http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56294,00.html

Apparently some lovely lads over at the Council of Europe have decided to outlaw "hate speech" on the Internet.

Specifically, the amendment bans "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors." That includes hyperlinks to sites that are considered hate sites. Begin the "Big Brother" and "1984" references.

[ November 11, 2002, 17:43: Message edited by: Shralp ]

I know a great hate URL, but it contains swearing so I guess I can't post it... :(

Isn't there some sort of free speech law o'er in the EU? Surely there's some group that's our equivalent of the ACLU.

Man, I'm just waiting for my site to be blacklisted. :1eye:

Basically this is already covered by existing legislation in most if not all European countries anyway, just not specifically the internet.

Imagine that we're not allowed to slate people because of race, creed, religion or sexuality! What a bummer, eh?

Free speach does not include the right to promote hatred of minorities. At lesat not in Europe....

Actually, it does include that. Hence the term "free."

I hate the "slippery slope" argument because it's so often misused, but once you outlaw one kind of hate speech it's really easy to use that precedent to start outlawing more. Pretty soon the only kind of state-approved speech is the kind that supports the state's viewpoints.

Are you going to deny religious groups the right to say that homosexuality is wrong? Are you going to deny liberal groups the right to say that religious groups are wackos? Are you going to ban nigger jokes? What about redneck jokes? Blonde jokes?

I also challenge your assertion that most European countries already have this kind of legislation. Germany and France have laws against racist groups and cults like Scientology. But to say that they all deny the right to criticize "race, creed, religion or sexuality" is silly.

[Edit:] P.S., if what you say is true then I'm suing you for hate speech based on my religion in several different threads.

[ November 11, 2002, 18:57: Message edited by: Shralp ]

First I know that atleast in Sweden we already have that kind of legislation secondly I am afraid that I more or less agree with Shralp here. As long as no criminal act is being commited, free speech must overtriumph the annoyance and disturbance you get by the existance of nazi and other extremist groups publications, where is the line drawn? That is the great problem and I dont want it to be a crime to have an opinion, no matter how crazed it is, as long as you dont act on your opinion in a way that breaks the law ie neo-nazis and fundamental christians thinking that gay people should be stoned can think that as much as they want as long as they dont go out and stone people (and I dont mean giving them a bong). That is when the state should intervene. Exceptions in my mind exist though, childpornography comes mind as they are clearly depicting a crime in progress and are thus in my mind accomplices.

:yot: In the U.S. child pornography had been illegal under the theory that it took advantage of a child who was underage and therefore could not legally consent to the pornography. So, it was the harm done to the individual child being photographed etc that justified the laws and it was that harm which was sufficiently compelling to outweigh any first amendment interest.

I was away this summer, but these laws may have taken a twist. If it is the harm to the child being photographed that outweighs first amendment interests, as the courts had said, what happens when there is no child? What happens when everything is computer generated? Then the argument that child pornography harms children is changed because there is no child being photographed. The argument will then be that child pornography harms children in some more abstract way, but this is the same argument that has been rejected as justifying laws which make adult pornography illegal. This may have been decided, but I was out on a boat in the middle of the Bering Sea so I'm not sure.

Oh my God! :eek:
Shralp, are you a card carrying member of the ACLU????
(just ribbing ya a bit ;) )

Nice to know we can agree on something :)

Whoa. This is serious, folks.

and for your reading (dis)pleasure, he's a similar thing happening right now in the good ol' US of A

http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1494931

on topic: that's a rather poor decision on the EU's part. The line should be drawn at inciting violence; you know, the difference between "I hate gays" and "let's go shoot some gays"

Laches: if the porn IS computer generated, then it is legal; no harm is coming to the children. I believe that was put to the test in court, but I'm not certain. IMHO, computer generated child porn SHOULD be legal. While I find it totally offensive, inappropriate, and just plain disgusting, if the pornographers aren't using actual children, then it doesn't hurt anyone.

Of course, determining whether or not it is, in fact, computer generated can be very difficult-which is a major problem.

[ November 12, 2002, 08:48: Message edited by: AMaster ]

Oh well, no more websites dedicated to Eminem and Dr Dre lyrics eh?? :shake:

Scampy, I would be -- if they could get their philosophy on separation of church and state to make some sense. :1eye:

The card could fit right there next to my NRA card.

I am in total agreement with Shralp when he says:
...once you outlaw one kind of hate speech it's really easy to use that precedent to start outlawing more. Pretty soon the only kind of state-approved speech is the kind that supports the state's viewpoints.Laches brings up another subject:
... child pornography had been illegal under the theory that it took advantage of a child who was underage and therefore could not legally consent to the pornography. So, it was the harm done to the individual child being photographed etc that justified the laws... IMO this was caused by a media-fueled public mass hysteria which resulted in rushed amendments of free speech rights in several european countries.

Any law against free speech increases the chance that what you say can be ruled unlawful and thus it puts shackles on the evolution of new ideas.

We can't be sure that the currently prevalent ideas/morals/ethics are the "right" ones, but learning from history we can be sure that in the future many of our ideas/morals/ethics will not be embraced by the majority.
They always change.

Perhaps this is what is happening:
1 Media wants to make profits. What sells? Sex sells, hate and violence sells.
2 Media reports about sex, violence and hate.
3 The easily persuaded masses are whipped into a frenzy over an issue by what is reported in the media.
4 Elected politicians are pressured by the newly created opinions.
5 Legislators are pressured by politicians
6 Legislators make hasty decisions

[ November 12, 2002, 14:57: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

I do like shaking the tree and watching you fall out Shralp ;)

I agree in the principles of free speech as such, however, there are things that effectively promote criminal activity. Expressing a personal opinion may do just that if extreme enough, and expressed in the public domain.

Such criminal acts may be encouraging persecution and violence against certain racial or religious groups as an example.

Freedom of speech and expression are 'qualified' rights. They carry responsibilities as well as rights. Why? Because your expression or speech may infringe on someone else's human rights.

Hence there are in the UK laws restricting freedom of speech and expression in the following areas: Blasphemy, obscenity, racial hatred and official (state) secrets.

Here is a link (http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-right-of-free-expression/criminal-law-restrictions-on-freedom-of-expression/index.shtml) to a site which summarises the UK legislation in these matters.

Provided this proposed legislation is tested on the same principles, I don't see too much of a problem. Should it become a matter of curtailing personal opinion and debate then I might think seriously about skipping Europe for the New World.

And I do so love forcing you to reveal your true colors. Your Utopia sounds a lot like most fascist countries.

Why exactly should one not be allowed to encourage criminal activity? Do you confine that to felonies, or should it also be illegal to encourage someone to -- say -- speed?

Considering that most governments consider it a crime to overthrow them, laws like what you and the Council of Europe are proposing have the effect of stifling dissent. No revolutionaries allowed. Good-bye, Nelson Mandela.

The limit to free speech should be that it causes immediate harm (e.g., the oft-cited falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place which could lead to trampling deaths).

Hence there are in the UK laws restricting freedom of speech and expression in the following areas: Blasphemy...Blasphemy as defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

IMO any law against blasphemy is archaic and can't be taken seriously in a non-fundamentalist state.

@Earl Gray. You're absolutely right in my opinion. Follow the link and it does illustrate the last high publicity case to be tried. Bollox in my opnion, but such is life. Unlikely to be many cases tried under this legislation in this day and age.

@Shralp.....

Firstly - I did not say that this in any way shape or form defined my utopia. My utopia has free speech and even cheaper women. Preferably with large busts. ;)

Secondly - Fascist? I've been called a lot of things, but I haven't been anywhere near far enough to the right to be a fascist since I was about 12.

Thirdly - Encouraging criminal activity. Speeding. Please. You're not that daft, and nor am I. Strangely, nor is any government in Europe or the European Commission.

Finally - The limit to free speech should be that it causes immediate harm (e.g., the oft-cited falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place which could lead to trampling deaths).How exactly does it make a blind bit of difference if the effect is immediate or say 5 minutes later? If cause and effect are the same, they are the same?

I suppose you're against laws that prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion, race and sexuality as well. I mean it infringes on your right to make your free choices doesn't it?

I've gotta love you and leave you there for the day :love: got a footy match to go and see.

Tomorrow is another day.

Perhaps you need a more sophisticated political model if you think that only right-wing people can be fascist.

Immediate effect, puppy. You cause the panic that leads to the trampling deaths. But are you really going to say that someone who urged him to yell "Fire!" is a criminal too? Don't people have free will?

Do you have any response to my question other than calling it daft?

Actually, yes. People should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they want. If a racist landlord doesn't want to rent to black people and he's the only landlord in the area, then I'm going to build a business that caters to the housing needs of blacks. The market can and will take care of economic discrimination, given equal protection under the law.

As far as verbal discrimination, all we have to do is attached a social stigma to being racist, sexist, etc. And we've done a pretty good job of that in America without resorting to fascist hate-speech laws (although lamentably we do have some).

[ November 12, 2002, 20:03: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Shralp,

Can I ask you a couple of questions? Yes or no will suffice.

1) Do you believe that we all should have complete freedom of speech and expression?

2) Do you believe in complete freedom of choice for all?

3) Do you believe that a completely free market economy will provide all we need in a modern society?

4) Do you believe it's right for men to be paid more than women given all other factors being the same?

5) Do you believe that the right of free speech gives you the right to incite criminal actions?

6) Do you believe that any of us actually have any social responsibilties?

7) Or perhaps you believe that might is right and damn the rest down the river?

I'll look forward to your response, oh sophisticated one.

Viking, are you always a sarcastic bastard, or is this just your internet persona?

The answers to your questions are all obvious, even if you operate solely on previous responses to you. I'm not here to play 20 Questions with you. I'm asking you a direct question that you have not answered before: Where should the line be drawn for encouraging criminal behavior?

1) No, as I clearly stated above.

2) If you're talking about the choice of where to send your kids for education, yes. This has nothing to do with the topic. Again.

3) No, as should be obvious from my previous response alone.

4) No, but what does that have to do with the topic?

5) Yes, as I've stated many times already.

6) Yes, as should be clear from my previous response alone.

7) If I believed that I'd be kicking your ass right now.

Basically, you've proven yourself to be more interested (once again) in attacking me than in getting to the truth at the bottom of any issues. It seems that when someone starts to ask you questions and demand that you be logically consistent, you overheat and lash out blindly with sarcasm and cheap comments like most of your list of questions. This is right out of Ann Coulter's book Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400046610/jamiemcdonald): When you can't win the argument, just pretend that the conservative is sexist or something.

Try to stay on topic, and try to answer the question. Do you want me to repeat it again? (Hint: It's in this post once already.)

[ November 13, 2002, 15:07: Message edited by: Shralp ]

5) Do you believe that the right of free speech gives you the right to incite criminal actions?What is criminal varies from country to country and from time to time. Very few - perhaps close to none, what do I know? - acts are and have always been globally criminal.
It's extremely important to allow the greatest possible freedom of speech to avoid a stagnating society.

People and religions may continue to have prejudicial views about race, nationalities or sexual orientations like homosexuality or pedophilia or what have you, but if an open discussion can be held, which I admit is, for various reasons, not possible at times, opinions will have a chance to change.
Taboos and superstitions will eventually fall before the onslaught of reason. :)

In the U.S. the line is drawn by immediacy. If the speech is of the nature and character (both by its content and given the manner and place in which it is given) that it gives others the chance to stop and think prior to performing any action, it is ok. The "Fire!" example is famous and notice how it demands immediate action. To make a hate speech type example, imagine a group walking down the street and seeing an African-American. A member of the group then starts spitting out proto-typical hate speech encouraging an attack and then ordering one. That won't be protected speech, and when the prosecution comes after him as well as his cohorts, he is in trouble.

Compare those examples to a typical KKK rally filled with hate speech. If the people listening are to act upon it they have to get in their cars, drive away, find a minority etc. In short, it takes so much time it isn't immediate which means there is time for those people to stop and think about what they're doing. So, the idea is that people are typically responsible for their own actions and the former example was an exception because it provoked an immediate response without the time to analyze and think for themselves.

:yot: It's hard to take seriously any appeal to authority when that appeal is to Ann Coulter. Kinda like me making an appeal to authority when my authority is Michael Moore.

A couple of quotes from Coulter on dealing with the new "war on terror."

And if you can't take her hard knocks, you're a "pantywaist" or a "girly-boy," as Coulter called the editors of the National Review after they ****-canned her following an editorial in which she wrote, of Muslim nations, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity...."

We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males,"

Here is a Salon article which reviews the book Shralp espouses. It briefly exposes some of the blatant lies in the book, (she makes it look as if she is quoting the New York Times who she is attacking at the time when in fact if you check the notes they come from a Playboy interview and the SOuthern Christian Leadership Conference)just the tip of the iceberg of her hypocrisy, and her inability to engage in reasoned debate.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/06/27/coulter/index2.html

Oh, by the way it was written by a conservative who concluded(in a manner that would have made Coulter proud, he actually falls into doing precisely what she wants as well as precisely what she always does herself):


We all know that liberals hate Ann Coulter and her sisters. But what about conservatives? Do they really want to be represented by this nonthought, this conscious shunning of history? There's no reason conservatives shouldn't be as susceptible to media glitz as everyone else. So it's no surprise and no sin that the notion of young, glammed-up women touting conservative ideology holds some appeal for them. But the smugness and conspicuous lack of experience and seasoning in these telebimbos should give conservatives pause. Coulter and her brood could benefit from a little conservative ideology themselves. Arguing with them is like paying attention to disobedient children. They should be treated like spoiled brats who mouth off. Put them over the knee, paddle their fannies, tell them to wipe that smirk off their face and to speak up only when they've learned something about the world.

[ November 13, 2002, 16:10: Message edited by: Laches ]

Heh. By no means was I citing Coulter as an authority. I was referring to a truth she hit on.

I've read most of the big-name reviews of the book, but only sections of the book itself. The Salon article is thoroughly unconvincing, as the section in question is not misleading at all.

In any event, I like her style and read her Thursday columns. Sure, she overstates things, and her generalizations of modern liberals are totalizing. But she hits on a lot of truths. The editorials of the New York times are, in fact, girly. We should, in fact, take her advice to invade, kill, and convert (the first two of which became official U.S. policy within two weeks of her saying it).

The woman's a *****. And she enjoys it. But she's no dumb cookie.

Convert? Some good ole fashioned god or the sword policy? Well as you say it is not far away from the other two current policys of the states.

[ November 13, 2002, 16:45: Message edited by: joacqin ]

Come on guys! :yot:

This topic isn't about this or that US political persona or about if the US should invade, kill and convert the rest of the world.
Please stay on topic or make a new topic. :)

Sure thing Shralp, I can be a sarcastic bastard. Lowest form of wit, I know. I usually use it when I'm being patronised.

The reason for the list was only to establish whether you believed in so much freedom of choice, speech and expression that we needed to actually have anarchy to accommodate it. Clearly not, fair enough.

I'm asking you a direct question that you have not answered before: Where should the line be drawn for encouraging criminal behavior?
Personally I would draw it the point where it could reasonably be construed as conspiracy. If you apply the immediacy concept a good lawyer no, change that to competent lawyer, shouldn't have too much trouble getting Osama Bin Laden off responsibility for the 9/11 atrocity. No real proof that he personally planned it (last I saw most of the planning was done in Hamburg). Funding? I doubt he funded any of it directly? Does this make him less culpable? Well, clearly not.

[Edit] In other words, where there is reasonable linkage to construe cause and effect. Where it is very unlikely or not at all that the action would have been undertaken without such encouragement.[Edit - (I deleted some stuff accidentally)]

And of course I do not consider speeding the type of offence in question. I consider rioting, terrorism, and murder the types of offence where it matters.

Basically, you've proven yourself to be more interested (once again) in attacking me than in getting to the truth at the bottom of any issues. It seems that when someone starts to ask you questions and demand that you be logically consistent, you overheat and lash out blindly with sarcasm and cheap comments like most of your list of questions.I do get annoyed when a) You take taking things said and written out of context to back up your own personal opinions, b) you degrade other people's opinions by assigning them with ridiculous extremes, and c) you patronise, which you can be very good at if I may say so.

I do however try to stick to attacking your arguments, not you personally as such.

Try to stay on topic, and try to answer the question. Do you want me to repeat it again? (Hint: It's in this post once already.)
Sarcastic and patronising, now who's playing games?

ANYWAY! enough of this silly tittle tattle between us, unless you feel hurt by the above we should perhaps leave it there. If you do, my apologies will be forwarded immediately publicly or by private mail as you may request, though I do draw the line at this board should the public one be required. [That is a sincere offer by the way, I was perhaps having a bad hair day when I started this].

My answer to your question is up there somewhere, and it is only an opinion. No absolute truth or any such claim.

Yours sincerely etc, etc

[ November 14, 2002, 12:07: Message edited by: Viking ]

Back on topic:

A relevant situation in England.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/20/npage20.xml

He's been arrested under the Public Order Act 1986, so hardly new legislation. Right or wrong, stirring up racial hatred is a criminal offence in this country. [Link in an earlier post to the relevant UK legislation]

I think he's probably got a point in that the more likely source of complaints made regarding his speach are likely to be people who do not agree with his views regarding fox hunting with dogs, which has become rather emotive here of late.

From the article I would guess it's unlikely he will be charged. I haven't looked up the application of the Act in relation to incitement to racial hatred in case law, but it would seem rather unlikely that a local country fair would be a hotbed of racial hatred to be stirred up!

I have to say that his treatment at the hands of the police would appear rather heavy handed to say the least, and he could well have just cause for complaint. I'm sure his newspaper column will reflect his thoughts on the matter soon enough.

Yeah, I realize it was old legislation. Just posting it as another a "what the heck?" link.

So basically if someone accuses you of racism in England you can be arrested if you don't agree to answer questions without your lawyer. Yeesh.

Or is this an anomaly?

My guess would be that they didn't *really* think he was a racist, they just had a chip on their shoulders because he defended hunting and were looking for any excuse to lock him up. Either that or the article wildly misconstrued what he actually said, since as described it cannot possibly be interpreted as "racism" by any reasonable person. People get *really* heated up about hunting, more so I think than a lot of them do about racism.

But... relevance to internet censorship topic? Or do you see it as just a general "Europe is too politically correct" topic? ;)

[Edit: Ah. Viking beat me to it. No one had responded yet when I started to write. Sorry!]

[ November 21, 2002, 16:58: Message edited by: Sprite ]

Shralp,

I certainly *hope* this is an anomaly, but best practice within our police force does seem to vary somewhat at times!

You are indeed entitled to legal representation when questioned by the police. Normal procedure I believe in cases like this (lawyer unable to attend), would be to make an appointment to attend the police station at a later date with your lawyer.

The only offences that are treated differently are offences under The Terrorism Act (or whatever they replaced that with after 9/11). Potentially indefinite detention without trial. Great for our human rights record....

The hunter said nothing that could be interpreted as racism, he only spoke for his minority. He has as much of a right to do this as a gay man, a black man, an asian man or an african man. This is clearly either a misunderstanding, or the police had it in for him already.

As I said above, the hunting issue has become very emotive. Chances are that a bill to ban it [hunting with dogs], will pass through parliament within 2 years. There is only so long that stalling tactics will work.

If it goes to vote it will be passed.

People are getting very agitated on both sides, so quite likely the accusations are both out of context and fairly malicious in nature by people who disagree with his stance on the subject.

Interesting argument, Laches. I like to stay updated on all these controversial things, and I never came across/thought of anything about computer generated porn. I bet the courts will come up with some stupid reason to make that illegal, too. Remember kids! You have the right to free speech and freedom to do as you want, unless we don't like what you're doing!

"Sinking is not a province in China but an observation of this company's stock market performance. This low tech crap that they produce is in an extremely competitive and low profitability industry. I see see-sawing of the stock with no real direction. (See-sawing is also not a province.)" Jeez, the way that was written sounds a LOT like the way we post on SP about games we don't like. Here's hoping we don't get charged for insulting Black Isle's games or something.

Yes. I believe the "stupid reason" they came up with was:

It's child porn, stupid!

[ November 25, 2002, 16:27: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Well, how much more free is the U.S. really?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/20021121/en_nm/media_indecency_fcc_dc_2

And how can you want to make the Victoria Secret show illegal, sheesh.

Shralp, this isn't really a thread on child porn but your reasoning is circular: Child porn should be illegal because it is child porn, maybe a new thread? It could be more general and be about when speech should be proscribed in general.

Hmmm. I believe I worded that badly. I don't mean to sound like a pedophile. But you have to admit, I do have a point. By the current standards, computer generated images are not actually "child pornography", because there aren't really any children involved. And, Shralp's insult slinging aside, the governement will just make up a bunch of jargon because they were outsmarted, and don't want that out there either.

Damn. I still sound like a pedophile.

Note to self: learn to defend a point without sounding like you are part of it.

What about that case in BC where the pedophile who'd been convicted and served his time was later up for child pornography charges based on material he'd written in his diary for his own use only? No actual children were involved in the production of the pornography, except presumably his memories of the children he'd injured all those years ago and already been punished for. Yet, he was convicted of kiddie porn, and it was only overturned after a lengthy and expensive appeal process other defendants might not have been able to afford. So I think that computer-generated pornography would definitely be considered "real" child pornography and punished exactly the same way as if real children had been involved. I don't understand why the government doesn't just inspect every house in the country, read everyone's diary, and charge them with murder if they write, "My boss was such a jerk today I wanted to kill him!".

PS: I'd like to add that, like the Soul Seeking Forever, I'm not a pedophile either. Whether this guy should have been locked up forever on the grounds of being a monster is another question entirely and I'd personally vote for it. I'm just interested in the freedom of speech aspect.

Sprite wrote
...
So I think that computer-generated pornography would definitely be considered "real" child pornography and punished exactly the same way as if real children had been involved...
The reasoning behind forbidding CP is that it supposedly hurts the child depicted.
I strongly disagree with the idea of forbidding computer generated images depicting sex with people of a certain (arbitrary) age.

Whether you like it or not, laws are merely legislated morality (usually tempered by political compromise).

We outlaw child porn because it is outrageous to our moral senses. Sometimes it hurts the child, yes.

But surreptitiously photographing a child's crotch and developing it for your own use doesn't hurt the child in the least. Yet we outlaw it.

Perhaps it cannot be a Federal crime because of Constitutional issues, but it can and should be a felony at the state level. "Congress shall make no law...."

Now I've got it! A way to not sound like a pedophile!

I would rather have some guy using computer generated images to... uh... "satisfy his urges"... than have the same guy use my sister to do the same.

If the images are allowed to circulate, some (I admit not all) of them (and you all know who I speak of here.) will be satisfied with just the pics, and not attack kids.

That's better. Now I sound normal.

Well, Soul Forever Seeking, do not make the mistake of thinking pedophile is the same as child abducter or someone who rapes children. That would be the same as saying a heterosexual is a kidnapper or a rapist of women.

Do you believe that most heterosexual have an urge to attack women? Is the reason for erotica to stop or limit these attacks? I don't think so.

Don't sound normal! It can trap you. Keep using your own mind! :)

[ December 23, 2002, 01:33: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

Being that this is a private site(correct me if im wrong) Black Isle can not say a damned thing about what we say on here. Anyways, this did seem like it was turning personal and that's just silly, almost as silly ad the damn EU. I like the EU, I think it can be a positive thing, but it's bureaucracy is already too large, from my understanding of it. The ACLU kinda sucks. They have been for years trying to get some sx offender laws repealed, which is terrible because I believe sex offenders should be shot, no ifs, ands, or buts. Regardless, I think it would be interesting to see how the American public would respond if legislation came up to challenge chunks of the first amendment. It is also my understanding that to appeal an amendment, you need another amendment, and that requires a very large majority vote, and also subject to ratification from so many states and is also subject to be struck down by a referendum or some such thing by the people. The neat thing would be how the militant groups react. Revolution? There is actually a provision in the Constitution that allows for that if the populace should grow unhapy with the current government, either by peaceable means, or if those fail, by the same way America gained her independence. John Ashcroft, for example, is lovely for being anti-gun control for now, but he is in favor of a police state. So Bush needs to get that guy outta there. If you think about it, there already is a penalty for being a hater. Anymore, people dislike others who are blindly hating others, and are thus cast out, and that works to an extent.

Well we do live in an age where 'equal rights' for 'ethnic minorities' means More Rights so why bother?

example : white guy waits over a year on the housing list. White guy makes new application claiming to be asian. Gets house within a month. Fair?

[ December 26, 2002, 21:19: Message edited by: Mortensen ]

I missed this topic for so long I can hardly enter at this point.
I am amazed by how much I can agree with Shralp. is that possible??
Of course Laches speaks my mind in a way I could not possibly,

So, why not at this point open a topic about child pornography?
Talk about an issue full of emotion, maybe in this area jack and I could find common ground....