Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Another reason US > Canada
- Thread starter 75th
- Start date
from the article - “A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment.”
The most incendiary speeches I’ve heard lately have come from the pulpit at a black church; the “angry racist mob” being its highly “inspired” congregation.
I’m not saying that these “sermons” aren’t entitled to Constitutional protection; only that today a black man has a lot less to fear from mob mentality than an unsuspecting white.
So why did this writer choose to make his point using an implausible racial context? Besides being blinded by having his head in his hindquarters, I think he’s a victim of white guilt who doesn’t really care much for the concepts of free speech or an open market of ideas; much as many illiberal American liberals.
Any way, “Hate speech” laws are wrong on several levels:
First, one man’s “hate speech” is another man’s “citing of pertinent facts”. Such laws are typically interpreted to mean that any statement that can CAUSE hatred toward certain (non-white, non Christian) groups is “hate speech”. Hence it would be “hate speech” to simply cite F.B.I. statistics regarding interracial crime. This would be absurd.
Second, nobody has the right to dictate what another person may say. This right was not created by the U.S. constitution; it is a natural right and as basic as the right of self defense. It is no coincidence that the same countries that limit free speech also limit self defense. Their philosophy is that government is the final arbiter of rights. They are, in a manner of speaking, godless societies - because they believe in no higher law than that of government.
Third, we find such laws being selectively enforced with a strong bias against whites and against Christians. Hence, we don’t find Muslims be prosecuted for reading hateful passages from the Qur’an. We don’t find blacks being prosecuted for inciting hatred against whites.
The most incendiary speeches I’ve heard lately have come from the pulpit at a black church; the “angry racist mob” being its highly “inspired” congregation.
I’m not saying that these “sermons” aren’t entitled to Constitutional protection; only that today a black man has a lot less to fear from mob mentality than an unsuspecting white.
So why did this writer choose to make his point using an implausible racial context? Besides being blinded by having his head in his hindquarters, I think he’s a victim of white guilt who doesn’t really care much for the concepts of free speech or an open market of ideas; much as many illiberal American liberals.
Any way, “Hate speech” laws are wrong on several levels:
First, one man’s “hate speech” is another man’s “citing of pertinent facts”. Such laws are typically interpreted to mean that any statement that can CAUSE hatred toward certain (non-white, non Christian) groups is “hate speech”. Hence it would be “hate speech” to simply cite F.B.I. statistics regarding interracial crime. This would be absurd.
Second, nobody has the right to dictate what another person may say. This right was not created by the U.S. constitution; it is a natural right and as basic as the right of self defense. It is no coincidence that the same countries that limit free speech also limit self defense. Their philosophy is that government is the final arbiter of rights. They are, in a manner of speaking, godless societies - because they believe in no higher law than that of government.
Third, we find such laws being selectively enforced with a strong bias against whites and against Christians. Hence, we don’t find Muslims be prosecuted for reading hateful passages from the Qur’an. We don’t find blacks being prosecuted for inciting hatred against whites.
75th said:
Yes... we have the right to free speech and we should defend that right as it contributes to making us a great country but we also have the right to not listen to some of the idiocy spouted such as bigoted prejudicial hate speech.
We don't need stereotypes... there are enough reasons to dislike each and every person uniquely ( j/k on that last one)
roadwarrior said:
Indeed, however the act of listening is obviously voluntary.
This reminds me of Sean Penn bitching when people didnt go see his movies after his initial visit to Iraq. Obviously he didnt comprehend that, while he has the right to buy a full page ad in a major newspaper, the general public has the right to not go to his movies if they dont like the guy.
US might be greater than Canada, but I'm greater than 75th any day and I take solace in that 
luv ya too Guardian...good bro
luv ya too Guardian...good bro
“If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone 'America died from a delusion that she had moral leadership.”
~ Will Rogers
~ Will Rogers
75th said:
With the Canadian dollar being higher that the US dollar, not so sure how much more the US is going to invest in Canada. It's actually pretty bad for us.
drsketch said:
sentence structure?
75th said:
Just another freedom lost in Canada.
It reminds me of a debate that I got into a long time ago in HS where I was debating something about the Jews and how I could see why countries would not permit them into the their country. The influx of immigrants would compromise the social structure of the host country.
You guessed it. I was called a Nazi sympathizer in class. I remember turning to that person and saying..."Yeah, the slanted eyes would save me from the gas showers?"
It reminds me of a debate that I got into a long time ago in HS where I was debating something about the Jews and how I could see why countries would not permit them into the their country. The influx of immigrants would compromise the social structure of the host country.
You guessed it. I was called a Nazi sympathizer in class. I remember turning to that person and saying..."Yeah, the slanted eyes would save me from the gas showers?"
My views on the matter: though it is wrong to say "hateful" things, there is a thing called freedom of speech, and hence, if you don't like the article, don't buy it.
However, I could understand how some people would believe this to be just another media circus to portray "islam" as the problem.
However, saying the Canadian gov. is a bunch of wimps is a little of a misconception, since how much of Canada is composed of real Canadians born and raised in Canada. More than 50% of Canada is Asian and Indian. And the other 50% is mostly composed of afghani, lebanese, iraqi, palestinean, paki, polish, russian, italian, serbian, etc...how many are in fact canadians? the minority. A strike in Canada from some of the minorities can seriously cripple the economy.
However, I could understand how some people would believe this to be just another media circus to portray "islam" as the problem.
However, saying the Canadian gov. is a bunch of wimps is a little of a misconception, since how much of Canada is composed of real Canadians born and raised in Canada. More than 50% of Canada is Asian and Indian. And the other 50% is mostly composed of afghani, lebanese, iraqi, palestinean, paki, polish, russian, italian, serbian, etc...how many are in fact canadians? the minority. A strike in Canada from some of the minorities can seriously cripple the economy.
what time you comin home tonight honey?
GUARDIAN said:
blueta2
New member
the_alcatraz said:
Canada has over 35 million people 33, 390 million people and a little over 5 million of those are immigrants. Where do you come up more than 50% of the population is other?
And aheeem, if you want to back 100's of years, no one is fron North America really cept the Indians (the casino kind ;-)
blueta2 said:
Have you been to Mississauga....
It's Asians vs. Indians....the rest are minorities...OMG!
Visible minorities
Population Per cent of
population
South Asian 1,262,865 4.0%
Chinese 1,216,565 3.9%
Black 783,795 2.6%
Filipino 410,695 1.3%
Latin American 304,245 1.0%
Arab 265,550 0.8%
Southeast Asian 239,925 0.8%
West Asian 156,700 0.5%
Korean 141,890 0.5%
Multiple visible minorities 133,120 0.4%
Japanese 81,300 0.3%
Visible minority, n.i.e. 71,420 0.2%
Total visible minority population 5,068,095 16.2%
Population Per cent of
population
South Asian 1,262,865 4.0%
Chinese 1,216,565 3.9%
Black 783,795 2.6%
Filipino 410,695 1.3%
Latin American 304,245 1.0%
Arab 265,550 0.8%
Southeast Asian 239,925 0.8%
West Asian 156,700 0.5%
Korean 141,890 0.5%
Multiple visible minorities 133,120 0.4%
Japanese 81,300 0.3%
Visible minority, n.i.e. 71,420 0.2%
Total visible minority population 5,068,095 16.2%
I'll make dinner. And then I'll put you to bed and cut your dick off while you sleep.
GUARDIAN said:
GUARDIAN said:
rofl
Pat_McCrotch
New member
the_alcatraz said:
Lol this says nothing close to 50%?
Pat_McCrotch
New member
dabuffguy said:
HAVE YOU SEEN 75TH'S BICEPS?
Pat_McCrotch said:
It's called exaggeration....heeeeeeeeeeellllooooooooooo!!!
Similar threads
