of people who used their own minority groups as target practice for chemical weapons.

But luckily I have found that such behavior is getting less and less tolerance in the west, and finally it seems that we're starting to say "no, fuck you, that shit we did was in the past, what you're doing is in the now!" but like I said before, I just hope the pendulum swings back in time, before it's too late like it already is in Sweden.

To get what I mean, here are some examples of the effects of rampant, extreme "Multi-culturalism" in Sweden

http://www.thelocal.se/20131014/50790

http://www.jta.org/2013/08/01/news-opinion/world/reported-anti-semitic-attacks-tripled-in-malmo

http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/muslims-raped-over-300-swedish-children-and-700-women-in-seven-months-of-2013/

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/muslim_rape_wave_in_sweden/

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2013/10/13/the-most-brutal-gang-rape-in-swedish-history-by-you-know-who-takes-a-shocking-turn-of-events/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a56EqUPwyFQ

Now, just for me saying this, I am called "Xenophobic" and "Racist" however, I have the greatest respect for Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Mongolian etc... culture and whenever I am in Melbourne I make a point to visit "Little Tokyo" and "China town" and other such places because I love all the strange little things I find there and indulging in another culture, but the thing is, with all other communities, they don't seek to expand, they don't want to "convert" other areas, you don't have gangs of chinese men screaming "Stop serving American food!" in L.A, you don't have Indians going "You can't eat beef because my religion says it's bad!" no, they all acknowledge they must abide by the country's laws and just because they can't do some things that their religion or culture deems to be bad, they have no right to impose that on others... but the Islamic community is the only one that actively goes out to convert people, to stop non-muslims from doing non-islamic things, to turn them to their religion, and who lashes out violently when their feelings are hurt... it isn't racist or xenophobic to criticise them and say they have to abide by our laws if they live in our country, after all, all other groups do it without a hitch.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

You know it's interesting, the West really does seem to be in the grips of some sort of identity crisis that some of the other populations don't suffer from. If you want to look at a really homogeneous culture that is stilted with a form of absolute Xenophobia, it's happy little Japan. I remember when taking Japanese in College (of which I don't remember much at all, four semesters worth of work I love, lost..replaced with legalese and idiocy), the one thing that always struck me about the way they viewed themselves, even when they expatriate themselves from Japan, their new country is still full of "Gaijins" or outsiders. I have a Japanese Aunt that's this way. It's very different than the way westerners approach things. We tend to attempt, at least, to adopt or adapt to our new surroundings, as opposed to diligently hanging on to our cultural identity.

I have also noticed this within our educational facilities, there's almost a hatred of the culture that exists. In Texas, there's always been a mixture of Anglo and Mexican culture. We fought a revolution in 1836, and were a Republic for a short time. Many of the local Tejanos, as they became known (and as opposed the Anglo Texians, which eventually got shorted to Texans), fought on the side of the Republic. Of course, racial tensions built after the war, and the standard historical conflicts brimmed over. But, the history professors, instead of celebrating Tejano and Anglo unity against an oppressive dictatorial son-of-a-bitch (Antonio Lopez de Santana...who buried his leg severed in battle with full military honors), they claimed that Jaun Seguene and the other Tejanos who fought along side the Texans were fools, and just doing it to be yes men to the dominant white European culture. I don't even see how that came into the picture.

They were fighting to preserve a way of life they thought better than having a dictator who purposefully marched barefoot Yakie Indians against cannons at the Alamo, just to get rid of a rebellious population. I mean atrocities occur in every culture, in every race, all throughout history. Instead of saying, "Holy fucking shit, maybe we should fix this!" They just want to blame their own culture, and say that they deserved it. This is madness, I enjoy celebrating other culture's achievements, but I also want to be able to celebrate my own culture, and what my family accomplished in it's time in the "New World" since 1635. It seems the same aspects of culture and society baffle the both of us.

 

[The Badger]

The problem here is, both of these groups DO have freedom of speech in America, they have both the exact, same, amount. You're confusing freedom of speech with the amount of bullshit people are willing to take for various reasons, measured with the backlash of speaking out against them. I'm not going to get into the discussion of race and religion, simply because it never works well, in my experience, to bring about on a civil message board. I'm just gonna state this, because I feel it needs to be said.

Freedom of Speech, in America, protects you from the government, it doesn't protect you from other citizens.

You're allowed to debate whoever you'd like, whenever you'd like, and there's going to be social repercussions for that. It's "acceptable" to "attack" MRAs because, well, the ones that get the most public view tend to be the outer fringe rather than the more or less rational core group, the same with feminists, etc.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

True, but there comes a question to the free speech rights of the groups when they speak on State University campuses, time and again the Supreme Court has ruled that these institutions are "governmental agents", and as such free speech, as well as Equal Protection claims. It really does enter an area of murkiness with respect to Universities. When University affiliated organizations operate in such a way to stymie free speech, then there is a problem. And this has indeed happened, and is continuing to happen on many State University campuses. http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=78

I mentioned Equal Protection in one of my earlier posts, because it comes into effect as well. When certain groups are allowed deferential treatment, based on race or religion, or even gender, by any sort of organizations affiliated with the government, then Equal Protection concerns arise, as per the Fourteenth Amendment. Now, I do agree that private citizens can be as intolerant as they want to be. That being said, he's pointing to the general spirit of the law in this post, and the tolerances that are allowed for one group, over another, can lead to the greater problems as can be seen in the URL I included in this post.

I honestly think that these problems will continue for time and memorial, nevertheless, that doesn't make the discrepancies right, nor does it make violations by state universities, or those private universities which receive any form of federal assistance (Think Federally subsidized student loans), which implement policies which restrict the recognition of certain groups over others, based on ideology, or religious beliefs, then yes, you have a myriad of Constitutional complaints.

The other area that raises questions are the classifications of hate crimes, and how those laws are prosecuted. I don't deny that any sort of racially based offense is horrific. But, the selective application of these laws truly raises some Equal protection questions in my eyes. They are starting to be challenged in the various courts, but how the courts will rule on this is anyone's guess. I may be a lawyer, but I certainly cannot read the minds of the justices.

 

[The Badger]

You know, there was a very interesting argument brought up regarding hate crimes after a pastor, who was black, vandalized his own home and wrote racial epithets across it in an attempt to fake a hate crime.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Oh yeah, it's an interesting, if not questionable field. I remember we barely touched on it in law school, just because of HOW contentious it is.

 

[The Badger]

It's one of those uncomfortable-for-everybody-subjects. No one likes to talk about it, or how it can be misused because so often the term 'Racist' gets flung around at whoever does.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

And the tragic thing is, when you consider that this has something to do with the criminal-justice system, the whole symbolism behind things like Lady Justice with her blind fold with the scales of justice. Now it's like she's peeking from under the damn blindfold, while placing a full bar of lead in the favor of one side, and is as impartial as a referee paid a six figure salary before a national championship game! If law is supposed to be impartial, then society must become more impartial in discussing these things. If we can't separate ourselves from our own views, how in the hell can we determine whether justice is being served.

I know that's nearly impossible to do, because most of these issues carry a heavy emotional burden with them, but discourse is necessary for the betterment of society. Or at least, I keep telling myself that.

 

[Cydramech]

This whole idea that someone thinks they can just punch someone for airing their opinion is completely wrong. Unless they're actively denigrating your property or preventing you from something, there is nothing you can justifiably retaliate against.

Is it immoral to want/wish/pray for someone's death, or celebrate one's death? It does depend on who you ask. Is it offensive? Again, depends on who you ask. But objectively, they've done nothing except voice their opinion, and everyone is right to have their own opinion and voice it, however repugnant anyone else finds it.

Worse, once you start legislating offense or morality (as if we're not already doing so) - really, anything not objectively wrong can only be a matter of morality, preference, or offense - then you're going to get into a contest of who should do the legislating since everyone has their own idea - even justice, since it itself is but an arbitrary concept at best.

See more

Personally, I don't think of Islam as an enemy, and I don't even buy that Muslims are some monolithic group, but the way people obsess about Islam being a religion of peace is just as much bullshit as the people that obsess about it being some 'great evil' group while the so-called 'anti-semitism' is usually taken out of proportion as with most claims of group prejudice.

 

[Vic Rattlehead]

Funny for a country that has "freedom of speech" you have to do it in designated areas. Regardless freedom of speech ends when its libel and slander of a private person, hence why right wingers can say anything they want about Obama. Oh and its easy to use extremists of a group, as to say everyone in that group is that way.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Both sides are guilty of infringements, that's why I mentioned the proverbial pendulum. ALso, slander and libel are significantly different sorts of suits, and if the person has any sort of publicity, or public relations (say like a president) then the standards of proving a defamation claim become much more difficult with the inclusion of actual malice. Certainly extreme fringes on either side could be claimed to have done this, but the current trend is as displayed. I think the right/left paradigm is outdated anyway, there's more to it than that. Certain special interests become the prized pet interests of politicians at a given time, and that is what can contribute to many of these problems.