Jump to content

The Supreme Court is less then it's name implies! - The Gay Christian Network

Recommended Posts

Posted

You would think that any one who think that they are "Supreme" would also have some common sense, something that most American politicians lack, as long as their pockets are full!
IN this one sense (if not more) the E. U. and most countries are ahead of us. IN human rights.
I may have to post this in an series of posts so bear with me-I hope;

Hate speechFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since January 2009.
Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words. Tagged since March 2009.
Part of a series on
Censorship
By media
Banned books · Banned films
Re-edited film · Internet
Motion Picture Production Code
Music · Press · Radio · Thought
Speech and expression
Video games
Anime distribution in America
Methods
Bleeping · Book burning
Broadcast delay · Chilling effect
Conspiracy of silence
Content-control software
Euphemism · Expurgation
Gag order · Heckling
Memory hole · Newspaper theft
Pixelization · Postal · Prior restraint
Propaganda model
Revisionism · Sanitization/Redaction
Self-censorship · Speech code
Strategic lawsuit · Verbal offence
Whitewashing
Contexts
Corporate · Political · Religious
Ideological · Criminal speech
Hate speech · Media bias
Suppression of dissent
By country
Censorship · Freedom of speech
v · d · e
Part of a series of articles on
Discrimination
General forms
[show]General
Ageism • Caste • Classism • Colorism • Genism • Heightism • Linguicism • Lookism • Mentalism • Racism • Rankism • Religionism • Sexism • Sexualism • Sizeism • Speciesism • Weightism •
Specific forms
Social
AIDS stigma • Ableism • Adultism • Anti-albinism • Anti-homelessness • Anti-intellectualism • Anti-left handedness • Antisemitism • Audism • Biphobia • Cronyism • Elitism (academic) • Ephebiphobia • Fatism • Gerontophobia • Heteronormativity • Heterophobia • Heterosexism • Homonegativity • Homophobia • Leprosy stigma • Misandry • Misogyny • Nepotism • Pedophobia • Reverse discrimination • Sectarianism • Transphobia • Xenophobia •
Manifestations
Affirmative action • Blood libel • Disability hate crime • Economic • Eliminationism • Employment • Ethnic cleansing • Ethnic joke • Ethnocide • Forced conversion • Freak show • Gay bashing • Gendercide • Genocide (examples) • Hate crime • Hate speech • Homeless dumping • Housing • LGBT Hate Crime • Mortgage • Occupational segregation • Pogrom • Race war • Religious persecution • Trans-bashing • Witch-hunt •
Policies
Age, Racial segregation • Religious, Sex segregation • Blood quantum • Cleanliness of blood • Apartheid • Ethnocracy • Gender roles • Gerontocracy • Ghetto benches • Internment • Jewish quota • Jim Crow laws • MSM blood donor controversy • Numerus clausus • Nuremberg Laws • Racial quota • Redlining • Sodomy law • Ugly law •
Other forms
Black supremacy • Genetic • Linguistic • Pregnancy • Supremacism • White supremacy •
Related topics
Anti-cultural sentiment • Assimilation • Bigotry • Eugenics • Oppression • Prejudice • Religious intolerance • Religious persecution • Stereotypes •
Discrimination portal
This box: view · talk · edit
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation.[1][2] In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.[3] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. In some countries, such as the United States, hate speech laws have been held to be incompatible with free speech.[4]
Critics have claimed that the term "Hate Speech" is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.[5][6][7]
A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet. Conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.[8]
Contents [hide]
1 Australia
2 Belgium
3 Brazil
4 Canada
5 Council of Europe
6 Croatia
7 Denmark
8 Finland
9 France
10 Germany
11 Iceland
12 India
13 Ireland
14 Jordan
15 Netherlands
16 New Zealand
17 Norway
18 Poland
19 Serbia
20 Singapore
21 South Africa
22 Sweden
23 Switzerland
24 Thailand
25 United Kingdom
26 United States
26.1 Hate speech in media
26.2 NTIA 1993 Report
27 Notes
28 See also
29 References
30 External links
[edit] AustraliaMain article: Hate speech laws in Australia
Australia's hate speech laws vary by jurisdiction, and seek especially to prevent victimisation on account of race.
BelgiumMain articles: Belgian Anti-Racism Law and Belgian Holocaust denial law
The Belgian Anti-Racism Law, in full, the Law of July 30, 1981 on the Punishment of Certain Acts inspired by Racism or Xenophobia, is a law against hate speech and discrimination passed by the Federal Parliament of Belgium in 1981 which made certain acts motivated by racism or xenophobia illegal. It is also known as the Moureaux Law.
The Belgian Holocaust denial law, passed on March 23, 1995, bans public Holocaust denial. Specifically, the law makes it illegal to publicly "deny, play down, justify or approve of the genocide committed by the German National Socialist regime during the Second World War". Prosecution is led by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and fines of up to 2500 EUR.
BrazilIn Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused".[9] In 2006, a joint-action between the Federal Police and the Argentinian police has cracked down several hate-related websites. However, some of these sites have recently reappeared—the users have re-created the same sites on United States' domains. The federal police have asked permission from the FBI to crack down these sites, but the FBI denied, stating that the First Amendment guarantees the right to any speech, even if it involves racism.
Canada Main article: Hate speech laws in Canada
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[10] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990)
Council of EuropeThe Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.
CroatiaCroatian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Croatian penal code prohibits and punishes "who based on racial, religious, language, political or any other belief, wealth, birth, education, social status or other properties, gender, skin color, nationality or ethnicity violates basic human rights and freedoms recognized from international community".[11]
DenmarkDenmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten, ridicule or hold in contempt a group due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[12]
FinlandFinland prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or insult a national, racial, ethnic or religious group or a similar group.[13]
FranceMain article: Hate speech laws in France
France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust (Gayssot Act).[14]

GermanyIn Germany, Volksverhetzung ("Sedition") is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders". Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
IcelandIn Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:
Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years. (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)
IndiaMain article: Hate speech laws in India
India prohibits any manner of expression which someone might consider insulting to his religion or which for whatever reason might disturb public tranquility.under article 19(2) of the constitution of india certain reasonable restrictions have been imposed on the right of freedom of speech and expression such as sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with the foreign states, public order, decency and morality or in relation to contempt of court, defemation or incitement to an offence.
IrelandIn Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i). However, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation."[15]
JordanIn 2006, two Jordanian newspaper editors were jailed for two months after being found guilty of "attacking religious sentiment." The editors had reprinted cartoons from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.[16]
NetherlandsThe Dutch penal code prohibits both insulting a group (article 137c) and inciting hatred, discrimination or violence (article 137d). The definition of the offences as outlined in the penal code is as follows:
Article 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[17]
Article 137d: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation of their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[18]
In January 2009, a court in Amsterdam ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, for breaching articles 137c and 137d.[19] The trial is ongoing as of February 2011.
New ZealandNew Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
NorwayNorway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.[20]
PolandMain article: Hate speech laws in Poland
The hate speech laws in Poland punish those who intentionally offend the feelings of the religious, and prohibit any expression that insults a person or a group on account of national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation or the lack of a religious affiliation.[21]
SerbiaThe Serbian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but declares that it may be restricted by law to protect rights and respectability


Posted

Part 2

of others. Because of inter ethnic conflicts during last decade of 20th century, Serbian authorities are very rigorous about ethnic, racial and religion based hate speech. It is processed as "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance" criminal act, and punished with six months to ten years of imprisonment.[22]

[edit] SingaporeSingapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. The Penal Code criminalizes the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion. It also makes it an offence for anyone to deliberately wound the religious or racial feelings of any person.

[edit] South AfricaIn South Africa, Act No. 4 of 2000: Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act contains the following clause:

10. (1) Subject to the proviso in section 12, no person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to -
(a) be hurtful;
(b) be harmful or to incite harm;
(c) promote or propagate hatred.[23]
The crime of crimen injuria ("unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another")[24] may also be used to prosecute hate speech.[25]

[edit] SwedenSweden prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[26] The sexual orientation provision, added in 2002,[27] was used to convict Pentecostalist pastor Åke Green of hate speech based on a 2003 sermon citing biblical passages concerning homosexuality. His conviction was later overturned.[28]

[edit] SwitzerlandIn Switzerland public discrimination or invoking to rancor against persons or a group of people because of their race, ethnicity, is getting penalized with a term of imprisonment until 3 years or a mulct. In 1934, the authorities of the Basel-Stadt canton criminalized anti-Jewish hate speech, e.g. the accusation of ritual murders, mostly in reaction against a pro-nazi antisemitic group and newspaper, the Volksbund.[29]

[edit] ThailandIn Thailand hate speech (การพูดซึ่งมีเจตนาทางเกลียดชัง)is formally prohibited in civil and criminal statutes but state machinery and society as a whole generally do little to prevent it or prosecute parties promoting or engaging in hate speech. While the Thai State offers recourse in the courts to obtain satisfaction after the fact, Thai authorities, NGOs and others generally offer little or no protection in preventing hate speech. The country's strict defamation laws are more designed to protect reputations and the institution of the monarchy and not to protect individuals or groups in freely exercising legitimate rights.

[edit] United KingdomMain article: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, several statutes protect several categories of persons from hate speech. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[30][31][32][33][34][35]

[edit] United StatesLaws prohibiting hate speech outside of obscenity, defamation and incitement to riot are illegal in the United States.[36][37][38] The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[39] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[40] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[41]

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[42][43]

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[44] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[45] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[46]

[edit] Hate speech in mediaIn 1993 the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report titled “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes.” This report gave one of the first definitions by government on hate speech. According to NTIA hate speech is:

Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.
Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes.
[edit] NTIA 1993 ReportIn 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur. Study findings revealed only a few instances during the past decade in which broadcast facilities were used to spread messages of hate and bigotry. In two such instances, radio broadcasts arguably urged an audience to commit hate-motivated crimes. In other instances, radio broadcast licensees aired programming that evidenced prejudice. A few highly publicized cable television programs promoted messages of hate and bigotry. In some cases, cable programming stirred community reaction and was followed by counterprogramming. During the 1980s, computer bulletin boards were established by various white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, but many fell into disuse later in the decade. The study also found that hate "hotlines" are used to deliver recorded messages of bigotry and prejudice and that telephones can be used to intimidate, threaten, and harass individuals and organizations. NTIA's research suggests that hate messages represent a very small percentage of electronic communications media and that the best response is public education rather than government censorship and regulation. Legal remedies involving the use of telecommunications to commit or encourage hate crimes are discussed, as well as technologies that can protect or empower targets of hate speech.[47] A list of commenters is appended. 285 footnotes

In January, 2009, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), a not for profit organization with a mission to improve the image of American Latinos as portrayed by the media, unveiled a three prong strategy to address the issue of hate speech in media. 1) NHMC filed a petition for inquiry into hate speech with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).[48] The petition urges the Commission to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways in which to counteract its negative impacts. 2) NHMC asked the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to update its 1993 report “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”; 3) NHMC collaborated with the UCLA/Chicano Research Study Center (CRSC) to produce groundbreaking research on the subject. “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study,” was also released in January, 2009.[49]

“Hate Speech on Commercial Radio” categorized hate speech in four different areas.

False facts
Flawed argumentation
Divisive language
Dehumanizing metaphors
In May, 2010 NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding on the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age.[50] Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, the comments ask the FCC to examine hate speech in media. The Future of Media proceeding was designed to assess whether all Americans have access to vibrant, diverse sources of news and information that will enable them to enrich their lives, their communities and our democracy. In its comments, NHMC reinforces the need for the FCC to act on NHMC’s petition for inquiry on hate speech in media filed in January 2009.

[edit] Notes1.^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech
2.^ Nockleby, John T. (2000), “Hate Speech,” in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, ed. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, vol. 3. (2nd ed.), Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 1277-1279. Cited in "Library 2.0 and the Problem of Hate Speech," by Margaret Brown-Sica and Jeffrey Beall, Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, vol. 9 no. 2 (Summer 2008).
3.^ Kinney, Terry A. (2008). "Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms". The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Blackwell Reference Online. doi:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x. http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405131995_chunk_g978140513199513_ss4-1. Retrieved 10 March 2010.
4.^ R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul "As explained earlier ... the reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey. ... [St. Paul] has proscribed fighting words of whatever manner that communicate messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance. Selectivity of this sort creates the possibility that the city is seeking to handicap the expression of particular ideas. That possibility would alone be enough to render the ordinance presumptively invalid, but St. Paul’s comments and concessions in this case elevate the possibility to a certainty."
5.^ UK-USA: The British Character of America
6.^ The PCspeak of Diversity
7.^ George Orwell meets the OIC
8.^ http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/AllSymbols/FA869F4E19CCCBC1C1256A570031F062/$File/G0113724.doc?OpenElement
9.^ "1988 Constitution made racism a crime with no right to bail", Folha de São Paulo, 15 April 2005.
10.^ http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/H-6///en#aSec12
11.^ Article 174. of Croatian penal code on Croatian Wikisource
12.^ Danish Penal code, Straffeloven, section 266 B.
13.^ Finnish Penal code Rikoslaki/Strafflagen Chapter 11, section 8
14.^ Loi 90-615 du 13 juillet 1990
15.^ Irish Statute Book Database
16.^ "Jordanian poet accused of 'atheism and blasphemy'," The Daily Star Lebanon Saturday, October 25, 2008.
17.^ (Dutch) Dutch penal code - article 137c
18.^ (Dutch) Dutch penal code - article 137d
19.^ BBC report on Geert Wilders
20.^ Norwegian Penal code, Straffeloven, section 135 a.
21.^ Venice Commission (2008). "Analysis of the Domestic Law Concerning Blasphemy, Religious Insult and Inciting Religious Hatred in Albania, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Turkey, United Kingdom on the Basis of Replies to a Questionnaire". Council of Europe. http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2008/CDL-AD%282008%29026add2-bil.pdf. Retrieved 14 May 2010.
22.^ Serbian Penal code, section 317.
23.^ "Act No. 4 of 2000: Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act." (PDF). Government Gazette. 2000-02-09. http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a4-00.pdf. Retrieved 2008-10-26. [dead link]
24.^ Clark, DM (2003). South African Law Reform Commission Issue Paper 22 Project 130: Stalking. http://www.saflii.org/za/other/zalc/ip/22/: South African Law Commission. ISBN 0-621-34410-9.
25.^ Hanti, Otto (2006-08-09). "Man fined after racial slur to top judge". IOL. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20060808233813336C803510. Retrieved 2007-07-10.
26.^ Swedish Penal code, Brottsbalken, chapter 16, section 8.
27.^ Lag om hets mot folkgrupp innefattar homosexuella
28.^ The Local, 29 Nov 2005: Åke Green cleared over gay sermon
29.^ "Basel verbiete jede Diffamierung von Juden und Judentum" (in German) (PDF). Vienna: Die Stimme - Jüdische Zeitung. 1934-12-14. http://edocs.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/volltexte/2008/38044/original/Stimme_409.pdf. Retrieved 2009-11-12.
30.^ Public Order Act 1986
31.^ Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
32.^ Crime and Disorder Act 1998
33.^ Amendment to Crime and Disorder Act 1998
34.^ Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (England and Wales)
35.^ Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
36.^ R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul
37.^ Unfettered Press: Libel Law in the United States
38.^ US CODE: Title 18,2101. Riots
39.^ See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause.
40.^ Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S. - The New York Times
41.^ See, e.g.,Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
42.^ Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
43.^ See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).
44.^ firstamendmentcenter.org: Free speech on public college campuses - Topic
45.^ See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995).
46.^ SpringerLink - Journal Article
47.^ National Criminal Justice Reference Service
48.^ NHMC, 2009, FCC Petition
49.^ Social Science Research Council
50.^ NHMC, 2010, FCC Comments
[edit] See alsoAllport's scale
Anti-LGBT slogans
Ethnic joke
Gay bashing
Hate crime
Hate mail
Personal attack
Political correctness
Race baiting
Volksverhetzung
[edit] References[edit] External linksReconciling Rights and Responsibilities of Colleges and Students: Offensive Speech, Assembly, Drug Testing and Safety
From Discipline to Development: Rethinking Student Conduct in Higher Education
Sexual Minorities on Community College Campuses
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Survivor

Posted

Part 3
Last night, I was in a Gay male Yahoo chat room when this guy called me;
Here is how it went:
Please note this is pretty graphics forgive me, on the other hand, that they did and tried to do was wrong and covered completely by the Supreme courts ruling, and they wonder why Gay teenagers are killing themselves!
SO Please bare with me through the graphic stuff and I hope you see my point.
This isn't easy for a guy who is bi polar/suicidal and has no means of emo support other then you guys and your prayers:

The God Awful truth about Free speech and gay bating"\
Yahoo
Chat in gay Adult chat room with a gay who says in his profile he's 18
tristenreynolds41: hey big boy answer my call
You have accepted the invitation to start Voice Call.
starfleetvulcan: Yes I do not have a mic for this
starfleetvulcan: Yes
starfleetvulcan: Jessh No I do not
starfleetvulcan: Why are you cussing I was just saying that I didn't I didn't mean to apear to be mean or afend you
tristenreynolds41: oh ok im sorry i thought u were gettin mad
starfleetvulcan: No I wasn't besides
starfleetvulcan: Ummmmmmmmm er, you have a sexy vioce even when you are cussing
tristenreynolds41: thanks baby: OMG! But you haven't even cumm yet ,
starfleetvulcan: Jking
tristenreynolds41: lol
starfleetvulcan: Have you heard of Jay breener?
tristenreynolds41: where r u from and no i havent heard of him
starfleetvulcan: I live in Los Angeles org from VA I am 55 /white male and I woudl like to introduce him to you -He is a gay folk singer who also cusses but he's cute and sings really well
starfleetvulcan: $ give me I am older it takes me longer to process things, well, maybe not in bed
starfleetvulcan:
tristenreynolds41: lol maybe not
starfleetvulcan: I could use a 18 - Male - Ohio Cumm cola about now
starfleetvulcan: Jking
tristenreynolds41: then why dont u come out here
starfleetvulcan: 10 mreson and one reason only besides the cold
starfleetvulcan: Your hard _ick would nail my azz to the wall
tristenreynolds41: yea it would u like it rough huh
starfleetvulcan: 18 y/o male are not know for slow /easy or romantic
starfleetvulcan: I see you are already talking to some one else It's ok I will always remember the time we had
tristenreynolds41: what r u talkin about
starfleetvulcan: I heard you calling in chat?
starfleetvulcan: it sounded liek you / you know hard and ready and sweet
tristenreynolds41: well that must have been someone else i took my mic out
starfleetvulcan: Tristen I always thought was /is a noble name
tristenreynolds41: yea thats what i named my son
starfleetvulcan: He was one of Camalot's Knights
starfleetvulcan: But you are only 18,. Your repeet shooter shows no meacy to man or woman
starfleetvulcan:
tristenreynolds41: hahahahaha no it doesnt lol
starfleetvulcan: Have you ever thought of comeing to LA or No? I am orginally from VA
tristenreynolds41: yea i used to think about it but my wife wont let me
starfleetvulcan: Smart women
starfleetvulcan: May I ask what you look like?
starfleetvulcan: Have you ever heard of Jay Breenen?
tristenreynolds41: im sexy and u already asked me about jay lol i dont know him
starfleetvulcan: When I think of you I think (Please God I do not want to go to the Jerry Springer show!)
tristenreynolds41: whys that lol
starfleetvulcan: Would you feel uncomfortable me sharing a youtube link with you unless the wife is around, No making fun , just asking
tristenreynolds41: please do
starfleetvulcan: brb
tristenreynolds41: k
starfleetvulcan: he is a gay folk singer
starfleetvulcan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AV5XzKjz2Ytristenreynolds41: ok hold on answer my call real quick ok
starfleetvulcan: K
tristenreynolds41 is typing...
tristenreynolds41: what is your name so i can say it real sexy
starfleetvulcan: Dude anything you say is sexy
starfleetvulcan: Andre
Sorry spell checker isn't working right.
Call ended: 0 min, 48 sec. (9:46 PM)
Yahoo! wants your call experience to be top notch.
Tell us about any issues you had with this call.
You have accepted the invitation to start Voice Call
A older man came on the phone stateing that he was either a Police Offcicer or Detective, because I WAS talking to a UNDER AGE KID and they have it on tape and I will or have been reported to the local police and that they have my IP address and ordered me out of the chat room and to disconnect from the internet and to wait for the Police to come because they will be knocking at my door, any minute, really soon and the last thing, I could hear in the back ground was tristenreynolds41 saying to me was: "Good bye; Faggot!,

This is what happens when the Surpreme Court decides that Any one can say anything at anytime, then we really do not have a Hate Crimes bill!

And I have no doubt, that this is what happend in this case in Santa Monica:

"Student Flees Practice, Jumps to Death Off Hotel Balcony 14-year-old Matthew Mezza, a Freshman at Santa Monica High School, committed suicide on Friday afternoon in a series of events that have left students, teachers, family and friends horrified and saddened and confused, according to the Santa Monica Daily Press. Mezza attended baseball practice on Friday afternoon and "abruptly fled" from practice to run across the street, enter the Sheraton Delfina hotel and jump from a 10th floor ballroom balcony. Witnesses said Mezza yelled that he planned to jump off a building as he was running away and they tried to chase him down, but to no avail. School officials and friends saw no warning signs and say nothing in his behavior had recently changed before Friday's events. Santa Monica High School students are receiving counseling and an investigation is ongoing.
Contact the author of this article or email tips@laist.com with further questions, comments or tips.
By Callie Miller in News on January 17, 2011 10:59 AM 2 Comment 0 Likes Likes 3359 Views Tags:
matthew mezzasamohisanta monica high schoolsheraton delfinateen suicide"
SOMONE KNOWS DAMN WELL, WHAT THEY SAID OR HAD BEEN SAYING, OR CALLED HIM A NAMED, OR SAID HE THREW BALL LIKE A GIRL, OR WALKED AND TALKED LIKE A GIRL, OR CALLED HIM A FA__OT.
And he had had it!
Speech in action which harms another is verbal bashing or verbal abuse, it is not freedom of speech!!!!!! When a teacher calls a student a idot, or stupit or dunb or retartded, and so on, the supreme court has open the foodgates and open season on the GLBTQ people in the US
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
but I was unable to copy that because I believe he said it -I think as you might imagine I was angry, outraged, because as you can see I kept pointing out to him that HE is 18~! (According to his profile) and at no time did he say, or led me to believe otherwise. (Then IT would have been a crime!)

THIS IS A CYBER HATE CRIME,.
THANK YOU SUPREME COURT! HATE IN SPEECH IS A ACTION SHOULD BE A CRIME, ESPELLY FOR THE WORLD HAS ALLREADY ACKNOWLEGED THAT AND ULTIL alll AMERICANS, Get off of their high horse or is it that we are making so many gains in so many other areas.(DADT, Gay Marrage equlity) that you felt, this is the least you could do, to protect so that , so called real men might protect themsleves!? Americans cannot be talking about TALKING SO CALLED CIVIL RIGHTS volitions, IN OTHER COUNTIES, or HUMAN RIGHTS VOLACTIONS UNTIL WE (pardon the exprsession) get it straight here!
I am also mad and sad at the support staff at yahoo because When I reported it they said" besides: saying that it wasen't real, they gave me a false link that went no where!

Forgive the typos I am just quite sad/mad/diappointed about all this!!! and which more could be done, the Streaght officers of the LAPD, will have little emphty about this because as we all know, they think we deserve this, and it's our fauilt because we are gay

Posted

Why would you pick on the Supremes... They were a great singing group... LOL

Andre, our whole government is not what it is suppose to be. The whole concept of who can stack the court in their favor has gone on for many years. We the people have allowed, or insisted upon a stronger, more efficient, yeah right, government, but with that comes the opportunity to elect idiots as were elected in the last election.

The Court is Supreme in that they have the last say, which is suppose to be based on the Constitutionality of the case before them. They have made some good calls, and they have made some horrible mistakes.

We cannot legislate nor court order love and respect. The rulings of States Rights, has been a debacle. Now, with the ruling allowing corporate ownership of Congress, we the people are now powerless to stop them, except at the ballot box, IF people will get out to vote.

The Supremes are there for life, which is a good thing, but they only vote their political leaning. Had the civil rights movement been before this court instead in the more liberal 1964 court, I doubt it would have even be law today.

Just sayin'


Posted

This "rant" has more to do about harassment, gay baiting, intimidation and harassment under the color of authority or impersonating a officer there of, and on line safety for GLBTQ, in gay chat rooms. The United States as a free country holds 80% of the world's prison population, many of those people or either being with a mental disability, and would be better cared for, in a Mental Hospital, or in a half way house with medication, and careful monitoring, careful. emphatic, and a nurturing environment, sadly many of these institutions, are either not what they are cracked up to be because most of the families, have either dumped them on the state or in the institution, as they hire either low paying or unqualified people as Psych Tech with little to no training. Many of these jobs are extremely stressful, and many of them ignore the laws, that mandates how many patients can or are allowed to each care provider, this I know because I have worked in NSF (Nursing Skilled Facilities) and Psychiatric Institutions.


Posted

I guess the problem our forefather did not foresee was the fact that these people are humans and subject to the same prejudices and feelings as any other.

They have made some good calls.. calls that were good for all citizens, but they have made some really bad ones. One that comes to mind is the recent call to allow corporations to send money to political campaigns. That just about shuts out everybody, but these neo cons and tea baggers who are going to destroy this country and our economy.



×