Gay community takes care of hateful bakers.

[Firiel]

the difference is, though, that with the baker situation, there is a service or good being provided. it's a business. with hate speech protests and things of that nature, while it's offensive and serves no purpose, there's no business type of transaction going on. no goods are being offered in exchange for something of monetary value. people are existing. stupid people, yes, people with outdated thinking and offensive ideology, yes. but they are just there. and until someone can come up with an effective way of deterring hate speech without inhibiting other forms of free speech that are not hateful, i don't see a way to do so. if there was, i would support it, but as it stands, attempts to deter hate speech have far-reaching consequences that affect speech in general.

I think some governments DO outlaw hate speech but have free speech in general, I think. I don't know what they are, though, because I'm an ingnant 'Merican. I would love some of our more informed FJers to weigh in on the free speech thing.

It is interesting, the distinction Sunday Morning lays out in her previous post. Many of us would say that PP shouldn't be banned from posting his sermons because free speech. We are able to say that without being accused of bigotry ourselves. We can affirm his right without affirming his ideas. Sunday Morning has said that people should be allowed to refuse service because free action (more or less) but was immediately called a bigot. She was unable to support a person's right to DO something without being seen as affirming his ideas, while we here are generally able to support someone's right to SAY something without affirming his ideas.

Interesting that in some countries, saying, "PP should be able to post that shit because free speech" would get me (and many of us) labelled as bigots.

[browncoatslytherin]

I can give you an example of German law, since its very detailed at this matter. Isn't surprising if you look at the nations history.

gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1200

Section 130

Incitement to hatred

(1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace

1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) Whosoever

1. with respect to written materials (section 11(3)) which incite hatred against segments of the population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterised by its ethnic customs, which call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or which assault the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated group

(a) disseminates such written materials;

(b) publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;

© offers, supplies or makes them accessible to a person under eighteen years; or

(d) produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of Nos (a) to © or facilitate such use by another; or

2. disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in No 1 above by radio, media services, or telecommunication services

shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.

(4) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that violates the dignity of the victims by approving of, glorifying, or justifying National Socialist rule of arbitrary force shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

(5) Subsection (2) above shall also apply to written materials (section 11(3)) of a content such as is indicated in subsections (3) and (4) above.

(6) In cases under subsection (2) above, also in conjunction with subsection (5) above, and in cases of subsections (3) and (4) above, section 86(3) shall apply mutatis mutandis.

What I'm trying to show here that different people have differnt view points that are also shaped by which country they live in. Some things which would cause a huge outrage and a criminal procedure around here, are considered covered by the right of free speech in other countries. On the other hand, if a gay couple would go complaining that a baker refused to bake them a cake, people would just tell them that it's his right to refuse such a thing.

on the surface, that sounds pretty reasonable to me, the only thing is, is how it is enforced? is it enforced well? are the cases of the law being easily misapplied? that would be my concern with any law, is if it is easily misapplied to a purpose different than what it is supposed to protect against. if it is easily enforced with minimal misapplication, i would say that would be an excellent law to have in place. otherwise, back to the drawing board.

i don't doubt that being raised in different environments shapes the opinions of people. in fact, i find cultural differences to be quite interesting. but since you haven't been raised in the country where this story is originating from, that is why i'm presenting the perspective that i am, since i have been born and solely raised in this country.

i'm off work in five minutes, so i'll be offline for the night. thank you for the discussion, though, it was very stimulating. :) one of the many reasons that i love fj...come here to snark and be funny and joke around, stay for serious discussions.

[Sundaymorning]

I try to give an objective answer. The laws do mainly reach their goal when it comes to things like someone can't stand at a townquare and yell hate speech at people. I think, even from my Libertarian perspective, that people have the right to be left alone and not to be harrassed whenever they are out in a public space.

It also helps against morons who put racist or anti-Semitic videos on youtube, or advertise such videos on their homepage like PP does. Also, no one can walk around dressed as a nazi and openly distributing nazi propaganda.

I think the main thing about banning hate speech is not about converting those who do it. Obviously such a law is useless for this goal. But, it might help to prevent that others get sucked into the hate. Like those teens who watch radical islamistic videos and later join the "jihad" against the west. Or someone might watch PPs stupid movie and somehow get convinced that Jews are evil.

How is it enforced? Well, you can either sue someone yourself, or the district attorney will get active if he learns that someone did violate the law. Then there will be a trial and a decision if you're guilty of violating the law or not. It's basically the same procedure as if you violate any other law in the criminal code.

Is it enforced well? I honestly don't know what to answer to that question, as I'm not so sure. First of all, like with those anti-discrimination laws, people who want to do hate speech simply find other ways to do it. For example, nazi symbols are banned. So nazis will simply wear shirts which a 88 on it. Or HH. 8 stands for the eight letter of the alphabet which is a H. And the two Hs (or 8s) stand for heil hitler. They have many other symbols which they use, but they do it in a way that they can't be prosecuted. They also know exactly what to say, they are always on the border of being able to get prosecuted, but they are very careful not to cross that line. Still, everyone knows what they are trying to say. It's the same thing as if a racist restaurant owner is forced to serve non-whites. But will give them the worst table in the restaurant, be very unfriendly, give them bad food which is expired and he has spit in and so on.

Is it misapplied? Well, I have to say yes. Not from the courts, but from some people who get butthurt and sue you because of some thing you might have said, even if it wasn't really bad or hateful. Sometimes, you get the impression you are muzzled. Like, if I would say I don't like fundies, or call certain crazy fundies from all kinds of religions some names and would tell them what I think of them, and make some jokes about their lifestyle, they would probably bring this law into play.

Most recent example, a German comedian has made some satirical jokes about islamists. They might not have been very nice, but they weren't bad or really offensive. Even journalists from liberal and left-wing newspapers think they are not too offensive. But he got sued by some fundie islamist. I don't think he will get convicted, since the jokes were pretty harmless. But it's not funny to have to go through a trial in any case.

[Mama Mia]

This is all so fascinating! So I'm wondering in the debate between the relative merits of anti - discrimination laws for proving a service/ running a business , and the right to free speech - What role does the Internet play?

Whatever hateful thing that anyone says isn't just heard in your local town square - it can be heard anywhere. The extremely media-savvy ISIL marketing being a good case in point. So is free speech now more dangerous?

And while you do have to still physically go into a restaurant to eat, or drive a car to get gas -- most of your shopping can be done online - and no one has any idea what your race or sexual orientation is. Even if you go in to pick up a cake from the baker - if you ordered it online, how would they know who you are? So is the requirement that businesses not discriminate becoming less relatively important?

I don't have any firm ideas, I just think it's an interesting discussion.

[Sundaymorning]

This is all so fascinating! So I'm wondering in the debate between the relative merits of anti - discrimination laws for proving a service/ running a business , and the right to free speech - What role does the Internet play?

Whatever hateful thing that anyone says isn't just heard in your local town square - it can be heard anywhere. The extremely media-savvy ISIL marketing being a good case in point. So is free speech now more dangerous?

And while you do have to still physically go into a restaurant to eat, or drive a car to get gas -- most of your shopping can be done online - and no one has any idea what your race or sexual orientation is. Even if you go in to pick up a cake from the baker - if you ordered it online, how would they know who you are? So is the requirement that businesses not discriminate becoming less relatively important?

I don't have any firm ideas, I just think it's an interesting discussion.

The cultural differences are very interesting. There are many other things which in some countries are tolerated, but in others they cause a huge outrage. Like, PPs sermons around here? Huge outrage. Some swearwords on tv, or even nudity? Really not that big of a deal.

I'm also learning a lot of new things, I have to admit, I wasn't aware how big of a problem racism in the south of the US really is still today. As everyone here who knows the situation there is so staunchly convinced that without anti-discrimination laws hell would break lose, I can see their point better why they think they are necessary. I have to say I'm quite shocked, we were considering taking a vacation there, I really like visiting the US, and from what I've heard, Atlanta has a pretty good lesbian scene. And there are direct flights from here. But I'm not so sure I want to go there anymore. But maybe Atlanta is a bit better since it's a big city?

I myself, and that's why I'd rather be inclined to support laws against hate speech, have the conviction that people have the right be left alone. But I do have a very hard time reconciling my principles with the fact that people should be forced to do business with others.

It actually blows my mind that some homophobic bakers are forced by law to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but at the same time are free to picket said wedding and yell horrible hate speech at the couple. It's truly astonishing to me.

[browncoatslytherin]

I try to give an objective answer. The laws do mainly reach their goal when it comes to things like someone can't stand at a townquare and yell hate speech at people. I think, even from my Libertarian perspective, that people have the right to be left alone and not to be harrassed whenever they are out in a public space.

It also helps against morons who put racist or anti-Semitic videos on youtube, or advertise such videos on their homepage like PP does. Also, no one can walk around dressed as a nazi and openly distributing nazi propaganda.

I think the main thing about banning hate speech is not about converting those who do it. Obviously such a law is useless for this goal. But, it might help to prevent that others get sucked into the hate. Like those teens who watch radical islamistic videos and later join the "jihad" against the west. Or someone might watch PPs stupid movie and somehow get convinced that Jews are evil.

How is it enforced? Well, you can either sue someone yourself, or the district attorney will get active if he learns that someone did violate the law. Then there will be a trial and a decision if you're guilty of violating the law or not. It's basically the same procedure as if you violate any other law in the criminal code.

Is it enforced well? I honestly don't know what to answer to that question, as I'm not so sure. First of all, like with those anti-discrimination laws, people who want to do hate speech simply find other ways to do it. For example, nazi symbols are banned. So nazis will simply wear shirts which a 88 on it. Or HH. 8 stands for the eight letter of the alphabet which is a H. And the two Hs (or 8s) stand for heil hitler. They have many other symbols which they use, but they do it in a way that they can't be prosecuted. They also know exactly what to say, they are always on the border of being able to get prosecuted, but they are very careful not to cross that line. Still, everyone knows what they are trying to say. It's the same thing as if a racist restaurant owner is forced to serve non-whites. But will give them the worst table in the restaurant, be very unfriendly, give them bad food which is expired and he has spit in and so on.

Is it misapplied? Well, I have to say yes. Not from the courts, but from some people who get butthurt and sue you because of some thing you might have said, even if it wasn't really bad or hateful. Sometimes, you get the impression you are muzzled. Like, if I would say I don't like fundies, or call certain crazy fundies from all kinds of religions some names and would tell them what I think of them, and make some jokes about their lifestyle, they would probably bring this law into play.

Most recent example, a German comedian has made some satirical jokes about islamists. They might not have been very nice, but they weren't bad or really offensive. Even journalists from liberal and left-wing newspapers think they are not too offensive. But he got sued by some fundie islamist. I don't think he will get convicted, since the jokes were pretty harmless. But it's not funny to have to go through a trial in any case.

interesting. thanks for the response. the misapplication was the point i was probably most worried about. i'm not sure how it is over there, but america is a very litigious society. people will sue over the stupidest little shit, even going into the hole just a prove a point. if there was some qualification going into a trial, perhaps, in order to establish the need for one, i wonder if that would help immediately toss the frivolous lawsuits aside and deter people from trying to start up a trial without sufficient cause.

i will briefly address atlanta, as i lived just south of there: if you go there, be sure you know where you're going. there are good parts, but then there are very, very bad parts. the crime rate is high. traffic is also a bitch and a half. and, depending on the time of year, it is hot and humid. i, for one, refuse to ever go back to the area, despite the fact i grew up there and still have some family there.

if you'd like an area with a nice gay scene, i would actually suggest the twin cities. aside from the extremely cold weather we can get, we have a great gay scene here, and people in general are fairly laid back and nice and helpful. i'm sure there are other fj'ers who can make even more suggestions if you'd like to travel here but decide atlanta isn't where you want to go.

[formergothardite]

Excuse me, but since you all seem so sure that people are really that evil in the South, what kind of people live there?? No seriously. I'm very curious about the people you think would ban certain minorities from their stores.

The Tea Party members or the people who only get their news from Fox News are the ones who are most likely to discriminate. Those are the sorts who would ban a minority group in a second if they were allowed. They have a tendency to be wealthy, white and business owners. These people would also swear up and down that they aren't racists. :roll:

And also, how do they act towards these minorities now? They do have to serve them, ok. But are they friendly?

Since having this discussion I paid more attention when I was out to what was going on around me. I stopped at the small local gas station/corner store nearest to my house late yesterday evening. I walked in to buy something, a rough looking white man with dirty clothes walked in behind me, and a nicely dressed black woman walked in a few minutes after him. She was talking on her cell phone and saying she was getting baby formula because he husband had forgotten to buy it when he was in town. Who do you think the lady running the cashier watched like a hawk? It wasn't me and it wasn't the man, it was the black woman. There was nothing about her that suggested she might steal something, yet that was how she was treated. She was buying formula for her baby because they were out. If the owner could ban black people, what would this woman do? It is a long drive to the next place that would sell formula. If this woman was running on a tight gas budget that could be a huge problem especially since she has a hungry baby.

In a restaurant, does an African American generally get a worse place to sit than a white person? (since in the US, you are seated by the waiter, right?).

I have honestly never paid attention. I doubt it happens that often because they would risk being sued for discrimination. There are places that would if they thought they could get away with it, I'm sure.

Don't they try to discriminate against minorities subtly, so they can't be sued, but they still can harm them?

If a business discriminated in a way that harmed a customer they would be sued, that is enough to keep it from usually happening.

What about the minorities, do they still go to a restaurant if they know the owner hates them?

The Muslim people I know I met at the local grocery store that sells overstock items. It sells really nice things at a way cheaper price. I can buy a buggy full of stuff for $30-40 and if I bought the same stuff at the other stores it would cost me $100+, so it is a significant savings. Anyway, the owner clearly hates these people and other customers glare at them and mumble stuff like "Stupid towel heads, they need to go back to where they belong." I'm am not huge into confronting people, but I did say something the first time I heard someone say something like that, and one of the ladies thanked me but said they just ignore the comments and have found that confronting people makes things worse. She said this is the only way she can afford groceries and that it is a good thing that they can't stop her from coming.

A lot of the outright racism that I see isn't directed towards black people, it is directed towards the Muslim and Hispanic communities.

How about the career of minorities, they can't get fired because of their skin or religion, but does anyone even hire them in first place? Do they have any chance for promotion if they work well?

I really don't have any experience in this area, but I would think that if a company had a long history of ignoring black applications and only hiring white people they would be just asking for a lawsuit, and they know that. Same with only promoting white people. The threat of a lawsuit keeps a lot of this at bay, which is why we need these laws.

I'm serious about those questions, cause you make it seem like the South is some country of racist savages who are just waiting for the chance where they go and discriminate against minorities.

It really just depends on the area. Some places of the South are very progressive, some are not. I live in one of the not progressive areas, but if I lived in another part of the state it could be completely different.

[Rebelwife]

Maybe one way to think about the dissonance between allowing free speech but not allowing businesses to discriminate is that it allows the consumer to make their own decisions about whether or not they are being harmed.

Using something similar to FormerGothardite's example of a Muslim family that would be severely and negatively impacted by not being able to shop at certain stores, I kind of think of it like this....

The owner of the only grocery store in town is a terrible and acknowledged bigot who thinks gay people should be stoned to death, a la PP. He posts signs in his yard to this effect, writes constant letters to the newspaper, preaches the BS on his own cable access show and YouTube channel, etc. If I were a person who was LGBT or who just felt that this guy was the biggest asshole that ever lived, I might decide not to patronize his store. I might drive 50 miles to a more expensive grocery store because it would be worth it to not give this guy my money. On the other hand, I might decide to do all my shopping there, either because it was the best place for me to do it from an economic perspective or just as a giant FU. He can think (and say) whatever he wants, and I can decide how to react to it. The law doesn't allow him to restrict MY actions, however.

(At least, that's how I think about it in my mind...... :think: )

Or, I could have just let FormerGothardite say it even more clearly. "The Muslim people I know I met at the local grocery store that sells overstock items. It sells really nice things at a way cheaper price. I can buy a buggy full of stuff for $30-40 and if I bought the same stuff at the other stores it would cost me $100+, so it is a significant savings. Anyway, the owner clearly hates these people and other customers glare at them and mumble stuff like "Stupid towel heads, they need to go back to where they belong." I'm am not huge into confronting people, but I did say something the first time I heard someone say something like that, and one of the ladies thanked me but said they just ignore the comments and have found that confronting people makes things worse. She said this is the only way she can afford groceries and that it is a good thing that they can't stop her from coming. "

[Sundaymorning]

interesting. thanks for the response. the misapplication was the point i was probably most worried about. i'm not sure how it is over there, but america is a very litigious society. people will sue over the stupidest little shit, even going into the hole just a prove a point. if there was some qualification going into a trial, perhaps, in order to establish the need for one, i wonder if that would help immediately toss the frivolous lawsuits aside and deter people from trying to start up a trial without sufficient cause.

i will briefly address atlanta, as i lived just south of there: if you go there, be sure you know where you're going. there are good parts, but then there are very, very bad parts. the crime rate is high. traffic is also a bitch and a half. and, depending on the time of year, it is hot and humid. i, for one, refuse to ever go back to the area, despite the fact i grew up there and still have some family there.

if you'd like an area with a nice gay scene, i would actually suggest the twin cities. aside from the extremely cold weather we can get, we have a great gay scene here, and people in general are fairly laid back and nice and helpful. i'm sure there are other fj'ers who can make even more suggestions if you'd like to travel here but decide atlanta isn't where you want to go.

There are other laws in the German penal code which many American would find pretty interesting. This one gets missaplied even more than the other one. Again, not necessarily by courts, but by butthurt people who think (like many fundies) that if you don't agree with them, you must be persecuting them. I have to say, while I understand the sentiment behind this law, just like I understand the sentiment behind the anti-discrimination laws, I really think it should be reformend, as it gets abused by fundies way to much.

Section 166

Defamation of religions, religious and ideological associations

(1) Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) defames the religion or ideology of others in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

(2) Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) defames a church or other religious or ideological association within Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall incur the same penalty.

Another one, which would apply to Westboro Baptist church:

Section 167a

Disturbing a funeral

Whosoever intentionally or knowingly disturbs a funeral shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

Now, for better understanding: if you read something like "shall be liable to imprisonment" doesn't mean that if you disturb a funeral for the first time, you will get thrown into jail automatically. Most penalties in German law, and I think in many European countries (like the one I currently live in) are given on parole if you do something the first time. Except really bad crimes like murder, there you will get thrown into jail immediately.

But yes, if PP and the Westboro baptist church wouldn't stop with hate speech and disturbing funerals, chances are they would be broke and they would have to serve some time and PPs new movie would be called "life behind bars".

Thank you for your recommendations, I will definitely check out the twin cities. They sound like a good vacation spot for us.

[thoughtful]

I'm also learning a lot of new things, I have to admit, I wasn't aware how big of a problem racism in the south of the US really is still today. As everyone here who knows the situation there is so staunchly convinced that without anti-discrimination laws hell would break lose, I can see their point better why they think they are necessary. I have to say I'm quite shocked, we were considering taking a vacation there,

Is there no racism in Germany?

[Sundaymorning]

I'm sorry, I don't want to offend anyone here from the south or US, but it sounds to me like a truly horrible place in some areas. Its a true evidence of incapacity for society that many of you are convinced that without such anti-discrimination laws, tings would get so bad for many people. I do get that people like to live where they have work and family, but I have to say, if I was in this situation, I would never ever want to live in such a place where I knew many people would hate my guts and would only serve me cause they had to.

What I'm also wondering, since I now the situation with some of the anti-hate speech laws, how often are these laws misapplied? Cause both sides can abuse them. Like, if I, as a lesbian, would behave really badly at a store or restaurant, and they would kick me out because of that, could I go and claim that they kicked my out because I'm gay? (assuming that this state would cover gays in their anti-discrimination laws?)

And what about if a store owner really hates a group of people, sure, they can't kick anyone out cause they are black, but they could just claim falsly that they tried to steal, behaved badly and so on?

We where I live do have an anti-hate speech law which also covers race and religion, I think it's from the 90s. And when they made it, they also included that you can't get thrown out from a store because of your religion or race. But the reason they had to make it was because of some neo-nazis and racists using hate-speech (around here, it's mostly a problem cause some people are still anti-Semitic), not because minorities were kicked out of stores. I asked some of my older friends, who are actually immigrants, and they all said they never had any problems, even before this law.

What do you think about hate-speech? Should it be legal?

[formergothardite]

I also looked places that banned lemonade stands. I really wished news organizations cared more about accurate stories then eye catching headlines and articles that get people get people outraged. There are usually a ton more to the stories then just cute little kids being told they can't sell lemonade in their yards. If you read follow ups on the stories, it seems like most of the time the kids are issued an apology and allowed to continue. Sometimes the children were told to move back further from the road or because it was unsafe how close they were to a busy road. Blocking sidewalks so people have to walk in the road, bringing heavy traffic that makes it difficult for other people in the neighborhood to enter or exit their houses or leaving trash about the neighborhood seems to be some of the reasons the stands are complained about and officials come out.

One of the times they were not allowed to continue, the city had had a huge problem with people setting up stands and selling things on the side of the roads so they had all been banned, including lemonade stands. This might sound like it isn't a huge deal, but it is actually becoming a problem in the small city near my home. People with houses near stop lights will let their kids sell stuff to the cars that are stopping for the lights, so you have these little kids running in and out of traffic trying to get to cars or you have traffic not going because people are stopping to buy things or they are trying to avoid hitting children. I can see the headlines now "City shuts down local fundraiser for church mission trip." complete with a picture of sad children holding boxes of Krispy Kreme doughnuts and parents being outraged that they can't sell things from their yard. In one of the instances of a child's snack stand being shut down, this is what was happening. This snack stand operated eight hours a day, six days a week and it had been going on for two years. The kids were going out into the road trying to make sales and there had been many complaints from drivers who were scared they were going to hit a child. The children and parents had been warned repeatedly to stay out of the road, when they wouldn't, they had to be shut down to keep the kids safe. But you get headlines with "Local government shuts down children's snack stand"

This isn't saying that the government doesn't do stupid stuff, they do, but they aren't running amuck banning vegetable gardens or shutting down lemonade stands on a regular basis.

As for the idea we can't get rid of the bad laws without also getting rid of the good ones, what recently happened in my state is a good example of how we actually can. There was a law on the books stating that gay couples can never be issued a marriage license. It was challenged, deemed unconstitutional, and gotten rid of. Gay couples can now have marriage equality and we didn't have to toss out any of the good laws to get rid of this bad one.

[Sundaymorning]

Is there no racism in Germany?

Oh yes, there is racism in Germany for sure! Like everywhere in the world. But the problem is mostly hate-speech, and some neo-nazis beating up minorities, and some fundie islamistic immigrants being very anti-Semitic. Sure, a very few number of store owners might ban certain peoples from their stores if they could, but I'm very sure most of them wouldn't. Even if they secretly don't like certain kinds of people, they usually feel way too bad about what happend under the nazi rule.

But Germany is a very good example how things will end if you want to restrict bad behaviour of people with laws: the laws will get misapplied easily, people feel muzzled, you can't criticise certain things anymore without being safe from being sued and it's not like it stops racists from recruiting others. It makes it a bit harder, but like I said before, pressure from the law to behave in a certain way causes counterpressure. Now, many racists play a victim role where they claim that they get oppressed by the state, that there isn't free speech anymore and so on.

[Sundaymorning]

I also looked places that banned lemonade stands. I really wished news organizations cared more about accurate stories then eye catching headlines and articles that get people get people outraged. There are usually a ton more to the stories then just cute little kids being told they can't sell lemonade in their yards. If you read follow ups on the stories, it seems like most of the time the kids are issued an apology and allowed to continue. Sometimes the children were told to move back further from the road or because it was unsafe how close they were to a busy road. Blocking sidewalks so people have to walk in the road, bringing heavy traffic that makes it difficult for other people in the neighborhood to enter or exit their houses or leaving trash about the neighborhood seems to be some of the reasons the stands are complained about and officials come out.

One of the times they were not allowed to continue, the city had had a huge problem with people setting up stands and selling things on the side of the roads so they had all been banned, including lemonade stands. This might sound like it isn't a huge deal, but it is actually becoming a problem in the small city near my home. People with houses near stop lights will let their kids sell stuff to the cars that are stopping for the lights, so you have these little kids running in and out of traffic trying to get to cars or you have traffic not going because people are stopping to buy things or they are trying to avoid hitting children. I can see the headlines now "City shuts down local fundraiser for church mission trip." complete with a picture of sad children holding boxes of Krispy Kreme doughnuts and parents being outraged that they can't sell things from their yard. In one of the instances of a child's snack stand being shut down, this is what was happening. This snack stand operated eight hours a day, six days a week and it had been going on for two years. The kids were going out into the road trying to make sales and there had been many complaints from drivers who were scared they were going to hit a child. The children and parents had been warned repeatedly to stay out of the road, when they wouldn't, they had to be shut down to keep the kids safe. But you get headlines with "Local government shuts down children's snack stand"

This isn't saying that the government doesn't do stupid stuff, they do, but they aren't running amuck banning vegetable gardens or shutting down lemonade stands on a regular basis.

As for the idea we can't get rid of the bad laws without also getting rid of the good ones, what recently happened in my state is a good example of how we actually can. There was a law on the books stating that gay couples can never be issued a marriage license. It was challenged, deemed unconstitutional, and gotten rid of. Gay couples can now have marriage equality and we didn't have to toss out any of the good laws to get rid of this bad one.

Look, I realize that these examples with the Lemonade stands and the vegetable gardens which you can't plant in your frontyard are extreme and sometimes even ridiculous. But I use them as examples of how much power the government really has over people.

Regarding getting rid of bad laws: I don't say that sometimes this isn't possible. There, with marriage equality, you were in luck. And that's awesome! But like I said, you were lucky. An other, more conservative, judge, an other conservative legislation, and those laws would have stayed firmly in place in most states.

And the fact that those laws where introduced in first place shows just how fast things can go wrong.

People are so very much extradited to a bunch of judges or legislatiors aka politicians, it's truly not even funny.

And about the stupid stuff the government does. I wouldn't call killing innocent people just stupid stuff.

The war on drugs and the war on terror, among other things, cause so much more harm than limiting governments power would, even if that would mean that there would be no anti-discrimination laws.

I'm not trying to single out the US, other governments do worse, but government has so much blood on its hands, its truly tragic. You might say, that without government involvement, some people couldn't buy food anymore where they live, cause stores would ban them. That is bad, but it's nothing against the people who have been killed! by government cause they thought they were terrorists or cause an airstrike went wrong! One stupid decision of doing a "preventive" war destroys millions of lives! And yes, the life of a killed person somewhere in an Iraqui villiage is as worthy as the life of an American citizen.

Limiting governmental power would literally save lifes in a lot of places, especially since the non-aggression principle would still be standing, so people would still be prohibited from harming others, but government couldn't just incarcerate or kill people anymore. I think that would be worth it, even if it would mean the end of the few good laws, it also means, that peoples lives couldn't be destroyed anymore by government.

[formergothardite]

I'm sorry, I don't want to offend anyone here from the south or US, but it sounds to me like a truly horrible place in some areas. Its a true evidence of incapacity for society that many of you are convinced that without such anti-discrimination laws, tings would get so bad for many people. I do get that people like to live where they have work and family, but I have to say, if I was in this situation, I would never ever want to live in such a place where I knew many people would hate my guts and would only serve me cause they had to.

What I'm also wondering, since I now the situation with some of the anti-hate speech laws, how often are these laws misapplied? Cause both sides can abuse them. Like, if I, as a lesbian, would behave really badly at a store or restaurant, and they would kick me out because of that, could I go and claim that they kicked my out because I'm gay? (assuming that this state would cover gays in their anti-discrimination laws?)

And what about if a store owner really hates a group of people, sure, they can't kick anyone out cause they are black, but they could just claim falsly that they tried to steal, behaved badly and so on?

We where I live do have an anti-hate speech law which also covers race and religion, I think it's from the 90s. And when they made it, they also included that you can't get thrown out from a store because of your religion or race. But the reason they had to make it was because of some neo-nazis and racists using hate-speech (around here, it's mostly a problem cause some people are still anti-Semitic), not because minorities were kicked out of stores. I asked some of my older friends, who are actually immigrants, and they all said they never had any problems, even before this law.

What do you think about hate-speech? Should it be legal?

If you went into a local store and acted so horribly that you got kicked out and then tried to claim that it was only because you were a lesbian, most likely you wouldn't have a strong case because there would be other witnesses to the event and/or video cameras that would show what happened. Same with stealing, the store owner would have to prove the person stole things. Kicking a person out with no proof that they did anything is just asking to be sued.

I think it is in the greatest good for people to be able to openly debate hateful ideas instead of just silencing the hate speech. But I also don't think anyone should be allowed to stand on the sidewalks screaming anything, it doesn't matter if your pro-gay or anti-gay, it is a public nuisance.

[formergothardite]

Look, I realize that these examples with the Lemonade stands and the vegetable gardens which you can't plant in your frontyard are extreme and sometimes even ridiculous. But I use them as examples of how much power the government really has over people.

Regarding getting rid of bad laws: I don't say that sometimes this isn't possible. There, with marriage equality, you were in luck. And that's awesome! But like I said, you were lucky. An other, more conservative, judge, an other conservative legislation, and those laws would have stayed firmly in place in most states.

And the fact that those laws where introduced in first place shows just how fast things can go wrong.

People are so very much extradited to a bunch of judges or legislatiors aka politicians, it's truly not even funny.

And about the stupid stuff the government does. I wouldn't call killing innocent people just stupid stuff.

The war on drugs and the war on terror, among other things, cause so much more harm than limiting governments power would, even if that would mean that there would be no anti-discrimination laws.

I'm not trying to single out the US, other governments do worse, but government has so much blood on its hands, its truly tragic. You might say, that without government involvement, some people couldn't buy food anymore where they live, cause stores would ban them. That is bad, but it's nothing against the people who have been killed! by government cause they thought they were terrorists or cause an airstrike went wrong! One stupid decision of doing a "preventive" war destroys millions of lives! And yes, the life of a killed person somewhere in an Iraqui villiage is as worthy as the life of an American citizen.

Limiting governmental power would literally save lifes in a lot of places, especially since the non-aggression principle would still be standing, so people would still be prohibited from harming others, but government couldn't just incarcerate or kill people anymore. I think that would be worth it, even if it would mean the end of the few good laws, it also means, that peoples lives couldn't be destroyed anymore by government.

The woman didn't actually get banned from having a vegetable garden. My point was, the government isn't rushing in controlling people's lives. They will stop you from messing up your neighbor's yard with trash or blocking them from being able to get to their homes. And they aren't letting kids be put in danger, but those stories are not usually just a power hungry government taking over people's lives.

I don't think the answer to ending laws that destroy people's lives is to end the good laws, resulting in people's lives being destroyed. I agree the innocent victim in Iraq is just as important as the Muslim lady in my town who will be unable to feed her children if stores could ban her, that is why we must protect both groups. The solution isn't to toss out one's safety to ensure the other's.

[Terrie]

Not everyone in the South was/is out-and-out racist, but it's not that simple.

You have the people who ARE that racist. You then have the people don't want government to "force" anyone to do anything, so they support the racists' actions, if not their beliefs. You then have people who just don't care one way or the other, and then people who are scared of the outright racists. You're left with a small group willing to actually oppose the issue, and a LOT of momentum to allow it to carry forward.

The end result? A society that is racist, even if its individual members aren't all racist.

[Sundaymorning]

What do you think about hate-speech? Should it be legal?

If you went into a local store and acted so horribly that you got kicked out and then tried to claim that it was only because you were a lesbian, most likely you wouldn't have a strong case because there would be other witnesses to the event and/or video cameras that would show what happened. Same with stealing, the store owner would have to prove the person stole things. Kicking a person out with no proof that they did anything is just asking to be sued.

I think it is in the greatest good for people to be able to openly debate hateful ideas instead of just silencing the hate speech. But I also don't think anyone should be allowed to stand on the sidewalks screaming anything, it doesn't matter if your pro-gay or anti-gay, it is a public nuisance.

I actually do agree with your opinion on banning hate speech. But I'd just like to point out that you would be called by many people around here a bigot, or someone who is helping hateful ideas and racism and homophobia and such, and that you are enabling people like PP. Now, I don't think you are at all. But that is the same thing some people on this boards seem to think about me, even though I don't think I am.

Also, just saying, many people would now tell you that by banning hate speech on Fox news, racism could be fought in the south and things would get better.

My question would be, if you think it's the greatest good for people to debate hateful ideas, don't you think it would be possible to debate with those racist people in the south?

You might think that I'm really naive, but that is also what many people would tell you when you say you'd rather debate hateful ideas instead of banning hate speech.

I do realize that some people are probably beyond hope (like PP for example), but wouldn't it be possible to open up a debate with those secret racists? Like, actually go to talk to people personally?

Cause the way you describe it it seems to be such a horrible situation to me. On one hand, you violate the freedom rights of everybody by forcing them to do business with everyone (even if they actually would like to see you killed cause you're gay) in order to protect certain people and make sure that they still can get their shopping done in the one store they have to go to. On the other hand, things still doesn't seem to have improved since the last decades, even though the store owners have to serve non-whites and Muslims for decades now and should really know by now that those are just costumers like everyone else.

I don't mean this cynically, I really admire those people who put up with this situation that store owners (and presumably many other people) hate them even though they take their money. If it would have been somehow possible, I would have packed my bags a long time ago and would have gone to places where the people aren't that racist and stores would serve me cause they like me as their customer and not because they have to.

[browncoatslytherin]

Not everyone in the South was/is out-and-out racist, but it's not that simple.

You have the people who ARE that racist. You then have the people don't want government to "force" anyone to do anything, so they support the racists' actions, if not their beliefs. You then have people who just don't care one way or the other, and then people who are scared of the outright racists. You're left with a small group willing to actually oppose the issue, and a LOT of momentum to allow it to carry forward.

The end result? A society that is racist, even if its individual members aren't all racist.

when i was posting my points about the south, i tried saying this, but wasn't being as articulate so i deleted that portion. but this is exactly it, in a nutshell and perfectly put.

[Sundaymorning]

when i was posting my points about the south, i tried saying this, but wasn't being as articulate so i deleted that portion. but this is exactly it, in a nutshell and perfectly put.

I can understand were you are coming from. However, I think you should be careful with saying that someone who doesn't want government to force people to do stuff supports racists' actions.

Like I said with the problem of the right to free speech vs hate speech, people who wouldn't wanna ban PPs movies about the Jews or some of his sermons, could be accused too that they are in fact helping racists and anti-Semitic actions. And that they are jointly responsible if people who hear those hateful messages get sucked into hate too, so that racism spreads and continues. Some people even commit hate crimes after being exposed to certain videos and other kinds of racist propaganda.

And while we're at it, some of you seem to think that fox news is also responsible that so many people hate non-white and Muslim people. Well, let's pull the plug there too. With no fox news, and no other racists tv, things would get better.

Now. obviously, this is not my personal opinion, but a lot of people would argue that way.

[browncoatslytherin]

I can understand were you are coming from. However, I think you should be careful with saying that someone who doesn't want government to force people to do stuff supports racists' actions.

Like I said with the problem of the right to free speech vs hate speech, people who wouldn't wanna ban PPs movies about the Jews or some of his sermons, could be accused too that they are in fact helping racists and anti-Semitic actions. And that they are jointly responsible if people who hear those hateful messages get sucked into hate too, so that racism spreads and continues.

And while we're at it, some of you seem to think that fox news is also responsible that so many people hate non-white and Muslim people. Well, let's pull the plug there too. With no fox news, and no other racists tv, things would get better.

Now. obviously, this is not my personal opinion, but a lot of people would argue that way.

well, to be clear, then, we are not talking about that in general, we were referring to the south specifically and how people are down there, from our own experience.

honestly, i detest fox news. i get that news stations tend to have some sort of bias, but with fox news it's ridiculously overt. i hesitate to even call it news at some points, as there are times it feels like i'm reading or listening to the onion or another satire site or organization. if it were up to me, i would either pull the plug on them or have them have huge disclaimers regarding their bias. "fair and balanced" my ass. but, that is my personal opinion based on my own experience with them and with people who watch them.

[lawlifelgbt]

We where I live do have an anti-hate speech law which also covers race and religion, I think it's from the 90s. And when they made it, they also included that you can't get thrown out from a store because of your religion or race. But the reason they had to make it was because of some neo-nazis and racists using hate-speech (around here, it's mostly a problem cause some people are still anti-Semitic), not because minorities were kicked out of stores. I asked some of my older friends, who are actually immigrants, and they all said they never had any problems, even before this law.

What do you think about hate-speech? Should it be legal?

I'm also a lesbian, and I agree that hate speech should be banned but narrowly defined and be more strictly regulated in schools.

Back in 2009, a school district to the north of me had a huge problem. Several young teenagers (14-16), were being bullied, harassed, and physically attacked every day at school because either they were gay, people thought they were, or they had gay parents. It's a very conservative area, so the school district had a "no promo homo" type school regulation that stated that the school could not promote homosexuality, had to remain neutral on it, etc. This was the idea of Michelle Bachmann, the infamous super-far-right conservative politician.

Because the rule set out neutrality, teachers and even principals and board members in that district felt that they could not say, for instance, "You can't call this girl a dyke, cunt, whore, cocksucker, etc. every day and say that she's only bisexual because she's ugly." (That was an actual complaint in the civil case, IIRC), or even say "Don't write "fag" on that kid's locker or etc. etc." The teachers felt prevented from doing anything. I was interning at the law office that worked on the suit, read the complaint as part of my work, and cried in my office.

In the meantime, the students who were subject to their peers' "hate speech?"

NINE of them committed suicide, and there was a huge, controversial civil suit that dragged on for years by the survivors- they alleged gender discrimination since the school created a hostile environment for those that didn't conform to gender expectations.

So you can see that hate speech has a huge toll on children, and affects adults too. I didn't come out until I was 20 because I thought my classmates would hurt and harass me. I have also been attacked once because I am gay, even though I live in a very liberal, safe area. I was wearing a pro-gay marriage shirt, and two guys called me a "fucking queer." Now, for me, queer is just a descriptor; so I said, "Yes, I am, what about it?"

They violently pushed me down onto some loose gravel and used several more antigay slurs and saying I was a freak. It tore up my hands so badly I was picking rocks out for a week!

One of my friends was also attacked while out with his boyfriend. A crowd of people started saying that their dog, which was refusing to walk like any puppy might, "didn't want to go with them because then he'd have to be a fucking faggot too." They then called my friend and his boyfriend similar horrible names, hit my friend, and kicked the dog.

I don't know if laws against hate SPEECH may have prevented the physical violence, but in the long run, they might; because hate speech laws send a clear message that "How you'd want to treat minority X, Y, or Z is NOT PERMISSIBLE in civil society." I'd also like to point out that constant harassment, even just words, can seriously harm or kill, like with the students I mentioned above; not all of them were physically attacked, but the constant fear and insults drove them to depression, self-harm, and yes, suicide.

However, I would define hate speech narrowly, and have it be more about context than the actual words. Saying things in a context that would make a person fear for their life or safety would not be permissible, nor would a pattern of continuous harassment. After a few days with someone breathing down your neck and calling you a dyke, slut, etc. you'd want a law to protect you too.

[Sundaymorning]

I'm also a lesbian, and I agree that hate speech should be banned but narrowly defined and be more strictly regulated in schools.

Back in 2009, a school district to the north of me had a huge problem. Several young teenagers (14-16), were being bullied, harassed, and physically attacked every day at school because either they were gay, people thought they were, or they had gay parents. It's a very conservative area, so the school district had a "no promo homo" type school regulation that stated that the school could not promote homosexuality, had to remain neutral on it, etc. This was the idea of Michelle Bachmann, the infamous super-far-right conservative politician.

Because the rule set out neutrality, teachers and even principals and board members in that district felt that they could not say, for instance, "You can't call this girl a dyke, cunt, whore, cocksucker, etc. every day and say that she's only bisexual because she's ugly." (That was an actual complaint in the civil case, IIRC), or even say "Don't write "fag" on that kid's locker or etc. etc." The teachers felt prevented from doing anything. I was interning at the law office that worked on the suit, read the complaint as part of my work, and cried in my office.

In the meantime, the students who were subject to their peers' "hate speech?"

NINE of them committed suicide, and there was a huge, controversial civil suit that dragged on for years by the survivors- they alleged gender discrimination since the school created a hostile environment for those that didn't conform to gender expectations.

So you can see that hate speech has a huge toll on children, and affects adults too. I didn't come out until I was 20 because I thought my classmates would hurt and harass me. I have also been attacked once because I am gay, even though I live in a very liberal, safe area. I was wearing a pro-gay marriage shirt, and two guys called me a "fucking queer." Now, for me, queer is just a descriptor; so I said, "Yes, I am, what about it?"

They violently pushed me down onto some loose gravel and used several more antigay slurs and saying I was a freak. It tore up my hands so badly I was picking rocks out for a week!

One of my friends was also attacked while out with his boyfriend. A crowd of people started saying that their dog, which was refusing to walk like any puppy might, "didn't want to go with them because then he'd have to be a fucking faggot too." They then called my friend and his boyfriend similar horrible names, hit my friend, and kicked the dog.

I don't know if laws against hate SPEECH may have prevented the physical violence, but in the long run, they might; because hate speech laws send a clear message that "How you'd want to treat minority X, Y, or Z is NOT PERMISSIBLE in civil society." I'd also like to point out that constant harassment, even just words, can seriously harm or kill, like with the students I mentioned above; not all of them were physically attacked, but the constant fear and insults drove them to depression, self-harm, and yes, suicide.

However, I would define hate speech narrowly, and have it be more about context than the actual words. Saying things in a context that would make a person fear for their life or safety would not be permissible, nor would a pattern of continuous harassment. After a few days with someone breathing down your neck and calling you a dyke, slut, etc. you'd want a law to protect you too.

Well, as I've said before, while I have my difficulties with the thought that people should be entitled to demand a service from a private person (although I can understand those who say they do), they do have one fundamental right: the right to be left alone. Both from government and from others. They shouldn't have to put up with any kind of violence or with hate speech screamed at them.

Was this a public school? Cause I don't think public schools or other institutions should have the right to discriminate anyone. They are tax money funded which means paid by everyone. "Being neutral" about something doesn't mean that you can ignore when kids are bullyied. "Being neutral", although I think this concept is horrible in a public school if it comes to stuff like sexuality, means to me that a teacher can't wear a shirt which says "I support gay marriage", but being neutral also means that a teacher can't wear a shirt which says "I don't support gay marriage". But it certainly doesn't mean that they should just let kids be treated badly by others. I mean, don't most of the schools have some kind of house rules anyway, where there are certain rules how people should behave within school?

If this was a private school, well, there we can start to argue again if private schools should be able to chose their students themselves, if they should be able to say we are a boys-only, girls-only, straight Christians-only and so on school. But one thing is clear, once you admit a student to your school, you better provide a safe and good service to them. Which also means that you have to protect them from this kind of harm. If you pay for a meal, it's pretty clear that the waiter can't spit in it. Same goes for schools, if they agree to make a contract with the parents and let a student into their school, they should care very well for them.

I hope these people who were sued were convicted.

[lawlifelgbt]

It was a public school- the district itself was just very conservative. It was a civil suit, not criminal, so no conviction- but the survivors and the parents of the children who died got a good amount of money.

The most important part though, was that the school was required to drop their neutrality policy in the sense that students and staff were educated on LGBTQ issues and staff were freed to stop students from hurting each other.