"Discourage"?

Post #249,352 by pwhysall 3/26/06 2:40:51 AM Reply	"Discourage"? How does the law discourage one from doing things, if it doesn't punish one for doing them? I'm a bit confused by what you mean, there. Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #249,378 by Another Scott 3/26/06 1:03:39 PM Reply	I fought over that word for a while. It was originally "sanction" but that has 2 meanings. I was trying to be too tearse and wasn't clear. IMO, incitement to violence should be a serious offense against the law and should be punished severely (in severe cases. I don't think an 8 year old convincing others to pull Sally's hair is such a case.). It's shouldn't be a mindless law like [link\|http://www.facts1.com/\|3 Strikes] - judges and prosecutors need to have some flexibility to apply the law, and be able to use it as a Cudgel of Justice in serious circumstances. If, e.g., Rev. Smith ministers to a brainwashed congregation and preaches hate of, say, blue eyed people, and it results in intimidation and attacks on such people, well Rev. Smith should go to jail for a long time for that, IMO. Such incitement shouldn't be tolerated in a civil society. I hope that's a little clearer. Cheers, Scott.
Post #249,381 by pwhysall 3/26/06 1:11:45 PM Reply	I'm with you. You are in favour of anti-hate-speech legislation - which is fair enough, as long as you're comfortable with the definition of hate speech as being speech designed to incite violence or the threat of violence. Which, in the UK, it most emphatically is not. It's speech designed to "incite hatred", which is not at all the same thing. Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #249,383 by Another Scott 3/26/06 1:23:07 PM Reply	I'd call it anti-incitement rather than hate speech. [link\|http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat9.htm\|"Hate Speech"] is far too broad, IMO. In the USA, it's more like this: Hate-crime legislation increases a criminal's sentence if it can be proven that the crime of which they were found guilty was motivated by hatred of the victim because of their race, religion, sex, or some other factor. Hate speech legislation criminalizes the denigration, ridicule, or expression of hatred against a person or group on the basis of the victim's race, religion, etc. These types of legislation do not offer any special protections to any group. They usually include religion and sex as protected classes. They protect Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and others alike; they protect both men and women. Those laws which include sexual orientation as a protected class shield everyone equally, whether they be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Whenever such legislation is introduced, there is considerable opposition -- mainly from religious and social conservatives -- to the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected class. I don't support "hate crime" or "hate speech" legislation - at least as they're outlined above. Someone who's brutally beaten and robbed is just as victimized as anyone else beaten and robbed independent of whatever group(s) they belong to. Punish the incitement. Don't punish differently because of the characteristics of the victim. [link\|http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection\|Equal protection] under the law needs to mean something. Hate speech legislation could be used to criminalize satire or ethnic jokes. That's wrong. Poor taste and crude behavior is to be frowned upon, not criminalized. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #249,390 by drewk 3/26/06 2:28:48 PM Reply	Mirrors my view on DUI laws Punish the behavior, not the reason. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #249,397 by CRConrad 3/26/06 6:02:04 PM Reply	Yeah-never mind why they drink,punish all drunk driving!
Post #249,398 by boxley 3/26/06 6:06:33 PM Reply	punish the impaired driver whether cell phone or booze Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #249,447 by pwhysall 3/27/06 12:22:31 AM Reply	Idiots is the problem, as always. It's just not possible to legislate for the "reasonable man", who'll stop in for a pie and a pint on the way home. Instead, we have to say that such and such a level of alcohol in the bloodstream is verboten, in order to get the message across that no, you can't drink 10 pints of wifebeater and be safely in control of a ton and a half of steel at 60 MPH, no matter how big your beer belly is. Because the second case is what happens if you legislate thinking that people are going to be sensible and do the former. Thank the fuckwits in society for our lowest-common-denominator approach to lawmaking. Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!

Welcome to IWETHEY!