Brigitte Bardot Fined for Inciting Racial Hatred

[lumberjim]

dana, i was referring to the child's poem

sticks and stones
may break my bones
but names will never hurt me.

Lsyc seems to think she would be justified in physically harming someone for something they said. ( compelled even)

hateful words suck, but they're just words. lookout is right. say what you want, if noone listens, you're not going to hurt anyone.

words that directly cause mayhem or panic resulting in violence are one thing, but some actress making an ass out of herself in a book that you'd have to purchase to read? i think not.

[DanaC]

There have been numerous incidents in the uk in recent years with BNP candidates for Council elections having with them a bunch of thugs who intimidate the opposition leafleters with violence. They seemed quite happy to put bricks through the window of my asian neighbour a few years ago as well.

[DanaC]

I am aware of the rhyme LJ :P

What is at issue really, is how much damage does such a view cause when expressed in print? My opinion is that it can cause a great deal of damage. Does that person have the right to cause a great deal of damage?

[lookout123]

if they put on a flyer and put it on every car and neighborhood door - i'm with you.
if it is put into a book that you would have to buy in order to read, then let them be ignorant.

[lookout123]

Originally posted by DanaC
They seemed quite happy to put bricks through the window of my asian neighbour a few years ago as well.

boy - all we sling here is mud.

[DanaC]

Every so often there is a rise in fascist activity in most European countries. We are on a bit of an upswing in the Uk at th moment, have been for a couple of years. They have a two pronged approach. The first prong is the traditional booted bovver boys kicking the shit out of any asian lad that strays into their turf and intimidating other political activists/campaigners out of the area. the second prong is the rather more public attempt to show a "respectable" face. This respectable face is the one they show on their electoral campaign video and on the News interviews.....It slips from time to time they cant seem to help themselves *chuckles* They had to kick out one rising young star for glassing someone at their conference :P

[smoothmoniker]

Wow. my whole world is just spinning right now.

Am I nuts, or are the cellarites on the right defending civil liberties and those on the left are arguing against them?


-sm

[lumberjim]

wait, which side am i on?

[smoothmoniker]

Originally posted by lumberjim
wait, which side am i on?

You're on team "Salty"

I'm on team "Go Jiff Go"

DanaC is on team "Miss Grab Hands"


good god man, can't you keep anything straight.

[lumberjim]

i don't know. that whole left wing, right wing thing always confused me. team salty sounds good. some days i play for "team asshole button", though, just to warn you.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by lookout123
if they put on a flyer and put it on every car and neighborhood door - i'm with you.
if it is put into a book that you would have to buy in order to read, then let them be ignorant.

right again. says so right here in my answer book.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
Wow. my whole world is just spinning right now.

Am I nuts, or are the cellarites on the right defending civil liberties and those on the left are arguing against them?


-sm

Isn't that the way things started out in this country?

Conservatives used to be the good guys?

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by lumberjim
Lsyc seems to think she would be justified in physically harming someone for something they said. ( compelled even)

First off, let's get it correct...the question was:
"Is it "fair" that hatespeech isn't punishable by law but taking action against that speech is?"

Where was the "justification" or the "compulsion"?

If it was about assumption or implication, then that's on YOU, not me. I didn't mean myself LITERALLY! Just making myself clear on that. (should have put "assuming and implying something" under the bitch-switch topic) :p

hateful words suck, but they're just words. lookout is right. say what you want, if noone listens, you're not going to hurt anyone.

The whole "sticks and stones" thing, to me (repeat: TO ME) is a load of crap. Words DO hurt, and I believe that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE has a word/phrase that will turn on the "bitch button" no matter how many times you say that words don't hurt...even you Jim. It seems as though you got pretty upset at certain words when you and Sycamore were going toe to toe a while back..You may not get to the boiling point as quick as someone else, but there is that word floating out there...all someone has to do is to find out what it is and speak it. "If no one listens"? Kind of hard to do if that person is shouting the words right in front of your face or within earshot.

My thing is why do *I* have to "not allow" words to hurt ME? Why not get on the other person's case to not speak those types of words because they are rude, disresepctful, etc.? Has society forgotten the days of "if you have nothing good to say don't say it at all?" Obviously so, because NOW it seems that people would rather get called all kinds of vicious names instead of teaching people the art of couth and "home training".
Oh well...*shrugs*

Thanks to lookout123 for actually answering the question I posed:

"is it fair? absolutely not. and i sure as hell wouldn't be on a jury that convicted you of assault. but ignorant people do have the right to espouse ignorant ideas. the difficulty for me lies in where to draw the line of what is a hateful thought put into the public forum vs one that is directed at an individual.

1) "there are n's in the world and they are what is wrong in america"

ignorant, he should be tarred and feathered, but not sued.

2) "john you are a loathesome N and the reason for problems here"

that is specifically directed at someone and there is room for some sort of repercussion there. i am not a lawyer, so i don't know where libel or slander comes into play.

it is a hard one and i think we will debate it until we just screw until we are all the same color."

Intesting answer. However, I saw both examples of contributing to a possible negative situation (whether that be more verbal mudslinging or actual physical violence...which I am NOT condoning, but I won't lie...sometimes I think that beating the crap out of someone who has blatently disrepected me would be in short order, and think "boy if it weren't illegal..."). I mean come on: You don't think that at all those weak ass Klan rallies, that the counterprotesters aren't itching to beat the living fuck out of those clowns? Sure, but they don't, but yet they (the Klan) are allowed to continue their hatespeech, and no one says one blasted word about it (because of the First Amendment).

Maybe not punishable in the form of a lawsuit, but damnit, somebody do/say SOMETHING!

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
Am I nuts, or are the cellarites on the right defending civil liberties and those on the left are arguing against them?

Eh, not quite. I firmly believe in protecting free speech, even hateful speech.

Regarding the original post, I'm not sure what's more fucked up...Bardot's words or that she was punished for saying them.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by ladysycamore
First off, let's get it correct...the question was:
"Is it "fair" that hatespeech isn't punishable by law but taking action against that speech is?"

Where was the "justification" or the "compulsion"?

Originally posted by ladysycamore


This had me thinking: Is it "fair" that hatespeech isn't punishable by law but taking action against that speech is? For instance, if someone called me the "N" word, and I felt compelled to bash that fucker right in his face, then *I* am the one who gets punished, while the other person is free to disrespect the next person with his hate speech.

Hm...

to answer your question in more simple terms, YES. it IS fair.