Subscribe"Pedophilic desires are sick. To act on those desires, is for lack of a better word, evil."Now would you advocate that this speech be suppressed given that there actually is a fair amount of violence against sex-offenders (including reformed sex-offenders)? The argument "they're a bad person, so it's okay" doesn't work because that's exactly how the supposed hate-speech flingers in this debate feel about their targets.
"I think "bad guy" and "monster" are too simple to describe these fuckers"
"Fuck prison. I would gladly kill him myself."
"Though we consider this a new edition of the annual NCAVP report published since 1994, excepting of general trend information and referential needs, it is important for readers to view the information and data herein, not so much in comparison to that contained in previous or future reports, but essentially as discreet same-location analyses for a twelve-month period. This is the case both because of new information received by participating programs on incidents that occurred in prior reporting periods, as well as the variability of reporting programs from year-to-year, rendering report-to-report comparisons inappropriate. Prior editions of this report are referenced, but only to assist in the provision of a broader context for the analysis of the data comparisons being made in the 2003-4 reporting period. "In fact it seems like an admission that their statistics aren't reliable for in any deterministic fashion.
"NCAVP has typically introduced this report by characterizing the problem of anti-LGBT violence in the U.S. with terms drawn more from epidemiology than from criminal science. This approach emphasizes the broad and pervasive nature of acts that are frequently dismissed as isolated or random incidents. Past editions of this report have also stressed that anti-LGBT violence is revelatory of social pathologies more fundamental, and ultimately more dangerous, than other violent crime. That is not only because violence rooted in the hatred of difference has fueled most of the shameful chapters in our own national history, but because it also accounts for a large share of the human tragedies unfolding throughout the world today."cause me to question how much their statistics actually correlate with reality and how much is simply them reading their, admittedly admirable, agenda into the data. Admittedly I didn't read the report in its entirety but from a brief perusal I could find nothing to indicate any attempt at a objective attempt to find causation.
In her ruling, she summed up the constitutional aspect of the case, and while about half the crowd was disappointed with her ruling, few questioned her logic.AlexReynolds continues: "Year after year, Marcavage is given the right to drive around the perimeter of the pedestrian-zoned parade space....This is no more a free speech issue — much less does it establish a pattern of the gay community restricting speech — than a heckler being dragged out of a presidential press conference."
"Let’s get back to some basics here," Dembe said. "This is one of the few countries that protects unpopular speech."
Dembe said the Nazi Party has a right to spread its message in the streets, as does the Ku Klux Klan. And so does Marcavage, like it or not, she said.
She noted that the videotape showed no violence or threatening behavior by anyone.
She said the commonwealth’s case seemed to revolve around a fear that Marcavage and his message was "offensive," and "upsetting" the crowd. That, however, does not a criminal make. Even if the crowd was preparing to riot, which it didn’t appear it was, the police still had no right to remove the source of the crowd’s frustration, regardless of how offensive some might find his message.
America guarantees its citizens the right to speak their minds, the judge ruled.
"We cannot stifle speech because we don’t want to hear it," she said
The genius of the U.S. Constitution is that it acknowledges fundamental rights are a the birthright of men (or a gift of from their Creator), so the Constitution doesn't even waste time presuming to grant to men rights we already possess.
Instead, the Constitution aims to safeguard those already existing individual rights, by limiting the rights of the government to encroach upon individuals' rights.
There is no need for the Constitution to give us a right to free speech, as we never gave up that right to government. Instead, the Constitution strictly delimits, in the First Amendment how careful the government must be to not trample on the liberty.
« Older BBC - Question Time Leaders Special [Windows Media... | Rock, Paper, Scissors:... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by amberglow at 8:26 PM on April 28, 2005