Interesting twist on "hate speech" laws

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Canada to pursue "hate speech" actions against those who organize boycotts of Israel...
Let this be a warning shot across the bows for those progs who wish to codify "hate speech" here in the US - you never know when this will rebound on you
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-cites-hate-crime-laws-when-asked-about-its-zero-tolerance-for-israel-boycotters-1.3067497

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first amendment.

And in the US it's already illegal for companies to participate in boycotts of Israel. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac

(So maybe the question that's been popular lately should be... should an Arab bakery in Detroit that exports its products be forced to sell cakes to Tel Aviv?)

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

2015-05-12 13:20:25 UTC

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first amendment.

You do we realize we know this, right? Which is why we rail against places like colleges which are instituting them and against those agitating for these sorts of laws to come to the US?

Post by xyzzy
And in the US it's already illegal for companies to participate in boycotts of Israel. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
(So maybe the question that's been popular lately should be... should an Arab bakery in Detroit that exports its products be forced to sell cakes to Tel Aviv?)

Only if there's a gay wedding involved.....:)

Ken Olson

2015-05-12 16:30:58 UTC

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first amendment.
And in the US it's already illegal for companies to participate in boycotts of Israel. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
(So maybe the question that's been popular lately should be... should an Arab bakery in Detroit that exports its products be forced to sell cakes to Tel Aviv?)

I'm sure that there are plenty of people that would welcome this. I'm
also sure that the Arab bakery would be in Dearbornistan.

This whole area of right to refuse sales is bringing out the crazies on
both sides of the issue.

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

2015-05-12 16:38:40 UTC

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first amendment.
And in the US it's already illegal for companies to participate in boycotts of Israel. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
(So maybe the question that's been popular lately should be... should an Arab bakery in Detroit that exports its products be forced to sell cakes to Tel Aviv?)

I'm sure that there are plenty of people that would welcome this. I'm
also sure that the Arab bakery would be in Dearbornistan.
This whole area of right to refuse sales is bringing out the crazies on
both sides of the issue.

No....this is what speech craziness looks like

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32701001

A secular blogger has been hacked to death in north-eastern Bangladesh in the country's third such deadly attack since the start of the year.

Ananta Bijoy Das was attacked by masked men with machetes in Sylhet, police say. He is said to have received death threats from Islamist extremists.

Mr Das wrote blogs for Mukto-Mona, a website once moderated by Avijit Roy, himself hacked to death in February.

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

2015-05-12 16:47:48 UTC

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first amendment.
And in the US it's already illegal for companies to participate in boycotts of Israel. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
(So maybe the question that's been popular lately should be... should an Arab bakery in Detroit that exports its products be forced to sell cakes to Tel Aviv?)

I'm sure that there are plenty of people that would welcome this. I'm
also sure that the Arab bakery would be in Dearbornistan.
This whole area of right to refuse sales is bringing out the crazies on
both sides of the issue.

No....this is what speech craziness looks like
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32701001
A secular blogger has been hacked to death in north-eastern Bangladesh in the country's third such deadly attack since the start of the year.
Ananta Bijoy Das was attacked by masked men with machetes in Sylhet, police say. He is said to have received death threats from Islamist extremists.
Mr Das wrote blogs for Mukto-Mona, a website once moderated by Avijit Roy, himself hacked to death in February.

Comment just read: Does this make Islam the religion of pieces?

Ken Olson

2015-05-12 18:04:19 UTC

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first amendment.
And in the US it's already illegal for companies to participate in boycotts of Israel. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
(So maybe the question that's been popular lately should be... should an Arab bakery in Detroit that exports its products be forced to sell cakes to Tel Aviv?)

I'm sure that there are plenty of people that would welcome this. I'm
also sure that the Arab bakery would be in Dearbornistan.
This whole area of right to refuse sales is bringing out the crazies on
both sides of the issue.

No....this is what speech craziness looks like
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32701001
A secular blogger has been hacked to death in north-eastern Bangladesh in the country's third such deadly attack since the start of the year.
Ananta Bijoy Das was attacked by masked men with machetes in Sylhet, police say. He is said to have received death threats from Islamist extremists.
Mr Das wrote blogs for Mukto-Mona, a website once moderated by Avijit Roy, himself hacked to death in February.

Comment just read: Does this make Islam the religion of pieces?

tmml

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

2015-05-12 18:06:05 UTC

Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first amendment.
And in the US it's already illegal for companies to participate in boycotts of Israel. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
(So maybe the question that's been popular lately should be... should an Arab bakery in Detroit that exports its products be forced to sell cakes to Tel Aviv?)

I'm sure that there are plenty of people that would welcome this. I'm
also sure that the Arab bakery would be in Dearbornistan.
This whole area of right to refuse sales is bringing out the crazies on
both sides of the issue.

No....this is what speech craziness looks like
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32701001
A secular blogger has been hacked to death in north-eastern Bangladesh in the country's third such deadly attack since the start of the year.
Ananta Bijoy Das was attacked by masked men with machetes in Sylhet, police say. He is said to have received death threats from Islamist extremists.
Mr Das wrote blogs for Mukto-Mona, a website once moderated by Avijit Roy, himself hacked to death in February.

Comment just read: Does this make Islam the religion of pieces?

tmml

maybe they thought he was spying and played a game of hack-a-mole

Tom Enright

2015-05-13 01:58:33 UTC

Post by Ken Olson
I'm sure that there are plenty of people that would welcome this. I'm
also sure that the Arab bakery would be in Dearbornistan.
This whole area of right to refuse sales is bringing out the crazies on
both sides of the issue.

Well, I go to a bakery in Dearborn about once a week and they sell
to this dirty atheist.

OTOH, I read somewhere that the bakeries that don't want to bake
gay marriage cakes should just say "we refuse to bake these cakes
because it is insulting to Muslims." The SJW will have to get out
their identity politics decoder rings to figure-out who's rights
are more important.

-Tom Enright

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

2015-05-13 02:53:31 UTC

Post by Tom Enright

Well, I go to a bakery in Dearborn about once a week and they sell
to this dirty atheist.
OTOH, I read somewhere that the bakeries that don't want to bake
gay marriage cakes should just say "we refuse to bake these cakes
because it is insulting to Muslims." The SJW will have to get out
their identity politics decoder rings to figure-out who's rights
are more important.
-Tom Enright

lol

but who are you? ($1)

the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com

2015-05-13 10:45:18 UTC

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:58:35 PM UTC-5, Tom Enright wrote:

SHUT UP NOOB!

Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

2015-05-12 17:11:41 UTC

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does
not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first
amendment.

But the Democratic Party would like to change that, and has voted to do so on
the Senate floor.

Post by xyzzy
And in the US it's already illegal for companies to participate in
boycotts of Israel. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac

Then why are universities listening to BDS demonstrators at the
executive level?

Post by xyzzy
(So maybe the question that's been popular lately should be... should
an Arab bakery in Detroit that exports its products be forced to sell
cakes to Tel Aviv?)

Of course not. Nor should they be forced to cater a bar mitzvah. But
if a Jew walks into the store to buy some kanafeh off the shelf, they
should have to sell to them.

--
Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others
cannot keep it from themselves. -- James Barrie

xyzzy

2015-05-12 17:19:52 UTC

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does
not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first
amendment.

But the Democratic Party would like to change that, and has voted to do so on
the Senate floor.

And I'm sure it's just as sincere as Republican efforts to ban flag burning.

Post by xyzzy
And in the US it's already illegal for companies to participate in
boycotts of Israel. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac

Then why are universities listening to BDS demonstrators at the
executive level?

Are they actually doing anything, or just listening and saying "we'll take that under advisement, now go back to class"?

Post by xyzzy
(So maybe the question that's been popular lately should be... should
an Arab bakery in Detroit that exports its products be forced to sell
cakes to Tel Aviv?)

Of course not. Nor should they be forced to cater a bar mitzvah. But
if a Jew walks into the store to buy some kanafeh off the shelf, they
should have to sell to them.

I agree with you here. But under anti-boycott laws, if they export they can't refuse business in Israel.

Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

2015-05-12 17:48:42 UTC

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does
not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first
amendment.

But the Democratic Party would like to change that, and has voted to do so on
the Senate floor.

And I'm sure it's just as sincere as Republican efforts to ban flag burning.

Let's see. One is a strictly-limited amendment with no discretionary power.
The other hands the US Congress the ability to ban speech by its opponents,
and to change those rules as they wish when they wish, with a simple majority.

I think your false-equivalency skills need some polishing.

Post by xyzzy
And in the US it's already illegal for companies to participate in
boycotts of Israel. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac

Then why are universities listening to BDS demonstrators at the
executive level?

Are they actually doing anything, or just listening and saying "we'll
take that under advisement, now go back to class"?

Post by xyzzy
(So maybe the question that's been popular lately should be... should
an Arab bakery in Detroit that exports its products be forced to sell
cakes to Tel Aviv?)

Of course not. Nor should they be forced to cater a bar mitzvah. But
if a Jew walks into the store to buy some kanafeh off the shelf, they
should have to sell to them.

I agree with you here. But under anti-boycott laws, if they export
they can't refuse business in Israel.

With the hoops you have to jump through to export things, they can
pretty much do as they wish simply by dragging their feet.

If you keep your mouth shut, you can do most anything you wish by playing
dumb. An example is anti-discrimination laws. Small businesses are supposed
to hire minorities without discrimination, but because of a terrible history
of lawsuits, they just keep their mouths shut and don't hire them. White men
have a wonderful attribute -- you can fire their asses without even thinking
about it.

--
{((>:o}~ <<<<Oh look!!! An idolatrous image of the prophet!!! Surely
we must now avenge this blasphemy by burning down the world!!!

xyzzy

2015-05-12 18:55:05 UTC

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does
not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first
amendment.

But the Democratic Party would like to change that, and has voted to do so on
the Senate floor.

And I'm sure it's just as sincere as Republican efforts to ban flag burning.

Let's see... one is a completely insincere and cynical attempt to restrict free speech to satisfy the loudest part of the base, which has no chance of actually being enacted. And other is... a completely insincere and cynical attempt to restrict free speech to satisfy the loudest part of the base, which has no chance of actually being enacted.

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
I think your false-equivalency skills need some polishing.

Nope. They're perfectly equivalent.

Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

2015-05-12 19:06:51 UTC

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does
not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first
amendment.

But the Democratic Party would like to change that, and has voted to do so on
the Senate floor.

And I'm sure it's just as sincere as Republican efforts to ban flag burning.

Let's see... one is a completely insincere and cynical attempt to
restrict free speech to satisfy the loudest part of the base, which
has no chance of actually being enacted. And other is... a completely
insincere and cynical attempt to restrict free speech to satisfy the
loudest part of the base, which has no chance of actually being
enacted.

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
I think your false-equivalency skills need some polishing.

Nope. They're perfectly equivalent.

Not in potential effect. One is trivial, the other horrifying.

--
Courage is fear holding on a minute longer.
-- General George S. Patton

xyzzy

2015-05-12 20:39:56 UTC

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does
not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first
amendment.

But the Democratic Party would like to change that, and has voted to do so on
the Senate floor.

And I'm sure it's just as sincere as Republican efforts to ban flag burning.

Let's see... one is a completely insincere and cynical attempt to
restrict free speech to satisfy the loudest part of the base, which
has no chance of actually being enacted. And other is... a completely
insincere and cynical attempt to restrict free speech to satisfy the
loudest part of the base, which has no chance of actually being
enacted.

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
I think your false-equivalency skills need some polishing.

Nope. They're perfectly equivalent.

Not in potential effect. One is trivial, the other horrifying.

If you insist on going down that road of denying that the reality that the true potential effect of both is the same, zero, then fine.

The Democrats were proposing a law. A law can be repealed by a majority vote of the next Congress or can be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The Republicans were proposing a constitutional amendment. Which cannot be repealed by Congress or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court. A constitutional amendment is virtually forever.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that a law is horrifying but a constitutional amendment is Just No Big Deal.

Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

2015-05-12 21:07:06 UTC

Despite paranoid wingnut controversies to the contrary, the US does
not have anti hate speech laws, as it's protected by the first
amendment.

But the Democratic Party would like to change that, and has voted to do so on
the Senate floor.

And I'm sure it's just as sincere as Republican efforts to ban flag burning.

Let's see... one is a completely insincere and cynical attempt to
restrict free speech to satisfy the loudest part of the base, which
has no chance of actually being enacted. And other is... a completely
insincere and cynical attempt to restrict free speech to satisfy the
loudest part of the base, which has no chance of actually being
enacted.

Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
I think your false-equivalency skills need some polishing.

Nope. They're perfectly equivalent.

Not in potential effect. One is trivial, the other horrifying.

No, they were proposing a constitutional amendment. One which removed
the protections of our first amendment for political speech.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/11/democrats-fail-to-amend-the-first-amendm

I do agree that neither has much chance of passage, and even that the
flag amendment would have the greater chance. But the idea that you
could even *propose* that we lose our first amendment is horrifying.
And the constant pushback on the freedom of speech by the left is
troubling in the extreme, especially because the left in Europe and
Canada -- yea, all over the world -- has been so successful in
stopping freedom of speech. You would if you could.

Post by xyzzy
The Republicans were proposing a constitutional amendment. Which
cannot be repealed by Congress or ruled unconstitutional by the
Supreme court. A constitutional amendment is virtually forever.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that a law is horrifying
but a constitutional amendment is Just No Big Deal.

It is the potential effect. One removes a freedom small in scope
and minor in impact, the other strikes at the very heart of what
makes American great.

I am not in favor of either, but the flag amendment is minor in the
extreme. The anti-political-speech amendment would take down the last
bastion of free speech in the world, the United States, the greatest
country ever seen.

--
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second
time you make it. -- unknown

J. Hugh Sullivan

2015-05-12 21:07:06 UTC

Post by xyzzy
If you insist on going down that road of denying that the reality that the true potential effect of both is the same, zero, then fine.

One is trying to protect the little people with no self-esteem. The
other is an attempt to hamstring latter-day Benedict Arnolds like you.

Post by xyzzy
The Democrats were proposing a law. A law can be repealed by a majority vote of the next Congress or can be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The Republicans were proposing a constitutional amendment. Which cannot be repealed by Congress or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court. A constitutional amendment is virtually forever.

...that can be ignored as often as desired by an anti-American
president like Obie.

Hugh

Some dued

2015-05-12 21:34:56 UTC

One is the President of the United States of America, one is a senile redneck who constantly bashes his country and its elected officials while calling other people traitorous.

J. Hugh Sullivan

2015-05-13 01:20:07 UTC

On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:34:56 -0700 (PDT), Some dued

Post by Some dued
One is the President of the United States of America, one is a senile redneck who constantly bashes his country and its elected officials while calling other people traitorous.

I never bash the country, I bash piss ants who are running it down and
lying sons of bitches like you who are too ignorant to know the
difference.

Hugh

Some dued

2015-05-13 01:27:42 UTC

I apologize for "senile" you clearly are not that.

J. Hugh Sullivan

2015-05-13 11:42:55 UTC