Should it be legal to use ethnic slurs as insults? (13 Viewers)

[Serenity]

The thing is that a person using a racial or ethnic slur knows that what they are saying is demeaning and that is the intent. When our oldest son was 7 y/o he returned a piece of mail to a man down the street that was delivered to us and the man said "Aren't you the Jew boy down the street?" He replied that he was a Jewish boy, but he asked my husband what that meant. That broke my heart when they had the talk.

Some people just can't help being Ignorant and nasty. I'm sorry that happened.

 

[rahl]

No right comes wholly without restriction and nor should it.

Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

The government can’t criminalize “ethnic slurs”. The 1st amendment precludes it.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I mean if you throw racial slurs at someone and get punched, I'm not gonna feel bad about it.

But you should vote to convict on that jury.

 

[Parrish]

Some people just can't help being Ignorant and nasty. I'm sorry that happened.

He learned early to be an "other." It still hurts to think that he learned that so young as hid his brother.

 

[Serenity]

The government can’t criminalize “ethnic slurs”. The 1st amendment precludes it.

They can if certain lines are crossed and those actions incite violence.

If only folks put as much effort into showing common decency and general humanity as they do defending bigots and Nazi wannabes, the world would be a better place.

 

[Deuce]

But you should vote to convict on that jury.

No, I should vote how the situation requires based on my personal belief. People don't have infinite license to screech obscenities in someone else's face without that person defending themselves. If I feel the person getting punched incited the situation themselves, I'm not gonna vote to convict.

 

[rahl]

They can if certain lines are crossed and those actions incite violence.

That isn’t criminalizing the slur. The violence incited is.

If only folks put as much effort into showing common decency and general humanity as they do defending bigots and Nazi wannabes, the world would be a better place.

Constitutional rights should be defended at all costs. No matter how much someone’s speech sickens you, they have the constitutionally protected right to say it.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Been following the Shiloh Hendrix show, and was curious.

I don't necessarily think it "should" be, but I wouldn't complain if it was.

 

[Parrish]

No right comes wholly without restriction and nor should it.

Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

Yep. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person and then face the consequences.

 

[Deuce]

That isn’t criminalizing the slur. The violence incited is.

Constitutional rights should be defended at all costs. No matter how much someone’s speech sickens you, they have the constitutionally protected right to say it.

Should probably tell that to the people who say that college student should be deported for being against Israel's ethnic cleansing.

 

[rahl]

No, I should vote how the situation requires based on my personal belief.

Absolutely not. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to the law.

People don't have infinite license to screech obscenities in someone else's face without that person defending themselves.

Of course they do. I can stand in your face and call you a nigger, spic, hook, cracker etc and there is nothing you can physically do about it other than walk away. If you touch me, that is assault.

If I feel the person getting punched incited the situation themselves, I'm not gonna vote to convict.

 

[rahl]

Yep. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person and then face the consequences.

If you lay hands on someone for calling you a racial slur, you are guilty of assault and will be prosecuted, while the person saying the slur would not be, because the 1st amendment protects them.

 

[Parrish]

If you lay hands on someone for calling you a racial slur, you are guilty of assault and will be prosecuted, while the person saying the slur would not be, because the 1st amendment protects them.

Does that make you feel safe?

 

[aociswundumho]

Au contraire. Trump’s dismantling of the administrative state is extremely conservative.

It's even more right wing than conservative. Mass firings of government drones is actually libertarian.

 

[rahl]

Should probably tell that to the people who say that college student should be deported for being against Israel's ethnic cleansing.

I am telling everyone who doesn’t like freedom.

 

[rahl]

Does that make you feel safe?

Your safety and/or feelings have no relevance to my constitutional rights.

 

[Grand Mal]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"Congress shall make no law..."
Or do you think you can alter the Constitution according to how you think it should read?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

That in essence is the problem

Why is that the problem?

Is it somehow upsetting to you that you can not use the n word without being considered a racist ?

 

[rahl]

"Congress shall make no law..."
Or do you think you can alter the Constitution according to how you think it should read?

14th amendment. I’ve already schooled you on this.

 

[Grand Mal]

14th amendment. I’ve already schooled you on this.

Bullshit.
You said the first amendment let's you use racial slurs as insults. It does not. If the state makes racial slurs illegal it has nothing to do with the first. If a city makes racial slurs illegal it has nothing to do with the first. If any authority except Congress makes laws against racial slurs it has nothing to do with the first.

 

[rahl]

Bullshit.

Constitutional law

You said the first amendment let's you use racial slurs as insults.

I know.

It does not.

It demonstrably does.

If the state makes racial slurs illegal it has nothing to do with the first.

It directly violates the 1st.

If a city makes racial slurs illegal it has nothing to do with the first.

It directly violates the first.

If any authority except Congress makes laws against racial slurs it has nothing to do with the first.

14th amendment. Already schooled you on this.

 

[aociswundumho]

Absolutely not. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to the law.

He didn't say feelings, he said beliefs, and he absolutely should go by his personal beliefs to judge the defendant and especially the law itself.

Of course they do. I can stand in your face and call you a nigger, spic, hook, cracker etc and there is nothing you can physically do about it other than walk away. If you touch me, that is assault.

No, because the screaming of epithets in my face indicates that physical assault is very likely next and therefore I may lawfully defend myself.

 

[Grand Mal]

Constitutional law

I know.

It demonstrably does.

It directly violates the 1st.

It directly violates the first.

14th amendment. Already schooled you on this.

Congress shall make no law...

 

[OpportunityCost]

Never. Like I said, the 1st. is a single sentence that begins, "Congress shall make no law..."

Let's make this easy. Cities and states can't make laws that violate the 4th or 5th amendments on illegal search and seizure or the right to remain silent. Why would you think they could just violate the first amendment at will?

 

[rahl]

He didn't say feelings, he said beliefs, and he absolutely should go by his personal beliefs to judge the defendant and especially the law itself.

Nope

No, because the screaming of epithets in my face indicates that physical assault is very likely next and therefore I may lawfully defend myself.

Nope. I can stand a half inch from your face and call you anything I want and there is exactly nothing physically you can lawfully do about it.