Free speech or hate crime? (racism, Obama, support, religion)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have not read the entire case, but based on the article, it seems like he has set a dangerous precedent. Your thoughts?
"U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said much of the alleged harassment, even if true, constituted protected political speech that UC Berkeley had no obligation to stop."
The judge was born in Germany and appointed by Obama in 2009.
I view this incident like I view the Westboro Baptist situation, at least based on the information presented above. Basically they can shout hateful vitriol until their faces turn blue, and I will support their right to do so... but the second they impede upon another person's safety or well-being, they deserve to be charged with a crime. Speech (to some degree) is protected, assault and direct harassment are not.
I view this incident like I view the Westboro Baptist situation, at least based on the information presented above. Basically they can shout hateful vitriol until their faces turn blue, and I will support their right to do so... but the second they impede upon another person's safety or well-being, they deserve to be charged with a crime. Speech (to some degree) is protected, assault and direct harassment are not.
The assailant was arrested for assault. That's where the law should intervene.
Free speech is one thing, and the judge is correct in saying the University has no duty to restrict it, but assault is an entirely different matter which has no Constitutional protection.
I have not read the entire case, but based on the article, it seems like he has set a dangerous precedent. Your thoughts?
"U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said much of the alleged harassment, even if true, constituted protected political speech that UC Berkeley had no obligation to stop."
The judge was born in Germany and appointed by Obama in 2009.
Actually it's assault and battery, and the perp should be arrested.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,095,649 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt
Actually it's assault and battery, and the perp should be arrested.
Exactly...I despise the "hate crime" law as it helps to promote racism...a crime is a crime no matter who it's to....simple to all but ignorant lawmakers.
I have not read the entire case, but based on the article, it seems like he has set a dangerous precedent. Your thoughts?
"U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said much of the alleged harassment, even if true, constituted protected political speech that UC Berkeley had no obligation to stop."
The judge was born in Germany and appointed by Obama in 2009.
How typical that the Blaze and Jihad Watch should misrepresent what the case was about. The Judge did not rule that hitting a person with a shopping cart is free speech. The person assaulting the women was arrested. The Judge dismissed a suit that was asserting that the University should have limited the free speech rights of a particular group.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
