Title: All Black People Spend Their Time Smoking Marijuana And Popping Out Babies! Source:
[None] URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fElcADwoJI Published:Mar 18, 2013 Author:staff Post Date:2013-03-18 23:03:40 by Horse Keywords:None Views:512 Comments:42
The mayor called an article of protected speech largely criminal .
Deport that man for being a traitor to the union and the constitution.
.....
We should deport more people.... Quit trying to throw out the illegals and start focusing on the politicians that wont throw out your illegals.
__ There are only two kinds of americans left in the USA those opposed to the tyranny and those that are wrong. Resist propaganda, Support strict constitutional adherence!
The title of this thread is the kind of stuff you'd read in a Critical Reasoning textbook where it doesn't teach you think but instead plants subliminals in the conscious mind. The seeds of disinformation. Such disinformation tactics are the kind used by CIA to sway people to a way of thinking that creates chaos. It starts with a seed. Be wary here. The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites civil violence.
Interestingly, The Atlantic has come out against the mayor.
"Mr. Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -- Leonid Brezhnev to James Callahan
Not true! Blacks are very frequent patrons of abortion clinics.
"Mr. Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -- Leonid Brezhnev to James Callahan
The incitement of such speech falls under the Fighting Words doctrine which is not protected under the First Amendment. This comment does not pertain to Horse's thread at all but to the woman (named "Anna")from Moscow which the CNN anchorwoman was referring to. I sense that the Moscow lady responsible for the comment may be KGB.
Were I a journalist, I would have asked this "Anna" how long she has been in the U.S. and what is her occupation.
So what if it is either provocative or offensive. The function of the First Amendment is to protect the right of free speech - any speech regardless of whether we personally find it offensive or provocative. Incitement to riot does not justify or excuse rioting.
Unless the speech we abhor is protected then we do not have FREE speech. The First Amendment does not protect just the speech we agree with.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Incitement to riot does not justify or excuse rioting.
That makes no sense at all. What triggers incitement to riot is a kind of action or speech that many refer to as "hate speech". Hate speech notice is placed in just about every police department these days. Such notices exists in L.A. police stations. Hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment when it triggers riots on the streets. The offender responsible for such speech should be held accountable for their actions. In this case, it would be "Anna" from Moscow. It is highly possible that Anna is neither a resident of Philadelphia nor is she a U.S. citizen. Or this video is just a sham.
Hate speech is still speech. It is not an action nor is it a threat or attack on the well being or body of someone else. That does not mean I approve of it, but when government, the law, is allowed to determine what is, and is not, acceptable speech you are no longer free and it opens the door to much mischief. It opens the door to arbitrary determinations that speech which is truthful, but uncomfortable, is forbidden speech. A direct threat of violence etc., is another matter and while someone should not be forbidden to utter such they can be restrained and even sanctioned for making threats, but that is a special case.
Further, hate speech, like pornography, is in the eye/ear of the beholder and not all people are going to to be agreed that any given instance is in fact "hate speech". I frequently disagree with our resident racist pigs but I would not forbid their speaking even though I find it shallow, narrow minded, irrational, and even hateful.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Hate speech is still speech. It is not an action nor is it a threat or attack on the well being or body of someone else.
Hate speech is a verbal attack which may lead to violence. In legal sense, this is called a foreseeable risk injury. The reason why the police put such notice up nearby the front desk where, is because Hate Speech is a foreseeable risk injury that leads to violence to which the police cannot protect you nor can they be sued for somebody else's irresponsible speech because they provided to the public Notice that Hate Speech is not tolerated. The Department of Justice also has this Notice as well. Same with FBI.
Go to your nearest police department and inquire about their notice to the public on their Hate Speech policy. Hate Speech is not protected by the First Amendment. And the police cannot be sued for somebody's speech which triggers violence. They have already given you Constructive and Actual Notice.
Hate speech is a verbal attack which may lead to violence. In legal sense, this is called a foreseeable injury. The reason why the police put such notice up nearby the front desk where, is because Hate Speech is a foreseeable injury that leads to violence to which the police cannot protect you nor can they be sued for somebody else's irresponsible speech because they provided to the public Notice that Hate Speech is not tolerated. The Department of Justice also has this Notice as well. Same with FBI.
It is called by another name as well - creeping totalitarianism. When government is allowed to determine what speech is acceptable and what is not then you are no longer free. You may well wish to be a carefully sheltered slave but I do not.
It is like the famous quote from the English Parliament: I disagree entirely with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Therein also lies the key point. I do not have to like or dislike something someone else utters. What is sacrosanct in a free society is their right to utter it.
Any determination as to what is acceptable or unacceptable speech is ALWAYS arbitrary.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
I made a correction in my post #10. "In legal sense, this is called a foreseeable injury. The reason why the police put such notice up nearby the front desk where, is because Hate Speech is a foreseeable injury..."
But it is not necessarily foreseeable. Some people have more self control when confronted with provocative speech than others. Therein lies the disctinction. Someones speech may well be inflammatory but the decision to respond with violence is an individual decision and is not a given nor is it an act necessary to preserve one's physical well being. Speech, however hateful, remains speech.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Violence is ALWAYS a volitional act. To claim the incitement of speech one must also assert that their act of violence was non-volitional. Therein lies the rub.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
So far, you've cited as authoritative [on the topic of Hate Speech]: Unconstitutional lawsmithing, the Police, the DOJ and the FBI -- all of which assist in subverting the Constitution. Pre-emptive "laws" against speech. "Pre- emptive" War. Where does it stop? Shouldn't we have a law to pre-empt [injury to our republic by any] legislative subversions of our Constitution? I vote Yes.
Edited to include the bracketed sections and for spacing.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
See my post #12. In L.A. police departments, such Constructive Notice already exist in their departments. I have actually seen such notices posted in there. I do not know about smaller towns especially where it is predominantly white but in the cities, where there exists people from diverse ethnic backgrounds, the job of the police is to keep the peace by posting such notices which are advised by their City Attorneys, Police Commission, and Internal Affairs Department, so as to prevent them from being sued by a civilian's negligent comments which may trigger civil unrest.
So, are you then asserting that because someone said something an individual found hateful that, that individual becomes no longer responsible for their actions as an individual? That an act of violence then becomes defensible because the individual ceased being responsible for their actions?
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
where there exists people from diverse ethnic backgrounds, the job of the police is to keep the peace by posting such notices which are advised by their City Attorneys, Police Commission, and Internal Affairs Department, so as to prevent them from being sued by a civilian's negligent comments which may trigger civil unrest.
A self-protective policy for them is differenct than a law. Do they use their policy as justification to move against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution as Law?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Do they use their policy as justification to move against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution as Law?
It is not a policy, rule, or private regulation brought about by a public municipality. Hate Speech is not nor has it ever been protected speech under the First Amendment. The very first Civil Rights Act of 1866 was implemented to protect Black-Americans from racial bias and acknowledge that they also were entitled to the same basic rights as the white people. This was WAY before the 1960's civil rights movement.
I asserted no such thing. What the Philadelphia DOJ needs to do is find this "Anna" from Moscow ( if you watched and listened carefully to that video) who started this mindless speech and investigate her. I suspect that this Anna is not a U.S. citizen and may be trying to spark a riot. She alone should be held accountable for her words.
“Anti-semitism is a disease–you catch it from Jews”–Edgar J. Steele
“The jew cries out in pain, as he strikes you.”–Polish proverb
“I would like to express my heartfelt apologies for the unfortunate and tasteless quotes I published in my tag lines. I am very sorry and ashamed. I never wanted to offend anyone, or to encroach human rights."- Hmmmmm
Hate speech is a verbal attack which may lead to violence. In legal sense, this is called a foreseeable risk injury. The reason why the police put such notice up nearby the front desk where, is because Hate Speech is a foreseeable risk injury that leads to violence to which the police cannot protect you nor can they be sued for somebody else's irresponsible speech because they provided to the public Notice that Hate Speech is not tolerated.
Should I, as a Gentile, be able to claim that anybody who uses the word "anti- semite" in an attempt to stop discussion of the Holoco$t is guilty of inflammatory hate speech?? Gentiles might get their feelings hurt and then be forced to lash out in violence to speak truth to power. See how that works??
Isn't this hate speech??
Nobody was arrested when this was waved in Good White People's faces, so if it makes me mad and I kill a few thousand mexicon invaders then I'm not responsible for my actions because hate-speech incited me to kill. Am I getting it right???
Or is "hate-speech" only a club to beat down whitey, with NO repercussions for non-whites who get slimy ACLU lawyers to back up their hate-speech??
“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group." -Alex Kurtagic
#26. To: Original_Intent, purplerose, 4, speakers, noone222 (#15)
Speech, however hateful, remains speech.
Exactly.
Actions matter.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
(Didn't everyone here learn that saying as a young child?)
As noone has so aptly observed, the pussification of US is damn near complete.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
I have never argued that racism does not exist. I have argued that it is irrational.
Affirmative Action has outlived its utility and I have also argued that.
What either has to do with free speech is undefined.
Yes, the racial divide is real. I find myself daily being extra careful not to offend black people because many of them are on a hair trigger and if you are white you are presumed guilty. On the positive side many educated blacks, a minority within a minority, have realized just how poisonous the current regime is. Look at Bill Cosby's rants. He got where he is because he is an intelligent man and had a driving work ethic. I can think of a friend who is well above the norm who proudly states "I don't speak homey" in perfect unaccented English.
We live in a world of irrational behavior. That does not however, require us to validate the irrationality by granting it beingness or a right to exist.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
#28. To: Lod, purplerose, 4, speakers, noone222 (#26)
As noone has so aptly observed, the pussification of US is damn near complete.
Sadly true. People have been cowed into accepting an unacceptable state of affairs through a constant media barrage (Hollyweird and Tee Bee) and the infiltration of our skools by people with screwy ideas and hidden agendas.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
I read it a few days ago. I thought it was insipid. I could have found a lot more whites suffering even more terrible fates at the hands of blacks in one afternoon.
You made an excellent point, X-15. Yes, anti-semitism is also absolutely hate speech just as the term "honkies" is hate speech directed towards whites. The original Civil Rights Act of 1866 applied to both whites and blacks. It is a shame that this is never brought up.
Do they use their policy as justification to move against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution as Law?
It is not a policy, rule, or private regulation brought about by a public municipality. Hate Speech is not nor has it ever been protected speech under the First Amendment. The very first Civil Rights Act of 1866 was implemented to protect Black-Americans from racial bias and acknowledge that they also were entitled to the same basic rights as the white people. This was WAY before the 1960's civil rights movement.
When did the N-word become 1st Amendment-exempt Hate Speech? [Edit to add: Not when the Bill of Rights was enacted.] I'm not sure what the Civil Rights Act of 1866 has to do with the issue of Hate Speech but I'll discuss it if you like.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Exactly! I was surprised at how they took the beatings and robberies in stride as if it was just a tax for their life in the city, other educated couples so oblivious to the danger that they WANT to raise their young kids in the ghetto and sending their kids to public schools. Good luck with that. And still there was no "Hate Speech" in the whole article
“Anti-semitism is a disease–you catch it from Jews”–Edgar J. Steele
“The jew cries out in pain, as he strikes you.”–Polish proverb
“I would like to express my heartfelt apologies for the unfortunate and tasteless quotes I published in my tag lines. I am very sorry and ashamed. I never wanted to offend anyone, or to encroach human rights."- Hmmmmm
#34. To: purplerose, Original_Intent (#23)(Edited)
Original_Intent at #20: So, are you then asserting that because someone said something an individual found hateful that, that individual becomes no longer responsible for their actions as an individual? That an act of violence then becomes defensible because the individual ceased being responsible for their actions?
purplerose at #23: I asserted no such thing. What the Philadelphia DOJ needs to do is find this "Anna" from Moscow ( if you watched and listened carefully to that video) who started this mindless speech and investigate her. I suspect that this Anna is not a U.S. citizen and may be trying to spark a riot. She alone should be held accountable for her words.
Excerpts from the article, "Being White in Philly":
Pg. 2: Early on, during my walks around northern Fairmount, I’m surprised by a couple of things. One is the international flavor. On a warm Sunday in October, I buttonhole a woman I’ll call Anna, a tall, slim, dark-haired beauty from Moscow getting out of her BMW on an alley just south of Girard College. Anna goes to a local law school, works downtown at a law firm, and proceeds to let me have it when we start talking about race in her neighborhood.
“I’ve been here for two years, I’m almost done,” she says. “Blacks use skin color as an excuse. Discrimination is an excuse, instead of moving forward. … It’s a shame—you pay taxes, they’re not doing anything except sitting on porches smoking pot … Why do you support them when they won’t work, just make babies and smoking pot? [sic]
That’s the other surprise: If you’re not an American, the absence of a historical filter results in a raw view focused strictly on the here and now. I meet a contractor from Maine named Adrian, who brought his Panamanian wife to live here, at 19th and Girard, where she saw fighting and drug deals and general bad behavior at the edge of Brewerytown. It all had her co-nvinced there is a “moral poverty” among inner-city blacks.
American whites I talk to in Fairmount have a decidedly different take. Our racial history, as horrible and daunting as it is, has created a certain tolerance of how things operate in the neighborhood, an acceptance of an edgy status quo.
This is a 4-page article. Most of it is illustrative of the textbook definition of "reverse discrimination", which is described as Whites being overcompensating and more polite to minorities and not about discrimination by minorities. The only other racially offensive comment, besides those of the women from other countries, was the use of the N-word by an 87-year old man (who has lived in the neighborhood since he was 5) when talking about a black boy who walked into his house and wanted money. Is it racist for anyone not Black to discuss Black crime? Is the word "boy" Hate Speech now when talking to a Black boy?
Pg. 1: Another story: Dennis, 26, teaches math in a Kensington school. His first year there, fresh out of college, one of his students, an unruly eighth grader, got into a fight with a girl. Dennis told him to stop, he got into Dennis’s face, and in the heat of the moment Dennis called the student, an African-American, “boy.”
The student went home and told his stepfather. The stepfather demanded a meeting with the principal and Dennis, and accused Dennis of being racist; the principal defended his teacher. Dennis apologized, knowing how loaded the term “boy” was and regretting that he’d used it, though he was thinking, Why would I be teaching in an inner-city school if I’m a racist?
If the title of this article was "Being Black in Philly" and contained Hate Speech against Whites, Arabs/Muslims, Gentiles, doubtful it would have made the news.
Edited to expand the first sentence at the link for Pg. 1.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#35. To: purplerose, Original_Intent, GreyLmist (#12)
Go to your nearest police department and inquire about their notice to the public on their Hate Speech policy. Hate Speech is not protected by the First Amendment. And the police cannot be sued for somebody's speech which triggers violence. They have already given you Constructive and Actual Notice.
If someone is violent to someone else as a result of hearing speech of any sort, according to the law, they should be charged and convicted of assault, no?
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless." ~ Leo Tolstoy
other educated couples so oblivious to the danger that they WANT to raise their young kids in the ghetto and sending their kids to public schools. Good luck with that.
This person at the article's Comments section mentioned that their postings had been deleted so am copying these here:
white kid in black gradeschool:
As [one] white kid whose well-meaning parents enrolled him in a majority black school for the same noble reasons as "Jen", I just have to say that that decision is really negligent. I love how she makes it about herself. I love my parents dearly and have never told them about how lonely and terrifying it was to be one of the only white kids in my grade school. I love them too much to put that kind of guilt on them. I was constantly teased, picked on, and bullied by a few kids... and even the nicer kids never seemed to display any sort of empathy. Given the state of race relations in this country, and the overt disdain black people have for whites, I don't suppose I see how that would be surprising. Whites only think racism goes one way... they have no idea what its like for those of us in the trenches. Especially kids.
Excerpts from another Comment by white kid in black gradeschool:
my parents were white educated liberals [sic] The worst part was that my parents, like Jen, thought that I was getting so much cultural value out of this experience. They couldn't have been further from the truth: I probably would be more positively disposed to black people as a group had I grown up in the suburbs. [sic] Jen's on a moral superiority mission, and her children are the victims.
Edits: bracketed section for readability in the first sentence of the first Comment + to expand the last paragraph.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
X-15 at #25: Should I, as a Gentile, be able to claim that anybody who uses the word "anti- semite" in an attempt to stop discussion of the Holoco$t is guilty of inflammatory hate speech??
purplerose at #31: You made an excellent point, X-15. Yes, anti-semitism is also absolutely hate speech
Not "anti-semitism", purplerose. Is it inflammatory Hate Speech for a Gentile to be called an "anti-semite" by someone who wants to stop debate of the Holocaust?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
If someone is violent to someone else as a result of hearing speech of any sort, according to the law, they should be charged and convicted of assault, no?
Yes. Speech Prohibition makes the ACLU, NAACP, ADL, SPLC, law enforcement, judicial and prison industries more profitable. I think that's the short list.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I couldn't say to the judge, "Well, Sir, he said he hated me so I punched him in the face." and not expect to be found guilty. I guess I'd have a hard time getting the other guy charged of hating me or saying he hates me or calling me hateful names.
Wtf.
The short list. You did leave out a lot of beneficiaries.
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless." ~ Leo Tolstoy
I couldn't say to the judge, "Well, Sir, he said he hated me so I punched him in the face." and not expect to be found guilty. I guess I'd have a hard time getting the other guy charged of hating me or saying he hates me or calling me hateful names.
That is correct. A minority might be found guilty and still get the other guy charged with a Hate Crime. Even stranger, Whites (usually meaning Caucasians of European descent in racial discussions) are a minority by far in the world.
The short list. You did leave out a lot of beneficiaries.
I figured that but a longer list would have taken more time than I wanted to expend on it.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
If the title of this article was "Being Black in Philly" and contained Hate Speech against Whites, Arabs/Muslims, Gentiles, doubtful it would have made the news.
Well unfortunately that is not the issue of this thread because the title reads plainly:
"All Black People Spend Their Time Smoking Marijuana And Popping Out Babies!"
I am responding to the video posted concerning the comment made by the woman from Moscow who made this comment to begin with. Either she is an agent provocateur or is clueless about black people. I guess we should include independent commentators such as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell as part of the "All Black people" comment. Obviously, this "Anna" woman from Moscow has never met black people who graduated from Harvard with law degrees or black chemists. And I'll even bet she has never heard of US. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Or here's another one she never heard of...Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Finally, Senator Hiram Revels, the first African American Congressman.
