I think the site that should make you ill is godhatesamerica.com instead of godhatesfags.com
-
I think
-
It's the same crap from the same morons. Folks who are as dumb as a rock and even less useful find comfort in scapegoating a group for whatever they find disagreeable.
-
This is tru, it is from the same group of idiots who have all those other god hates whatever websites. It just really pisses me off when I see them disrespect this country's military like they are doing. Its because of us that they have that right to express themselves. I gurantee they couldnt do that shit if our military wasnt what it is.
-
The Canadian laws on hate crimes are much stronger than those in the US. By targetting a specific recognizable group (such as homosexuals) and discriminating against them physically or verbally you are committing a hate crime and are subject to penalties. Under American laws you have the ultimate freedom of speech and verbal hate crimes don't exist in law. People can say whatever derogotory (sp?) and hurtful things they want to put down and discriminate against a particular group. That may be a slightly more open and free way of doing things, but the question is that a thing that society wants to allow people to do. There's a reason that such crimes as assault are crimes, but in the US there are virtually no verbal crimes although verbal crimes are often an even more major factor in discrimination and can mentally harm people. One of the biggest arguments for those kinds of laws in the US go back to the Constitution and how every person has the right to free speech. Conservatives tend not to want to change that, and it's also one of the major parts of the Constitution that the US was built on. But, if the majority of society is against hate crimes then isn't it technically the most democratic thing to make it illegal to commit hate crimes?
-
Conservatives tend not to want to change that,...Yes, in the true sense of the word "conservative".> ...and it's also one of the major parts of the Constitution that the US was built on.Absolutely. It's still rather unique in the world.> But, if the majority of society is against hate crimes then isn't it technically the most democratic thing to make it illegal to commit hate crimes?It would be more democratic, but it wouldn't necessarily be better. The brilliant aspect of the U.S. Constitution is that it protects minorities from the tyrrany of the majority. For instance, the majority might want to diminish the rights of a certain religious group, but that is disallowed under the Constitution. Of course, it depends who interprets the Constitution (i.e., who's on the Supreme Court), and mistakes have been made. (One mistake was the Dred Scott case, where, in 1857, the Supreme Court decided that blacks were not and could not become U.S. citizens. But we hope that, over time, mistakes will be corrected.)
-
In reply to:The brilliant aspect of the U.S. Constitution is that it protects minorities from the tyrrany of the majority.On the contrary, from unlimited freedom of speech the majority (or even small groups within the total populous) can say whatever they like about minority groups and discriminate against them so long as they don't physically abuse them. This doesn't protect minority groups but instead hurts them. The organization that runs godhatesfags.com is an example of the drawbacks of unlimited free speech that discriminates against a particular minority group. In Canada, that would be illegal as it would be considered a hate crime.
-
OK, it protects minorities from tyranny by the government. Incitement to violence is still illegal. If you say, "Kill all the ____s!", and you provide people's addresses, you've committed an illegal act.In a lot of contexts, it is illegal to discriminate against protected groups (age, sex, ethnicity, religion, and in some locales, sexual orientation). But the U.S. is more libertarian than most places, and does not stop people from saying obnoxious things. The idea is that, in the big scheme of things, it is better that some people might be insulted, rather than liberty be diminished for all.That does not preclude sanctioning hate crimes, but in the U.S.'s federalist system, it's up to the states.