Sunday, November 1, 2009

Freedom of speech takes a fall

I know lots of folks around here are Chiefs fans.
Have you been following the Larry Johnson saga.  He typed on his Twitter - or blog too maybe - saying on of his critics was gay, or acting gay, or something like that. He may have used a different word, but gay rights groups were in an uproar, and Johnson was suspended for two weeks.
Now they have reduced it to one week.
Here is the story
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-chiefs-johnson&prov=ap&type=lgns

This is the type of political correctness that ticks me off. THis is America. This is supposed to be the land of freedom of speech.
When you cannot get by with saying what Johnson said, we no longer have freedom of speech in this country.
Again, what he said was not that bad. You can google it to find the exact wording. It was not even intended as a knock on gay people. 
Freedom of speech is not about having the freedom to say what others like. It is about the freedom to say what others dont like. Freedom of speech means the right to criticize others, even groups of people.
This whole thing  SEEMS PRETTY GAY to me.
That is about what Johnson wrote. Maybe ill get boycotted by the gay rights movement.
I know i could not have written that while i was employed.

67 comments:

  1. Good Point!

    What is more shocking is that a growing majority of people don't really understand the things that keep "Freedom" free!
    They really don't understand our own form of Government and how it is structured to work.
    Its balance of "POWERS"!
    They don't understand that if they choose to not defend, relinguish or ignore their rights. They will cease to exist or be replaced with lesser substitutes!
    They proably won't realize what was lost until its gone!
    OR
    It will be done so gradually they won't even notice!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is ironic that the people who are wanting more rights - gays - are the ones who are denying rights to others.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I saw Johnson's comment used out of anger and just like a cuss word... he could have used any word. But he chose a word that yes, people have used while beating up/killing a homosexual. But he was just angry.
    Is it a homophobic word? I don't think so. It is just like saying the N word is racial yet black people call each other that. Homosexual's have been known to call each other the F word as well as the Q word... there was even a show on Showtime with Q U E E R in it!! But a "straight" person can't say it?? That makes no sense.
    In Johnson's case, I doubt anyone hearing him say it like he did will rise up and take it as a sign to start beating up homosexuals.
    What is next?? Mom's revolt and now say Mother F is against mom's??
    It's a cuss word!! And yes, freedom of speech. I would not say it, but I don't think he harmed anyone. I bet most people just blew it off... but someone had to push their agenda though so took off with it. What would have happened if he had just called him an A.H. or a donkey? He would have been left alone by the press and everyone but the team and coach.
    But who could stand up for Johnson to help him out of this? No one.
    And my cousin is a homosexual so no I'm not homophobic!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Johnson also insulted his coach basically saying his coach is not qualified.

    A 2 game suspension is not very much anymore.

    I do agree that if it was just for the "gay" comment it is a bit over done.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If what he said was so innocuous, why aren't any of you using the word he said? The report says "gay slurs" which leads me to believe he said the F word or the D word.

    I don't know what he said - just wondering why if speech is so free and it ticks you off so much, why aren't you saying the word he used?

    LOL I love the hypocrisy on this blog.

    xox,
    Catheh

    ReplyDelete
  6. You mean hypocrisy like criticizing people and not being brave enough to put your real name on it?
    No hypocrisy here.
    He said some guy reminded him of a CHRSTOPHER STREET BOY ... and he used the word FAG.
    still the whole thing seems GAY to me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To the 9:44 poster, if it was not any different than calling him a donkey, then why did he not use that curse? I doubt there is an organized donkey rights group. If the man had slurred any other minority group this blog would not be so supportive. This really isn't any different than what Don Imus did what got him taken off of the air. I was always taught that my freedoms ended when other's began. This really isn't about political correctness, it is about correctness.

    ReplyDelete
  8. my point is freedom of speech.
    if we allow gay groups to stifle people when they are offended ... what would be next?
    conservatives
    christians
    non christans
    liberals
    if you only believe in freedom of speech for those that say nice things ... you dont believe in freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm the 9:44 poster and I didn't use the words or any of the curse words because I personally do not like them, do not like to type them or say them. I grew up with not being allowed to use those words, retarded, stupid, idiot etc... I don't like to use any of them. But I'm not going to say someone is soooo wrong because they did. That is their right... their FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
    And I do think if he had called his coach anything else... any other cuss word, then the whole story probably would have been kept inhouse and he would not have been suspended or fined. Players and coaches fight and say things all the time and nothing happens.
    And I have obviously have no idea why Johnson didn't use any other words than what he did... but I bet when he's not angrily typing or having reporters around... he uses that word out of anger more frequently then people know. so many people grow up hearing and saying phrases and words that makes absolutely no sense, and then it sticks around in adulthood. but it's all still freedom of speech... even if you disagree with it

    ReplyDelete
  10. He has absolute freedom of speech. His employer also has the right to set certain standards of conduct. For a public person to use such incendiary speech is distasteful. There are people to whome it is hurtful and insensitive.
    What if he had said someone was acting like a nigger, or a jew? We cannot pretend our words do not have power, that they do not have the ability to build up, or tear down. His words were hurtful to a large segment of society. The bigger problem is, that so many people do not recognize this.
    To say this is the end of free speech is ridicolous. He can say whatever he wants. He just might not be able to do it as a Kansas City Cheif.

    ReplyDelete
  11. James Jordan said...
    my point is freedom of speech.
    if we allow gay groups to stifle people when they are offended ... what would be next?
    conservatives
    christians
    non christans
    liberals
    if you only believe in freedom of speech for those that say nice things ... you dont believe in freedom of speech.
    ************************************************
    And if you only believe in Seperation of Church and State for everyone but Christians, you get things like tax payer supported monuments on Scripture Hill...

    ReplyDelete
  12. This type of thinking is a threat to freedom of speech.
    SOme of you dont think you have freedom of speech, or you would not post anonymously.
    I think it should be a concern to those that believe in freedom.
    As for tax supported scripture hill, ive not seen any evidence that it is tax payer supported.
    show me the paper work and then we can figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Freedom of speech pertains to the government not telling us what we can or cannot say, or can or cannot print. The government has not told Johnson he cannot use gay slurs. Nobody has threatened to arrest him. He is free to say whatever he wants, as is Fred Phelps, no matter how distasteful. In fact, our government protects people like Fred Phelps from harm for saying what he says. Were I Phepls employer however, and I felt him saying what he does was not good for business, I would fire him.
    It is as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I know i could not have written that while i was employed." What a shame. It's no secret that your old employer is a liberal, but, where is the equality? But, honestly, your writing did bring a bit of balance to brand x. And now...Oh well. What I wanted to say is that the homosexuals have more rights that the rest of us. Did anyone notice that Lord Lady Pelosi attached a Bill to a Defense Appropriations Bill that now says in essence: If you commit a crime against a homosexual based on their homosexuality, you are now guilty of a federal hate crime. Sneaky. They attached it to a "must pass" Defense Spending Bill. Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky. Did you hear me? This is a LAW. A FEDERAL LAW. In other words, if you are charged with this one, the full weight of the Federal Gov't comes to prosecute you. There are already laws on the books that say you can't rob, shoot, or hurt people. Why do we need to establish "special laws" for the homosexuals? Yeah, jj, you're right. The only answer I got is that those who were hoodwinked into voting for these folks better turn out in droves to vote them out. The rest of us who didn't vote for them, well, we'll already be at the polls.

    D.Q.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The government has not told Johnson he cannot use gay slurs. Nobody has threatened to arrest him. He is free to say whatever he wants,

    You don't suppose some of those "broke back lawyers" threatened the Chiefs with a law suit or some other type of harrassment.
    Do you?

    Didn't we just see something similar to this but not exactly the same with Perez Hilton and Miss California?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, the NFL player in question was not punished by the government. Constitutional freedoms aren't really the point here. The NFL is a private organization and as such can create and enforce their own rules.

    We can all do stuff that isn't illegal that can get us punished at work. Creating a hostile work environment by using "gay" in a derogatory sense can certainly, but not necessarily, contribute to that.

    Now, I don't really support any organization who would punish someone for something they said outside of work. However, that is certainly the NFL's prerogative.

    ReplyDelete
  17. DQ, i did notice last week the hate crimes bill thing went through under the radar.
    no one seemed to notice.
    I do "hate" hate crime laws,. they are so stupid.
    how can you judge why someone did something>?
    and can christians be arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin?

    this whole political correctness is just a way for people to feel better, but it does nothing to actually help any minority person.
    or group.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The government has not told Johnson he cannot use gay slurs." You are correct, but I might add if you don't mind, one word..YET. With the law that just passed, it could become a reality. Call me alarmist, call me crazy, I don't care. I am Don Quixote, you know. :)

    "went through under the radar. no one seemed to notice."
    Way of life in these United States, jj. More people know about American Idol & Dancing with the Stars than know their Congressman (woman)'s name. How many people know who's the Speaker of the House?

    D.Q.

    ReplyDelete
  19. well the whole name thing is way over blown but the case against him isnt him using the word fag. he got suspended for talking out about his head coach which is conduct detramental to the team and organization.

    ReplyDelete
  20. James Jordan said...
    It is ironic that the people who are wanting more rights - gays - are the ones who are denying rights to others.
    ************************************************
    James,
    I couldn't agree with you more. It pisses me off when fags complain about being called gay.
    It bothers me almost as much as the darkies complaining about racial inequality. We would have been a lot better off had blacks known their place in the 60's and 70's.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I couldn't agree with you more. It pisses me off when fags complain about being called gay.
    It bothers me almost as much as the darkies complaining about racial inequality.

    But, they won't ever want to reach full equality with all its responsibilities and lose the attention and perks that go with the status of "Victim".

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous said...
    But, they won't ever want to reach full equality with all its responsibilities and lose the attention and perks that go with the status of "Victim".
    ************************************************
    That's what I'm talking about.
    Whites are so much better.

    ReplyDelete
  23. No, its not all about White!
    Its about "different" and the need or desire of those to keep to that agenda!

    ReplyDelete
  24. THe last few posts have proven my point beautifully.
    THank you.
    I could not have shown how silly this whole political correctness thing - and the offended culture - is, without your help.

    I did not say anything about any minority group at all. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

    ReplyDelete
  25. James, none of this proved your point. In fact, just the opposite is true. While one might have a right to say the things that were said in the last few posts, it does not make it right.
    Women, blacks, yes even gays have the right to speak out against language, and cultural attitudes that demean them as a group, and which they find offensive.

    I'm not saying there should be legeslation preventing anyone from saying these things, but if an employer does not want his employees saying these things, or a blogmaster does not want these things said on his/her blog, or yes, even the editor of a newspaper does not wish to print them in his paper, that is their right, and perhaps the responsible thing to do.
    Should blacks have kept silent in the face of opression. Should they have kept quiet when they were blackie, or nigger, or boy? Should they have done nothing when they were told where they could or could not live, work, eat, shop? Is it political correctness gone to far when we cant openly use the word nigger without offending? To be called gay, or fag in school, is the worst insult that can be hurled. Now you might say, "It dosen't mean that when it is used in that way." Even if that were true, the implication is there, and the message is loud and clear to anyone struggling with sexual identity issues. "You are the lowest of the low. So low in fact, that we have chosen to use your identity as an insult to indicate the worst thing imaginable. Why is it wrong for gays to be offended by that? Don't gays have the right to expect the same sensitivity now afforded to blacks, women, jews...? Or do you find their lifestyle so vile and offensive that gay slurs are justified?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Do you remember when President Bill Clinton flew to Wichita to anounce the then new "Welfare to Work Program". Cessena was to be a Model for Corporations and an example for the rest of the country!
    I happened to know someone who was a Supervisor at one of the Plants.
    He told me that they had problems with getting those workers to come to work!
    One told him he had worked 3 days that week what did they expect?
    The funny thing was I don't recall him ever referring to a specific race!
    It is a "Free" country and a mixture of races and cultures. Each with their own identity, beliefs and traditions.
    The original framers of our Government realized that those qualities were beneficial in a society! They made the Constitution and Bill of Rights to recognize those differences and allow for general equality.
    WE are the ones who are making the exceptions!

    Poverty is a vacuum - its gravitational pull is equal to that of a Black Hole. Not even a ray of hope (light) can escape!

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have read all the posts on this thread and Stuccomango is the only one that really seems to have his thoughts down to what I think is the right path. It is nothing different than what we have been discussing in other threads, the right to say what we think no matter how the person we say it about feels. In this blog as a whole over the year, there have been those who have called people jackass, idiot, stupid, plagerizer, ect ect ect....from what I can read when they do, they are called naysayers, or negative nellies by many here. Some can see supporting this type verbage in one application, and not another...some do unless it has something to do about them. Then people tend to take it personal. If the guy values his job on this team, he needs to watch his mouth, nothing in the constitution guarentees us a job if we shoot off our mouth. If it serves no purpose then it shouldn't be said.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dude, your a couple of generations removed from what the real world says and does and what is said on this blog!
    Its simply getting cruder with each passing generation and more violent!
    People are looking to the government for all the answers. Even when it relates to families, discipline, and morality!
    We can't seem to see that its the division (maybe even self-centered or selfishness) at all levels that is leading to our destruction!

    ReplyDelete
  29. NO, it is the lack of discipline, family values, morality and respect that is wrong with our country right now. And that all starts at home. I am NOT a couple of generations behind, I was taught to respect people, and to treat them as I would like to be treated. Yes, your right, there has been a change in our society in regard to how we treat people. The government can't help us in regard to family, it is our own choice to not teach our children to respect others.
    We could start with you calling me dude. And others calling people gay, stupid,idiot,and all of the other names people like to use. RESPECT, its not a hard concept!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous said...
    Do you remember when President Bill Clinton flew to Wichita to anounce the then new "Welfare to Work Program". Cessena was to be a Model for Corporations and an example for the rest of the country!
    I happened to know someone who was a Supervisor at one of the Plants.
    He told me that they had problems with getting those workers to come to work!
    One told him he had worked 3 days that week what did they expect?
    The funny thing was I don't recall him ever referring to a specific race!
    It is a "Free" country and a mixture of races and cultures. Each with their own identity, beliefs and traditions.
    The original framers of our Government realized that those qualities were beneficial in a society! They made the Constitution and Bill of Rights to recognize those differences and allow for general equality.
    WE are the ones who are making the exceptions!
    ************************************************
    How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech.
    Remember that time when Tim Smith came to The ACME Sproket Company, and one guy siad he was going to get an ice cream cone. He said he was going to get one every day for a week. His boss said "yeah, he likes icre cream cones." Not once did I hear anyone make any reference to race.
    Why doe you all have to make something more out of it than iyt is. Sometimes people just like ice cream.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wouldn't have anything to do with equality - would it!
    Even when given an opportunity to better themselves some of them still chose to be "Victims".
    No, they don't want to be equal or share the same responsibilities whatever group you want to name that wants to be favored by Government!
    So, we change the system to account for their needs instead of them changing to conform to the system!

    ReplyDelete
  32. I can't wait to read Charles' lengthy post when he sees this thread. I bet he mentions how the police department doesn't have any black officers.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous said...

    The funny thing was I don't recall him ever referring to a specific race!*************************************************No, noithing was said about race. It was just infered and assumed.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I just looked at Larry Johnson's comments.
    They were deregatory, and demeaning.
    They were aimed at a member of the public who was following him on twitter.
    in that instance, Johnson is not a private figure, but a public on, speaking on behalf of his employer, the K.C. Chiefs.
    I would have fired him, but too much money is involved.
    The person in question, questioned Johnsons boorish, thugish behavior in which he spit in the face of a woman at a night club.
    Johnson dismissed the comments because the persons profile pic gave him reason to think he was a "faggot." Not acceptable. James, I am amazed that you think it "was not that bad." Or that "It was not even intended as a knock on gay people." If the person was a women, and he said "Get outta here - your just a women, and bitches don't mean nuthin..." Or, "Why should I listen to you, your black...," would those comments not be against blacks, or women? What else could he have meant when he said, "You're a Christopher Street boy." "A Fag..."

    I suppose you didn't see anything wrong with Imus calling the women from Rutgers "Nappy headed hoes" either.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous said...
    No, its not all about White!
    Its about "different" and the need or desire of those to keep to that agenda!
    ************************************************
    Isn't that just code for white, or white Christian, or white, straight, Christian, or white, straight, Christian, Republican?
    What do yo mean by different? Black? Hispanic? Gay? Why do these people see a need to protect their cultural identity? Why do they all have to push some sort of agenda? The sooner they conform, and become more "white," the better off we all will be.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 7:54
    Youre assuming the person criticizing johnson was gay. theres no way to know whether that person was or not.
    Johnson said the picture looked like it.

    I just think we make too much over remarks people make.
    Ok johnson gets a little smack on the wrist.
    people holler, and thats about it.
    nothing happens
    no communication happens
    no understanding happens
    no improvements to any relations happens
    its just a flareup and it goes awawy just as quick, until someone else says someting to cause another one.
    THAT is my problem with the whole "offended" culture .

    No i dont think what Johnson said was all that bad. I thought what Imus said was worse, but ...
    THen you have people on here even criticizing me and saying nasty things about christians ... but thats ok. no one gets upset about that.
    But just dont offend a gay person, or a ... person.

    Johnson isnt the point. Its the reaction thats the point.

    ReplyDelete
  37. We could argue back and forth forever.
    Of course Johnson isn't the point.
    He said something his employer wasn't happy with, and they slapped him on the wrist, as is their right.

    The bigger issue, in my opinion, is that people like you do not see anything wrong with what he said. I'll say again, "Of course it was a gay slur." It matters not if the person was gay or not. The bigger problem is that we have taken the word gay, and turned it into an insult that is "the worst of the worst."

    Don't you see that?
    If you were gay,and honestly couldn't be anything else, don't you see how that language could be offensive?

    I think the bigger issue for you, is that you see it as sin. As an abomination. You see homosexuality as a choice, a lifestyle, and as something abhorent. You do not want the government sanctioning sin, or society calling it acceptable. You do not see this in the same light as the womens movement, or a racial equality thing. Neither of these are a persons choice. They can't help how they were born, but homesexuals on the other hand....

    You have a right to believe that if you want. I do not think the Government will ever take that right away.

    If you are upset because the government has said it is wrong to beat someone just because they are gay, then shame on you.

    Certainly, with all your talk about seperation of church and state, you believe gays should be afforded the same rights as all citizens?

    Print, say, shout gay slurs all you want. The public will decide if it is acceptable by whether or not they continue to visit your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  38. One group should not have more rights than any other group. Some people are not going to like everyone or everyone's lifestyle. I'm tired of all these different groups of people being 'OFFENDED' and crying about it. Get over it. I've been called names before too. Guess what, I'm ok. It's just words.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Guess what, I'm ok. It's just words.

    Are you? Or is that just your opinion? No one should be called names.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Your right, no one should be. But to make a big deal of it, just draws more attention to it.

    Yes I am ok. When I was growing up, kids call names and are mean. I'm still ok. And I'm not whining about it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Homosexuals should not have special laws to protect them. Why should a homosexual need more protection than me? I'm a person too. It's unfair to include a homosexual in the same group as Blacks or Hispanics or women. They can't change their skin color or gender. A homosexual has a choice who they hop into bed with. That's the problem now. Men doing things with men that were meant to be done with women. Women doing things with women that were meant to be done with men. Trying to make your body do something it was not meant to do. It's got nothing to do with religion. It's common sense. I mean just look at the plumbing. You can't make it work.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Nobody should be attacked just because of what the are, do, believe.

    If you were singled out, and beaten just because you were white, then I think the penalty should be greater.

    Thats it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The problem is, there's no way to prove a motive.
    I dont think the punishment should be greater.
    What's wrong is wrong and should be punished.
    If someone is beaten for a different reason - say to steal money - then that means their beating was not as significant as someone elses.
    It just creates more problems.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous said...
    The problem is, there's no way to prove a motive.
    I dont think the punishment should be greater.
    What's wrong is wrong and should be punished.
    If someone is beaten for a different reason - say to steal money - then that means their beating was not as significant as someone elses.
    It just creates more problems.
    ************************************************
    Point taken.
    That was not the thrust of this debate anyways.
    Still not sure how the team excercising its right to penalize him, or the gay community excercising its right to speak out against what he said does anything to jeopardize free speech.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @ 12:34

    Excellent point!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Last I heard, scientist have researched and concluded that homesexuality is not a choice, it is in their genetic makeup. So I would say they need as much protection as a anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  47. So I would say they need as much protection as a anyone else.


    But, the real question is why do they deserve any more consideration or protection?

    I am sorry but IMHO the groups that are seeking favorable treatment are still Citizens. The same laws of the majority should be fine for the minority!

    NOW - The part that really burns my toast -
    The elected officials again IMHO are buying votes and trying to secure loyalty by writing segregative laws that favor specialty groups!
    Say it ain't so!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Last I heard, scientist have researched and concluded that homesexuality is not a choice, it is in their genetic makeup. So I would say they need as much protection as a anyone else.

    -------------------

    Well, mental retardation is genetic as well, but they don't have hate crime laws for making fun of the mentally handicapped... so why are gays special?

    ReplyDelete
  49. I am sorry but IMHO the groups that are seeking favorable treatment are still Citizens.

    AND

    Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or any other original document by the founders.
    Do you see a reference to the consideration of rights of groups over those of individuals?
    They were very specific that the Roghts of Individuals were to be held above that of any group!
    What do you think they knew?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Well, mental retardation is genetic as well, but they don't have hate crime laws for making fun of the mentally handicapped... so why are gays special?
    ************************************************

    Yeah, there really should be some protection for those with Mental Retardation. There is such vitriolic hatred of them, and every day I read something in the paper about another person with MR being killed just because they are developmentally disabled...

    ReplyDelete
  51. How often do we hear of anyone being killed - robbed - beaten, just because of their race, sexual orientation, or ... whatever?
    Are there any actual stats anywhere?

    ReplyDelete
  52. I am sorry but IMHO the groups that are seeking favorable treatment are still Citizens. The same laws of the majority should be fine for the minority!
    ---------------------
    I agree, they should be treated the same as anyone else, the same protection as you and I, thats why I said anyone else and not certain groups. We all know, without it having to be said, it is a given that they are treated different by large amounts of people, just the same or actually worse as other minority groups.
    As far as wanting favorable treatment, I haven't followed alot, but is it really much different when Martin Luther King represented the black mans rights? What about the indians, aren't they still getting special treatment(no offense to any indians)? Doesn't the Special Needs people have people advocating for them? Why should it be any different then having someone represent gay rights?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Btw JJ,

    Did you read the article on CNN about the Iraqi father who ran over his daughter with his vehicle in Arizona? Because he felt she was to Westernized? She just recently died!
    We will have to see how Justice prevails in this case?
    Does the father have a right based on his beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
  54. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/index.html

    the last year they show for statistics on hate crimes

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thats interesting. More hate crimes based on religion than on sexuality (gay).
    1600 or so for religion and 1500 or so for sexual orientation.
    That's just not that many.
    Many cities have that many crimes against people in general in a month or so.
    I still dont like the idea of creating a special class of people.
    It demeans other victims.
    I still didnt see any stats that show what percentage of the total crime picture is hate based.
    And, you really cant say for sure why someone did something.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Why should it be any different then having someone represent gay rights?

    Well I think the question that needs answered is: Why do they need represented on the National Level with Federal Laws! There is plenty of Representation, Law enforcement agencies and judges etc. on the State and Local levels.
    Again I believe its about politicians and votes!
    AND
    Then those Groups agendas! (What they can gain)
    Plus at the National level the can promrote or dictate their policies to the whole country!
    BUT
    How can you ever reach equality if you write laws that in effect segregate people even if its done through representation or by their own agenda!
    Isn't that what their doing?
    They want to be treated as equals - but then remain different and be protected by different rules and laws!
    Has that ever worked?

    Kind of reminds me of the French and English fighting over control of the Government in Quebec, Canada.
    They make a law where you have to speak both languages. Then fight over control at each election!
    Just think if the whole country had to go through that!

    ReplyDelete
  57. This thread has gotten way off topic.
    We can argue about hate crime laws, and whether or not they are justified, and I can see both sides of the issue. I'm not certain where I come down. But this Larry Johnson thin had nothing to do with freedom of speech. He has the right to say whatever he wants. Fred Phelps, and his "God hates fags" signs proves that point every day.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "I'm not certain where I come down." Oh quit trying to straddle the fence and pick a side. You're anonymous for cryin' out loud. Sheesh! Talk about a wuss.

    A crime is a crime. Why should a homosexual be treated with greater preference than a Baptist, or a Jew, or African-American or Caucasian. It's a joke and the joke's on the regular people.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous @11:23 said... Why should a homosexual be treated with greater preference than a Baptist, or a Jew, or African-American or Caucasian. It's a joke and the joke's on the regular people.
    **********************************************************

    Yes, why should they?
    But then again, why should they be singled out and beaten just because they are gay, or black, or Jewish?

    When was the last time someone was draged behind a car, tied to a fence and left to die, followed home from a bar and beaten, lynched, or had a cross burned in their yard just because they were white?

    You say it is a joke, but I don't see anything funny about it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I agree no one should be beaten because of their race, sex or religion ect.,
    They should also not be beaten because they have money and someone wants to take it away from them.
    Or even because they are messing with someone's girlfriend or boyfreind.
    beating up someone is wrong.
    its illegal and there are laws against it. that should be enough.

    The question of .. when was the last time ...
    is interesting.
    Actually only one case even comes to mind and that was 10 years ago or more.
    how often are they happening.
    I saw the crime stats. there were 1500 hate crimes based on sex in 2007. THat is bad and it should not be happening. (That includes heterosexuals as well)
    But, that is probably a small percentage of the total number of people who were beaten or harrased.
    I think its a good debate to have.
    We could start a whole new string on the topic of hate crime laws.
    And hate speech laws.

    ReplyDelete
  61. But then again, why should they be singled out and beaten just because they are gay, or black, or Jewish?


    You need to get out more! Christians and Jews and have been killed regularly throughout history! Even today in Africa! Many in just as horrific manors as the few Gays!
    I don't see a specific law pertaining to the their special treatment in America! AND they are the Majority!
    I do see laws that try to prohibit or restrict their beliefs or their Rights to practice them!
    The Gays have an agenda that they can only push through by using the National Platform!
    That agenda has nothing to do with wanting to be EQUAL!

    ReplyDelete
  62. btw:

    The Government can treat us equally as indivduals! But groups want special considerations and treatment! Thats why they form and why they exist!

    ReplyDelete
  63. When was the last time someone was draged behind a car, tied to a fence and left to die, followed home from a bar and beaten, lynched, or had a cross burned in their yard just because they were white?
    ------------------

    You think that doesn't happen? Try walking through South Central Las Angeles, or Harlem, after dark. See if you become a victim of a hate crime. Oh wait, it's not a hate crime if you're white.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The stats showed that there are more hate crimes against religious people than against sexually oriented people in the usa. There are countries where you would be killed for being christian, and it would not even be illegal.
    And even the sex related, not all were gay.
    I dont even know how you would define it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Does anyone remember the Jena 6 case, where a black student sat underneath a tree that white students normally gathered at and later the white students hung nooses? They were only suspended and not prosecuted, yet that was an infringment of federal civil right laws and nothing was done. Then a group of black students beat a white student unconsious yet they were charged I think with some type of aggravated assault or battery that was reduced from second degree murder. Yes they committed a crime too and should be punished, but the white students only got a slap on the wrist by the school.

    Having a federal hate crime bill signed into law to protect against sexual orientation hate crimes was needed because the big problem with trying to convict hate crimes is that the laws can be muddy in each state. Some states have no laws on hate crime while other may not include sexual orientation. In alot of cases the prosecutor would have to have solid proof. A good example would be the matthew shepard case who was beaten to death. The 2 guys that beat him were not charged with a hate crime because at the time Wyoming had no such statute for hate crimes. Many witnesses testified that he was beaten because he was gay only the state could not prosecute based on that theory.

    ReplyDelete
  66. James Jordan said...
    The stats showed that there are more hate crimes against religious people than against sexually oriented people in the usa. There are countries where you would be killed for being christian, and it would not even be illegal.
    And even the sex related, not all were gay.
    I dont even know how you would define it.
    **********************************************************

    James,
    Have you stopped to consider that not all anti gay violence is reported, for many different raesons?
    While almost all anti religious crime will be reported?
    Where is the shame in reporting your church has been vandalized, or your synagoge has been fire bombed?

    ReplyDelete
  67. I don't like the word gay. I prefer to use the term homosexual.

    ReplyDelete