Submitted by Geek-Haven888 t3_11hxdul in newhampshire
Azr431 t1_javpy8y wrote
Reply to comment by TheGrateKhan in Men accused of violating NH Civil Rights Act appear in court by Geek-Haven888
That’s a lot of effort to defend absolute scumbags like these guys 🤔
AKBigDaddy t1_javvd3v wrote
He's not unreasonable- separating the scumbag from the act is important. He brings up a lot of valid points that this is a dangerous precedent to set.
If the sign said make new england diverse, or some other message that we might agree with, would you still expect them to be charged? I wouldn't, and I firmly believe the law should apply to all acts equally, regardless of message. I find these guys detestable. But if we wouldn't charge someone with a message encouraging diversity, we shouldn't charge someone for a message discouraging it. It crosses into a first amendment issue that I'm not ok crossing into personally.
Azr431 t1_jax1rv2 wrote
Making New England diverse isn’t quite in the same realm at hate charges, but cool straw man. It’s not lost on me all the ones rallying for these racists “rights” are right wingers.
AKBigDaddy t1_jax7el6 wrote
> It’s not lost on me all the ones rallying for these racists “rights” are right wingers.
Feel free to review my post history- literally the only thing I align with the right on is the 2nd amendment- everything else I'm somewhere in the ballpark of Bernie.
Again- separate the message from the act. The act has to be illegal, and if it is, it should be illegal for everyone, not just the people who you agree with. A message in and of itself should not be illegal, nor should the message be the determining factor if an otherwise legal act suddenly becomes illegal.
jdkeith t1_jb0yiju wrote
> Making New England diverse isn’t quite in the same realm at hate charges
If it undermines the lives of people already living here I could claim it's hateful. Hate speech isn't a thing in the U.S. and that's a good thing. Punishing the content of a message is a 1st amendment violation straight up.
Azr431 t1_jb2byag wrote
Guess I should add nativist and xenophobic to the list. Yes hate speech by itself is protected as long as it’s not targeted harassment or threats, these dipshits are not just charged with hate speech.
And I’d prefer it if bigots, racists, and xenophobes didn’t vote, but alas, the constitution protects that right.
jdkeith t1_jb2dz5j wrote
> these dipshits are not just charged with hate speech
True. I view this as resisting arrest - it's often a bullshit charge added on when the cops don't like you.
> And I’d prefer it if bigots, racists, and xenophobes didn’t vote, but alas, the constitution protects that right.
Exactly, respecting rights sucks sometimes.
jdkeith t1_jb0yegk wrote
> It crosses into a first amendment issue that I'm not ok crossing into personally.
Exactly. Defending rights means defending scumbags sometimes. People who can't separate principle from circumstances should not be voting.
TheGrateKhan t1_javrfbg wrote
Because the principle is worth defending for the benefit of ALL of us. As i said in the lower portions of my statement, today its these people. Tomorrow it could be Sununu banning all Black Lives Matter protests because they're trespassing on city property without permission. Or Anti War protestors, Second Amendment supporters, Second Amendment detractors.
I dont care what the opinion expressed is or if i agree or disagree with what they say or do. Your speech is protected and needs to remain as such. One day, people that we disagree with will be in power; and if they can restrict where or when or what you can say, you wont be happy.
You dont do the right thing because its popular. You do the right thing, especially when everyone else doesnt want you to, because its the right thing to do. These guys may have done things with their speech that i disagree with and detest, but that doesn't mean we go and do the wrong things to them. It is specifically how we treat those we disagree with, that defines our character.
jdkeith t1_jb0ylu5 wrote
When the pendulum swings the other way, these dicks will be the first ones to complain. Why have standards when you can have double standards?
Jasonp359 t1_jawjoit wrote
People who do the "both sides" or "slippery slope" argument when it comes to combatting racism are functionally defending and preserving the racism. Here you are equivocating racism to peaceful protests. That's insane.
unit_energy t1_jawpzvt wrote
They aren't defending those scum, they are highlighting the fact that the context changed how the law was applied, giving examples.
You may have missed that before you commented but they are defending all of us.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments