PDA

View Full Version : This is 1 reason the US is so backward



Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 07:51 AM
The US government sends thousands of troops to die in a war. When these soldiers come home, dead, their funerals are protested by religious extremists 'westboro baptist Church' who shout slogans like 'God Hates ***s' and 'God killed your children', etc.

What does the government do? The same government that sends these people over to die for? You may think that you and the soldiers are fighting for freedom, and in a sense they are, but that is all propaganda. Don't think you are immune to it. Afghanistan is the world's largest opium reserve. How was the US/Freemasons originally funded? Opium. That isn't a conspiracy, it's a historical fact. Iraq is one of the world's largest oil reserves. Bush and his allies are well-invested in oil and war manufacturing companies. They are actually profiting from war. This sounds so cliche that it reaches 'conspiracy' status but it's in actuality, the truth.

Anyways!

***BREAKING NEWS***

Supreme Court upholds Westboro Baptist Church's right to stage anti-gay protests at funerals of U.S. troops.
http://www.cnn.com/

You see, in Canada we are more advanced politically. We have laws against 'hate speech' that doesn't allow people to do things like this. Protest funerals, protest immigrants, saying the Holocaust didn't happen and teaching your students on it, these are all illegal acts in Canada. Rightfully so too. If you were ever in a position of one of these people being targeted for hatred, you too would want some type of defense from the government. After all, the premise of our morals and values derives from the notion that we respect others and our freedoms go as far until they violate someone else's.

All it takes is for this law to be passed in the US. Why don't they? Because of those typical redneck Americans who yell 'freedom' and 'freedom of expression'. Americans are overtly-patriotic, in the sense that many don't even understand how to balance politics. They just see how their country was founded and think lets keep it like that, disregarding social change and progress.

When this was happening (WBB were protesting that little girl's funeral in Arizona) I made a topic about how Canada>US in this regard. We would never allow protestors to make a mockery out of someone's life. Tons of Americans on this forum lashed out at me saying "THIS IS WHAT MAKES AMERICA GREAT - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION'! Oh really? It actually makes America look like a joke. Would you want to go over to Iraq and get killed for some warmongerers profits, then come home and be ridiculed upon death. All at a time when mourning of a lost loved one makes people extremely emotionally vulnerable.

When will the US learn? You are not even close to #1 in many aspects. You are ranked #37 in World's Health Care Systems (source: W.H.O), and protests like these at soldier's funerals is a great way of showing the administration and politicians pissing on the graves of the soldiers sent to do their dirty work.

Wake up America, call for an actual anti-hate law. Canada has prospered from this immensely, and I have yet to see a single example/case where this has backfired. If you can find one, i'm all ears. My bet is you never will. The benefits far outweigh the apparent 'malevolence' that comes from curbing 'freedom of expression'.

laxer32
03-02-2011, 07:54 AM
Wake up America, call for an actual anti-hate law.
no.

zinc2man
03-02-2011, 07:57 AM
Canada is as backward as the UK in banning free speech in case it "offends". At least in the US these people are free to protest.

And Im pretty sure Canada also has a blasphemy law. lol.

NotTheFBI
03-02-2011, 07:57 AM
no.

Nice rebuttal phaggot.

I agree OP, but if you disagree with the Constitution even a bit, you're labeled un-american.

Pretty sad.


Canada is as backward as the UK in banning free speech in case it "offends". At least in the US they are free to protest.

And Im pretty sure Canada also has a blasphemy law. lol.

protest =/= or make hate speech acceptable.

It's ok to protest, it's not obviously not ok to protest dead soldiers funerals with signs saying they were ***s and deserved to die.

captainhorseboy
03-02-2011, 07:59 AM
why do you hate freedom?

Darthn3ss
03-02-2011, 07:59 AM
First ammendment guarantees freedom of speech. If I don't like what you say, I'll just ignore you. Anti-hate laws while great in theory get applied in the wrong cases and usually only benefit one side while ****ing over everyone else. While I'll take your health care and anti-war ideas, you can keep your third world views on free speech in Canada. I think the westboro baptist church is ****ed up but letting the government decide who can say what isn't a very nice idea to most americans; or atleast I hope.

Immichaelski
03-02-2011, 08:00 AM
So men fought for their country and you make a thread about it making fun of them. You arent even american you piece of ****, please go.

epicfail101
03-02-2011, 08:02 AM
Stopped reading after opium/free masons and conspiracy.

patmedown167
03-02-2011, 08:05 AM
America killed my father and raped my....


















Anus.

Darthn3ss
03-02-2011, 08:05 AM
So men fought for their country and you make a thread about it making fun of them. You arent even american you piece of ****, please go.

Lolwut he's not making fun of american soldiers he's saying it's ****ty that we let those westboro phaggots protest funerals of dead soldiers and others.

Personally, they need to be waco'd

T150
03-02-2011, 08:06 AM
Funny i was just listening to this

nEH_ms8d1ws&NR

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 08:07 AM
First ammendment guarantees freedom of speech. If I don't like what you say, I'll just ignore you. Anti-hate laws while great in theory get applied in the wrong cases and usually only benefit one side while ****ing over everyone else. While I'll take your health care and anti-war ideas, you can keep your third world views on free speech in Canada.


-Yea you'll just ignore me. People ignore others all the time. This is different. It's religious extremist Americans who are using the US' own laws against them. I feel sad for you that you are too dumb to realize this. Example of overtly-patriotic is this guy. Doesn't understand politics, just his own country's way of life (ie. propaganda). You deserve pity. Also, good luck 'just ignoring' WBB protesters at a funeral. FUNERAL.

-Anti-hate laws have been implemented by 1st-world nations around the globe. They have seen the benefits from it, and have witnessed the malevolence that can come from 100% unhindered free speech. You have no problem with a teacher instructing your children that the Holocaust was fake? Then testing them and grading them on it? This happened in Canada (R v Keegstra).

-They benefit all sides. What does the WBB lose by anti-hate laws? They lose the right to protest at soldier's funerals and lose the right to promote hate speech? IS THAT SUCH A ****ING LOSS? This is what pisses me off about American ignorance.

-It's not a third world idea, it's actually advanced. Hence why the US looks pathetic when religious nutjobs use your own laws against you.

ChrisW16
03-02-2011, 08:07 AM
It's their right by the first amendment and all the laws can do is limit the distance and time before and after the funerals. I.E., Arizona says that you have to be a minimum of 300 feet away from the funeral and you can't protest an hour before or after the funeral. **** yeah.

MajorKobraK
03-02-2011, 08:10 AM
So men fought for their country and you make a thread about it making fun of them. You arent even american you piece of ****, please go.

Read his post again...

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 08:13 AM
It's their right by the first amendment and all the laws can do is limit the distance and time before and after the funerals. I.E., Arizona says that you have to be a minimum of 300 feet away from the funeral and you can't protest an hour before or after the funeral. **** yeah.

All of that was overturned, hence BREAKING NEWS. All of the laws Arizona implemented were deemed 'unconstitutional' thus reversed.

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 08:14 AM
So men fought for their country and you make a thread about it making fun of them. You arent even american you piece of ****, please go.

This is exactly what i'm talking about. Too many Americans are border-line retarded.

MajorKobraK
03-02-2011, 08:15 AM
Nothings more backward than cutting services for the public to fund occupations.

iNegUthenLmao
03-02-2011, 08:17 AM
If I ever saw one of those fuks protesting homosex at a local soldier funeral, I would literally go over there and try to fight them.

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 08:17 AM
no.

fine by me. Then you will have this back and forth bs between states making Anti-hate measures, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court due to unconstitutionality (like what happened today, hence the breaking news).

This is going to be back and forth until the US pulls their heads out of their asses and admit in a sense, that they were wrong. This is what it all comes down to. American's can never admit that they are wrong. Obama tried doing this with health care, and look at the resistance by the right side.

Obama = intelligent = moving for social change (ie. universal health care)
Bush = stupid = go into two wars (Iraq/Afghan) while putting world into global financial crisis = remains there throughout recession

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 08:19 AM
If I ever saw one of those fuks protesting homosex at a local soldier funeral, I would literally go over there and try to fight them.

sorry brah, your government in the form of police would protect them more than they would anyone else. The government/police know people hate WBB so they send police there for protective purposes.

So go and punch one of them, you'll likely go to jail, have a criminal record, feel effects of probation for next couple of years, etc.

This is part of my point on how backwards the US is.

In Canada, you don't need to get angry and gather a 'counter-protest' like a lot of Biker Gangs have done. The Canadian government does that for you, by allowing the police (the same police in the US who will protect the protestors/Hate speech advocates) to arrest and charge anyone who is doing hateful protests or committing hate speech.

chlaxman
03-02-2011, 08:21 AM
Yeah we should ban offensive speech.

I find gay pride parades offensive (not srs), ban it.
I find sermons condemning atheists, non-christians to hell offensive (not srs), ban it.

Darthn3ss
03-02-2011, 08:21 AM
-Yea you'll just ignore me. People ignore others all the time. This is different. It's religious extremist Americans who are using the US' own laws against them. I feel sad for you that you are too dumb to realize this. Example of overtly-patriotic is this guy. Doesn't understand politics, just his own country's way of life (ie. propaganda). You deserve pity. Also, good luck 'just ignoring' WBB protesters at a funeral. FUNERAL.

I realize what WBB does. I'm not even remotely patriotic. I don't trust any politician I've seen to regulate what can and can not be said. Most US politicians are scumbags on corporate payrolls. US hate crime laws have been used to prosecute people in cases where it was declared a hate crime only because the victim was black, or gay, or whAtever while the suspect was white/straight/etc. Mean while, 6 black guys can lynch a white boy, film it, and post it on WSH.com and that's just assault. Us PoLiticians can not be trusted.


-Anti-hate laws have been implemented by 1st-world nations around the globe. They have seen the benefits from it, and have witnessed the malevolence that can come from 100% unhindered free speech. You have no problem with a teacher instructing your children that the Holocaust was fake? Then testing them and grading them on it? This happened in Canada (R v Keegstra).
So if someone holds a point of view thats not in line with most of society they should be prosecuted? I'm an athiest and generally think zionism,neoconservatism,and most liberalism is wrong... Throw me in jail. How about those PETA wackos or the sierra club/ELF nuts? Is it a hate crime to teach your children extreme views from those religions?


-They benefit all sides. What does the WBB lose by anti-hate laws? They lose the right to protest at soldier's funerals and lose the right to promote hate speech? IS THAT SUCH A ****ING LOSS? This is what pisses me off about American ignorance.

-It's not a third world idea, it's actually advanced. Hence why the US looks pathetic when religious nutjobs use your own laws against you.

Adrogeus
03-02-2011, 08:22 AM
The US government sends thousands of troops to die in a war. When these soldiers come home, dead, their funerals are protested by religious extremists 'westboro baptist Church' who shout slogans like 'God Hates ***s' and 'God killed your children', etc.

What does the government do? The same government that sends these people over to die for? You may think that you and the soldiers are fighting for freedom, and in a sense they are, but that is all propaganda. Don't think you are immune to it. Afghanistan is the world's largest opium reserve. How was the US/Freemasons originally funded? Opium. That isn't a conspiracy, it's a historical fact. Iraq is one of the world's largest oil reserves. Bush and his allies are well-invested in oil and war manufacturing companies. They are actually profiting from war. This sounds so cliche that it reaches 'conspiracy' status but it's in actuality, the truth.

Anyways!

***BREAKING NEWS***

Supreme Court upholds Westboro Baptist Church's right to stage anti-gay protests at funerals of U.S. troops.
http://www.cnn.com/

You see, in Canada we are more advanced politically. We have laws against 'hate speech' that doesn't allow people to do things like this. Protest funerals, protest immigrants, saying the Holocaust didn't happen and teaching your students on it, these are all illegal acts in Canada. Rightfully so too. If you were ever in a position of one of these people being targeted for hatred, you too would want some type of defense from the government. After all, the premise of our morals and values derives from the notion that we respect others and our freedoms go as far until they violate someone else's.

All it takes is for this law to be passed in the US. Why don't they? Because of those typical redneck Americans who yell 'freedom' and 'freedom of expression'. Americans are overtly-patriotic, in the sense that many don't even understand how to balance politics. They just see how their country was founded and think lets keep it like that, disregarding social change and progress.

When this was happening (WBB were protesting that little girl's funeral in Arizona) I made a topic about how Canada>US in this regard. We would never allow protestors to make a mockery out of someone's life. Tons of Americans on this forum lashed out at me saying "THIS IS WHAT MAKES AMERICA GREAT - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION'! Oh really? It actually makes America look like a joke. Would you want to go over to Iraq and get killed for some warmongerers profits, then come home and be ridiculed upon death. All at a time when mourning of a lost loved one makes people extremely emotionally vulnerable.

When will the US learn? You are not even close to #1 in many aspects. You are ranked #37 in World's Health Care Systems (source: W.H.O), and protests like these at soldier's funerals is a great way of showing the administration and politicians pissing on the graves of the soldiers sent to do their dirty work.

Wake up America, call for an actual anti-hate law. Canada has prospered from this immensely, and I have yet to see a single example/case where this has backfired. If you can find one, i'm all ears. My bet is you never will. The benefits far outweigh the apparent 'malevolence' that comes from curbing 'freedom of expression'.

inb4 negs by bitter Americans. Will neg back on my bro's account 14k reps. So come at me. This is meant to be informative and hopefully incite an intelligent discussion. But, this is the misc so I will expect trolls and the uneducated.

The First amendment exists because the USA was lucky enough to have forefathers with enough wisdom to realize the importance of freedom of speech, and codify it in law, not because of "some rednecks who yell FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION".

Who gets to decide what makes up "hate speech" in Canada and Western Europe?

It's the multi-culti goodthink PC crowd who decides what is and isn't acceptable to say, or to point out. They control the media, they control the universities

An example of these hate speech laws not working:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean%27s_magazi ne

Mark Steyn write an article

(http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898)

Cliffs:

-Muslims winning demographic battle with Europeans
-Radical muslims gaining foothold, even though not all muslims are terrorists
-Radical groups (e.g. Bolsheviks in 1917 Russia, Nazis in 1930s Germany) are the ones who win
-Freedom of speech and Religion and other western values will go away thanks to this, under sharia law and the threat of divine retribution form jihad

Unfortunately, this is verboten to say, so some Human rights councils had HEARINGS about WHAT HE SAID because some muslims didn't like it.

He was let off, but the precedent remains:

It doesn't matter if what you say is truthful, just whether or not it "exposes some minority group to hatred".

OTOH, Pat Buchanan says pretty much the same thing in the US of A, but he doesn't face pseudo-legal action because of the first amendment.

Examples like the WBC are red herrings to get people to accept these hate speech laws, but their real goal is to silence critics of the one world, globalist and multicultualist movement.

I'd be for shutting the WBC up, but when are you going to stop limiting speech once you start doing that?

PeZzYy
03-02-2011, 08:22 AM
its fcuked up yea, but its called freedom

trust me if I was at the funeral I would beat the **** out of the person leading the protest

1GGY
03-02-2011, 08:23 AM
So men fought for their country and you make a thread about it making fun of them. You arent even american you piece of ****, please go.

quick question, what was it like being born with down's syndrome?

chlaxman
03-02-2011, 08:23 AM
sorry brah, your government in the form of police would protect them more than they would anyone else. The government/police know people hate WBB so they send police there for protective purposes.

So go and punch one of them, you'll likely go to jail, have a criminal record, feel effects of probation for next couple of years, etc.

This is part of my point on how backwards the US is.

You advocate violence against non-violent protestors? Ok Qaddafi

BB4EV3R
03-02-2011, 08:23 AM
The US government sends thousands of troops to die in a war. When these soldiers come home, dead, their funerals are protested by religious extremists 'westboro baptist Church' who shout slogans like 'God Hates ***s' and 'God killed your children', etc.

What percentage of soldiers' funerals do you think are being protested???

Darthn3ss
03-02-2011, 08:26 AM
If the idea that restricting freedom of speech, information, and expression (basically anything the first amendment in the us guarantees) is considered advanced politics, im perfectly happy being 200 years in the past.

Rufflez
03-02-2011, 08:32 AM
http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy334/lifeinautomatic/Gifs/summer-disgusted.gif

pittbleauxs
03-02-2011, 08:35 AM
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Silmarillion
03-02-2011, 08:39 AM
Yeah, free speech sure is the ONE reason america is backward. oh well

Darthn3ss
03-02-2011, 08:40 AM
Also, Im on phone so I'm got going to check, but I believe US is only ranked that low because of availability; in terms of quality were still in the top...just be prepared to shell out some cash for it.

Darthn3ss
03-02-2011, 08:43 AM
Lol op brah whered you go?

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 08:43 AM
I realize what WBB does. I'm not even remotely patriotic. I don't trust any politician I've seen to regulate what can and can not be said. Most US politicians are scumbags on corporate payrolls. US hate crime laws have been used to prosecute people in cases where it was declared a hate crime only because the victim was black, or gay, or whAtever while the suspect was white/straight/etc. Mean while, 6 black guys can lynch a white boy, film it, and post it on WSH.com and that's just assault. Us PoLiticians can not be trusted.

-"US hate crime laws have been used" - insinuating that it is an older law and not developed with the rest of the developed world. When were these US hate crime laws implemented? 1800?

-Hate Laws are designed to curb 'hatred towards a group'. I don't see how that has anything to do with one race being above another. All groups are deemed groups that can be hated against.

-Show me a video of 6 black guys lynching a white guy (would be a lot more popular than that black bouncer in the washroom vid). Also, show me where they were only charged with assault for murdering and hanging a white person in a white-dominated government.



So if someone holds a point of view thats not in line with most of society they should be prosecuted? I'm an athiest and generally think zionism,neoconservatism,and most liberalism is wrong... Throw me in jail. How about those PETA wackos or the sierra club/ELF nuts? Is it a hate crime to teach your children extreme views from those religions?

-Holding a belief, and going out, organizing a rally and spreading hatred are two completely different things. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to reach that conclusion.

-Freedom of expression for parents teaching children has been up for significant debate, and for good reason. Check out Maury Povich episodes 'My kid is 200lbs'. Same story: single, fat woman has no control/discipline over her child. Mother cries about how she worries child will stop breathing, has stopped breathing, etc. What about the parents who tattooed hitler and SS art on their infant children's bodies?

The result? We let parents teach their children whatever they want, as long as it corresponds with the laws (ie. you can't teach them pipe-bomb making with actual materials used). This is okay, and although there are bad parts of letting parents teach whatever, it is a step towards a 'totalitarian' state that would scare a lot of people. Rightfully so. This freedom of expression is fundamentally different however.

-Freedom of religion is allowed. You can be a Muslim all you want. Just don't fly planes into buildings. Don't do things that hurt other people. Oh wait! Like protesting funerals.

Darthn3ss
03-02-2011, 08:46 AM
No time to write a response to that Op but the video is in the outdoor/recreational forum under sports training. It'll be a multipage thread on the first or second page if you care to watch. No clue if/what they were charge with, but I highly doubt itvwas a hate crime.


Also, how is it wrong to teach your kids the holocaust never happened but it's okay to teach them evangelical Christian views or extreme-leftist views ?

Bosh92
03-02-2011, 08:48 AM
Canada is as backward as the UK in banning free speech in case it "offends". At least in the US these people are free to protest.

And Im pretty sure Canada also has a blasphemy law. lol.

lol what we have racially spurred protests all the time and nothing is done unless they actually commit a crime i.e assault

Muffinbeast
03-02-2011, 08:54 AM
They should be allowed the right to say what they wish.

Even if their scum (yes sucks)

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 08:55 AM
Also, how is it wrong to teach your kids the holocaust never happened but it's okay to teach them evangelical Christian views or extreme-leftist views ?

It was a teacher lecturing his high school students on anti-Jewish propaganda because he himself, was anti-semetic. He then tested them on their new-found knowledge, and deducted points for opposing views (mind you this is high school students). It got word and spread like wildfire. Canada did something about it and has benefited ever since. No gatherings in Canada to spread hatred propaganda. Canada benefits from it now, and will in the future as the effects snowball.

I consider myself quite knowledgeable in terms of our existence. I can't begin to explain how much it bothers me that children are even being taught 'intelligent design' or Bible stories while going out of their way to not be taught things like evolution, humanitarianism, etc. but to actually force everyone to learn one specific things sets a dangerous precedent. Also, while yes it does suck that people are learning all these different perspectives, religions, ideologies, etc. there are some things in place in this world that filter out stupidity (like post-secondary education which in turn often rewards with more lucrative career options).

bmontgomery87
03-02-2011, 08:57 AM
temped to neg OP for being an idiot.

yes i hate the WBC.
but free speech doesnt work when you give it to some people and not others

vazquez
03-02-2011, 08:58 AM
First ammendment guarantees freedom of speech. If I don't like what you say, I'll just ignore you. Anti-hate laws while great in theory get applied in the wrong cases and usually only benefit one side while ****ing over everyone else. While I'll take your health care and anti-war ideas, you can keep your third world views on free speech in Canada. I think the westboro baptist church is ****ed up but letting the government decide who can say what isn't a very nice idea to most americans; or atleast I hope.

excellent post remind me to rep you phaggot.


unfortunately our 1st ammend. right is overly abused by the westboro retards.....its a matter of time until the civilian citizenry gets fed up with their bull**** and reprimands will follow.

the constitution protects our right to free speech but don't talk **** and not expect to get the fcuk knocked out.

westboro retards are in it for profit...they are one large inbred(srs) family of lawyers.... they provoke confrontation so later they can sue for damages.

aware me when they are in l.a... I will make sure to fuk their **** up.

one of my bro's is a muhreen stationed here and his company commander hates the fuk out westboro.

I have a couple of paintball guns with a box of ammo.

drive by these phaggots "boyz in da hood" style.

i_will
03-02-2011, 09:00 AM
You see, in Canada ..

This is where I stopped reading.

thegenerel
03-02-2011, 09:00 AM
lets discuss where Canada falters...


In yet another nod to the protection of fledgling self-esteem, an Ottawa children’s soccer league has introduced a rule that says any team that wins a game by more than five points will lose by default.

The Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league’s newly implemented edict is intended to dissuade a runaway game in favour of sportsmanship. The rule replaces its five-point mercy regulation, whereby any points scored beyond a five-point differential would not be registered.

Kevin Cappon said he first heard about the rule on May 20 — right after he had scored his team’s last allowable goal. His team then tossed the ball around for fear of losing the game.

He said if anything, the league’s new rule will coddle sore losers.

“They should be saying anything is possible. If we can get five goals really fast, well, so can the other team,” said Kevin, 17, who has played in the league for five years. “People grow in adversity, they don’t really get worse…. I think you’ll see more leadership skills being used if a losing team tries to recuperate than if they never got into that situation at all.”

Kevin’s father, Bruce Cappon, called the rule ludicrous.

“I couldn’t find anywhere in the world, even in a communist country, where that rule is enforced,” he said.

Mr. Cappon said the organization is trying to “reinvent the wheel” by fostering a non-competitive environment. The league has 3,000 children enrolled ranging in age from four to 18 years old.

“Everybody wants a close game, nobody wants blowouts, but we don’t want to go by those farcical rules that they come up with,” he said. “Heaven forbid when these kids get into the real world. They won’t be prepared to deal with the competition out there.”

Paul Cholmsky, whose four- and six-year-old boys play in the league, said the intended goal of a default-lose rule might backfire in teaching life skills.

“If there’s one team that’s consistenly dominant and one team that’s not, well, that’s life,” he said.

Mr. Cholmsky said he would be in favour of temporarily handicapping a team, for example reducing the number of players on the field, over ensuring a team loss for a high score differential.

According to the league’s new rules, coaches of stronger teams are encouraged to deter runaway games by rotating players out of their usual positions, ensuring players pass the ball around, asking players to kick with the weaker foot, taking players off the field and encouraging players to score from farther away.

Club director Sean Cale said he is disappointed a few parents are making the new soccer rule overshadow the community involvement and organizing the Gloucester club does.

“The registration fee, rergardless of the sport, does not give a parent the right to insult or belittle the organization,” he said. “It gives you a uniform, it gives you a team.”

Mr. Cale said the league’s 12-person board of directors is not trying to take the fun out of the game, they are simply trying to make it fair. The new rule, suggested by “involved parents,” is a temporary measure that will be replaced by a pre-season skill assessment to make fair teams.

“The board is completely volunteer-run and we do the best that we can to provide a good, clean, fun soccer experience for everyone,” he said.

Although parents are fuming, he said the commotion is coming from “about 1% of the parents.”

bustermac
03-02-2011, 09:00 AM
Wake up America, call for an actual anti-hate law. Canada has prospered from this immensely, and I have yet to see a single example/case where this has backfired. If you can find one, i'm all ears. My bet is you never will. The benefits far outweigh the apparent 'malevolence' that comes from curbing 'freedom of expression'.

inb4 negs by bitter Americans. Will neg back on my bro's account 14k reps. So come at me. This is meant to be informative and hopefully incite an intelligent discussion. But, this is the misc so I will expect trolls and the uneducated.

With the extremists in the White House right now, they'd use an "Anti-Hate" law to silence political opposition, certain religions and not others and anyone dissenting or disagreeing with their plans. SRS. This is why they're pushing the "Fairness Doctrine" which is a misnomer. It's precisely to silence anyone disagreeing, reporting and exposing their actions to the voters.

The last thing we need is to follow a Socialist policy like Canada.


Also, I think your "threats" of using someone else's account is ban-worthy. Get on that mods!

mainguy
03-02-2011, 09:01 AM
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This applies entirely. Who are you to decide how people should act OP?

bustermac
03-02-2011, 09:02 AM
All of that was overturned, hence BREAKING NEWS. All of the laws Arizona implemented were deemed 'unconstitutional' thus reversed.

Funny, because Arizona's law simply said to enforce Federal laws already on the books.

perplex
03-02-2011, 09:04 AM
What percentage of soldiers' funerals do you think are being protested???

even if it is just 1, its too much

arn710
03-02-2011, 09:05 AM
freedom haters

pls go

Adrogeus
03-02-2011, 09:05 AM
-Show me a video of 6 black guys lynching a white guy (would be a lot more popular than that black bouncer in the washroom vid). Also, show me where they were only charged with assault for murdering and hanging a white person in a white-dominated government.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/blurb/2007-06/30388658.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newso m


Channon Gail Christian, 21, and Hugh Christopher Newsom, Jr., 23, were a couple from Knoxville, Tennessee. They were both raped, tortured and murdered by three males and one female after being kidnapped early on the morning of January 7, 2007. Their vehicle had been carjacked.

They were convicted, but none of them got "hate crime" tagged onto their sentencing.

We also didn't hear about this crime, but imagine if the races were reversed. They were killed in a horrifyingly brutal way too.

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 09:05 AM
even if it is just 1, its too much

will rep on recharge

Soup66
03-02-2011, 09:08 AM
even if it is just 1, its too much

And that is your perspective and you are entitled to it. Other American citizens don't feel this way, but does that make it right for them to be allowed to openly protest and hate? What is 'right' anyways? How do we know who's definition of a just action is 100% legitimate?

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 09:08 AM
They were convicted, but none of them got "hate crime" tagged onto their sentencing.

We also didn't hear about this crime, but imagine if the races were reversed. They were killed in a horrifyingly brutal way too.

k so what you are saying then is that anytime a crime is committed between two parties of different race/religion/ethnicity/perhaps gender then we should charge them as hate crimes?

There have to be factors that insinuate that it was a hate crime. Remember it's America, "innocent until proven guilty", there is no reverse onus on criminals to prove it wasn't a hate crime. If prosecutors want to charge someone with a hate crime, there is usually sufficient evidence (like shouting racial slurs while committing the act on videotape or in public presence).

JoshSP1985
03-02-2011, 09:12 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/blurb/2007-06/30388658.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newso m



They were convicted, but none of them got "hate crime" tagged onto their sentencing.

We also didn't hear about this crime, but imagine if the races were reversed. They were killed in a horrifyingly brutal way too.

Didn't you know only white people can hate.

Soup66
03-02-2011, 09:16 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/blurb/2007-06/30388658.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newso m



They were convicted, but none of them got "hate crime" tagged onto their sentencing.

We also didn't hear about this crime, but imagine if the races were reversed. They were killed in a horrifyingly brutal way too.



Didn't you know only white people can hate.

Don't bring race into this

123Score
03-02-2011, 09:35 AM
Don't bring race into this

Hate crimes in the US are typically racially motivated, race has already been brought in this discussion.


But, yes. No need to say silly comments, this is a good discussion.

bird72
03-02-2011, 09:43 AM
OP is mad because he live on US septic tank......:D

vazquez
03-02-2011, 09:46 AM
temped to neg OP for being an idiot.

yes i hate the WBC.
but free speech doesnt work when you give it to some people and not others

this.....op needs to stay in canuckistan.

he sounds like a social retard and is just as bad by his negative views on religion....he's very biased.

canuckistan is not as diverse enthnically/religously/politically/raciallly as the u.s. he's also proven that canuckistan isn't diverse in thought as well.

this is what makes canucks and the u.s. distinctive.

if you like a western gov't that is MORE towards socialism......canuckistan is your place.

though the u.s. is trending that way with the healthcare reform fiasco.... freedom of speech is one of the beacons that indicate a more free society.

I wuv's me da u.s..

ONtop888
03-02-2011, 09:48 AM
fine by me. Then you will have this back and forth bs between states making Anti-hate measures, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court due to unconstitutionality (like what happened today, hence the breaking news).

This is going to be back and forth until the US pulls their heads out of their asses and admit in a sense, that they were wrong. This is what it all comes down to. American's can never admit that they are wrong. Obama tried doing this with health care, and look at the resistance by the right side.

Obama = intelligent = moving for social change (ie. universal health care)
Bush = stupid = go into two wars (Iraq/Afghan) while putting world into global financial crisis = remains there throughout recession

Bush tried doing something with Social Security, and he met equal resistance. No one wants to touch any of the Big Three. And LOL at your cursory "analysis" of Bush and Obama. They both put us trillions into debt. One started the wars, and the other promised to end but INSTEAD he chose to continue both of them. On top of that, how smart is a guy that continues to ramp up our exorbitant debt as expediently as he is doing? Answer: not very smart.

thegenerel
03-02-2011, 10:08 AM
Bush tried doing something with Social Security, and he met equal resistance. No one wants to touch any of the Big Three. And LOL at your cursory "analysis" of Bush and Obama. They both put us trillions into debt. One started the wars, and the other promised to end but INSTEAD he chose to continue both of them. On top of that, how smart is a guy that continues to ramp up our exorbitant debt as expediently as he is doing? Answer: not very smart.

Ontop putting the OP in his place.

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 11:01 AM
Bush tried doing something with Social Security, and he met equal resistance. No one wants to touch any of the Big Three. And LOL at your cursory "analysis" of Bush and Obama. They both put us trillions into debt. One started the wars, and the other promised to end but INSTEAD he chose to continue both of them. On top of that, how smart is a guy that continues to ramp up our exorbitant debt as expediently as he is doing? Answer: not very smart.

oh look...a guy with a bible quote in his signature....educate yourself and re-consider your pompous attitude.

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech.Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.


Members of Westboro Baptist Church have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.
In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end." Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm. In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle. Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.

Galvatorex
03-02-2011, 11:12 AM
The US government sends thousands of troops to die in a war. When these soldiers come home, dead, their funerals are protested by religious extremists 'westboro baptist Church' who shout slogans like 'God Hates ***s' and 'God killed your children', etc.

What does the government do? The same government that sends these people over to die for? You may think that you and the soldiers are fighting for freedom, and in a sense they are, but that is all propaganda. Don't think you are immune to it. Afghanistan is the world's largest opium reserve. How was the US/Freemasons originally funded? Opium. That isn't a conspiracy, it's a historical fact. Iraq is one of the world's largest oil reserves. Bush and his allies are well-invested in oil and war manufacturing companies. They are actually profiting from war. This sounds so cliche that it reaches 'conspiracy' status but it's in actuality, the truth.

Anyways!

***BREAKING NEWS***

Supreme Court upholds Westboro Baptist Church's right to stage anti-gay protests at funerals of U.S. troops.
http://www.cnn.com/

You see, in Canada we are more advanced politically. We have laws against 'hate speech' that doesn't allow people to do things like this. Protest funerals, protest immigrants, saying the Holocaust didn't happen and teaching your students on it, these are all illegal acts in Canada. Rightfully so too. If you were ever in a position of one of these people being targeted for hatred, you too would want some type of defense from the government. After all, the premise of our morals and values derives from the notion that we respect others and our freedoms go as far until they violate someone else's.

All it takes is for this law to be passed in the US. Why don't they? Because of those typical redneck Americans who yell 'freedom' and 'freedom of expression'. Americans are overtly-patriotic, in the sense that many don't even understand how to balance politics. They just see how their country was founded and think lets keep it like that, disregarding social change and progress.

When this was happening (WBB were protesting that little girl's funeral in Arizona) I made a topic about how Canada>US in this regard. We would never allow protestors to make a mockery out of someone's life. Tons of Americans on this forum lashed out at me saying "THIS IS WHAT MAKES AMERICA GREAT - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION'! Oh really? It actually makes America look like a joke. Would you want to go over to Iraq and get killed for some warmongerers profits, then come home and be ridiculed upon death. All at a time when mourning of a lost loved one makes people extremely emotionally vulnerable.

When will the US learn? You are not even close to #1 in many aspects. You are ranked #37 in World's Health Care Systems (source: W.H.O), and protests like these at soldier's funerals is a great way of showing the administration and politicians pissing on the graves of the soldiers sent to do their dirty work.

Wake up America, call for an actual anti-hate law. Canada has prospered from this immensely, and I have yet to see a single example/case where this has backfired. If you can find one, i'm all ears. My bet is you never will. The benefits far outweigh the apparent 'malevolence' that comes from curbing 'freedom of expression'.

inb4 negs by bitter Americans. Will neg back on my bro's account 14k reps. So come at me. This is meant to be informative and hopefully incite an intelligent discussion. But, this is the misc so I will expect trolls and the uneducated.

Brb going to canada and calling someone a nagger and getting life in prison

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 11:18 AM
Brb going to canada and calling someone a nagger and getting life in prison

strong understanding of the world outside your own borders...

You can call a cop a ******, freedom of speech

You CANNOT hold a rally promoting hatred toward a group.

Canada is an advanced democracy. We respect peaceful assembly and protest. It is a fundamental in which all democracies are based on, regardless of how effective people want to argue they are.

aka, we don't have racist/evil groups forming in our streets/public areas spouting hatred that no ones wants to hear. I doubt anyone will argue that they don't want to hear it. Talking is easier than walking. Meaning, have it be at your dad's/son's funeral after being sent off to war and see how it feels. Even the people who laugh and shrug it off are narcissistic still to be offended when it happens to them or someone in their close circle.

Emmortal
03-02-2011, 12:01 PM
strong understanding of the world outside your own borders...

You can call a cop a ******, freedom of speech

You CANNOT hold a rally promoting hatred toward a group.

Canada is an advanced democracy. We respect peaceful assembly and protest. It is a fundamental in which all democracies are based on, regardless of how effective people want to argue they are.

aka, we don't have racist/evil groups forming in our streets/public areas spouting hatred that no ones wants to hear. I doubt anyone will argue that they don't want to hear it. Talking is easier than walking. Meaning, have it be at your dad's/son's funeral after being sent off to war and see how it feels. Even the people who laugh and shrug it off are narcissistic still to be offended when it happens to them or someone in their close circle.

So what happens when you start saying something that offends everyone else and you are put in prison just because someone didn't like what you had to say?

This thread just shows why the US isn't as backward as Canada.

/thread

ONtop888
03-02-2011, 12:05 PM
oh look...a guy with a bible quote in his signature....educate yourself and re-consider your pompous attitude.

[b]According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech.Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.
Lmao, selective tolerance? "I can't answer this guy's post, so I'll deflect about the Bible quote in his sig, and talk about the Westboro Baptist Church"........:rolleyes:. Care to adress any of my points or is that all you got?

TheAdlerian
03-02-2011, 12:06 PM
OP,

You need to study and think about the philosophical basis of the US before commenting on it, because you are both wrong and short sighted.

This church is wacky because according to Jesus no one should even know you're a christian because he said to pray in secret and do your works in secret. That was in contrast to the jews at the time who were very showy about their piety, which means they had none at all. So, I'm establishing that they're just a bunch of people using his name to protest things they don't like. I've read their reasons, and I understand them, but their methods are little more than annoying, rather than effective. Most of America is turned off and doesn't care.

Anyway, freedom of speech needs to be protected because what if one day soldiers are used against the American people to oppress them. Then no one will be able to turn out and protest because it will be illegal. So, we protect obnoxious people no one cares about in order to protect the justly angry at some future point. It's one of the main purposes of the US.

Al Swearengen
03-02-2011, 12:07 PM
in the peoples republic of canada the guvna will do all your hating for you, now go sit down and be silent you dissident.

Tamorlane
03-02-2011, 01:28 PM
So what happens when you start saying something that offends everyone else and you are put in prison just because someone didn't like what you had to say?

This thread just shows why the US isn't as backward as Canada.

/thread


Lmao, selective tolerance? "I can't answer this guy's post, so I'll deflect about the Bible quote in his sig, and talk about the Westboro Baptist Church"........:rolleyes:. Care to adress any of my points or is that all you got?


OP,

You need to study and think about the philosophical basis of the US before commenting on it, because you are both wrong and short sighted.

This church is wacky because according to Jesus no one should even know you're a christian because he said to pray in secret and do your works in secret. That was in contrast to the jews at the time who were very showy about their piety, which means they had none at all. So, I'm establishing that they're just a bunch of people using his name to protest things they don't like. I've read their reasons, and I understand them, but their methods are little more than annoying, rather than effective. Most of America is turned off and doesn't care.

Anyway, freedom of speech needs to be protected because what if one day soldiers are used against the American people to oppress them. Then no one will be able to turn out and protest because it will be illegal. So, we protect obnoxious people no one cares about in order to protect the justly angry at some future point. It's one of the main purposes of the US.


in the peoples republic of canada the guvna will do all your hating for you, now go sit down and be silent you dissident.

Learn to read: The rest of the world gets it, why doesn't the United States? Possible relation to elitism and not wanting to admit they were wrong? Admitting i'm right means that Americans admit they are wrong when other parts of the world are more advanced, socially. Pretty sad that because of the american ego on a national scale, these funeral goers and families and soldiers need to suffer. Wake up.

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech.Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.


Members of Westboro Baptist Church have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.
In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end." Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm. In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle. Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large

OMGaGURL
03-02-2011, 01:47 PM
I can see why the court ruled this way. Wow what would have happened if they ruled the other way? It would have been...

- Marine fights for country to protect freedoms and dies.
- Crazy group protests for attention.
- Court rules against them.
- Freedoms marine was fighting for are reduced.

My mind would be blown if the above happened. I don't agree with this group at all but the law is written the way it is and this isn't about what we FEEL is right or wrong. The supreme court interpreted the law correctly. By the law I'm not sure how Alito could rule against them.

I wish they would stop though. The first time I read an article about what they were doing I thought it was some kind of troll article that couldn't be true. Unfortunately it was. =(

Beatitude
03-02-2011, 01:55 PM
We must protect free speech, but only free speech that is mainstream.

http://www.determinismsucks.net/archive/trollface-%28n1297246220790%29.jpg

Emmortal
03-02-2011, 02:11 PM
Learn to read: The rest of the world gets it, why doesn't the United States? Possible relation to elitism and not wanting to admit they were wrong? Admitting i'm right means that Americans admit they are wrong when other parts of the world are more advanced, socially. Pretty sad that because of the american ego on a national scale, these funeral goers and families and soldiers need to suffer. Wake up.


Oh please. Don't even start throwing this US elitism bull**** into this discussion. The rest of the world is perfectly fine with free speech as long as it goes with what's publicly acceptable. Otherwise kiss your ass goodbye. You call that being more socially evolved? We call that living in the 1600's. Get with the program and get past the fact that just because you don't like what someone has to say they have a right to say it. People like you disgust me.

Grow the **** up dude.

StylesOfBeyond
03-02-2011, 02:19 PM
America killed my father and raped my....


















Anus.


Government came and took my BABYYYY

watertoy
03-02-2011, 02:21 PM
Hate Speech laws sure saved these lives. Per Capita the death toll is significant relative to the size of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

Air India Flight 182 was an Air India flight operating on the Montréal-London-Delhi route. On 23 June 1985, the aeroplane operating on the route — a Boeing 747-237B (c/n 21473/330, reg VT-EFO) named after Emperor Kanishka — was blown up by a bomb while in Irish airspace, at an altitude of 31,000 feet (9,400 m), and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. 329 people perished, including 280 Canadian citizens, mostly of Indian birth or descent, and 22 Indians.[1]

Al Swearengen
03-02-2011, 02:54 PM
Learn to read: The rest of the world gets it, why doesn't the United States? Possible relation to elitism and not wanting to admit they were wrong? Admitting i'm right means that Americans admit they are wrong when other parts of the world are more advanced, socially. Pretty sad that because of the american ego on a national scale, these funeral goers and families and soldiers need to suffer. Wake up.

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech.Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.


Members of Westboro Baptist Church have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.
In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end." Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm. In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle. Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large

your freedom shrinks by the year and you applaud it, brilliant.

TheAdlerian
03-02-2011, 05:47 PM
Learn to read:

What does that mean?

I say to you: Learn to think.

I explained to you why unpopular speech is protected. It is because a protected group could turn evil and need to be spoken out against to turn public opinion against them.

Let's say that one day we elect a jewish president, he brings all jews into high powered positions, and then begins to channel even more tax dollars into Israel and that causes increased aggression and terrorism in the mideast. That would an example of many negative ideas about jews coming true.

Now, logically, jews are just normal white people who lay claim to this mystic specialness and deserve no more than the average person gets. If rational people spoke out against this fictional religion, and how crazy/sinister people use it shut others out and create international tension, murder, etc based on mythology they would be painted as criminals for saying what is 100% true.

If you don't like that example, I can imagine some weird trend in the distant future that mimics Nazism but is called Kindism and tricks many people into doing terrible things under the guise of "Kindness" and anyone who speaks out is "unkind" and so on.

The concept is easy to understand.

Penile_Dementia
03-02-2011, 06:36 PM
I expected this to be about religion or violent crime or morality in foreign policy.

Instead I read a complaint over one of the issues America is at the absolute forefront on.

Emmortal
03-02-2011, 06:40 PM
I expected this to be about religion or violent crime or morality in foreign policy.

Instead I read a complaint over one of the issues America is at the absolute forefront on.

Yet somehow we are socially less evolved according to Tamorlane. Freedom of speech? Sure as long as you don't offend me.

ONtop888
03-02-2011, 07:38 PM
your freedom shrinks by the year and you applaud it, brilliant.

Lmao, ^^ THIS ^^^

JustAnotherUser
03-02-2011, 09:57 PM
if we don't believe in freedom of expression for those we most despise, then we don't believe in it at all.

Yes, I hate the WBC with every bit of my being, but it's their right. They shouldn't use it in this case, but we can't stop them legally.

justin8684
03-03-2011, 06:33 AM
Fight fire with fire.

Use the first ammendment to your advantage to get back at them... picket their church in Kansas and protest against inbreeding.

Boffothe
03-03-2011, 06:37 AM
It's kind of scary to think that a society could actively think "man, America is just too free. They need to be locking people who say mean things into cages"

justin8684
03-03-2011, 06:39 AM
It's kind of scary to think that a society could actively think "man, America is just too free. They need to be locking people who say mean things into cages"

Well, the situation is kind of screwy/backwards when you consider there was more uproar in Washington over the content of rap lyrics in the early 1990s.

NeggerPlz
03-03-2011, 07:06 AM
The US government sends thousands of troops to die in a war. When these soldiers come home, dead, their funerals are protested by religious extremists 'westboro baptist Church' who shout slogans like 'God Hates ***s' and 'God killed your children', etc.

What does the government do? The same government that sends these people over to die for? .

Judicial branch is separate from fed gov. Even the current admin of fed gov is not the same as the ones who initiated the preemptive war on Iraq.

Ignorance is strong with this one

Death Strike
03-03-2011, 07:33 AM
Just my $.02

In theory I would have thought the US version of 100% unrestricted freedom of speech would be better but in practise the Canadian system seems to work better.

Al Swearengen
03-03-2011, 10:25 AM
Just my $.02

In theory I would have thought the US version of 100% unrestricted freedom of speech would be better but in practise the Canadian system seems to work better.

it works just fine, for instance it allows people like you to make unsupported ignorant post's like you did here, without it being illegal, get it?

bird72
03-03-2011, 10:48 AM
Canada is an advanced democracy. We respect peaceful assembly and protest.



http://www.politicolnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/G20CANADAISIRAN.png


Way wuttttttttttttt? :eek:

Be_Easy_25
03-03-2011, 10:50 AM
http://www.politicolnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/G20CANADAISIRAN.png


Way wuttttttttttttt? :eek:

LOLD at guy at the bottom.

not a single **** was given that day.

TheAdlerian
03-03-2011, 10:54 AM
Just my $.02

In theory I would have thought the US version of 100% unrestricted freedom of speech would be better but in practise the Canadian system seems to work better.

Uhm...why?

TheDonJuana
03-03-2011, 10:56 AM
lol at any idiot who actually believes these servicemen are fighting for your "American Freedoms" and not for the interests of a few corporate globalist elite.

If anything this war is about taking away your freedom all in the name of fighting an endless war on a strategy which cannot be defeated by any conventional warfare much like the "war on drugs".

It's a profit motive not a motive to make Americans free, It's a psychological war that does the majority of the public nothing but tyranny and gives a few elitist dominators more global strategic powers.

I can't believe that people are that fukn stupid to think this war is about freedoms almost 10 years after it began

Boffothe
03-03-2011, 10:57 AM
Just my $.02

In theory I would have thought the US version of 100% unrestricted freedom of speech would be better but in practise the Canadian system seems to work better.

You can tell that the anti-freedom of speech crowd are infantile retards because none of them can even attempt to defend their stance

Death Strike
03-03-2011, 12:10 PM
Uhm...why?

We have all the freedoms you have without people like WBC.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/online_hate/when_is_hate_a_crime.cfm

It seems that Americans think it's impossible to filter out the bad while keeping the good.

What have you to gain by having the right to:

*advocate genocide
*publicly incite hatred
*wilfully promote hatred

More is not always better.

TheAdlerian
03-03-2011, 12:23 PM
We have all the freedoms you have without people like WBC.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/online_hate/when_is_hate_a_crime.cfm

It seems that Americans think it's impossible to filter out the bad while keeping the good.

What have you to gain by having the right to:

*advocate genocide
*publicly incite hatred
*wilfully promote hatred

More is not always better.

Did you read my previous posts?

The danger is that in the future bad people may sell themselves as being good. If anything happens in your country you won't be allowed to "hate" people who are sinister, because they have used psych techniques to create an illusion.

The US was started in a war against royalty. Royalty, is fake, but they said they were divinely appointed people of higher genetic quality that the rest of the people. Free speech was developed as a way to destroy that illusion through protest, ridicule, angry polemics, and so on.

We haven't eliminated all the BS groups of people in the world and so the work still needs to be done.

Ruger357
03-03-2011, 12:44 PM
No thanks. We already have some limits on speech, mostly for safety reasons. I would fear that too many constraints on freedom of speech may open the door for more constraints in the future.

Banning "hate" speech doesn't address any problems. Instead of overt hatred, you now have covert hatred. You still have the hatred, you just feel better about it because you don't have to listen to it anymore.

As far as the WBC goes. They aren't a real church. They are mostly one family with some fringe lunatics. The controversy they cause allows them to sue people. And some of their "parishioners" are actually lawyers.

Streetbull
03-03-2011, 12:50 PM
You see, in Canada we are more advanced politically. We have laws against 'hate speech' that doesn't allow people to do things like this. Protest funerals, protest immigrants, saying the Holocaust didn't happen and teaching your students on it, these are all illegal acts in Canada. Rightfully so too. If you were ever in a position of one of these people being targeted for hatred, you too would want some type of defense from the government. After all, the premise of our morals and values derives from the notion that we respect others and our freedoms go as far until they violate someone else's.

All it takes is for this law to be passed in the US. Why don't they? Because of those typical redneck Americans who yell 'freedom' and 'freedom of expression'.

Don't remember where I read it but I DID read of a priest in Canada who got arrested because he was reading something from the Bible and it got classified as Hate Speech.

I'll stick with America -- the greatest, noblest, and most moral country in the history of the world.

ralfymann
03-04-2011, 05:24 AM
It is probably "backward" because it engages in resource wars that it cannot sustain, leading to increasing costs and debt and more blowback. After that, China and other countries enter to strike trade deals with those in power.

Tamorlane
03-04-2011, 05:57 AM
I'll stick with America -- the greatest, noblest, and most moral country in the history of the world.

lol, okay stick with a country that sends it's soldiers off to die (for opium and oil), and then when they return, the government does nothing about these extremists who use America's own laws against them. These people protest funerals, and you give them more rights than the people who fought and died for you to have rights in the first place...sounds backwards? Because it is.

The US has a problem that is due to obsession with liberalism. Often, when someone is killed, the offender who is still alive is granted more rights than the deceased. This is evident in this case as well.

You Americans in this thread who disagree are simply blinded by your country's patriotism.

The Harm Principle states:

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

also lol @ "most noble, moral country in the world" <--- just goes to show how stupid the people are that are arguing with me.

Check out all the CIA assassinations around the world...
Check out the implosion of the WTC buildings including Tower 7
Check out how Bush Jr. received a document from CIA on Aug. 6, 2001 about impending attack
Check out Gauntanamo torture pictures
Check out MK Ultra and the US govt. drugging it's own people
Check out US Govt nuclear bombing its own people for testing purposes (Christmas Island)
Check out S. of State Clinton seeking DNA of political leaders

and the list goes on....

but ya, "America -- the greatest, noblest, and most moral country in the history of the world"

^This is why so many people in the world hate you. Pompous attitude when you Americans have done nothing to attribute to why in fact you are the world's only superpower at the moment in history.

Al Swearengen
03-04-2011, 06:01 AM
douche bag radar on. ^

Tamorlane
03-04-2011, 06:14 AM
No thanks. We already have some limits on speech, mostly for safety reasons. I would fear that too many constraints on freedom of speech may open the door for more constraints in the future.

Banning "hate" speech doesn't address any problems. Instead of overt hatred, you now have covert hatred. You still have the hatred, you just feel better about it because you don't have to listen to it anymore.

As far as the WBC goes. They aren't a real church. They are mostly one family with some fringe lunatics. The controversy they cause allows them to sue people. And some of their "parishioners" are actually lawyers.

This is the folly of your logic. The same argument is being repeated...."If we limit our freedom of speech, this will happen, and so will this, and in the end...we will be living in communist Russia"

In Canada and other nations we have limits on free speech. Most advanced nations around the world limit free speech to an extent, because all these countries have learned that if you don't, you will get people who use this against you (just like the Westboro Baptists). Are there consequences to limiting free speech when it involves promoting hatred? No. The only people who feel violated are these 'war-mongering' terrorists for not being allowed to make a mockery of people's funerals.

Think about this for a second:

If a judge had to rule who's right's have been more violated, who do you think they should side with?

-The father of a soldier who died in a foreign war for the governments agenda

or

-The A$$hole Westboro Baptists who are prevented from harrassing people's funerals.

Remember, these Westboro Baptists are narcissists. If their child, family member died, they would probably be the first to lash out at anyone.

You claim banning hate speech "doesn't address any problems". Oh really?

In Canada we had a high school teacher lecturing his students on how the Holocaust was fake, and then tested and graded them on the material. Points were deducted for opposing views. This is 'promoting hatred towards a group'.

I REPEAT AMERICANS: In Canada you are still allowed to say whatever you want. As long as it isn't promoting hatred (either in a group or in public display). So we have just as many freedoms as you, except for promoting hatred. That is something that the US wants to be special about their country. That they support hatred.

In Canada, we had a bunch of skinheads protesting these immigrants (who are derogatively called 'gypsies'. These skinhead protesters picketed outside the motel these people were staying at. The government arrested and charged these people for promoting hate speech.

No one in Canada wants to see this crap. No one in the US wants to either. It's just the Americans are like a lost baby, not knowing what to do about the situation they're in. Too big of an ego to admit they're wrong. A lot of this stems from how the US was founded as a separate power of England and Canada, thereby making laws specifically different (ie. written constitutions) <---this is partially why the US is full of people who take the constitution word for word and have no understanding of change in social values over time.

In Canada, we don't have Westboro Baptists and we don't have Fox News. Respectable. We don't drive down our streets seeing KKK parades through black ghettos with police escorts, we don't see a$$hole's protesting soldier's funerals with police protection, etc.

Canada is clean because of this. Canada is also considered much more moral than the US. One prime example is that the US promotes private companies like Ashley Madison which support adultery, while in Canada steps are taken to curb this type of social scum.

inb4 Americans respond to my post with a one-sentence garbage point that makes no sense and has no relevance.

edit: also, in after^

Tamorlane
03-04-2011, 06:14 AM
douche bag radar on. ^

u mad it's all true?

From a CNN article post-ruling:

"Something is going to happen," Albert Snyder told CNN Thursday. "Somebody is going to get hurt."
"You have too many soldiers and Marines coming back with post-traumatic stress syndrome, and they (the Westboro protesters) are going to go to the wrong funeral and the guns are going to go off."
"And when it does," Snyder said. "I just hope it doesn't hit the mother that's burying her child or the little girl that's burying her father or mother. It's inevitable."

Albert Snyder again slammed the high court justices for not having "the common sense that God gave a goat."

Because of the ruling, Snyder will have to pay $116,000 in court costs to the Rev. Fred Phelps, the pastor of Westboro.
"The worst part of this," Snyder said, "is I know they are going to use that money to do this to other soldiers."
Snyder recalled his son's funeral.
"When my son died, I knew two days ahead of time that they were coming," Snyder said. "I had other children that I had to worry about that didn't know what was going on."
"Because of (the protesters') presence, I had police coming out of the woodwork, I had sheriffs. I had a SWAT team. I had emergency vehicles. I had media coming in," Snyder said. "All I wanted to do was have a private dignified funeral for my son.
"They turned it into a three-ring circus," Snyder said.
When asked what his next step will be, Snyder replied. "The thing that just hits me the hardest is all the hatred in this country."
"And I think if I wanted to look to what I'm going to do in the future, I feel like that maybe there's where I need to be," Snyder said, "to try do something with all the hatred that's in this country."

Wow an American who gets it...

Tamorlane
03-04-2011, 06:38 AM
"Because of (the protesters') presence, I had police coming out of the woodwork, I had sheriffs. I had a SWAT team. I had emergency vehicles. I had media coming in," Snyder said. "All I wanted to do was have a private dignified funeral for my son.
"They turned it into a three-ring circus," Snyder said.


This should be a red flag to the Supreme Court/Politicians.

A shooting is GOING to happen one day, and when it does, and only then will there be public outrage and a calling for change. It's sad that Americans have to be traumatized to make any social progress...

America's laws make it so these things happen. When a father wants a quiet funeral, he gets all this media attention, police presence, etc. Did he ask for any of it? No. What does the government do? Nothing. They allow this presence/circus to unfold.

What will it take America?

Also, I will be bumping this thread in a few years down the road when America finally implements a hate speech law so everyone can see how blind they are.

Al Swearengen
03-04-2011, 06:40 AM
This should be a red flag to the Supreme Court/Politicians.

A shooting is GOING to happen one day, and when it does, and only then will there be public outrage and a calling for change. It's sad that Americans have to be traumatized to make any social progress...

America's laws make it so these things happen. When a father wants a quiet funeral, he gets all this media attention, police presence, etc. Did he ask for any of it? No. What does the government do? Nothing. They allow this presence/circus to unfold.

What will it take America?

Also, I will be bumping this thread in a few years down the road when America finally implements a hate speech law so everyone can see how blind they are.

u mad you're a CT'r ?

Tamorlane
03-04-2011, 06:58 AM
u mad you're a CT'r ?

ironic signature

Also, i'll be waiting for someone to give some intelligent input rather than one-sentence answers that basically say "i'm a butthurt American"

Al Swearengen
03-04-2011, 07:00 AM
ironic signature

Also, i'll be waiting for someone to give some intelligent input rather than one-sentence answers that basically say "i'm a butthurt American"

your thread in and of itself is somewhat funny, but you on the other hand are quite hilarious.

Tamorlane
03-04-2011, 07:13 AM
your thread in and of itself is somewhat funny, but you on the other hand are quite hilarious.

I'm siding with a constant. Soldiers and the respect they deserve.

You are siding with a regime, that has a track record of being wrong (like civil rights and women's suffrage).

Imagine I was here arguing for civil rights. Countries and their laws can be wrong and/or outdated. I don't see why so many Americans have trouble admitting this fault.

Give some respect to your soldiers, who are out fighting so you can type on your little computer in peace.

Strong irony is strong.

ONtop888
03-04-2011, 07:57 AM
lol, okay stick with a country that sends it's soldiers off to die (for opium and oil), and then when they return, the government does nothing about these extremists who use America's own laws against them. These people protest funerals, and you give them more rights than the people who fought and died for you to have rights in the first place...sounds backwards? Because it is.

The US has a problem that is due to obsession with liberalism. Often, when someone is killed, the offender who is still alive is granted more rights than the deceased. This is evident in this case as well.

You Americans in this thread who disagree are simply blinded by your country's patriotism.

The Harm Principle states:

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

also lol @ "most noble, moral country in the world" <--- just goes to show how stupid the people are that are arguing with me.

Check out all the CIA assassinations around the world...
Check out the implosion of the WTC buildings including Tower 7
Check out how Bush Jr. received a document from CIA on Aug. 6, 2001 about impending attack
Check out Gauntanamo torture pictures
Check out MK Ultra and the US govt. drugging it's own people
Check out US Govt nuclear bombing its own people for testing purposes (Christmas Island)
Check out S. of State Clinton seeking DNA of political leaders

and the list goes on....

but ya, "America -- the greatest, noblest, and most moral country in the history of the world"

^This is why so many people in the world hate you. Pompous attitude when you Americans have done nothing to attribute to why in fact you are the world's only superpower at the moment in history.
Tower 7 nomomononom....tin foil hat in mom's basement ALERT! Lulz...

Boffothe
03-04-2011, 08:11 AM
Lol "your soldiers are out there fighting for your freedom! So make laws that you don't have the freedom to criticize them!"

Canada I am disappoint

Al Swearengen
03-04-2011, 12:21 PM
I'm siding with a constant. Soldiers and the respect they deserve.

You are siding with a regime, that has a track record of being wrong (like civil rights and women's suffrage).

Imagine I was here arguing for civil rights. Countries and their laws can be wrong and/or outdated. I don't see why so many Americans have trouble admitting this fault.

Give some respect to your soldiers, who are out fighting so you can type on your little computer in peace.

Strong irony is strong.

with statistical crime rates being relatively close between canada and america i find it difficult to believe that shrinking liberties and rights coupled with increasing laws is the answer, because it doesn't seem to be doing anything for canada now does it...

if the funeral was one of the crazy church people i like the fact that anyone can go down and tell them to go **** themselves also. if you are to frail to handle criticism then perhaps you should seek a psychiatrist instead of insisting everyone else has to cease butt hurting you.

drjjg
03-04-2011, 01:31 PM
I should neg the OP for being a moron.

To actually suggest that the govt. should punish individuals for expressing themselves, is barbarism. It really is.

Ruger357
03-04-2011, 02:22 PM
This is the folly of your logic. The same argument is being repeated...."If we limit our freedom of speech, this will happen, and so will this, and in the end...we will be living in communist Russia"

In Canada and other nations we have limits on free speech. Most advanced nations around the world limit free speech to an extent, because all these countries have learned that if you don't, you will get people who use this against you (just like the Westboro Baptists). Are there consequences to limiting free speech when it involves promoting hatred? No. The only people who feel violated are these 'war-mongering' terrorists for not being allowed to make a mockery of people's funerals.

Think about this for a second:

If a judge had to rule who's right's have been more violated, who do you think they should side with?

-The father of a soldier who died in a foreign war for the governments agenda

or

-The A$$hole Westboro Baptists who are prevented from harrassing people's funerals.

Remember, these Westboro Baptists are narcissists. If their child, family member died, they would probably be the first to lash out at anyone.

You claim banning hate speech "doesn't address any problems". Oh really?

In Canada we had a high school teacher lecturing his students on how the Holocaust was fake, and then tested and graded them on the material. Points were deducted for opposing views. This is 'promoting hatred towards a group'.

I REPEAT AMERICANS: In Canada you are still allowed to say whatever you want. As long as it isn't promoting hatred (either in a group or in public display). So we have just as many freedoms as you, except for promoting hatred. That is something that the US wants to be special about their country. That they support hatred.

In Canada, we had a bunch of skinheads protesting these immigrants (who are derogatively called 'gypsies'. These skinhead protesters picketed outside the motel these people were staying at. The government arrested and charged these people for promoting hate speech.

No one in Canada wants to see this crap. No one in the US wants to either. It's just the Americans are like a lost baby, not knowing what to do about the situation they're in. Too big of an ego to admit they're wrong. A lot of this stems from how the US was founded as a separate power of England and Canada, thereby making laws specifically different (ie. written constitutions) <---this is partially why the US is full of people who take the constitution word for word and have no understanding of change in social values over time.

In Canada, we don't have Westboro Baptists and we don't have Fox News. Respectable. We don't drive down our streets seeing KKK parades through black ghettos with police escorts, we don't see a$$hole's protesting soldier's funerals with police protection, etc.

Canada is clean because of this. Canada is also considered much more moral than the US. One prime example is that the US promotes private companies like Ashley Madison which support adultery, while in Canada steps are taken to curb this type of social scum.

inb4 Americans respond to my post with a one-sentence garbage point that makes no sense and has no relevance.

edit: also, in after^

And your post just proved my point:

Banning "hate" speech doesn't address any problems. Instead of overt hatred, you now have covert hatred. You still have the hatred, you just feel better about it because you don't have to listen to it anymore.

And you admitted that. Sure you have holocaust deniers, and skinheads, but Canada's much better because you can pretend they don't exist. Because you don't have to listen to it. Covert hatred.

Ban Ashley Madison? You want the government to decide what is moral or immoral? You want the government to dictate your bedroom behavior? Damn, you guys are already falling down that slippery slope.