I’ve provided it. You’re just not appropriate.
I’ve given you the exact law that says if it written it is hate speech, not if it is said. Go get a brain, please.
We agree, but RIGHT NOW this is what is happening with speech deemed “transphobic.” We on this website are being put in online jail for even writing “rainbow.” You don’t believe me? Just read the posts. You clearly have not.
This states in conjunction with a crime, which would provide motive for a crime if someone is saying slurs while committing a crime.
this is total horse shit, but i agree with 98% of others, but questions like this underminds the cause of this experment, this one needs to be stricken as it is a woke issue you want votes to uphold absuridity
1 Like
only feminist take offence to be called a bitch, bitch is a common greeting to female friends, you seen to be forgetting context ans are appearing to group 90% of women into the 10% of femmies just to pasify retarded, endocternater women who think men/society are holding them down wich is self sabitoge on these weak minded 10% of women… and you can make fun of my spellinf and punction all ya want but im not gonna call foul, its horrifing to have these people with such thin skin hold so much power enabeling them to cancel good fact based/god fearing people just becaues they dissagree with them and I thought the ability to disagree/ free speach in this country was gaurenteed to all citizens not just the Butthurt ones, Come on people or we gonna end back up in the Jim Crow time era
1 Like
No, you have provided a case where someone was arrested for committing a crime, not for just saying “hate speech”. The clip you provided for NYC’s policy clearly states that hate speech must be accompanied by a real crime in order to classify the real crime as a hate crime. Are you really that dense that you can’t read the words you’ve provided (pasted here again for convenience)?
This will never happen. We have freedom of speech it in the constitution if there was a law to enact this, it would be an unlawful law because it goes directly against the constitution of freedom speech
There IS Misandrist speech ALSO! I think they should get rid of the “HATE SPEECH” LAWS ENTIRELY!
Democrats used to LAUGH at the idea of the 7 words you couldn’t use in public. NOW, they often allow those, but there are hundreds, OR MAYBE THOUSANDS, they do NOT!
One guy in britain got in trouble because he got his pug dog to do like the socialist salute when he heard a german phrase!
Give me a break! It wasn’t obscene, and it didn’t hurt anyone.
Which is something we agree on.
What we appear to disagree on - and which I get the impression you’re not listening to - is that you are pushing for more special rights by adding things to the list things designated a ‘hate crime’ while I think most everyone else here is pushing for the opposite, doing away with ‘hate speech’ designations all together.
So, maybe it is New York (which New Yorkers voted for for a very long time) that needs to be fixed, not the “Hate Speech”, huh?..
2 Likes
Yes! We should add everything. Should be hate speach to call a man a dog…or pig. Calling someone a deadbeat dad…boom hate speech. Call me a dick? Jail time for you. I dont want to go half re re…lets go full re re.
1 Like
Don’t you think it’s kind of funny, that women voted for equality, and LGBT policy and now these freaks are given preferential treatment, and women don’t know whether to support, and virtue signal, or protest?against the very thing they voted for and rallied for? It’s pure karmic hilarity.
2 Likes
Communications are already used to determine motive.
Exactly.
You’re making stuff up. Where is the evidence that any of this has ever happened? You will not be arrested anywhere in the USA simply for hate speech. You will only be arrested if you commit a crime, with or without hate speech. The speech, categorized as hate or otherwise, helps establish motive only.
Nevertheless, you need to consider the historic wrongful conviction of Michael Morton. In 1987, Morton was wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife based solely on evidence from a hateful letter he wrote to her. Their personal disagreements aside, DNA evidence later exonerated Morton fully of the crime. The travesty of his wrongful conviction resulted in Texas passing the Morton Act (2013), which emphasized more evidence be required in convictions for serious crimes like this. Not every state has a Morton Act or Morton Act equivalent.
It is very, very dangerous to go on motive alone. First and foremost, motive can be misconstrued and misinterpreted. It is possible that Morton could have said something very ”incriminating” to his wife, but deep down never had the heart to ever harm her. Such things happen all the time, because words are an expression of emotions and not necessarily confessions of genuine interest or intent. In fact the worst serial killers in history didn’t at all communicate malicious intent to their victims.
Communications can always be submitted as evidence, but they alone aren’t enough to prove guilt in serious crimes. You need to understand that words alone must be majorly de-emphasized as an aspect of any given crime, because it is guaranteed that such a purview (and concordant hate speech laws) will result in the wrongful imprisonment and incarceration of many. The goal of a just justice system is not to incarcerate or punish innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit simply because they said offensive things. Motive alone cannot be enough for a conviction, and motive cannot be definitively understood by anything other than a higher omnipotent power that is aware of every level of consciousness and the complexity of human emotionality.
I suggest that you let go of the fantasy that there is authentic morality in going after hate speech.
1 Like
Are you blind or just not capable of reading comprehension? This is a screenshot of the hate crime laws in NY. Not sure what is so difficult to understand about this clearly stating that when you write certain words, it is considered a hate speech and a hate crime in NY. It said it unequivocally. It states that to merely say something is not a hate crime unless accompanied by a violent act. Even though this is what it states, it has not stopped police and Alvin Bragg from enforcing certain speech unlawful for certain people.
Again, the only way to get around the kindness police on this site BECAUSE WORDS ABOUT HATE SPEECH IS HAPPENING, is to say if one group has speech privileges then either we all have them or none of us do.
Not sure what is so hard about that.
I don’t think you’re playing with a full deck. On this issue.
2 Likes
I am a woman. I’ve been called many not nice things including the two words that she mentions in this request. Did I like it? No. But I don’t want any more laws on the books about this ridiculousness.
1 Like