ClumsyMonkey.net

So, there's this bill and what it says is that gay and lesbian groups are now protected from hate.

excuse me?

our government is fascist. look how they throw away my rights. free speech: here today, gone tommorow.

i can't believe that the guy who runs godhatesfags.com could be subject to jail time if he were a canadian and if this bill becomes law.

comments? anybody have a different perspective?

Oh sooner or later you won't be able to speak out against NAMBLA and other deviant organizations because it wouldn't be politically correct...

please tell me you're being sarcastic or kidding...

no. i am sincerely opposed to this ridiculous law.

Imagine if it were illegal to own the Bible or the Koran.... crazy.

so you believe you have the right to beat on someone because of their sexual orientation?

you shouldn't be able to beat on anybody no matter what they are... why does orientation matter?

I don't like people who don't bath (read the French), am I not allowed to say so?

did i say that? no. i said i disagree with a law that outlaws a website like godhatesfags.com.

beating somebody up is illegal no matter who they are. that makes sense. but saying that i can't go around with a t-shirt that proclaims that i don't like gay people is unreasonable and unfair.

So should white people be able to wear shirts that say "shoot the Nigger" on them?

doug wrote:did i say that? no. i said i disagree with a law that outlaws a website like godhatesfags.com.

beating somebody up is illegal no matter who they are. that makes sense. but saying that i can't go around with a t-shirt that proclaims that i don't like gay people is unreasonable and unfair.

Unless of course you're on private property, then they can tell you what you can and cannot wear.

Jim - yes. why not? if they aren't actually shooting anybody then they're just being assholes, which is not illegal yet.

Corey - good point.

I have to disagree with you... no one should have the right to disgrace another person by saying or wearing something offensive.

If you think something is wrong it doesn't always mean that you have to rub it in the faces of those who are in the minority, whether they be blacks, hispanics, muslims, gays, or bi-sexuals.

There's freedom of speech, but there must be a boundary at some point. To me that point is when it becomes harmful to others.

I dunno, Jim. What if speaking out against the KKK causes them to be persecuted? Would you still deem that illegal?

Jim, freedom of speech with a boundary is a contradiction. it is the one of the most illogical concepts i have ever confronted.

having freedom of speech is one of those things where you either have it or you don't. if you are free to speak then that means you can say what you want and wear what you want. if any portion of that is censored, then you don't have freedom of speech.

what's next? a bill making it illegal to speak out agains the state?

That's fine. You can say whatever you'd like. Fortunately our society is moral enough to convict people of infringing on other's rights.

I understand we should all be able to say what we want. I agree with you there. But there has to be some consideration for others. If some people don't want to consider the thoughts and feelings of someone of another race or sexual orientation then they assume the risk of speaking out against them.
In my opinion our world will be better off without those people who wish to commit hate crimes. Just because we have rights, we shouldn't have the right to assault others for reasons beyond their control. Of course that's if you believe (as I do) that being a homosexual is something you are born with, rather than sprung upon. Either way though it is wrong.

"hate crime" is such a bogus term. Do people pull crimes on people they like?

There's a difference between commiting violent crimes on others and merely speaking out against a particular behavior.

There is also a difference from saying you don't agree with a behavior and endorsing individuals to commit violent acts on said individuals. But again, race / sex / orientation should have nothing to do with it. I should be able to say being gay is wrong but shouldn't be allowed to hold a rally where I tell everyone to make sure to kill at least one gay person.

Say you don't agree with the politics of an unnamed president. That wouldn't be nice and you shouldn't be able to say that because it might bring problems for that person. Does that make sense?

When will the government learn. Singling out demographics only fuels the fire, it doesn't extinguish it.

speaking your mind isn't infringing on somebody's rights. you don't have the right to not be offended by what other people say. if somebody censors me for saying i don't like gay people, then the only person whose rights are being infringed upon is me.

the law doesn't make sense. you are not making a rational argument in favor of censorship, all you're doing is expressing your opinion. i don't mean to sound condescending here, but opinions are utterly worthless in debate.

okay, I am studing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in my Global Issues class and this sort of thing is something we have talked about.

Artical 7 says "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law"

That is applicable for anyone of any sex, race, sexual orentation, religion....and so on. So right now, as I see it, a certain group of people will be getting special protection if this law is passed. That shouldn't be allowed. I really dont think this has a lot to do with homosexual violence or anything, its basically special protection that shouldnt be allowed if everyone is equal. If we give every group, or minority, or organization special treatment or attention then no one is equal. I mean, that is just my point of view, but how can a group of people try to make themselves the exception if they are striving for equality?

that's the other thing. they want to achieve equality through special treatment.



double speak is confusing.