Christian etc. turned legality

on 6/21/01 5:16 AM, Brian Koppi at chikoppi@21stcentury.net wrote:

(with much editing)

> What is not hate speech?
> Speech on the Internet--and elsewhere--may be offensive, vulgar,
> crude, and unwanted without cultivating hatred and violence. Tasteless jokes
and unconventional opinions
> that offend some people are likewise not hate speech as we define it.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> I do not recall the poster making efforts to "incite
> violence, hatred, or discrimination."
> 
> Further, I think the poster's use of the word "disease" clearly falls
> into the category of metaphor or satirical mechanism. I do not
> believe the intent was to convince the reader that Christians
> actually have a biological condition that may be catching.
 
> By the way, why aren't more people sued for telling those countless
> "how many dead lawyers does it take" jokes? If that isn't
> discrimination...


    I agree with this post oh so much. What have we come to anyway when
someone posts something that others disagree with we have to "take
liberties" and contact lawyers? Maybe if someone sneezes on me I can sue
them for assault? Perhaps the next time someone yells at me from a car, I
should get legal advice on how to sue them for hate speech?

    Just how many more frivolous lawsuits do we need?

    The postings absolutely clearly did not mean to incite violence or
discrimination. 
    How many times have you heard preachers on television, nation wide,
talking about how evil other religions are? How many publications have you
seen that say just the same thing? How can they get away with this so-called
"hate speech"?
    Primarily, I contend that it is not a crime to dislike a religious
group, to consider them evil, or even to say their belief system is a
disease. I have heard much worse.
    I understand the need for the site administrators to cover their butts,
but that is not even conceivably applicable. Hate speech does not mean
speech that is vulgar, objectionable, rude, etc.
    
    I enjoy both having rights and politeness, but think the former is more
important to defend. If I may speak freely (and I still can, right?), keep
lawyers out of here.
    I agree with Lucifer, how _dare_ someone forward this message to get
legal advice? This mucks things up much worse than any debate over religion
or rudeness ever did.
    I also agree with RiverRat in that speech should be (and IS) protected,
even if objectionable or even disgusting. "We've let a bunch of politicians
do what a world full of dictators and all their armies couldn't". Right on,
but sad. 

    What's the point in having a list that's open to all kinds of people if
we don't want all kinds of responses?

    Many Thanks, 

    Zealot

    

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Christian etc. turned legality

On 20 Jun 2001, at 21:14, a & g wrote:

> What's the point in having a list that's open to all kinds of
> people if we don't want all kinds of responses? 

Speaking as myself, without my Phoenyx hat on, *I* don't want all 
kinds of responses.  Flamebait in the middle of a sensible 
conversation is indefensible.


-- 
Karen J. Cravens (silver@phoenyx.net)
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Christian etc. turned legality

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, a & g wrote:

>     What's the point in having a list that's open to all kinds of people if
> we don't want all kinds of responses?

And this is the crux of something I've been mulling over for awhile.  I
*don't* want such a list.  Such a list doesn't do anything good for the
reputation of the Phoenyx.  It's even endangering us personally.  (As has
been pointed out and you've not noticed... this isn't a matter of
lawsuits, it's a matter of criminal violations.  Nobody has to sue, they
only have to make allegations of hate crimes and a law enforcement agency
is obligated to investigate.  And the Phoenyx gets caught in the
crossfire.)

Jason didn't make his query to a lawyer as an attack, he made it to see if
his friends were in danger of legal liability or getting caught in the
side-effect of criminal investigation.

I don't need this kind of thing on a server I own.

As for free speech... it's my server.  I control the vertical, I control
the horizontal.  If I can't control Gmast and it becomes a liability,
threatens my service's reputation or ability to function, my only choice
is to cut it loose.  If you want your "free speech" you can take it
elsewhere... the law doesn't give you the right to use my publication
vehicle for your speech.  Free speech is about your right to say your
piece at your own expense... I am in no way obligated to provide you with
a forum to speak in.  You can't force someone else to publish your
opinion, you have to publish it yourself.

--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)                GMAST List Owner
    [   GMAST, GM Discussion -- http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/   ]
I came. I saw. I stole your tagline.


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/