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:718 Comments:42
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
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?
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.
#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.
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.
"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.
The video is a response to an "uproar" about the racially "insensitive" article, "Being White in Philly", which you have shifted gears from to numerous matters of Constitutional Law v. Unconstitutional renderings and policy. The video (which is incorrect more than once in reviews of the author's report) and the phillymag.com article both mentioned a Panamanian woman's controversial views, as well as those of the Moscow woman but -- probably because "Anna from Moscow" is considered "Whiter" than the likely Hispanic Panamanian one -- the focus is on her instead. However, the title of the video and this thread are not a direct quote of what was said by the woman from Moscow. Reference: Post #34 -- excerpts from Pg. 2 of the article where she alludes to Welfare System issues in conjunction with employment problems and what she thinks is marijuana rather than crack smoking. She speaks of what she's seen from Blacks but never says "all Blacks". The author of the article then says: "If you’re not an American, the absence of a historical filter results in a raw view focused strictly on the here and now." (The views and opinion of the Panamanian woman are mentioned next.)
Evidently, it's considered acceptable for Blacks to use shorthand by saying "Whites" without always being construed as meaning "all Whites" but Whites cannot speak so imprecisely in reference to Blacks without it being interpreted racistly as "all Blacks". And so it seems that racial dialogue in America is expected to be mostly a monologue by Blacks or spoken in 2 different languages of an Affirmative Action sort: one more lax for Blacks (other than those you mentioned like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas...) and one more complex for Whites regardless of their various categories economically or educationally. My opinion is that history is deliberately being skewed incitefully in this country to cause despondency and tensions among Blacks especially.
As for the Moscow woman, short of a drone strike, what do you think she should be charged and sentenced with for Hate Speech? As you know, just because something is coded as "law" doesn't mean it's Constitutionally valid. I think that the "Fighting Words Doctrine" you mentioned (crafted in the FDR Commie Era) is itself a breach of the peace which is supposed to be protected in accordance with the First Amendment.