'Sad' Continues To Be Redefined.
'Sad' Continues To Be Redefined.
175 comments
-
The parents of the child are investigating that bigot, and may be pressing charges with the help of the NAACP. I hope they get that pig’s entire GiveSendGo purse.
-
NAACP are raising money for legal funds for the family and community outreach programs.
-
Ooo look at Mrs. Deep Pockets getting cleaned out by the lawyers! They’re going to have to sell the RVs they just bought.
-
Not sure what they hope to achieve, I'm not American and may be unfamiliar with specific laws, but isn't it covered by freedom of speech? Would be very hard to argue and prove reparations for emotional damage to the child.
Shaming her seems like the most likely outcome.
I'd think the platform she used to raise funds may be more of a viable target. Can't be rewarding this behavior, I imagine it could be breaking some laws against anti-minority organizing. Could be argued as an anti black gang by sourcing from so many people.
-
No. This is not covered by freedom of speech.
-
Hate crimes are not freedom of speech. Freedom of fucking speech is for press to be able to report on fascism without being afraid of execution. It's so FUCKING co opted it's blindeningly idiotic and gives me idiotism for just fucking reading about this idiotic take over and over.. Why the fuck fuck fuck would anyone think calling a child racist shit is "technically" legal way the fuck are you ingesting in your blood to think these things???? In any country like even in fascist countries they make sure to pretend to understand hate crime is bad against their own at least
-
You need to look at the difference between a 'hate crime' and a 'hate incident.' They're not the same thing. There could be eye witness evidence or other recordings of a crime too, but in that case it'd be a matter for the police rather than the family.
Generally, when a person or group sues someone else, they're seeking for damages. Such as loss of property, medical bills, reputation which causes loss of work etc. It's hard to argue what the damages here would be.
I believe the police are also looking into the matter though, so something could come of it, including money to the family.
-
So you're not American, not familiar with our laws, but confident enough to write six paragraphs and then admit that the police are looking into it and something may come of it?
-
My original point was that I'm not sure what the NAAPC are planning to achieve, I hope the police can discover enough through eye witness accounts to try her in a criminal court but from what I've seen there's no criminal act; just a shitty person being shit. What scares me the most is the support.
-
-
It makes me so angry. Suing people for hating your skin color is an incredibly American concept. All laws are "interpretable" and in all other first world countries, there is no issue with prohibiting and punishing idiots that hate others for their skin color, and it works also to remove those idiots. There's some serious playing stupid energy in your nation
-
-
-
The US has laws against threats of violence, inciting violence, and hate crimes. Simply using slurs would be covered by the 1st Amendment. Her demeanor in the recording was overtly aggressive, and coupled with the use of a slur could be considered a hate crime. That’s the reason for the investigation.
-
"Free Speech" doesn't mean words can't be the mechanism by which another crime is committed.
If you ask someone to kill your wife, you aren't arrested for speech, but for conspiracy to commit murder.
-
I agree, but what other crime was committed? I didn't see anything.
-
To be totally fair, that's only because you're a moron who's arguing about things you don't understand. Moron.
-
Do you feel like a comment like that is contributing anything? Or are you just trolling?
-
-
You're allowed to be racist or to openly support racist ideals in public. You aren't allowed to intimidate someone based on their race. Intimidation isn't protected speech any more than fraud is.
You can charged with assault for language that is used to threaten or harass someone, especially when directed at someone's race, religion, gender, etc, which can elevate it to a hate crime.
-
Nope because shouting racist shit in public is a hate crime how can these things actually be hard to understand, what are your thought pattern to reach the goal that it should be okay to shout racism openly and why would it? Ever? It's a hate crime because it leads to deaths for idiotic irrational reasons. What is so hard to understand, at what point did you confuse "openly" disliking pancakes or the president with openly fucking disliking everyone with other skin color??? like a idiotic shameful sad excuse for a person just openly hating a skin color??? Is that ever the same as openly opposing a war or something???? How is this confusing for you people
-
Learn some reading comprehension before attacking someone.
I'm specifically saying that using language to intimidate someone based on their race isn't protected speech and can be considered a hate crime.
-
You are allowed to openly support racist ideals in public. Verbatim what you said. It is wrong. It is a hate crime
-
Bro if it was a hate crime to openly support racist ideals in public do you think the KKK and Nazis and whatever other hate groups would be able to march around in public espousing their horrendous views?
You are very much allowed to stand around with a Nazi flag and shout hateful shit into the air. It's when you start directing it at individuals and saying things that could be construed as a threat or hate speech that it becomes a problem.
For the most part though you're free to say and wear whatever you want for better or worse.
And listen, I wish it was a crime to openly support racist ideals in public but that's just not the country we are.
-
"bro" do you think this is the law everywhere in the world and does it maybe seem like it would be a good idea to?
-
No I don't think it's the case everywhere in the world. I think in the context of this post clearly I am talking about the United States of America.
I never said I'm cool with people doing it and I'm not opposed to more restrictions on hate speech in general but I didn't write our constitution.
-
-
-
It is not a crime to hold, or express, racist views.
It can be a crime to act on those views, harass someone with those views, etc.
-
-
-
-
-
There's a bit of another layer to it. The n-word is used as a credible death threat in America. It is a word that has been used to dehumanize and declare a person can be killed and lynched without consequence --because that is the legacy of our country and that word. People calling people n-words historically have been able get away with actual murders--and they know it.
It's the same way a Nazi saluting is someone demonstrating they don't value human life and support genocide. But it is still outlawed in Germany and Austria because the action carries with it much deeper implications there.
-
Assault.
-
Possibly, it needs another source of evidence though. In the video the man asks: " Did you chase him? Did you try to hit him?" The woman replies "Yes", but it's a compound question and easily argued she was saying yes to chasing to get back whatever the child took.
Threat of violence is a crime and in this case clearly racially motivated so would be a hate crime. But I think it'd be tough to prove in court with only the video evidence and something for the criminal court to discover, not the parents or the NAAPC.
I'd like to again state this woman is pure garbage and the people that gave her money are probably worse.
-
Assault doesn't need physical contact. Just yelling at him threateningly and chasing is more than enough to qualify. If she hit him it would also be battery.
-
I agree, but imagine a situation without race involved. If my wife has something taken and chased a child to get it back, then got charged for assault, it'd be laughed out of court.
This could be classed as assault, depending on intention, I think the investigation is looking into her character to prove the intention. Obviously she has a shot character, but they may need subpoenas from judges etc to look at phone records for evidence. It all takes time. I'm sure she's getting her just desserts eventually.
-
If your wife makes a habit of chasing and yelling at children, you should be careful. She could be charged and it is unlikely it would be laughed out of court.
-
Man it's like you picked 2% of what I said and felt that's enough...
I counted, I think it's 89 words and you're response is as far as I can tell to one word: wife. So between 2-3%.
-
If you can't understand subtext, I can't help you.
-
-
-
-
-
I also heard the child may have had disabilities, which adds a whole new layer.
I don't mean to be contrarian for the sake of it and I agree with people's feelings. But the law works in both ways.
-
-
-
-
-
Not "free speech". Could classify as a hate crime.
-
Using a slur is unfortunately protected speech. You can walk into the middle of a supermarket and shout the N word and not be arrested. Calling someone a slur is hate crime, and is absolutely not protected. If your manager calls you a slur, you can sue him. And other similar examples.
-
Sure, but if you're having a long enough interaction with a child that you are able to use the slur enough times to be reported as "repeatedly"... There's an argument that you're harassing them. Which is something you can sue over.
-
A hate crime needs a crime. Your example involving workplace is different due to worker protections. I don't think just calling someone something is a crime though. You'd have to prove something like 'intent to cause a riot' or something, which is really hard to prove. Also the only damages you could sue for are emotional, which are really hard to prove; unlike your workplace example where damages would be a lot more tangible due to loss of work for example.
-
That's a good point, I should probably mete out my understanding a bit better.
-
-
-
-
175 comments