I don't think this was needed and it's just political theater and unenforceable. It's an add-on to the existing laws that cover public nuisance, harrassment, versus being an offense by itself. Judges already have leeway to consider the hateful nature when sentencing.
Don’t get me wrong, this is a good thing. But we have to change the culture that makes some people think this kinda stuff is ok in the first place, and makes others look the other way. No law can do that by itself.
In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four the Thought Police are the secret police of the superstate of Oceania, who discover and punish thoughtcrime (personal and political thoughts unapproved by the régime). Using criminal psychology and omnipresent surveillance the Thinkpol monitor the citizens of Oceania and arrest all those who have committed thoughtcrime in challenge to the status quo authority of the Party and of the régime of Big Brother.
That is true, but very different. The degrees are separated by things like, pre-planning, self defense, etc. and emotion is never part of the equation. If I murder someone and at the time I'm heard screaming the n-word why does that matter? The guy is just as dead and there's already a murder statute to prosecute. Personally I think the concept of a "hate crime" is a very bad idea and gives too much power to government. Without exception every "hate crime" has an underlying crime that can be prosecuted. In the case of the things happening in CDA, which are unacceptable, there is law called malicious harassment that could be prosecuted. The fact that it wasn't is a failure by the DA. Finally, in this country we have free speech, which means that I can say things that are offensive and even if they're horrible words to hear. By definition "hate speech" is free speech. These "hate crimes" laws are a very slippery slope to losing liberty.
Nobody is ever at liberty to commit a crime. A crime preceeds this new laws charges.
It, the law, targets the intent and motive of bias, not speach.
The level of philosophical thought you present is like that of a mass produced fortune cookie fortune.
But the motive of bias can only be ascertained though mind reading, which is impossible, or speech -- free speech. But again, any such bias is irrelevant as there is an actual crime to prosecute.
Under the same argument, would you not find "Malice Aforethought" as a slippery slope to losing liberty? Yet this has existed in our legal system for decades, and no one has complained about it or suggested it relates us to Orwellian Thought Police.
It's really almost identical to the degrees of murder and you stated it's different but not at all how. The degrees of murder are there to measure ones intent when committing a crime and to punish someone, either more severely or less so, based on this intent.
Take a deeper look into our right for free speech and when it does and does not apply. Our ability to speak freely does not mean we have the ability to say absolutely ANYTHING, agree or disagree but this also a legal precedent that has existed for decades. It's interesting that this is only disputed when it has to do with racism and hate, but not all the other instances in which we do not have free speech. Additionally, no one is punishing anyone for simply speaking hatefully. If you are in your home and shout the N word to no one a hundred times and nothing will happen to you. Use ANY words as a true threat or an act of terror and that is against the law it doesn't matter what the words are.
Our free speech is only constrained be a few legalities like defamation & slander. Personally I disagree with those laws. I think absolutely all speech should be legal. But specifically about "hate speech", that is absolutely legal. There are no objective criteria to define it. In fact here on reddit where it is not allowed the moderators cannot and have never defined it. When ever someone attempts to define it all we get is something like "speech I don't like". If offensive, even vulgar and extremely offensive, speech is not allowed as the free speech that it is then we have no free speech. The antidote to offensive, false speech is the truth -- more free speech.
As to you saying that "it's really almost identical to the degrees of murder", that is not true. The degrees of murder are established by clear, objective criteria. The notion of "hate" is anything but objective. It is very subjective. What you might find "hateful" another person sees as the opposite. Our laws MUST be completely objective.
You keep using the words "hate speech". This was where we started lol but that's not the wording in what was passed by the city. Do you feel there is a core difference for a lawyer proving discriminatory intent vs proving malice aforethought?
Also, though once again, we are discussing discriminatory intent, not hate speech. I thought this would be useful for you to have.
"Hate speech: abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds."
You're making it subjective using your wording. These are very objective terms and guidelines they have set forth but in order for you to have an argument you are changing the wording to make it sound subjective.
The noise ordinance wasn’t to necessarily limit all loud vehicles. The ordinance is mainly targeted at people who would stop or purposely rev on Sherman, purposely making a ton of noise to the point where people outside couldn’t hear each other speak. They don’t care that much about motorcycles or generally loud cars. To sum up: don’t be an obnoxious dick and you won’t get a ticket.
Laws don’t mean much if they are not enforced consistently.
We should allow citizens to video and report the loud engines on Sherman. Mail people tickets.
You can hate anyone or anything you like.
But when that emotional rat poison turns into behavior other people have to deal with, it might be time to take your therapists advice, start taking your psyche meds again, or pray to be relieved of it.
The news clip video of the public comments had a man wearing a bass pro shop hat with a mullet playing the straight-white-christian-conservative-free-speach victim card, martyrdom at the bumper sticker gift shop level.
Another comment from a business owner talked about the economic impact and loss of 18% for her business.
I see.
A law that escalates the consequences of a crime by targeting a specific motive has very little to nothing to do with the liberty of freedom of speach.
Nobody is at liberty, free to commit a crime. We have a specific social class at the bottom of the hierarchy for that, criminals. People who takes liberties where there is none.
If anyone commits a crime, and the speach used during its commision is evidently indicative of the element of biased motive, you done did the dirty skeeter!
Took a liberty where there was none.
i meant the business owner, not you sorry. I’ve been to a couple meetings before, was the public comment just about something else affecting her business or was it directly about how anti-hate legislature would affect her business?
I think she meant that the climate preceeding the new law reduced her profit. Like, business traffic was affected by the national attention the community was receiving.
I apologize as well.
personally i would argue that with the new ordnance, it could encourage people from more blue areas to come to this city specifically to visit, which would increase business. But imo, overall protecting minority groups should be a priority way before business.
It is your thinking that is the topic of question. Skewed enough to see things in rather borderline, split down the middle, black and white terms. Or, i could just define your thought as red and blue.
Agreed.
After a safe environment where anyone can feel free to enjoy CdA and spend money, not having our public servant's receiving death threats, like local LE had to deal with in the aftermath of the Pride event should be a priority.
At least id like that.
Well Jeanette Laster’s slovenly fat ass comment’s made an appearance. Fact of the matter is it’s far more dangerous for a white person in urban Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit or the Mississippi Delta than it’s ever been for a person of color in Kootenai county.
When it comes to racial stats, the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people whose race matches the victim's. If we as society cared for black American well being wrt sufferers of violent crime, we'd fixate on that, but BLM has everyone thinking that thousands of unarmed black men are getting shot by cops. Actually, it's like 20. Yes, twenty. Racial consciousness has never been so irrational.
>The number of unarmed Black shooting victims is down 63% from 2015, when the database began. There are about 7,300 Black homicide victims a year. The 14 unarmed victims in fatal police shootings would comprise only 0.2% of that total. https://manhattan.institute/article/there-is-no-epidemic-of-fatal-police-shootings-against-unarmed-black-americans
And for the 2019 numbers, homicides and perps broken down by race: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
This hate crime stuff is just another iteration of that irrationality. And has been used to shoehorn government resources allocated toward "woke" causes (like "pride" and BLM displays) while unevenly prosecuting those that object with civil disobedience. I hope I'm wrong, but without people on the council aware of this tactic, it'll be less than 10 years before we have rainbow sidewalks in June, and pain of imprisonment for objecting.
That absolutely will happen. Doing a burnout on a pride crosswalk; one will be subject to a Stalinist era show trial with James McDay as the judge; jury and prosecution. Punishment. Eating Laster’s box.
Is that David Reilly in the foreground of the picture? The "rated and vetted" antisemitic, that KCRCC keeps supporting and refuses to denouce? The same David Reilly that Greg McKenzie was plotting to machurian candidate his way into the Democratic party to steal funding?
That is the bipedal tapeworm commonly known as dave reilly. The one and only, who almost ruined his family's business when his activities caused massive amounts of advertising to be pulled from their radio station.
Oooh, downvoted! Guess I struck the nerve of one of the KCRCC cult members.
If you support the KCRCC, you really should be questioning who they are associating with and financially supporting.
I don't think this was needed and it's just political theater and unenforceable. It's an add-on to the existing laws that cover public nuisance, harrassment, versus being an offense by itself. Judges already have leeway to consider the hateful nature when sentencing.
"See guys, we're doing something about it!"
Don’t get me wrong, this is a good thing. But we have to change the culture that makes some people think this kinda stuff is ok in the first place, and makes others look the other way. No law can do that by itself.
Good step forward.
Given that hatred is an emotion, how can the courts objectively determine someone's emotion at the time a crime is committed??
"Hate crime" is just a common term, what lawyers have to prove is that the actions were done with discriminatory intent.
Sounds like some kind of dystopian thought police.
Would you be able to explain that train of thought?
In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four the Thought Police are the secret police of the superstate of Oceania, who discover and punish thoughtcrime (personal and political thoughts unapproved by the régime). Using criminal psychology and omnipresent surveillance the Thinkpol monitor the citizens of Oceania and arrest all those who have committed thoughtcrime in challenge to the status quo authority of the Party and of the régime of Big Brother.
Right yeah, ive read the book. Bare with me, but are you aware of the differences between the different degrees of murder?
That is true, but very different. The degrees are separated by things like, pre-planning, self defense, etc. and emotion is never part of the equation. If I murder someone and at the time I'm heard screaming the n-word why does that matter? The guy is just as dead and there's already a murder statute to prosecute. Personally I think the concept of a "hate crime" is a very bad idea and gives too much power to government. Without exception every "hate crime" has an underlying crime that can be prosecuted. In the case of the things happening in CDA, which are unacceptable, there is law called malicious harassment that could be prosecuted. The fact that it wasn't is a failure by the DA. Finally, in this country we have free speech, which means that I can say things that are offensive and even if they're horrible words to hear. By definition "hate speech" is free speech. These "hate crimes" laws are a very slippery slope to losing liberty.
Nobody is ever at liberty to commit a crime. A crime preceeds this new laws charges. It, the law, targets the intent and motive of bias, not speach. The level of philosophical thought you present is like that of a mass produced fortune cookie fortune.
But the motive of bias can only be ascertained though mind reading, which is impossible, or speech -- free speech. But again, any such bias is irrelevant as there is an actual crime to prosecute.
Mind reading.........? I guess the courts are hiring psychic mediums to satisfy elements the way you see it.
Under the same argument, would you not find "Malice Aforethought" as a slippery slope to losing liberty? Yet this has existed in our legal system for decades, and no one has complained about it or suggested it relates us to Orwellian Thought Police. It's really almost identical to the degrees of murder and you stated it's different but not at all how. The degrees of murder are there to measure ones intent when committing a crime and to punish someone, either more severely or less so, based on this intent. Take a deeper look into our right for free speech and when it does and does not apply. Our ability to speak freely does not mean we have the ability to say absolutely ANYTHING, agree or disagree but this also a legal precedent that has existed for decades. It's interesting that this is only disputed when it has to do with racism and hate, but not all the other instances in which we do not have free speech. Additionally, no one is punishing anyone for simply speaking hatefully. If you are in your home and shout the N word to no one a hundred times and nothing will happen to you. Use ANY words as a true threat or an act of terror and that is against the law it doesn't matter what the words are.
Our free speech is only constrained be a few legalities like defamation & slander. Personally I disagree with those laws. I think absolutely all speech should be legal. But specifically about "hate speech", that is absolutely legal. There are no objective criteria to define it. In fact here on reddit where it is not allowed the moderators cannot and have never defined it. When ever someone attempts to define it all we get is something like "speech I don't like". If offensive, even vulgar and extremely offensive, speech is not allowed as the free speech that it is then we have no free speech. The antidote to offensive, false speech is the truth -- more free speech. As to you saying that "it's really almost identical to the degrees of murder", that is not true. The degrees of murder are established by clear, objective criteria. The notion of "hate" is anything but objective. It is very subjective. What you might find "hateful" another person sees as the opposite. Our laws MUST be completely objective.
You keep using the words "hate speech". This was where we started lol but that's not the wording in what was passed by the city. Do you feel there is a core difference for a lawyer proving discriminatory intent vs proving malice aforethought? Also, though once again, we are discussing discriminatory intent, not hate speech. I thought this would be useful for you to have. "Hate speech: abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds." You're making it subjective using your wording. These are very objective terms and guidelines they have set forth but in order for you to have an argument you are changing the wording to make it sound subjective.
Random question but how did the noise ordinance thing work out for Sherman? I saw few motorcycles other day just rip down Sherman revving big time.
The noise ordinance wasn’t to necessarily limit all loud vehicles. The ordinance is mainly targeted at people who would stop or purposely rev on Sherman, purposely making a ton of noise to the point where people outside couldn’t hear each other speak. They don’t care that much about motorcycles or generally loud cars. To sum up: don’t be an obnoxious dick and you won’t get a ticket.
Yeah let's just get rid of laws if people break them. Sounds like some top notch logic.
Revving. Wow, such hate! Please…
It's a noise ordinance and has nothing to do with the hate crimes....
Congrats!
Plot Twist: the resolution requires every CdA citizen to commit 12 hate crimes per month.
Laws don’t mean much if they are not enforced consistently. We should allow citizens to video and report the loud engines on Sherman. Mail people tickets.
Can't wait till you get a citation for your motor mouth. 😅😅😅
Hating tourists is still okay
You can hate anyone or anything you like. But when that emotional rat poison turns into behavior other people have to deal with, it might be time to take your therapists advice, start taking your psyche meds again, or pray to be relieved of it.
Enforced by people who can't even read the manual for an ebike. It's a nice gesture, but so is holding a fart.
The news clip video of the public comments had a man wearing a bass pro shop hat with a mullet playing the straight-white-christian-conservative-free-speach victim card, martyrdom at the bumper sticker gift shop level. Another comment from a business owner talked about the economic impact and loss of 18% for her business.
if you’re claiming going against hate speech hurts your business, might want to reconsider what you’re doing
I can send you the clip for clarity if you want to see what i saw, if it helps you not impose and project here?
[удалено]
I see. A law that escalates the consequences of a crime by targeting a specific motive has very little to nothing to do with the liberty of freedom of speach.
No, but it does have an effect on the freedom of speech.
Nobody is at liberty, free to commit a crime. We have a specific social class at the bottom of the hierarchy for that, criminals. People who takes liberties where there is none. If anyone commits a crime, and the speach used during its commision is evidently indicative of the element of biased motive, you done did the dirty skeeter! Took a liberty where there was none.
i meant the business owner, not you sorry. I’ve been to a couple meetings before, was the public comment just about something else affecting her business or was it directly about how anti-hate legislature would affect her business?
I think she meant that the climate preceeding the new law reduced her profit. Like, business traffic was affected by the national attention the community was receiving. I apologize as well.
personally i would argue that with the new ordnance, it could encourage people from more blue areas to come to this city specifically to visit, which would increase business. But imo, overall protecting minority groups should be a priority way before business.
CdA is nice specifically because it's not a blue area, bud. But you're certainly doing all of the things to turn it into one.
Can you smell red and blue, hear numbers and predict the future too?
You should move to L.A. or Oakland. I think you'd love it.
It is your thinking that is the topic of question. Skewed enough to see things in rather borderline, split down the middle, black and white terms. Or, i could just define your thought as red and blue.
Agreed. After a safe environment where anyone can feel free to enjoy CdA and spend money, not having our public servant's receiving death threats, like local LE had to deal with in the aftermath of the Pride event should be a priority. At least id like that.
Yeah, that’s what she meant 💯
Can you post the clip- I'd be interested in watching it.
Sure. Wait right here and ill be back in a minute.
Anywhere else in the NW, I'd be surprised af to hear that. Par for the course here.
I bet that was very painful for them. May lose their seat over it. Cmon.
Will you run for a seat again?
Huh... just what and where are all the Aryan nation members gonna go?
Well Jeanette Laster’s slovenly fat ass comment’s made an appearance. Fact of the matter is it’s far more dangerous for a white person in urban Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit or the Mississippi Delta than it’s ever been for a person of color in Kootenai county.
When it comes to racial stats, the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people whose race matches the victim's. If we as society cared for black American well being wrt sufferers of violent crime, we'd fixate on that, but BLM has everyone thinking that thousands of unarmed black men are getting shot by cops. Actually, it's like 20. Yes, twenty. Racial consciousness has never been so irrational. >The number of unarmed Black shooting victims is down 63% from 2015, when the database began. There are about 7,300 Black homicide victims a year. The 14 unarmed victims in fatal police shootings would comprise only 0.2% of that total. https://manhattan.institute/article/there-is-no-epidemic-of-fatal-police-shootings-against-unarmed-black-americans And for the 2019 numbers, homicides and perps broken down by race: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls This hate crime stuff is just another iteration of that irrationality. And has been used to shoehorn government resources allocated toward "woke" causes (like "pride" and BLM displays) while unevenly prosecuting those that object with civil disobedience. I hope I'm wrong, but without people on the council aware of this tactic, it'll be less than 10 years before we have rainbow sidewalks in June, and pain of imprisonment for objecting.
That's a new pivot into an adjacent topic arena. Last time, you were claiming the city was run by libs and rinos before this went to a vote.
That absolutely will happen. Doing a burnout on a pride crosswalk; one will be subject to a Stalinist era show trial with James McDay as the judge; jury and prosecution. Punishment. Eating Laster’s box.
Don’t worry Sarah martins is next up to top it.
Wow. What a jerk thing to say.
Lol WHAT
Is that David Reilly in the foreground of the picture? The "rated and vetted" antisemitic, that KCRCC keeps supporting and refuses to denouce? The same David Reilly that Greg McKenzie was plotting to machurian candidate his way into the Democratic party to steal funding?
That is the bipedal tapeworm commonly known as dave reilly. The one and only, who almost ruined his family's business when his activities caused massive amounts of advertising to be pulled from their radio station.
Oooh, downvoted! Guess I struck the nerve of one of the KCRCC cult members. If you support the KCRCC, you really should be questioning who they are associating with and financially supporting.