'Kill the Boers' song is not hate speech, rules South African court. The song says, among other things, "The cowards are afraid. Shoot the Boers, shoot, shoot."

submitted by Chipit from rmx.news

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I never took you for a supporter of hate-speech laws, lmao.

Do you think we should have hate-speech laws here to protect the Jews and the Trans from people saying nasty stuffs about them? Hmm..that doesnt sound like something you'd say.

Perhaps you agree with democrats who want to strongly prosecute all those people who shouted 'hang Mike Pence' at the capitol? Hmm...that doesn't sound like something you'd say either...

If I didn't know better I'd say you were full of shit and attempting some sort of racebaiting

[–]blackpoop321 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Are you being serious or you're just that intellectually bankrupt?

OP is obviously just pointing out the double standard. If it was about killing anyone other than White people it would be branded as hate speech.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

OP is obviously just pointing out the double standard. If it was about killing anyone other than White people it would be branded as hate speech.

The US doesn't even have hate speech laws

Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution.[1] While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker’s viewpoint.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States

[–]blackpoop321 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

First, I'm Canadian AND the Boers are South-Africans so I'm not sure what kind of point you were trying to make there.

Also, even if those two countries did not have hate speech laws (which they do), the court of public opinion is obviously rigged and can lead to sentences just as bad a death.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

First, I'm Canadian AND the Boers are South-Africans so I'm not sure what kind of point you were trying to make there.

My point was OP is complaining about people being not being prosecuted for hate-speech, but repeatedly has defended speech like this in the past when it was done by people of a different ideology/color. OP is a massive hypocrite that is not at all consistent with the principles he invokes. He is just like the wokists who change their opinion about whether hate speech is OK based on the color of the people doing it.

Hate speech laws should not be condoned, period

[–]blackpoop321 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

hate speech is OK based on the color of the people doing it

See. That's where you're right. Our ancestors built all these countries niggers are rushing to. They didn't build it for niggers or to make baby soldiers to fight Israel's wars. They built those countries for their lineage to prosper.

If there must be "hate speech" laws, it should be for anything that opposes the legitimate biological imperative that is White supremacy.

Until then, as it is, if it's good for them it's good for us.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If there must be "hate speech" laws, it should be for anything that opposes the legitimate biological imperative that is White supremacy.

White supremacy is a very crude heuristic. Is an inbred white child molester with an IQ of 80 superior to a black scientist non-criminal with an IQ of 150? Clearly not. Now obviously its true that statistically a given black person is probabilistically more likely to be criminal or have a low IQ, but this is a crude and inaccurate system of classifying people as undesirables, when in fact what makes the people undesirable is criminality or stupidity, which exist quite independently of skin color.

Also in that case OP should just state his true beliefs as a white supremacist rather than disingenuously representing himself as a supporter of hate speech laws, which I rather agree was really the reason he posted this article, and precisely what I was trying to point out

[–]blackpoop321 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So is it "obviously true" or "crude and inaccurate"? You're jewish aren't you.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Do you think we should have hate-speech laws here to protect the Jews and the Trans from people saying nasty stuffs about them?

We do already.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We do already.

I don't know what country you are from, but 'we' do not in the USA

Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution.[1] While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker’s viewpoint.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Go ahead and try that in public. Let us know how it works out for you.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Go ahead and try that in public. Let us know how it works out for you.

I'd likely be 'cancelled' and publicly shamed for my views, but I (rightly) can't be convicted of a criminal act for doing so