Outlawing Opinion

[ptwild]

Hate crime laws will lead to suppression of a lot of things. Theft is theft' date=' no matter the motive. Murder is murder no matter the skin color or sexual orientation. God does not differentiate in these matters, and neither should we.[/quote']

No one is differentiating anything. Imagine two theifs stealing two different loafs of bread from the same person. Theif #1 stole the bread from the victim because he was hungary. Theif #2, solely because the victim was a white woman. Both theifs will be subject to the exact same sentence for stealing the bread. Theif #2 will be subject to further sentencing because he also violated the hate crimes law. Do you see the difference? No one is differentiating between the crimes that were committed by both theifs. The difference comes from the fact that Theif #2 committed an additional crime.

I agree that it should not (and it is not, by the way) be a crime to hate someone for what ever reason you so choose. However, if that hate leads to a crime, which would not have happened absent the hate, then their should be consequences.

Although we have all used a bunch of examples, the Hate Crimes Law rarely comes up in cases which do not involve violence. For the most part, it is only used to prosecute people who committ senseless acts of violence against others based solely on their race, gender, religion or national origin. The most recent case I can think of happened right after 9/11 when a few college students attacked a muslim man for no reason at all. The Feds also wanted to use it against one of the men who were just recently prosecuted for a civil rights era murder, but the District Court refused to consider it because the law was not in effect at the time of the killings.

[ptwild]

"Hate crime" laws are the forerunners of laws criminalizing free speech that is not considered to be socially acceptable. It has already happened in some other countries."

I understand this is the propoganda being spread in opposition to the expansion of the Hate Crimes Law. However, I'm yet to see one piece of factual evidence to substantiate it. I tried to find something myself, but could find nothing whatsoever. If you have such information, please direct me to it.

[HappyChristian]

[Revelation3:20]

"Hate crime" laws are the forerunners of laws criminalizing free speech that is not considered to be socially acceptable. It has already happened in some other countries."

I understand this is the propoganda being spread in opposition to the expansion of the Hate Crimes Law. However, I'm yet to see one piece of factual evidence to substantiate it. I tried to find something myself, but could find nothing whatsoever. If you have such information, please direct me to it.

You don't have to look far.

http://www.wayoflife.org/files/706fe196bc5dd6068bb1a96eefc8b4be-109.html

http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2007/12/pastor-found-guilty-of-hate-crime.html

[ptwild]

You don't have to look far.

http://www.wayoflife.org/files/706fe196bc5dd6068bb1a96eefc8b4be-109.html

http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2007/12/pastor-found-guilty-of-hate-crime.html

Ok. I'll concede that reasonable people may differ on what that consider to be legitmate or valid citations. However, the first link is to a newsletter (a webletter at that) that is admittedly a propoganda compaign against the proposed legislation, which does nothing more than list occurences which it expects the believer to accept as true without any indept factual information or legal citation to the legal proceedings it references. The only purpose behind the cite is to feed those who already have a predisposed mindset, with a list of situations which are supposed to justify that mindset. I would not be allowed to cite that article if I were making a legal argument either for, or against, the proposed legislation. Furthermore, and assuming the occurences listed actually occurred, the judicial proceedings are civil, rather than criminal, in nature. They are causes of action brought by one private citizen against another for things that have been done or said which either offend or disparage the person. We already have such causes of action in the U.S., we call them "libel" and "slander." Of course, in the U.S., one cannot be found liable for libel for merely printing bible verses in a newspaper. However, if the verses were a part of an article or ad that would otherwise be libel, then the same thing would happen here. That's just it about the citation. There is absolutely no way to know all the facts based on a three sentence blurb purposely written with a certain slant.

The second site is a blog which does the same thing as the first with a lot more personal opinion thrown in the mix.

I would not be comfortable basing my opinion of this issue on either of those references. I would ask for something by a credible scholarly author written from an unbiased prospective.

[tired]

Where would you find that. It is pretty much who do you believe? Do you believe the gov who is so honest and christian, or good christian men who have looked into it.

[ptwild]

Where would you find that. It is pretty much who do you believe? Do you believe the gov who is so honest and christian' date=' or good christian men who have looked into it.[/quote']

I believe credible people who are familiar with the facts, know the law, understand its application, and can present their assessment from an a schollarly/informational standpoint, rather than a biased arguementative stand point.

You find it in scholarly publications such as law journals, American Law Review, Corpus Juris . . . Not on blogs or websites with a predisposed disposition.

[Revelation3:20]

Ok. I'll concede that reasonable people may differ on what that consider to be legitmate or valid citations. However, the first link is to a newsletter (a webletter at that) that is admittedly a propoganda compaign against the proposed legislation, which does nothing more than list occurences which it expects the believer to accept as true without any indept factual information or legal citation to the legal proceedings it references. The only purpose behind the cite is to feed those who already have a predisposed mindset, with a list of situations which are supposed to justify that mindset. I would not be allowed to cite that article if I were making a legal argument either for, or against, the proposed legislation.

If your a lawyer and were truly interested I assume you could look up the actual cases, I don't care if you couldn't cite the articles I linked in a legal argument, I am not a lawyer and wasn't making a legal argument, you claimed you were unable to find evidence and I pointed you to some. The article on way of life also listed sources for at least some of their information contrary to your claim. Rather than look into it as you would if you genuinely wanted to know you proceed to attack the sources as biased. Maybe that works in court but you should at least admit you have a predisposed mindset yourself. Your not fighting a court case, don't let common sense get lost in a technical jungle, thats how lawyers got a bad reputation in the first place.

Furthermore, and assuming the occurences listed actually occurred, the judicial proceedings are civil, rather than criminal, in nature. They are causes of action brought by one private citizen against another for things that have been done or said which either offend or disparage the person. We already have such causes of action in the U.S., we call them "libel" and "slander." Of course, in the U.S., one cannot be found liable for libel for merely printing bible verses in a newspaper. However, if the verses were a part of an article or ad that would otherwise be libel, then the same thing would happen here. That's just it about the citation. There is absolutely no way to know all the facts based on a three sentence blurb purposely written with a certain slant.

The reason the charges were brought was because of canada's hate crime bill. They were not brought on more general grounds of libel or slander, no specific person was attacked or disparaged in most(if not all) of those cases, it was just persecution based on disapproval of what was said.

It looks like this is another case of censorship from some time in the past on this very forum. http://www.onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=23083 Apparently this happened due only to the exercising of free speech.

[ptwild]

If your a lawyer and were truly interested I assume you could look up the actual cases, I don't care if you couldn't cite the articles I linked in a legal argument, I am not a lawyer and wasn't making a legal argument, you claimed you were unable to find evidence and I pointed you to some. The article on way of life also listed sources for at least some of their information contrary to your claim. Rather than look into it as you would if you genuinely wanted to know you proceed to attack the sources as biased. Maybe that works in court but you should at least admit you have a predisposed mindset yourself. Your not fighting a court case, don't let common sense get lost in a technical jungle, thats how lawyers got a bad reputation in the first place.



The reason the charges were brought was because of canada's hate crime bill. They were not brought on more general grounds of libel or slander, no specific person was attacked or disparaged in most(if not all) of those cases, it was just persecution based on disapproval of what was said.

It looks like this is another case of censorship from some time in the past on this very forum. http://www.onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=23083 Apparently this happened due only to the exercising of free speech.

I couldn't even look up the cases based on the information given by the website because it doesn't give the names of all parties, nor the jurisdiction. That's what's great about such a site. No one can easily examine the content do to the lack of adequate information. I guess being a lawyer does put me in a certain position regarding information. I have been trained not give much creedance to information that cannot be backed up by anything other than "trust me." Anything that is written in the manner in which that article presents the information should be questioned automatically due to its admittedly biased tone. The article is not written to inform, but to influence your opinion of hate crimes law. The writer has an interest in your opinion (or changing it) and therefore presents the information in a certain manner, all the while being vague enough to prevent you from questioning him. For instance, I would like to know exactly what was printed in the newspaper. If it was bible verses alone, with no surrounding context, I would be concerned as well. However, the fact that he is so vague makes me question whether or not he is telling the whole story.
Additionally, I'd like to know the wording of the law, or if it is just common law.

When you sit on a jury, do you make a final judgment after only hearing one side of the argument?

[Revelation3:20]

I couldn't even look up the cases based on the information given by the website because it doesn't give the names of all parties, nor the jurisdiction. That's what's great about such a site. No one can easily examine the content do to the lack of adequate information. I guess being a lawyer does put me in a certain position regarding information. I have been trained not give much creedance to information that cannot be backed up by anything other than "trust me." Anything that is written in the manner in which that article presents the information should be questioned automatically due to its admittedly biased tone. The article is not written to inform, but to influence your opinion of hate crimes law. The writer has an interest in your opinion (or changing it) and therefore presents the information in a certain manner, all the while being vague enough to prevent you from questioning him. For instance, I would like to know exactly what was printed in the newspaper. If it was bible verses alone, with no surrounding context, I would be concerned as well. However, the fact that he is so vague makes me question whether or not he is telling the whole story. Additionally, I'd like to know the wording of the law, or if it is just common law.

That particular case was later overturned as way of life pointed out in their article, but it is strange that you as a lawyer say you are unable to find out more when I can find out more about the particular case you question in a five minute web search.

Are these articles "non-biased" enough to be valid in your view? Possibly not the second but hopefully the former.

http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/qry/page.taf?id=146


http://files.efc-canada.net/si/Religious%20Freedom%20in%20Canada/EFC/Owens%20case%20analysis.pdf

[ptwild]

That particular case was later overturned as way of life pointed out in their article, but it is strange that you as a lawyer say you are unable to find out more when I can find out more about the particular case you question in a five minute web search.

Are these articles "non-biased" enough to be valid in your view? Possibly not the second but hopefully the former.

http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/qry/page.taf?id=146


http://files.efc-canada.net/si/Religious%20Freedom%20in%20Canada/EFC/Owens%20case%20analysis.pdf

I didn't question the case. I questioned the articles. I also haven't looked for any information on it, so who knows what I could find. I have access to Westlaw and Lexis Nexis, so I could probably find something if I wanted. You are the one making the assertion, the burden is on you. I don't have to do anything until you prove something. The first article you posted here looks pretty valid, although I always question web sources. It's a case brief, not the actual opinion, but it is definitely unbiased. The second article is propaganda.

[Revelation3:20]

I didn't question the case. I questioned the articles.

Before you said: "Furthermore, and assuming the occurences listed actually occurred" That isn't questioning the cases?

I could probably find something if I wanted. You are the one making the assertion, the burden is on you.

But before you said: "I couldn't even look up the cases based on the information given by the website because it doesn't give the names of all parties, nor the jurisdiction."

Which is it? Could you or couldn't you? Don't worry about an answer now because that doesn't really matter at this point. :smile

And also you said:

"I understand this is the propoganda being spread in opposition to the expansion of the Hate Crimes Law. However, I'm yet to see one piece of factual evidence to substantiate it. I tried to find something myself, but could find nothing whatsoever. If you have such information, please direct me to it."

So you see I was responding to your supposedly genuine request for information, not making an assertion myself, and you are repeatedly contradicting yourself in your own statements. Disappointing for a lawyer. There is no point taking this further since you have made it clear that you are not really looking for information in an unbiased manner and I am not trying to win a court case or "prove" anything to someone with their mind already made up.

I hope some day you will have clearer sight on this issue.

[JerryNumbers]

Outlawing Opinions, yes, I see that coming, there be many Christians who show detest towards those who do not completely agree with them.

Plus our president said there was going to be a new way of doing business in Washington, I believe he thinks everyone should follow him blindly, that his opinion is the only way, and his way was going to be the new way.

[John81]

Outlawing Opinions, yes, I see that coming, there be many Christians who show detest towards those who do not completely agree with them.

Plus our president said there was going to be a new way of doing business in Washington, I believe he thinks everyone should follow him blindly, that his opinion is the only way, and his way was going to be the new way.

The liberal mindset is that they have all the answers and if only everyone else would fall in line they could create the perfect world. It comes as little surprise they want to silence those who disagree with them. In their own warped minds, silencing those who disagree with them would be for the "greater good" so they could more quickly create their utopian society.

Even among liberal "Christians" there is this same trend. They seek to silence those who truly hold to Scripture.

Notice when a liberal gives a speech on a college campus or elsewhere, if there are conservative or Christian protestors they tend to be respectful enough to allow the liberal to speak. When a conservative gives a speech and liberal protestors are present they tend to do all they can to prevent the consrvative from speaking. They will shout so the conservative can't e heard, they will throw food, they will create a ruckus, anything to prevent the conservative from get his message out.

[JerryNumbers]

Yes, the liberals tend to have a dictator personality. I've noticed that holds very true with liberal Christians. I know you've noticed how upset they get and what they will accuses others of if they do not submit to their liberal opinions.

Perhaps they really don't believe what the Bible says will become of this world.

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

But I firmly believe we are fast approaching the day when conservative opinions will become outlawed, along with teachings of the "Holy Bible."

There is already talk of shutting up conservative talk show host.