actually, screaming "fire" is still legal. inciting a riot or a stampede, is NOT.

the point about the cotton balls is that it's fucking cotton balls. what in the HELL is intimidating about a fucking cotton ball? A noose I could get, as that goes way too far across the line. A cotton ball? really? REALLY?

3/16/2010 12:17:52 AM

Quote :

"the point about the cotton balls is that it's fucking cotton balls. what in the HELL is intimidating about a fucking cotton ball? A noose I could get, as that goes way too far across the line. A cotton ball? really? REALLY? "

Are you asserting that it's not intimidating, or are you saying you don't understand why it might be intimidating?

Because you don't seem like the kind of person that would assert how another group of people should feel about something...

3/16/2010 12:21:45 AM

I'm saying it's not intimidating in the least. I'd imagine the majority of students, black or white, walked by and were like "the fuck?"

3/16/2010 12:24:24 AM

So you are asserting your own world view to a situation you most likely can't really understand, and are bewildered about why people are saying you're wrong?

3/16/2010 12:26:33 AM

Courts have held in sexual harassment cases the standard of a "reasonable woman." I'm not the first to apply a general level of what is or is not appropriate, nor will I be the last.

3/16/2010 12:30:54 AM

That's true, that's for sex issue. So for something regarding "race" issues, you would use the standards of a reasonable what? Hmm? Here's a hint, it's not a reasonable woman What makes you think you're qualified to judge that standard?

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 12:37 AM. Reason : ]

3/16/2010 12:36:45 AM

Some people will be offended by anything and will make something out of absolutely nothing. I'm not worried about defending them in any way from the likes of a cotton-ball-wielding douchebag. Let the fucker put up a noose, then we'll talk.
As for for a reasonable "what," it's irrelevant what the final term is. The point is that this is not something that should reasonably intimidate anyone. It's a common, every-day item that you can see in the fucking GROCERY STORE. Do blacks cower in fear when they walk down the make-up aisle now?
That's why this is nothing more than a joke in poor taste. Nothing more than that. The proper response would have been to make the little douchebags clean it up in public, make them the cotton-pickers. And, anyone who felt "threatened" could go get the sand out of their vagina by yelling at the fucktards as they cleaned up the mess.

3/16/2010 12:42:53 AM

^ IOW
You must be one of those idiots that feel you're being persecuted for being white because you can't walk up to any black man and yell "nigger" in his face.

3/16/2010 1:10:24 AM

It's not the word nigger per se that would be a problem. Walking up to a person and screaming anything would constitute a threat. Then thanks to bullshit hatecrime laws would be compounded by the fact that you used a racial slur.

Could you explain to me how cotton balls constitute a threat?

3/16/2010 8:42:45 AM

Quote :

"This is already done, except we've established long ago for good reason that there is nothing to be gained by allowing people to be racists assholes."

Where was that established? Allowing people to hold and express unpopular views is at the very core of free speech.

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom do you make your inquisitors?" - Thomas Jefferson

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 9:12 AM. Reason : ]

3/16/2010 9:02:04 AM

Gotta love how rightists become relativists and progressives only to defend racism and bigotry lol

3/16/2010 12:11:25 PM

Quote :

"I personally think littering is the appropriate legal charge for the crime."

agreed.

This is absolutly rediculous. I am not about to read through 3 pages of this but my 2 cents are as follows.

Sure these kids may have had "racist" intentions but this is in no way shape or form worthy of a felony charge and/or categorization as a hate crime. I can somewhat understand the charges had they hung a noose, as this is indirecly indicating the threat of violence, and can understand the charges in teh case of a burning cross.

Cotton balls though...

ABSOLUTLY NOT. This whole thing is about as retarted as the "outrage" at NCSU a couple years back over a wad of toilet paper that some janitor thought resembled a noose.

I am surprised that their is not some african american led class action lawsuit against tylenol since it is racist that they must "pick the cotton" in order to pop a pill.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM. Reason : a]

3/16/2010 12:14:00 PM

Quote :

"Gotta love how rightists become relativists and progressives only to defend racism and bigotry lol"

Gotta love how douchebags won't explain how in the fuck a cotton ball constitutes a threat. I will defend racism and bigotry to the end, by the way. I decidedly enjoy my freedom to hate whomever I choose, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to exercise that freedom.

3/16/2010 12:18:48 PM

Quote :

"Gotta love how douchebags won't explain how in the fuck a cotton ball constitutes a threat. I will defend racism and bigotry to the end, by the way. I decidedly enjoy my freedom to hate whomever I choose, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to exercise that freedom."

It's not an issue of freedom of speech you fucking unbelievable idiot

It's an issue of singling out, harassing, humiliating, etc. a specific community of people. A community that is a protected class.

3/16/2010 1:53:59 PM

Quote :

"This is already done, except we've established long ago for good reason that there is nothing to be gained by allowing people to be racists assholes."

Quote :

"It's an issue of singling out, harassing, humiliating, etc. a specific community of people. A community that is a protected class."

And yet the ACLU will (rightly) fight in court for the right of neo-nazi's, the KKK and other bigots and assholes to march upon the town square. Hell the fucking westboro baptists retards are having their case before the supreme court.

So clearly the problem here is that these assholes didn't go get the proper permits before tossing around deadly cotton balls. We're lucky no one got killed.

3/16/2010 2:07:48 PM

Quote :

"It's not an issue of freedom of speech you fucking unbelievable idiot It's an issue of singling out, harassing, humiliating, etc. a specific community of people. A community that is a protected class."

"black people" aren't a protected class. "Race" is a protected class. Have you even read the civil rights act?

This wasn't discrimination in hiring, or lodging, or a restaurant, or from a federally funded organization. It was a non-threatening display of bigotry.

Why don't you just say "I think it should be illegal for people to hate other people."

3/16/2010 2:21:07 PM

It shouldn't be illegal to hate other people. It should be illegal to harass other people systematically because of that hate. Oh and guess what, it is!

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM. Reason : Obviously I knew race is the protected class, not being "black". Jesus you people.]

3/16/2010 2:29:46 PM

Quote :

" harass other people systematically because of that hate"

Ok then. You think it should be illegal to non-violently and non-threateningly harass other people. Got it.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 2:55 PM. Reason : threaten]

3/16/2010 2:54:47 PM

I think that's where people are disagreeing.


I don't think this particular incident constitutes harassment in this context. It's just passive mockery.

Had it been a more severe manifestation, such as a noose, or burning cross- certainly that's both harassing and threatening. Had it been a pattern of non-threatening incidents (and maybe it was, i'm not aware beyond the scope of cottonballgate), then I'd apply the harassment label.

I just don't agree with any sort of mockery towards a particular group being slapped with the 'hate crime' label. A college kid being a jackass isn't the same as a klan member burning crosses.

3/16/2010 2:58:31 PM

Quote :

"A college kid being a jackass isn't the same as a klan member burning crosses."

Agreed but if that college kid is creating an environment that makes an entire demographic uncomfortable in a place of higher learning, then that needs to be assessed differently than just mocking.

3/16/2010 3:09:06 PM

An entire demographic uncomfortable? Really?

You're comfortable such vague generalities a crime?

What demographic exactly? How uncomfortable? Why is "threat of physical violence" not a good line to draw?

And in your words, explain how the cotton balls were different than "just mocking". I still don't get it.

3/16/2010 3:14:09 PM

Quote :

"University of Missouri police yesterday arrested two white male students suspected of dropping cotton balls in front of the Gaines/Oldham Black Culture Center on campus."

Try and dig your head out of your ass

3/16/2010 3:24:30 PM

I thought we were having a discussion on whether their being charged with a hate crime was warranted, not whether they should have been arrested.

Just because they were arrested doesn't mean they should have been. I'm not certain littering is an offense worthy of arrest, but I wasn't there.

3/16/2010 3:29:38 PM

Quote :

"Try and dig your head out of your ass"

3/16/2010 3:34:30 PM

I'm convinced. It should be illegal for you to look at black people wrongly.

3/16/2010 3:43:44 PM

Quote :

"I just don't agree with any sort of mockery towards a particular group being slapped with the 'hate crime' label. A college kid being a jackass isn't the same as a klan member burning crosses. "

[/thread]

3/16/2010 4:24:22 PM

so there are varying degrees of racism towards one race and some are ok?

3/16/2010 5:02:06 PM

If it doesn't involve violence or a threat of violence it is ok.


((And by ok, I mean we shouldn't be arresting folks over it. Feel free to make racists feel like the assholes that they are))

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 5:09 PM. Reason : clarity]

3/16/2010 5:08:59 PM

Quote :

" I mean we shouldn't be arresting folks over it. Feel free to make racists feel like the assholes that they are"

or kick their ass

3/16/2010 5:14:49 PM

Quote :

"It should be illegal to harass other people systematically because of that hate."

What is "systematic" about a cotton ball. What is harassing about a cotton ball? Are blacks automatically harassed when they walk down the make-up aisle at Wal-mart?

3/16/2010 8:38:03 PM

Quote :

"Are blacks automatically harassed when they walk down the make-up aisle at Wal-mart?"

Are you automatically stupid when you wake up?

3/16/2010 9:06:35 PM

sup, McDouche?

3/16/2010 9:46:11 PM

^^^ are you reversing your opinion now that the cotton balls weren’t meant to be harassing?

Quote :

"I'm convinced. It should be illegal for you to look at black people wrongly. "

haha it’s funny that you feel so bold is posting things like this, when you’ve previously admitted that your family is horribly racist. You don’t see a connection between your ignorant upbringing, and your present views on racial issues…?

3/16/2010 10:53:21 PM

Maybe I should be arrested and charged with a Hate Crime the next time I pour rice all over the sidewalk outside of Pearl.

3/16/2010 11:05:30 PM

maybe, it depends on your intent.

3/16/2010 11:17:38 PM

Quote :

"are you reversing your opinion now that the cotton balls weren’t meant to be harassing?"

wat? reading is fundamental...

3/17/2010 12:15:00 AM

Quote :

" haha it’s funny that you feel so bold is posting things like this, when you’ve previously admitted that your family is horribly racist. You don’t see a connection between your ignorant upbringing, and your present views on racial issues…? "

You don't know shit about how I was raised, and the family members I was referring to were my in-laws. How much did they have to do with my upbringing, jackass?

I was raised to understand that freedom is important. Even when you dislike the freedoms that other people are exercising.

3/17/2010 9:02:48 AM

Its not the governments job to protect peoples feelings from being hurt. The government isn't your daddy.

They cant arrest you for lieing to that girl you said you loved, had sex with but didn't actually love. (well possibly in NC)

They cant arrest you because somebody gets offended that you put up a little coffin on somebody desk when they turn 40.

Protected class is bull, all that does is single out and highlight differences. Its like they are legally saying, if it wasn't for the government nanny these people would be crying on the side of the street. WHY DO YOU PICK ON ME WHY WHY WAA.

Society as a whole has changed, nobody is saying that these kids were model students, and if the University wants to expel them more power to them. Thats their right.

However what they did was not criminal past littering.

No a creative judge I'm sure could have fun with sentencing that one.

Secondly I Don't think their actions could be construed as Fighting Words.

What we have here is a clear case of viewpoint based discrimination against the defendants.

Their actions were free speech, and you cant have laws that prohibit free speech based on the viewpoints held within them. Its either always a felony to sprinkle cotton balls, or its always littering.

You can have a law that says Its illegal to use to have obscenity, because that effects society as a whole. Its not okay to have a law that says, its illegal to act obscenely towards group x.



[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 11:27 AM. Reason : dd]

3/17/2010 10:58:16 AM

^ people like this are college educated

3/17/2010 11:02:41 AM

college educations are overrated

3/17/2010 11:04:47 AM

3/17/2010 11:25:34 AM

Being offensive cannot be illegal, because people get offended over some stupid shit. Anything could be deemed offensive to someone. Who cares if people are offended? All that really matters is if their rights are violated.

3/17/2010 11:26:59 AM

Quote :

"This is already done, except we've established long ago for good reason that there is nothing to be gained by allowing people to be racists assholes. It is damaging to society, especially a society with a history like ours."

Who has established this? The the King of society? Nobody in our society, runs it, nobody has the right to tell someone that they can't have a viewpoint.

3/17/2010 11:29:20 AM

Well damn, guess doing *anything* is pointless if we all end up dead anyway.

And yes, being offended, or being made "uncomfortable" shouldn't be enough to have someone else arrested or limit their rights in anyway. McDanger and Moron think otherwise, draw your own conclusions about their cognitive abilities.

[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 11:33 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2010 11:30:17 AM

My point is, if another group has sprinkled saltine crackers over the a white frats lawn, would they be charged with a hate crime?

The answer is no, therefore you have view based free speech discrimination.

3/17/2010 11:37:17 AM

shut up noob.

3/17/2010 12:38:16 PM

hahaha. dude just fucking owned any argument you would have made, joe, and all you can come up with is calling him a n00b? I think we just might be able to say [/thread] on this one.

3/17/2010 8:47:05 PM

Quote :

"Who has established this? The the King of society? Nobody in our society, runs it, nobody has the right to tell someone that they can't have a viewpoint. "

The courts? It’s why we have hate crime laws in the first place…

Quote :

"My point is, if another group has sprinkled saltine crackers over the a white frats lawn, would they be charged with a hate crime? The answer is no, therefore you have view based free speech discrimination. "

Ha, i’ll give your n00b argument the benefit of doubt here, in that you can’t really be this dumb.
There are certain contexts where the sprinkling of crackers could be charged as a hate crime.

And no one is being told they can’t have a viewpoint, but society via the laws we have enacted has chosen to discourage the viewpoint of racism being acted upon openly.

And to not beat around the bush, you are trying to say that the white people have it equally as hard as the black folks, and the crackers should be viewed equally for them too, righT? Except that white people in American society have never been systematically discriminated against by blacks, or anyone else. There is no historical association with imposed poverty, violence, and institutional racism tied to the offensive statement “cracker.” It’s not like they sat around one day and came up with a list of offensive terms. The terms made themselves up over decades of racism, and one has much broader and deeper connections than the other. This is just basic history.

Quote :

"Their actions were free speech, and you cant have laws that prohibit free speech based on the viewpoints held within them. Its either always a felony to sprinkle cotton balls, or its always littering. "

This is not how, nor has it ever been, how our laws work. Laws have always considered intent, otherwise there would never have been a self-defense defense, or insanity. Killing a robber breaking into your house, by your dumb logic, is the same as shooting someone while robbing them, because killing is killing, right?

Quote :

"Protected class is bull, all that does is single out and highlight differences. Its like they are legally saying, if it wasn't for the government nanny these people would be crying on the side of the street. WHY DO YOU PICK ON ME WHY WHY WAA. Society as a whole has changed,"

Haha, how does protected class single out and highlight differences? You realize that protected class applies to white people too? That there are hate crimes prosecuted where the victim is white?

Quote :

"Secondly I Don't think their actions could be construed as Fighting Words. "

This is not for you to determine. This may be the case, but that’s what the court systems are for. They have actual knowledge of the people and situations involved, that they base their decision on, rather than your ignorant presumptions based on your hilarious belief that white people are being persecuted by society.


Why are there so many users with some derivation of “wolfpack” in there name that have ridiculous beliefs? There’s wlfkpack4life, wolfpack2k, and now wlfpk4ever. Strange…

Quote :

"I was raised to understand that freedom is important. Even when you dislike the freedoms that other people are exercising. "

My apologies. But it looks like your parents failed at this goal then, because freedom is being upheld in this case, from everything i’ve seen so far. How does it feel to disappoint them?


[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 9:33 PM. Reason : ]

3/17/2010 9:22:37 PM

No court or legislative body in this country has established the illegality of being a racist asshole.

Quote :

"Except that white people in American society have never been systematically discriminated against by blacks, or anyone else. "

Come on. Don't be ahistorical.

[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 10:49 PM. Reason : ]

3/17/2010 10:47:40 PM

Okay lets look at Morons argument

Quote :

"The courts? It’s why we have hate crime laws in the first place…"

The courts don't make laws, the legislature does.

Quote :

"Ha, i’ll give your n00b argument the benefit of doubt here, in that you can’t really be this dumb. There are certain contexts where the sprinkling of crackers could be charged as a hate crime."

Hate crime laws only work on specific classes, in my example white males arent a protected class, secondly, sprinkining crackers, just like dropping cotton balls would not be fighting words or likely to incite violence. at least in the hypos given and this case.

Quote :

"And to not beat around the bush, you are trying to say that the white people have it equally as hard as the black folks, and the crackers should be viewed equally for them too, righT? Except that white people in American society have never been systematically discriminated against by blacks, or anyone else. There is no historical association with imposed poverty, violence, and institutional racism tied to the offensive statement “cracker.” It’s not like they sat around one day and came up with a list of offensive terms. The terms made themselves up over decades of racism, and one has much broader and deeper connections than the other. This is just basic history."

The fact of the matter is in the view of freedom of speech, it does not matter that blacks have had it rougher than whites, or that girls have it harder than guys, or that turkeys can or cant fly.

http://www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoafYtDe.html

You cant make different rules that apply to different groups in regards to speech. you cant say one group plays by one rule and another plays by another.

The problem with with hate crime laws is are nebulous.

If a person belongs to the Aryan brotherhood, and during the course of a robbery they kill a black person, should their membership in the Aryan Brotherhood be admitted into court? Was that a hate crime? or did i just kill them because it happened?

Finally the courts and judges cannot determine if something was a hate crime, thats up to the jury



[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 11:36 PM. Reason : "As God Is My Witness, I Thought Turkeys Could Fly"]

3/17/2010 11:22:47 PM