The Confederate Flag

[iceaura]

Thanks... good points...now all you need to do is make sure every one knows it...

It's something all Americans are supposed to have learned in high school. If they didn't learn it in high school they could have learned it from Nixon's and especially Reagan's speeches. It isn't rocket science.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Look, I understand that you Aussies don't have any constitutionally protected freedom of speech. So maybe the idea is just completely foreign to you.

Dear me you really do have a problem answering the most simple questions.

I will take your reply as meaning you have no answer but your inability to even try and put together an answer I find somewhat disappointing.

Perhaps read your reply and ask yourself does it in anyway fit what even a child in Kindergarten would call an answer.

I am not trying to be in unkind by pointing out the obvious..more that I am trying to help you.

Mild reform?

Yes mild reform...move your attention to "mild"... You know something acceptable and designed not to have folk like you jumping up and down that they are being put upon...can you accept that to become better, reform, which I equate to improvement, is not something to be approached like castor oil...try and think progressive and making a better future.

There's nothing mild about that kind of self-serving authoritarianism.

You certainly have proved that to all by personal example but you need to think mild and progressive...and that reform by concensus is a good thing.

I am sure those folk who have pride in the South must be just as upset as are other intelligent folk when it comes to how their flag has been abused and used as a banner for evil. Your determination to stand for rights is nice but the picture is bigger than the one you paint for yourself and given the unreasonable stand you have been forced to take is all the evidence that you should need to attempt to think deeper on this matter.

You got a mirror handy?

So this is your attempt to confirm your earlier insult ..brilliant..I am insulted and hurt..that is what you want so there it is on a plate so go ahead and dine on your meal of negativity and grow all that is bad in an otherwise a decent human being.

Dont forget to say grace..but perhaps thank Satan.

Considering how much you bring up confidence, I'm starting to suspect that your projection is more of the "therapy puppet" variety.
You might consider substituting a sock for such self-gratification.

Sorry I can see I have made you self conscious by your attempt to divert attention ...it is a clear message.

I will just continue to work for you but in silence and not embarrass you again...ok now that is a lie..but its fun so all ok right?

You might consider substituting a sock for such self-gratification.

I am not familiar with such therapy how has it worked for you?

I'm not racist nor southern.

There is no need to deny that you are racist or Southern for that matter...I would never say to your face you are racist for a start nor would I guess at where you live..both are your business.

Trying reading those to sentences together and see if you can't figure it out.

Look I realised that you were insulting me and just tried to turn the other cheek as it were.

I guess I will continue to do that as you do seem to like driving home your insults .. you must realise your insults hurt me greatly ... Does that give you joy?

What rights of others? To not be offended?
I just do not understand where they get that right. Is it one that you made up?

I agree...I said rights and I was wrong...
Maybe we need to think of a word that could fit...to describe the situation where someone gets hurt and rather than back off the offender justs says they are entitled to offend. I dont know?... what could make you happy where both sides are looked after?

Just being sarcastic about your made up exemptions to freedom of expression.

Oh sarcastic...ok great move, sensible reply and sweet because its hard to know if it is insulting without thinking more.
Well done.

Not my problem if you can't use a dictionary.

What does using a dictionary have to do with understanding if the Law agrees with your definition of defamation?

Do you know the legal qualities of defamation is what I want to know...a dictionary does not outline the law . unless you are one of those sovereign citizens who are always quoting Blackmores Legal Dictionary as if they are quoting the law...

Again, a dictionary might help you.

A dictionary will not help me understand why you exhibit an inability to separate two issues in a discussion...I just dont think you comprehend as well as I give you credit for sometimes.

Anyways you really need to let this subject go...you have tried to make a point and it was a decent attempt but as you cant see a problem and to consider a solution there is little point in you just banging your drum about whatever it is that has caused your blindness on decency on this matter.
Have a great day.
Alex

 

[Quantum Quack]

It's something all Americans are supposed to have learned in high school. If they didn't learn it in high school they could have learned it from Nixon's and especially Reagan's speeches. It isn't rocket science.

are you suggesting that Vociferous didn't go to high school?

 

[James R]

Vociferous:

Since iceaura has already commented on your use or misuse of the language, I won't fuss about that too much. I'll try to concentrate on the underlying sentiments you're apparently trying to express, instead.

Which are belied by the simple fact that plenty of black people succeed from the exact same circumstances as ones who don't.

See what happened there? You said that whether black people succeed or not is all about choice. I pointed out that choice is often restricted by circumstances. But no, you can't accept that. It's either all choice, or all circumstance with you. That's a false dichotomy you have there, I'm afraid. You ought to fix that. I suggest you try thinking about the matter out of the context of racial prejudice. Think, for example, about why some whiteys get ahead and some don't. Mind you, I appreciate that I can only lead the horse to water.

No, contorting facts to confirm your biased belief in boogeymen is not evidence.

That kind of line is fairly pointless, when you make no references to any supposed facts that anybody has supposedly contorted. If your only aim is to insult, then so be it, but it becomes a little boring for me after a while.

If it were, you could tell us all exactly how to fix it, permanently.

If there was an easy fix - and the necessary will to fix it, of course - then it would have already been fixed. Perhaps there is an easy fix, but I'm fairly sure you'd run a mile, screaming "socialism!" all the way, at the mere thought about what might be required.

Really? Group therapy and yoga classes are comparable to church communities? I mean, even just in size, they obviously don't compare. Simply being around people isn't really a sense of community, is it? And considering conservatives are also likely to participate in many of the same special interest group activities, it still seems the secular are lacking in comparison. Seems you're trying to compare a group of friends with a community. I'm not sure those are the same thing.

All this tells me is that you have a very blinkered idea of what community means. And, again, it fits the type.

One other thing you might like to consider: not every community is a positive influence on the individual member. Your assumption seems to be that religious community, in particular, is a net positive for individuals and/or society in general. I'm inclined to disagree.

You mean by misinterpreting the data by making unjustified correlations and presumptions.

No. I mean what I wrote, of course. Do you post this kind of thing hoping for some kind of applause, or is there some other reason? Self-congratulation, maybe?

No, I never said anything like that. I actually specified the "affect ...on present day".

You've lost me. Is this a claim that historical events can have no effect on present day circumstances? Surely not.

Unlike you, I understand that sanctity/purity includes things like not exposing children to pornography, which could lead to suffering later in life.

Notice how your pornography example spans two of the moral categories (see that word "suffering")? My own concern about exposing children to pornography comes not from any desire to maintain children in a "pure" or "clean" state (in terms of knowledge and/or moral corruption), nor to protect children from something that some regard "impure" or "improper" or "unclean". My concerns, such as they are, lie in the likely harms that they may suffer as a result of exposure to pornography, both as children and in their future adult lives.

I actually don't understand why "purity" in and of itself is supposed to be morally virtuous. Maybe you can explain it. Also, what's the measure of "purity"? Who gets to decide what is pure? Who gets to judge others on whether they are "pure" enough to be members of the "in group", and what gives them that right?

I fear we're moving somewhat off the thread topic with this stuff, but I do find it interesting.

How that has any bearing on the differences between humans and animals is anyone's guess.

Sorry. I assumed you had some understanding of the relevant theory; you talked like you did. The idea is that non-human animals lack the "purity" of human beings - often enough so to put them in a completely separate category of moral consideration. We see, for example, in the bible, that animals are regarded as property to exploit as we (humans) wish. You, yourself, have dismissed out of hand the suggestion than an ape might be a person, for instance, and I assume the same would apply to a dolphin or an octopus, let alone something like a mouse, a shark or a lizard.

I don't believe in any "God's chosen". God doesn't chose sides.

It certainly looks to me like you put human beings on a pedestal when it comes to God choosing sides. Do you believe human beings have immortal souls, Vociferous? How about your dog? If the human and not the dog, then how is your God not choosing sides?

Yep, definitely kidding yourself. I mean, really? Wheelchair accessibility is discrimination? Do you even hear how that sounds?

New concepts can often seem strange. Let it marinate a bit, this new idea of positive discrimination. It'll come to you eventually.

I assure you, wheelchair ramps don't discriminate against me. You do know that I can walk up a ramp too, right?

You're little straw man is just sad. I have no problem with wheelchair access.

It looks like you completely missed the point of that example. Hint: it wasn't about whether you have a problem with the existence of wheelchair ramps. Try to understand before shouting "straw man" quite so loudly. It can make you look a bit foolish. Interesting data from iceaura on the history of wheelchair access and the Disabilities Act, too, don't you think?

 

[Vociferous]

Since iceaura has already commented on your use or misuse of the language, I won't fuss about that too much. I'll try to concentrate on the underlying sentiments you're apparently trying to express, instead.

Since I have iceaura on ignore, you'd have to at least quote where he has supposedly done so for me to take it, or your presumed agreement with it, seriously. I'm not going hunting for it.

See what happened there? You said that whether black people succeed or not is all about choice. I pointed out that choice is often restricted by circumstances. But no, you can't accept that. It's either all choice, or all circumstance with you. That's a false dichotomy you have there, I'm afraid. You ought to fix that. I suggest you try thinking about the matter out of the context of racial prejudice. Think, for example, about why some whiteys get ahead and some don't. Mind you, I appreciate that I can only lead the horse to water.

No, I actually said "culture affects choices", several times. So obviously I never said choice was the only determinant, nor that there was nothing that affected choices. So your little straw man, of a false dichotomy, is only deflection from the inconvenient fact that some people succeed from the same circumstances that others do not.

Again, like my example of the Appalachian value of education, some whites also don't get ahead because they make bad choices. If you want to call that an insurmountably restricted circumstance, again, that is belied by the fact that some succeed despite those same circumstances. So let's see if you can manage to address my actual argument this time, instead of your own deflecting straw man.

That kind of line is fairly pointless, when you make no references to any supposed facts that anybody has supposedly contorted. If your only aim is to insult, then so be it, but it becomes a little boring for me after a while.

Considering you only offered bare assertion in lieu of any facts at all...:

"You're misinformed. It's well documented and evidenced."​

...I can only presume what faulty reasoning would lead you to such conclusions. I've already shown how the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey validates the arrest demographics, and arguing against that is outright victim blaming.

If there was an easy fix - and the necessary will to fix it, of course - then it would have already been fixed. Perhaps there is an easy fix, but I'm fairly sure you'd run a mile, screaming "socialism!" all the way, at the mere thought about what might be required.

Yet you can't tell me under what circumstances you would definitely say there was zero systemic racism. That's exactly how unfalsifiable hypotheses work. It can either be falsified or you're a garden variety crackpot. You have even argued against things being "non-falsifiable" yourself: http://sciforums.com/threads/did-nothing-create-everything.162483/page-45#post-3611346

So it seems you're a hypocrite when it come to your favored political hypothesis (and when you presume any solution would require anything akin to socialism, it's easy to see why). You simply accept it without it being falsifiable. Would that be accepting it on faith?

All this tells me is that you have a very blinkered idea of what community means. And, again, it fits the type.

One other thing you might like to consider: not every community is a positive influence on the individual member. Your assumption seems to be that religious community, in particular, is a net positive for individuals and/or society in general. I'm inclined to disagree.

My sense of community is just larger than yours.

Considering studies of higher reported happiness, more charity, more moral behavior, etc., I'm pretty sure your atheism unduly colors your judgement.

No. I mean what I wrote, of course. Do you post this kind of thing hoping for some kind of applause, or is there some other reason? Self-congratulation, maybe?

Again, that was a reply to an equally vacuous statement of yours. Don't like it? Quit doing it. If you offer substance, I'll refute with substance.

You've lost me. Is this a claim that historical events can have no effect on present day circumstances? Surely not.

I didn't imply that either. Only that the onus would be on you to show that it does so, in the specific ways you imply.

Notice how your pornography example spans two of the moral categories (see that word "suffering")? My own concern about exposing children to pornography comes not from any desire to maintain children in a "pure" or "clean" state (in terms of knowledge and/or moral corruption), nor to protect children from something that some regard "impure" or "improper" or "unclean". My concerns, such as they are, lie in the likely harms that they may suffer as a result of exposure to pornography, both as children and in their future adult lives.

I actually don't understand why "purity" in and of itself is supposed to be morally virtuous. Maybe you can explain it. Also, what's the measure of "purity"? Who gets to decide what is pure?

I fear we're moving somewhat off the thread topic with this stuff, but I do find it interesting.

Unlike you, I understand that all the moral foundations are interrelated.

Sanctity/purity only exists to the extent that it seeks to stave off some future ill or suffering. You don't eat spoiled food because it could make you sick later. The disgust to such contamination only exists relative to the possible future harm. There is no independent belief in purity unrelated to a possible harm, as all the moral foundations have their roots in evolutionary psychology. Conservatives are just better at appreciating consequences. Since leftists have a higher threshold for disgust, they are likely to underestimate some sources of potential harm. Perhaps like the recent practice of raising "theybies" or allowing children to use puberty blockers that could lead to sterility.

As a leftist, I wouldn't expect you capable of understanding purity, just as the studies show. It's based on the evolutionary psychology of disgust, as a means to avoid hazards of food, disease, etc..

Who gets to judge others on whether they are "pure" enough to be members of the "in group", and what gives them that right?

Who's spanning two moral foundations (sanctity and loyalty) now? You must be on a hypocrisy kick lately.

Sorry. I assumed you had some understanding of the relevant theory; you talked like you did. The idea is that non-human animals lack the "purity" of human beings - often enough so to put them in a completely separate category of moral consideration. We see, for example, in the bible, that animals are regarded as property to exploit as we (humans) wish. You, yourself, have dismissed out of hand the suggestion than an ape might be a person, for instance, and I assume the same would apply to a dolphin or an octopus, let alone something like a mouse, a shark or a lizard.

Oh, you certainly made assumptions. Too bad they are faulty. Who ever said animals lacked purity? You do know that Jews used to sacrifice lambs expressly because they thought they had the requisite purity, right? Animals are not considered morally different due to purity. They are considered so due to their relative cognitive ability. The theological belief of stewardship would belie your claim that the Bible says animals are to be exploited. My dismissal of the personhood of an ape is solely based on cognitive ability. And you conveniently failed to quote what I said about my dog, because that obviously undermines this whole purity/personhood straw man of yours.

It certainly looks to me like you put human beings on a pedestal when it comes to God choosing sides. Do you believe human beings have immortal souls, Vociferous? How about your dog? If the human and not the dog, then how is your God not choosing sides?

I believe all life is immortal. And there's a long precedent of many religions believing that people can reincarnate into animals and vice versa. Even Christians will talk about dog heaven.

New concepts can often seem strange. Let it marinate a bit, this new idea of positive discrimination. It'll come to you eventually.

Yeah, your confused notion of positive discrimination, as noted by Baldeee, is strange. Too bad you don't seem capable of justifying it with anything but ignorant bare assertion.

It looks like you completely missed the point of that example. Hint: it wasn't about whether you have a problem with the existence of wheelchair ramps. Try to understand before shouting "straw man" quite so loudly. It can make you look a bit foolish. Interesting data from iceaura on the history of wheelchair access and the Disabilities Act, too, don't you think?

Legally, discrimination is unequal treatment in regards to a good, service, or access to public accommodation. And as Baldeee correctly explained to you, positive discrimination is active discrimination against one group for the benefit of another. Now I gather that you're trying to make some convoluted argument that businesses could somehow be discriminated against as a group, but to my knowledge, businesses have no civil right to profit by discriminating against some group, like the disabled.
Again, if you want to cite someone I'm ignoring, please quote them. At least if you want me to take the argument seriously. The ADA and it's amendment were signed into law by H.W. and W. Bush. And even if they weren't, who says I agree with every Republican argument in history? I identify as conservative.

 

[Vociferous]

Freedom of expression works both ways, even people contradictorily lumping blacks who flag rebel flags in with racists.

There's no contradiction - anyone who flies the Confederate flag of racism has lumped themselves in with racists. (The designer of the flag stated that it represented white racism and was to be flown by white supremacists so they could rally to their cause, and so it has been ever since).

So you readily admit that you think they are self-hating blacks? You do realize the similarity to the anti-Semitic term, right? You know, racism.

Look, I understand that you Aussies don't have any constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

So are are saying that the only way you guys in the USA can have freedom of speech is to provide it by a constitution that isn't worth a damn if you have to rely upon it to grant said freedoms?

You need to learn the difference between "protected" (what I said) and "grant" (your ignorant straw man).

Australia doesn't need a constitutional clause that specifies freedom of speech. ( even though somewhere there may be some mention ) It has been an axiom of common law for a thousand years or so...

To the contrary, without a constitutional protection of speech, Australia actually has laws that curtail speech more than the US, like the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. You have the subjective perception of "offense" codified in your law, whereby one person's freedom of expression can be readily curtailed by the subjective opinion of another.

 

[billvon]

Since I have iceaura on ignore . . . .

Less than 30 minutes later:

There's no contradiction - anyone who flies the Confederate flag of racism has lumped themselves in with racists.

So you readily admit that you think they are self-hating blacks? You do realize the similarity to the anti-Semitic term, right? You know, racism.

Your intelligence is matched only by your honesty.

 

[Vociferous]

Less than 30 minutes later:

Your intelligence is matched only by your honesty.

You do know that you can select to see specific posts, right? It's not rocket science.
And the difference is that I responded to something I read before I logged in, and I'm not going to hunt for arguments James could just as readily quote or state himself.

 

[Quantum Quack]

To the contrary, without a constitutional protection of speech, Australia actually has laws that curtail speech more than the US, like the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. You have the subjective perception of "offense" codified in your law, whereby one person's freedom of expression can be readily curtailed by the subjective opinion of another.

Straw man!
You do realise that ANY regulation or law that is enforced is an action the restrains freedom ...don't you?
The racial discrimination Act 1975 was introduced to restrict the freedom of racists to express their racism as part of Australia's obligation to move towards an egalitarian society, and fulfill it's commitment to the UDHR 1948.
As I have stated elsewhere Egalitarianism is deemed to be racism by those who are white supremacists. That law that protect and promotes equal rights are racist according to your confederate flag wavers.
Again perhaps your intellectual competency is not going to allow you to grasp such an argument let alone debate it.

Put it this way:
Egalitarianism is a racist restriction on those who believe they are superior by virtue of race.
so therefore egalitarianism is indeed racism

 

[Vociferous]

To the contrary, without a constitutional protection of speech, Australia actually has laws that curtail speech more than the US, like the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. You have the subjective perception of "offense" codified in your law, whereby one person's freedom of expression can be readily curtailed by the subjective opinion of another.

Straw man!
You do realise that ANY regulation or law that is enforced is an action the restrains freedom ...don't you?

I didn't say freedom in general, I said "freedom of expression". Learn to read. The RDA 1975 literally restricts freedom of expression.

The racial discrimination Act 1975 was introduced to restrict the freedom of racists to express their racism as part of Australia's obligation to move towards an egalitarian society, and fulfill it's commitment to the UDHR 1948.
As I have stated elsewhere Egalitarianism is deemed to be racism by those who are white supremacists. That law that protect and promotes equal rights are racist according to your confederate flag wavers.
Again perhaps your intellectual competency is not going to allow you to grasp such an argument let alone debate it.

No, again, that's just Aussie ignorance and excuses.
Egalitarianism does not, itself, include restricting the free expression of some to placate the subjective offense of others. Nor does the UDHR obligate any such suppression of free speech. In a free society, those called racist slurs can just as readily call out that racism. When such behavior is legislated against, you don't get rid of racism, it just festers without the appropriate condemnation it would receive if publicly aired.

You're so twisted up that you actually think protecting equal rights (freedom of expression) is somehow not protecting equal rights (some ignorant Aussie right to not be offended).

Put it this way:
Egalitarianism is a racist restriction on those who believe they are superior by virtue of race.
so therefore egalitarianism is indeed racism

While I agree that racists wouldn't like egalitarianism, you haven't shown that freedom of expression runs counter to egalitarianism. You're just ignorantly conflating to unrelated things.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I didn't say freedom in general, I said "freedom of expression". Learn to read. The RDA 1975 literally restricts freedom of expression.


No, again, that's just Aussie ignorance and excuses.
Egalitarianism does not, itself, include restricting the free expression of some to placate the subjective offense of others. Nor does the UDHR obligate any such suppression of free speech. In a free society, those called racist slurs can just as readily call out that racism. When such behavior is legislated against, you don't get rid of racism, it just festers without the appropriate condemnation it would receive if publicly aired.

You're so twisted up that you actually think protecting equal rights (freedom of expression) is somehow not protecting equal rights (some ignorant Aussie right to not be offended).


While I agree that racists wouldn't like egalitarianism, you haven't shown that freedom of expression runs counter to egalitarianism. You're just ignorantly conflating to unrelated things.

oh... I see your point but let me ask you this:
Do you think emotional abuse/violence inflicted by racial vilification, slur or slander should be legal?
or more specifically,
Do you think emotional violence perpetrated to inflict harm on another should be legal?

 

[Bells]

To the contrary, without a constitutional protection of speech, Australia actually has laws that curtail speech more than the US, like the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. You have the subjective perception of "offense" codified in your law, whereby one person's freedom of expression can be readily curtailed by the subjective opinion of another.

Incorrect.

The Racial Discrimination Act, 1975, promotes equality before the law, whereby one cannot discriminate for reasons of sex, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexuality and so on and so forth... For example, if you apply to rent a house and the real estate agent refuses to rent to you because of your religion, that would be illegal under the law.

We also have laws regarding age discrimination, discrimination against those with disabilities and so on and so forth.

Most forward thinking societies have such legislations in place.

It does not curtail your free speech. You can be a racist and homophobic twat as much as you want. You just cannot discriminate against people.

Why do you think this curtails your speech?

You do realise it is wrong to discriminate against others, yes?

And if you are talking about Section 18D, which deals with insults, and whatnot - as that's the teat that conservative fools latch on when trying to screech about how their freedom of speech is curtailed, you should look at how the courts here actually apply and interpret it. In other words, no, your freedom of speech is not curtailed. You can, however, be found guilty if your words and action cause harm.. For example, if you start racially abusing a co-worker or an employee, that is actually illegal and I am fairly certain that even in your neck of the woods (and given your obscenely obvious leaning on this website, one might consider it a neck of the woods where people sit on their front porch strumming the song from Deliverance on their banjo while deliberating asking their sister to the next prom), racially abusing people is also illegal and is not deemed "free speech" under your constitution. Your constitution does not protect hate speech or hate crimes.

 

[Vociferous]

To the contrary, without a constitutional protection of speech, Australia actually has laws that curtail speech more than the US, like the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. You have the subjective perception of "offense" codified in your law, whereby one person's freedom of expression can be readily curtailed by the subjective opinion of another.

Incorrect.

No, you're just ignorant of your own laws.

The Racial Discrimination Act, 1975, promotes equality before the law, whereby one cannot discriminate for reasons of sex, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexuality and so on and so forth... For example, if you apply to rent a house and the real estate agent refuses to rent to you because of your religion, that would be illegal under the law.

We also have laws regarding age discrimination, discrimination against those with disabilities and so on and so forth.

Most forward thinking societies have such legislations in place.

Yes, most western countries have similar laws. And since no one here is talking about that part of the law, it's a complete non sequitur.

You do realise it is wrong to discriminate against others, yes?

Again, no one ever said otherwise. Don't be so dense or erect straw men.

It does not curtail your free speech. You can be a racist and homophobic twat as much as you want. You just cannot discriminate against people.

Why do you think this curtails your speech?
...
And if you are talking about Section 18D, which deals with insults, and whatnot - as that's the teat that conservative fools latch on when trying to screech about how their freedom of speech is curtailed, you should look at how the courts here actually apply and interpret it. In other words, no, your freedom of speech is not curtailed. You can, however, be found guilty if your words and action cause harm.. For example, if you start racially abusing a co-worker or an employee, that is actually illegal and I am fairly certain that even in your neck of the woods (and given your obscenely obvious leaning on this website, one might consider it a neck of the woods where people sit on their front porch strumming the song from Deliverance on their banjo while deliberating asking their sister to the next prom), racially abusing people is also illegal and is not deemed "free speech" under your constitution. Your constitution does not protect hate speech or hate crimes.

Again, you betray your ignorance of your own laws. 18D is the exceptions to the hate speech section, "including acts relating to artistic works, genuine academic or scientific purposes, fair reporting, and fair comment on matters of public interest."

It's section 18C that details the restriction to speech, making it "unlawful for a person to do an act in public if it is reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person of a certain race, colour or national or ethnic origin, and the act was done because of one or more of those characteristics.". Offense is not "harm", and case history shows that it has been upheld for mere offense or insult to restrict speech:

• In Jones v Toben [2000] HREOCA 39 the HREOC found that a person had contravened section 18C when they referred to the treatment of Jews in the 1930s and 1940s as having been "mythologised".[24] Following orders made by the Federal Court of Australia to enforce the Commission's decision, in Toben v Jones [2003] FCAFC 137 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal from those orders, in which the defendant challenged the constitutional validity of section 18C.
• In McMahon v Bowman [2000] FMCA 3, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia found that a person had contravened section 18C by calling his neighbour a "black bastard".
• In Wanjurri v Southern Cross Broadcasting (Aus) Ltd [2001] HREOCA 2, the HREOC found that Southern Cross Broadcasting and journalist Howard Sattler had contravened section 18C, and ordered each to pay the five complainants $10,000 in damages.
• In Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103, the Federal Court of Australia held that newspaper commentator Andrew Bolt had contravened section 18C for comments made in relation to fair-skinned Aboriginal persons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racia...intimidation_and_Exemptions_under_Section_18D​

Jones v Toben involved a website that denied the Holocaust, so that alone refutes your: "You can be a racist ... twat as much as you want."

And no, aside from some states, the US does not have hate speech laws. It does have hate crime laws, but those involve bigoted motives for regular crimes. What's allowed at work is between the employer and their avoidance of hostile workplace lawsuits. And yes, the First Amendment includes calling people names. So you're ignorant of both Aussie and US law. Congrats on being so consistent!

 

[Vociferous]

oh... I see your point but let me ask you this:
Do you think emotional abuse/violence inflicted by racial vilification, slur or slander should be legal?
or more specifically,
Do you think emotional violence perpetrated to inflict harm on another should be legal?

I think adults should be able to take the advice of the children's rhyme "sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
There is no legal definition of "emotional violence". Emotional abuse can be a thing, depending on state law, but mostly as a matter for civil or family courts rather than statutory criminal law.
Conflating violence with speech is a bs question. If you're talking about harassment, laws already exist to cover those protracted cases.

 

[candy]

oh... I see your point but let me ask you this:
Do you think emotional abuse/violence inflicted by racial vilification, slur or slander should be legal?
or more specifically,
Do you think emotional violence perpetrated to inflict harm on another should be legal?

Would this not equally apply to those who accuse others of being a "honky" or having "white privilege"?
That is also emotional abuse.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think adults should be able to take the advice of the children's rhyme "sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
There is no legal definition of "emotional violence". Emotional abuse can be a thing, depending on state law, but mostly as a matter for civil or family courts rather than statutory criminal law.
Conflating violence with speech is a bs question. If you're talking about harassment, laws already exist to cover those protracted cases.

I don't think you got the point...
I asked whether it should be legal.
Should perpetrating emotional violence against another be legal?

Also noting the situation in Portland and the civil unrest and destruction do you see how such a toxic society can be so detrimental to all citizens?
Essentially what you are suggesting is that emotional violence and it's consequences should be some how legal.
As such you are declaring that all violence associated with emotional violence, racial discrimination is legal.
It is not up to you to determine whether your emotional violence is harmful or not. Is it no surprise that your violence is hurtful? After all is that not the intent - to cause harm?

Should perpetrating emotional violence against another be legal?

Defending the indefensible is one of the the hall marks of bigotry.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Would this not equally apply to those who accuse others of being a "honky" or having "white privilege"?
That is also emotional abuse.

You would expect that those who have an advantage due to race to defend their deluded privilege, as demonstrated by the Civil war. No one wishes to relinquish power over others easily.
Racial vilification of white supremacists is nothing more than a reflection of their own position and a consequence of their immature emotional violence perpetrated against those who are considered inferior simply due to race.
I think any one who is a bully can expect defensive reactions. After all is this not what the bully wants?

 

[candy]

You would expect that those who have an advantage due to race to defend their deluded privilege, as demonstrated by the Civil war. No one wishes to relinquish power over others easily.
Racial vilification of white supremacists is nothing more than a reflection of their own position and a consequence of their immature emotional violence perpetrated against those who are considered inferior simply due to race.
I think any one who is a bully can expect defensive reactions. After all is this not what the bully wants?

The problem is that they are not just vilifying white supremacists. They are attacking anyone who does not support their agenda.
I refuse to give in to any bully without a good fight.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is no legal definition of "emotional violence". Emotional abuse can be a thing, depending on state law, but mostly as a matter for civil or family courts rather than statutory criminal law.

and therefore inciting civil war is legal. - hence the use of the confederate flag.
The whole point of the BLM movement is to seek change to the legal status quo that promotes civil war by reinforcing white privilege. ( inequality)
By having similar legislation to Australia the USA would be able to legally minimize the incitement to civil war and lower the level of toxicity entrenched in USA society.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I refuse to give in to any bully without a good fight.

and do you think non-whites should be otherwise?