That’s weird. How did it become ‘flagged by the community’??
You still aren’t distinguishing it from other crimes. That’s also true for other crimes
1 Like
Thoughtcrimes or even hatespeech crimes are harder to defend against in court compared to other types of crimes.
What are you basing that on? What makes you think this law is harder to defend against for genuinely innocent defendants?
Then why are other crimes going unpunished?
Take the case of Shiloh where the entire “disorderly conduct” happened due to an unsupervised child who even after repeated warnings decided to steal from her bag.
If there would be any kind of objective standard in this case, then at a bare minimum both sides would be reprimanded for what happened.
Instead a woman was curb stomped by some putrid ideologically coopted judge for getting angry because neither system nor parent prevented an outcome she was warning about.
How is a crime a crime when its not punished?
There is no standard for what can even be considered a crime in a system as fucked as this.
This is why you should not be inventing laws based on who is offended by what.
1 Like
Years ago there was these three white college football players that was accused of sexually assaulting and raping a black African American woman who was a stripper or exotic dancer. There was no presumption of innocence by the media or the courts for these three college football players because they had white skin and to shed doubt on the incident was to disregard the words of a black woman. These men lost their school scholarships, jobs, incomes, and overall social reputation as these accusations were coming out.
Ten years later after all of this transpired it turns out all of the accusations by this woman were completely false where she was just trying to get money knowing all of these men came from wealthy backgrounds in the community. It turns out that the three white men denying the accusations saying they were false was in fact being truthful the whole entire time.
That is the problem with these racial and ethnic grievance type laws where as @Nausamedu says they are hysterical blasphemy styled kind of laws under the umbrella of criminal hatespeech.
These type of laws becoming widespread have a lot of potential overtime to become misused and abused. That is a kind of real danger with these sort of things.
And as I have said earlier, there are many cases where the police charge people with disorderly conduct wrongfully where the charges are eventually dropped in court. There is a lot of widespread misuse regarding public disorderly conduct laws.
1 Like
They already are. Have been for decades, and it always went along the lines of whatever was the flavor of the month outrage of the liberal cult.
I would like to remind everyone that #metoo happened, and to date its still perceived mostly positively even on the right side of the aisle.
An event where thousands were defamed by anonymous accusers. Lost career, life, family, friends and more, yet they never faced their accuser. Never met proof. Never got charges or a court in which they could defend themselves against random anonymous accusations.
Just a liberal fucking lynching and body burning. And its still viewed as something acceptable and good.
And each time the cattle gets upset its spelled out but nobody ever learns:
That they try to create a historical moment out of jan 6 when a bunch of rightwingers were ushered into capitol and one of them died, but there is not even a mention of may 31 when the left collectively decided to storm the white house, set a church on fire, and injure 50+ servicemen.
Same with George Floyd and the “mostly peaceful” burning and looting of cities.
Same with armed terrorists taking a piece of government land and deciding that its now an autonomous zone on the capitol hill, and same with Shiloh where we gonna punish the person who is upset, but give a free ticket to a thief and a parent who neither protected nor supervised their child.
@Flannel_Jesus You speak of laws and crimes. I see only very visible, very obvious, very categorical double standards and a two tier justice system.
One side farts in the wind and they need to be held accountable for the crimes of their forefathers, meanwhile the otherside can go around shooting people in the neck and its gonna be celebrated.
That is why you now have events like Charlie Kirk.
1 Like
We are discussing court decisions. We are talking about laws. The laws express the collective, subjective, debated, opinion of a set of individuals including politicians, lawyers, judges, social scientists, citizens associations etc. The lawmakers spend a lot of time and participate in plenty of debates to end up on what each law includes or excludes. If by law the n-word is considered offensive up to the level of disorderly conduct, then the courts decide according to that. You are free citizen, you can have different opinion, but do not expect the courts to rule based on what you like.
If Mrs Hendrix believes that it was unfair, she can appeal. That is how it works. She can disagree with the decision as much as she likes, but she has to respect the court decisions if she wants to avoid the consequences.
I agree with the decision of the court, you disagree. Up to this point we have subjective opinions. The courts could have decided otherwise. Our opinions may remain unchanged. Expecting though the courts to act differently because I do not like it is childish approach of politics.
You continue to be off-topic and you push me to do the same. The murderer of Kirk is in jail, because the court does not care how he feeled, it cares for the action itself. Kirk was not sentenced for insult or disorderly conduct, because by law he did not do such things. All these are irrelevant to Hendrix case.
Can we also avoid hyperboles? Some deranged persons on social media celebrating the murder of a political activist do not represent millions of people. How many Americans actually knew Charlie Kirk?
A 37 year old adult feeling victim of an 8 year old is news to me. But let’s ignore that. She said that the 8 year old tried to steal objects from her. Is there a proof on that? Did she take legal actions for that? Do you believe every accusation claim that someone does just because he/she said it?
And for the record, she was found guilty for the adult with the camera, as @greenfuse mentioned, not for the kid. A court decision takes into account all the facts, some of which do not appear in the news.
I know how to separate things. When I discuss philosophy of ideas, I discuss ideas in general. When I discuss politics and laws, I focus on them. I do not interpret laws based only on my subjective opinion. I listen lawmakers, when possible I try to learn about the historical background of a law (what was the reason it appeared, especially those that seem obsolete), I listen opinions of both sides and check the legal arguments.
With regard to n-word and racial slurs in US there is an existing social reality. The black community is triggered and members of it can become violent. You do not need to be rocket scientist to realize what will happen if you let Hendrix to continue her behavior: other white guys will mimic her and the situation can escalate.
If in the future the social reality in US changes, the racial slurs and whatever else agressive behavior Hendrix showed will be removed from the disorderly conduct laws. For now, they are included.
With respect to the disorderly conduct charges, google AI gives the following:
Black individuals experiencing arrest rates for disorderly conduct that are disproportionate to their share of the general population
Thus, claiming that this law is against white people does not even agree with the statistics.
why are you talking about laws against RAPE like they’re a “racial and ethnic grievance law”? I don’t get it. Do you think laws outlawing rape are… woke?
1 Like
Because in my example of the three men raping the woman that later turned out to be entirely false because she was a black woman they made the case to be about three racially privileged violent white men raping a disadvantaged black African American woman even though later on it was discovered she lied about the whole thing.
Try to follow along if you can.
I’m really trying but i still don’t get it. Rape laws are racial and ethnic grievance laws? Is that what you think?
1 Like
When typical criminal charges goes awry when racial and ethnic grievances are thrown into the mix becoming politically charged of criminal or offensive motivations.
That any better?
Any better? It’s not even a complete sentence.
You laid out a scenario of a rape accusation, and then said “That is the problem with these racial and ethnic grievance type laws”. You’re not doing yourself any favors writing in this weird way.
1 Like
It’s not a “semantical word game” lol. Either the laws in question are “racial and ethnic grievance type laws”, or they aren’t.
Do you think these laws are “racial and ethnic grievance type laws”? Yes or No?
1 Like
They are when hatespeech or a hate crime is entered into the equation of interpreting criminal law.
Were either of the cases in discussion charged as a hate crime? The rape case or this case of the lady swearing at a child?
1 Like
The rape case in the beginning was portrayed as a disadvantaged black African American woman at the complete mercy of three privileged white men even though it was discovered later she lied about the whole thing. I am not sure if there was an actual hate crime charged in that particular court case or not but the language implication was there anyways regardless.
In regards to Hendrix, no there was no hate crime initiation as far as I know, but then one wonders if her case would of gained any publicity at all if no racially motivated language was used.
So bringing up hate crime stuff just seems like a total non-sequitur. Bringing up the rape case does as well, just seems entirely irrelevant. Someone got accused of rape by a liar, their lives were negatively impacted, totally sucks, at least they found out eventually it was a lie. Not ideal but the world rarely is.
I don’t think the race aspect of this matters that much to the important question in this thread. Remove the race element entirely, just imagine a white woman yelling obscenities at a white child in public. “You fucking bastard, you little ugly shit”, really agressively, and yelling nasty crap at their parent too. The question is, should there be any law about this kind of behaviour whatsoever? Or should anyone be allowed to get in anyone’s face and yell terrible shit about them?
“Free Speech”, in my opinion, isn’t that much of a consideration here, since free speech is supposed to protect the expression of ideas. Yelling nasty shit in a child’s face, or anybody’s face, isn’t really what free speech is about. Free speech means you should be able to say you’re a Communist, and you believe in the ideals of Marx, and not get arrested. It’s about expressing ideas, belief in ideas, arguments for ideas - it’s not about being shitty to individual real people.
1 Like
I bring up similar cases because when hatespeech or hate crimes goes into regular law the potential for serious abuse overtime becomes widespread.
Like that guy in England recently who got stabbed to death where the police dragged their feet giving him medical attention because their first priority under the laws of their police district was to investigate hate crimes of racism. Turns out that the guy who stabbed him to death of course lied about those claims of racism.
Well, it depends, doesn’t it? Did she yell out racial ethnic slurs in passing thus exiting the area right away? Or, did she stalk these people within the public park afterward?
Even in criminal charges and trials like this deliberated in a courtroom context is everything within the interpretation of law I would assume.
The question in regards to free speech is, are people allowed to be negatively offensive towards others mentally? If the answer is no then we open up the legislation legal box of policing people’s behavior, thoughts, opinions, perceptions, emotions, beliefs, and so on.
Yes, there’s a reason why as a Marxist and communist living inside the United States I am simultaneously a free speech absolutist because as you know there are many people here who would love arresting a person like me under laws of seditious treason for having such political beliefs ushering back in the days of McCarthyism.
I think however we need to have free speech for people we disagree with and all opposition because ultimately in order to communicate with each other public debate is a healthy thing where all viewpoints should have a right to argue for themselves.