 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
Promoting hatred is not nice, but it's not a crime. You cannot equate the two.
The President of the US has spent a lot of time and energy promoting hatred against insurance companies. Throw him in jail?
James, James, James,
In one post YOU say if someone says they're going to kill someone it's assault and NOW you say there is no violence in speech.
Assault without violence?
Verbal assault...a severe tongue lashing?
Just quoting you
If instead I walk up and say, "I hate you and I'm going to kill you first chance I get", then that's assault.
Where was the violence? Not in the speech,
When you "say" something it is verbal/speech isn't it?
(wouldn't contact the authorities) until they did something?
It's different. A direct threat of bodily harm, especially that seems plausible and immediate.
For instance, I could walk up to someone and say, "I don't like you, even despise you, because you are ******* and ******* and ******* and I couldn't care less if I never see you again".
Not a crime.
If instead I walk up and say, "I hate you and I'm going to kill you first chance I get", then that's assault.
the difference between rhetoric and crime. It's not that difficult.
In the case of "hate groups" like the KKK. most of the time they are just blowing smoke.
Say, why wouldn't ACORN be considered a hate group?
Burning crosses are not crucifixes. That was an offensive remark.
But I see you've got nothing, so....
Mainly a catholic type cross with a representation of Christ body on it. If there is no body on it, then it's just a "cross". A burning cross is sort of a Bonfire of the Vanities?
some say going back to medieval Scotland. They used to burn crosses on hillsides to warn of invaders and as a sign of Christian solidarity.
It's not a crucifix unless it has the figure of Christ on it. Then it would be desecration. I doubt the KKK would do that since they fancy themselves devout Christians.
Of course Andres Serrano had no problem immersing a crucifix ina jar of urine in a project funded by our tax dollars... but that's "different."
if you're the one being crucified.
Odd. You find my post offensive, but not what the KKK did?
Mark
Why do you think I don't find the KKK offensive? Just because I defend their right to free speech doesn't mean I agree with them. As I said before, the First Amendment is not there only to protect speech you agree with.
A burning cross is not a crucifix. Are you being offensive on purpose?
In this country, you need an overt act. Consider another group- NAMBLA (North America Man Boy Love Association). What they favor is illegal on it's face in the U.S., but you can't arrest a member until he actually commits an act.
"open and observable; not secret or hidden; "an overt lie"; "overt hostility"; "overt intelligence gathering"; "open ballots"
Overt hostility?
Hostility - "The state of being hostile; antagonism or enmity"
Enough for you?
Sorry, Mark, it's not enough for me. It's a legal term. From a legal reference:
"An overt act, in the context of criminal law, is an action which might be innocent itself but if part of the preparation and active furtherance of a crime, can be introduced as evidence of a defendant's participation in a crime.".
the dictionary definition. I would assume statute laws would not attempt to change definitions of recognised words.
"Overt hostility" is NOT the definition of "overt." Overt does not mean hostility.
You gave the definition of "hostility"... but J was talking about an overt act. Has nothing to do with hostility. You could have provided the dictionary definition of "airplane" and it would have been just as relevant, that is to say, not at all.
Mark, have you ever seen a court case where a definition from a standard commercial reference dictionary, like Funk & Wagnall was used a evidence? What you might see is an attorney saying that something is "legally" defined as something. I doubt that in a court case an attorney would be successful with, or even try, overriding a definition in a legal reference with a definition in a non-legal reference book.
That's fair enough.
All statutes define such things.
What does the statute define "Overt" as in the Act you were taking about?
Mark
An overt act, in the context of criminal law, is an action which is in furtherance of a crime.
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic