In the USA you can be convicted of hate crimes.

[bobevenson]

This is an absolute affront to free speech. It shouldn't matter why you commit a crime. The AEP would abolish so-called hate crimes immediately.

[Ginkgo]

This is an absolute affront to free speech. It shouldn't matter why you commit a crime. The AEP would abolish so-called hate crimes immediately.

Quote bobevenson

"I can call a homosexual a faggot in a bar without being arrested".

Apparently not.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I bet a yank invented the term. It smacks of yank political-correctness.

[bobevenson]

This is an absolute affront to free speech. It shouldn't matter why you commit a crime. The AEP would abolish so-called hate crimes immediately.

Quote bobevenson

"I can call a homosexual a faggot in a bar without being arrested".

Apparently not.

You can't be arrested in the United States, but you can in France, that's for sure.

[Blaggard]

I can call a homosexual a faggot **** with a lifestyle Jesus would kill him for because he is inherently evil, in a bar in the US and get arrested. I am pretty much sure that is true in any state but your ass.

Let's face it Bob does not live on Earth. Where he lives though is a matter of some debate...

Bob the US has never had freedom of speech, in fact there is only one "country" on Earth I can think of that did, and it was a pirate republic formed in what is now Port au Prince IIRC. I would stop talking shit if I were you.

Incidentally that Pirate Republic was formed by 4 pirates, one was Bill Teach aka Blackbeard, but meh I forget all the names. Suffice to say it was conquered and reconquered by the French, Spanish and English, until the end of slavery and the slave revolts in the Caribbean, in what is now known as Haiti, bolstered its numbers to such an extent it could not longer be a whim of imperialism, or the slave trade. Guess which country then helped keep it free? I'll give you a clue it begins with T or maybe U.

"With freedom of speech comes much responsibility, which is why most men fear it."

Some guy.

[Impenitent]

and why do pirates become pirates?

they just aarr....

-Imp

[Blaggard]

Well actually usually they were often Pirates and then privateers, who had a Letter of the Marque (royal agreement to fight for their sovereign nation) which allowed them to attack any vessel but their own nation obviously; later in the wars for the Caribbean many just turned tricks and went straight for attacking everyone again. But some of the most famous or indeed infamous pirates were in fact just swashbucklers, and free booters, out to make a profit. But I suppose it was mainly for anarchy, it was mainly for what they desired and it is ever and so for all men to chose their rope, which they may climb, or be hanged by.

In essence a man became a Pirate because a thief and a liar and a trickster on land will make far less than on the high seas. Opportunists pirates were. They did not live long but they lived large.

suffice to say England dominated The Spanish Main not by using its own navy - not sufficient to the task - but by using its savvy, a vast amount of pirates who have no alegience to anything but anarchy are still a vast amount of soldiers that can indeed be used. The first to use the anarchist army was the one that essentially took the Caribbean, that first was England, it could so easily have been any of the European imperialists though. It was however Elisabeth I et al. Privateers were not simply Pirates any more they were a "mercenary" force well utilised.

I realise the above post was a joke, but that said Francis Drake was a privateer before he became Sir as was indeed Walter Raliegh, although his privateering was of course not named as such.

When you have a letter of the Marque and you deliver an enormous amount of wealth into both your hands and your nations coffers, Knighthood is sure to follow. That or a moribund drop when you revert to piracy again.

What interests me about piracy is the fact that each crew member got an equal share aside from the quartermaster, the first mate, the officers and Captain who got more.Even more so The Captain was voted in often he was the most popular but often he was also the most capable as decided by the crew; such measures forgoing the need for mutiny, it wasn't necessary. A very democratic system, for example anyone who took a woman without consent was hanged without trial, everyone who stole from another was fined as much and set adrift. A hearty bunch they were, but far far fairer than navies from which they often had fled. It's odd to think that anarchists developed far more equity amongst their crew, simply because a naval man, especially who was not of the noble class or an officer was given nothing much for doing very much, but in a way it makes sense.

[bobevenson]

Blaggard's an idiot who doesn't know shit about the USA.

[Wyman]

I can call a homosexual a faggot **** with a lifestyle Jesus would kill him for because he is inherently evil, in a bar in the US and get arrested. I am pretty much sure that is true in any state but your ass.

Let's face it Bob does not live on Earth. Where he lives though is a matter of some debate...

Bob the US has never had freedom of speech, in fact there is only one "country" on Earth I can think of that did, and it was a pirate republic formed in what is now Port au Prince IIRC. I would stop talking shit if I were you.

Incidentally that Pirate Republic was formed by 4 pirates, one was Bill Teach aka Blackbeard, but meh I forget all the names. Suffice to say it was conquered and reconquered by the French, Spanish and English, until the end of slavery and the slave revolts in the Caribbean, in what is now known as Haiti, bolstered its numbers to such an extent it could not longer be a whim of imperialism, or the slave trade. Guess which country then helped keep it free? I'll give you a clue it begins with T or maybe U.

"With freedom of speech comes much responsibility, which is why most men fear it."

Some guy.

I can call a homosexual a faggot **** with a lifestyle Jesus would kill him for because he is inherently evil, in a bar in the US and get arrested. I am pretty much sure that is true in any state but your ass.

No, it's not. Bob is correct (egads!). Hate speech is punished as a sentence enhancement - as in - you punch someone, you get a month in jail; you punch someone while screaming 'I hate f**gots' and you get two months. But your broader point is well taken. I believe there was free speech in the Wild West as well; but as with any state of anarchy, there was also free justice (lots of guns), which balanced it out.

[bobevenson]

Thank you for clarifying my point about punishment enhancement. You can still call somebody a fucking faggot, Muslim, or anything else in America without being arrested, but punishment enhancement for doing this in the commission of a crime is an obvious constitutional violation of free speech.

[Kayla]

This is an absolute affront to free speech. It shouldn't matter why you commit a crime.

it certainly should matter

if you punched someone in the face because they called you a pigfucker, it is still assault, but you are not a threat to the people who don't call you a pigfucker, and perhaps some anger management classes is all you need

but if you punched someone in the face because their race offends you, you are a continuing threat to many people who are just minding their own business - and this is not something that anger management can fix

and in the first case, there is somehting one can do to avoid being punched by you - not calling you a pigfucker

but in the second, there is nothing people of the wrong race can do

so it makes a lot of sense to impose a much harsher sentence in the second case

[Ginkgo]

double post

[Ginkgo]

Thank you for clarifying my point about punishment enhancement. You can still call somebody a ....... faggot, Muslim, or anything else in America without being arrested, but punishment enhancement for doing this in the commission of a crime is an obvious constitutional violation of free speech.

Yes, in the US you can be convicted of hate-crimes. And no, hate-crime punishment enhancement has been ruled constitutional on many occasions by SCOTUS. Check out decisions handed down by SCOTUS and the links provided.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell


Yes, I know the AEP will change all of that.

[bobevenson]

This is an absolute affront to free speech. It shouldn't matter why you commit a crime.

it certainly should matter

if you punched someone in the face because they called you a pigfucker, it is still assault, but you are not a threat to the people who don't call you a pigfucker, and perhaps some anger management classes is all you need

but if you punched someone in the face because their race offends you, you are a continuing threat to many people who are just minding their own business - and this is not something that anger management can fix

and in the first case, there is somehting one can do to avoid being punched by you - not calling you a pigfucker

but in the second, there is nothing people of the wrong race can do

so it makes a lot of sense to impose a much harsher sentence in the second case

What is it, exactly, that you have against pigfuckers???

[bobevenson]

Thank you for clarifying my point about punishment enhancement. You can still call somebody a ....... faggot, Muslim, or anything else in America without being arrested, but punishment enhancement for doing this in the commission of a crime is an obvious constitutional violation of free speech.

Yes, in the US you can be convicted of hate-crimes. And no, hate-crime punishment enhancement has been ruled constitutional on many occasions by SCOTUS. Check out decisions handed down by SCOTUS and the links provided.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell


Yes, I know the AEP will change all of that.

Don't come up with that Supreme Court bullshit. I'm talking about what's proper and improper, not what some body of busybodies decrees at any point in time. It was the Supreme Court that said the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting alcoholic beverages in the U.S. was OK. And, yes, the AEP will definitely change this kind of government tyranny!