How is a law against hate-speech a bad thing, guys?
How could it ever be a bad thing?
Because "hate speech" is a hell of a nebulous term.
That's why you gotta trust your courts of law to be able to make that distinction.
Daxon on
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
Oh there's not a problem with headshots or aiming, matt. If you like RPG headshots and aiming.
I do not. I installed mods that made headshots deadly and removed bullet bending. Where you shoot is where you hit. So I took the RPG out of the combat.
(b) The board of trustees of each school district shall
require students, once during each school day at each school in the
district, to recite:
(1) the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag
in accordance with 4 U.S.C. Section 4, and its subsequent
amendments; and
(2) the pledge of allegiance to the state flag in
accordance with Subchapter C, Chapter 3100, Government Code.
(c) On written request from a student's parent or guardian,
a school district shall excuse the student from reciting a pledge of
allegiance under Subsection (b).
(d) The board of trustees of each school district shall
provide for the observance of one minute of silence at each school
in the district following the recitation of the pledges of
allegiance to the United States and Texas flags under Subsection
Couscous on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
How is a law against hate-speech a bad thing, guys?
How could it ever be a bad thing?
Because "hate speech" is a hell of a nebulous term.
That's why you gotta trust your courts of law to be able to make that distinction.
worth pointing out that the US politicizes their courts to the point that you can't trust them to enforce the law sanely because it might harm their re-election campaign
I should add that he drunkenly shoved me and called my girlfriend a whore to my face so he was asking for it
also i wasn't crashing a party, i was invited by the dudes who threw it
cause they were friends with my girlfriend and were all "hey bring your boyfriend along"
Wow, that guy sounds like a super-goose.
it was actually the most tense millisecond of my life
it was one of those lights-out punches, he was drunk and didn't stand a chance
and for a split second after I dropped him I thought "oh god, I'm one of like 3 straight guys here and i just knocked out a gay dude what am i going to do where is the door oh shit"
and then people started cheering and i was so relieved
How is a law against hate-speech a bad thing, guys?
How could it ever be a bad thing?
Because "hate speech" is a hell of a nebulous term.
That's why you gotta trust your courts of law to be able to make that distinction.
worth pointing out that the US politicizes their courts to the point that you can't trust them to enforce the law sanely because it might harm their re-election campaign
Only state courts, and not all of those. Every single federal judge (well, except tax and bankruptcy judges, but those are irrelevant for these purposes) serves subject to good behavior.
You have to search everything, and limit yourself to only a few guns, so you can break down ammo for guns you don't have and make reloads for guns you have.
In the beginning. By your early to mid teens you're swimming in ammo though.
(b) The board of trustees of each school district shall
require students, once during each school day at each school in the
district, to recite:
(1) the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag
in accordance with 4 U.S.C. Section 4, and its subsequent
amendments; and
(2) the pledge of allegiance to the state flag in
accordance with Subchapter C, Chapter 3100, Government Code.
(c) On written request from a student's parent or guardian,
a school district shall excuse the student from reciting a pledge of
allegiance under Subsection (b).
(d) The board of trustees of each school district shall
provide for the observance of one minute of silence at each school
in the district following the recitation of the pledges of
allegiance to the United States and Texas flags under Subsection
Less archaic than pledging allegiance to people, which was the old version. Actually, I think Commonwealth citizens sometimes still have to swear loyalty to the Queen. I'm almost certain Governors-General do.
How is a law against hate-speech a bad thing, guys?
How could it ever be a bad thing?
Because "hate speech" is a hell of a nebulous term.
That's why you gotta trust your courts of law to be able to make that distinction.
worth pointing out that the US politicizes their courts to the point that you can't trust them to enforce the law sanely because it might harm their re-election campaign
Then the system is flawed, not the law.
One is naturally a lot easier to change than the other but a flawed system is no way to govern people in the long-term.
I think most western countries should go about updating their systems of government. Won't happen, but Government 2.0 would be nice.
How is a law against hate-speech a bad thing, guys?
How could it ever be a bad thing?
Because "hate speech" is a hell of a nebulous term.
That's why you gotta trust your courts of law to be able to make that distinction.
I tend to think, in general, that you should be able to at least make an educated guess as to whether engaging in a given activity breaks the law.
My issues with the UK legislation are also a lot to do with the fact that they were basically crafted entirely and specifically to appease tabloid ire directed at Abu Hamza. The fact that in doing so he was elevated from everyday crank to legendary figure is also something of an annoyance.
Eye of the beholder. Given the timing, and that it was probably Leviticus 20:13 since that will fit on a t-shirt, then it's not an unreasonable assumption. If you bring a tee-shirt calling for gays to be killed during an anti-gay bullying event, it does send a certain message.
The legal definition cannot simply be the eye of the beholder. Some beholders are batshit crazy. As I understand, laws like this generally key to what a reasonable person would think or feel in such-and-such a situation. The reasonable qualifier is important here.
Leviticus sends the message that you are a hateful goose, but it doesn't send the message "I'm going to beat the shit out of you" unless several other conditions are met. Otherwise I would be afraid to stand next to Jim DeMint. I'm not, of course, I just hate him.
The reasonable requirement doesn't mean that the administrator has to believe violence will happen. Simply that it's more likely to happen. Or that he'll end up with a sufficient enough of a screaming match that class will be disrupted. Is it really that unreasonable to believe that those t-shirts wouldn't be seen as aggressively confrontational given the raised emotional levels? Even Tinker leaves that as an out for school administrators. And we're also debating this as if the students in question are "good" students. For all we know they may not be. If they or one has a history of fighting then it's without question the right call to make.
Thomamelas on
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
How is a law against hate-speech a bad thing, guys?
How could it ever be a bad thing?
Because "hate speech" is a hell of a nebulous term.
That's why you gotta trust your courts of law to be able to make that distinction.
I tend to think, in general, that you should be able to at least make an educated guess as to whether engaging in a given activity breaks the law.
My issues with the UK legislation are also a lot to do with the fact that they were basically crafted entirely and specifically to appease tabloid ire directed at Abu Hamza. The fact that in doing so he was elevated from everyday crank to legendary figure is also something of an annoyance.
I wish all tabloids would just die.
All of them.
Also all politically biased newspapers.
They are worthless, how are you meant to form a valid opinion about an issue if the data has already been processed to favour one party over another?
You cannot have an objective opinion, stop doing that.
In the case of The Wall, you can if you think it's terrible. Because it is. Objectively.
I really do have reasons for not liking it.
For one, it's a Roger Waters album, and that guy is shit without Gilmour. Secondly, it's the worst kind of concept album. The kind where themes are used without variation, pointless songs to move the "story" along, and, probably one of the worst crimes committed against music, this is the album with Run like Hell on it. Also at the point in time of The Wall Water's singing voice had grown into this really nasally and unlistenable whine. Finally, it's way way waaaaay too 80's in it's production.
Now. There are some really good songs on that album. Sadly 5 songs out of... what? 27 total? Yeah. That's not a good album.
Posts
Because "hate speech" is a hell of a nebulous term.
Because the line between hate-speech and unpopular speech can get pretty thin, and banning unpopular speech is bad.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Wow, that guy sounds like a super-goose.
to Queen Frag
and her mighty state of hysteria.
The Wall is objectively terrible. :P
It's not even a Pink Floyd record, even.
That's why you gotta trust your courts of law to be able to make that distinction.
I do not. I installed mods that made headshots deadly and removed bullet bending. Where you shoot is where you hit. So I took the RPG out of the combat.
http://law.onecle.com/texas/education/25.082.00.html
As far as I'm concerned, let the Nazis march in Skokie.
Free speech, it's important.
The Wall is awesome.
And so is all the rest of Roger Waters solo work!
it is so a pink floyd album, says so right on the margin
worth pointing out that the US politicizes their courts to the point that you can't trust them to enforce the law sanely because it might harm their re-election campaign
Yeah we had that in fifth gradetriggered my "pull out 300 page novel and ignore everything until we moved on to something that mattered" reflex
I hate you.
You are wrong.
You cannot have an objective opinion, stop doing that.
it was actually the most tense millisecond of my life
it was one of those lights-out punches, he was drunk and didn't stand a chance
and for a split second after I dropped him I thought "oh god, I'm one of like 3 straight guys here and i just knocked out a gay dude what am i going to do where is the door oh shit"
and then people started cheering and i was so relieved
Only state courts, and not all of those. Every single federal judge (well, except tax and bankruptcy judges, but those are irrelevant for these purposes) serves subject to good behavior.
that's his point
he's half-jokingly saying that the Wall's badness is a true fact
In the case of The Wall, you can if you think it's terrible. Because it is. Objectively.
In the beginning. By your early to mid teens you're swimming in ammo though.
It is good to take pride in the place where you live.
It is unfortunate that overzealousness of the proud sometimes has the opposite effect on the people around them.
If it's predicated on something objective, sure. Like the loudness wars are objectively terrible.
Acted in 1995. That's why.
Less archaic than pledging allegiance to people, which was the old version. Actually, I think Commonwealth citizens sometimes still have to swear loyalty to the Queen. I'm almost certain Governors-General do.
Then the system is flawed, not the law.
One is naturally a lot easier to change than the other but a flawed system is no way to govern people in the long-term.
I think most western countries should go about updating their systems of government. Won't happen, but Government 2.0 would be nice.
ProfM. I hate you. A lot.
Aint nothin wrong with shoving gold medals in other countries faces
also USA USA USA is a pretty rad chant
all other country chants suck in comparison
I tend to think, in general, that you should be able to at least make an educated guess as to whether engaging in a given activity breaks the law.
My issues with the UK legislation are also a lot to do with the fact that they were basically crafted entirely and specifically to appease tabloid ire directed at Abu Hamza. The fact that in doing so he was elevated from everyday crank to legendary figure is also something of an annoyance.
I will still sing certain songs randomly if they pop in my head.
It's the only way to make everyone happy.
The reasonable requirement doesn't mean that the administrator has to believe violence will happen. Simply that it's more likely to happen. Or that he'll end up with a sufficient enough of a screaming match that class will be disrupted. Is it really that unreasonable to believe that those t-shirts wouldn't be seen as aggressively confrontational given the raised emotional levels? Even Tinker leaves that as an out for school administrators. And we're also debating this as if the students in question are "good" students. For all we know they may not be. If they or one has a history of fighting then it's without question the right call to make.
Our cool chant doesn't make up for us having a shitty anthem.
u objectively mad
I wish all tabloids would just die.
All of them.
Also all politically biased newspapers.
They are worthless, how are you meant to form a valid opinion about an issue if the data has already been processed to favour one party over another?
I really do have reasons for not liking it.
For one, it's a Roger Waters album, and that guy is shit without Gilmour. Secondly, it's the worst kind of concept album. The kind where themes are used without variation, pointless songs to move the "story" along, and, probably one of the worst crimes committed against music, this is the album with Run like Hell on it. Also at the point in time of The Wall Water's singing voice had grown into this really nasally and unlistenable whine. Finally, it's way way waaaaay too 80's in it's production.
Now. There are some really good songs on that album. Sadly 5 songs out of... what? 27 total? Yeah. That's not a good album.
The lesson I took away from my youthful experience of pledges was essentially that they are things nobody ever expects anybody to take seriously.