1
31

[–] theNakedNecromancer 1 points 31 points (+32|-1) ago  (edited ago)

It's funny that, if a black man calls cops racial slurs, and is charged with a hate crime, the ACLU cries foul.

But, if a white man calls a black man a nigger, and is charged with a hate crime, the ACLU doesn't bat an eye.

Hypocrisy is neat!

0
0

[–] Cat-hax 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Exactly

1
0

[–] inner-city-youf 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

This was exactly the point I came in to make. You've already done it so it appears it's a pretty obvious take-away from the article.

5
-5

1
17

[–] HighEnergyLife 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

"This is not what the hate crime statute was for," says the ACLU's Mary Catherine Roper.

Lol of course

0
19

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

Well yeah. It is only there to punish white people.

0
2

[–] cuello_rojo [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Oh,the hate crime statute was intended to benefit certain races and ethnicities but to exclude others. I get it. Sort of civil rights in reverse for whitey.

0
0

[–] weezkitty 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well I mean, "technically" they're right. Because speech is supposedly protected by the 1st amendment and this directly violates that. But it needs to be equally applied across races

0
1

[–] obvious-throwaway- 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Threatening a person should be illegal. Calling someone a name, any name, should be legal and what just happened is how we get there. Censoring people's words is against the 1st amendment and this horseshit needs to go up to the supreme court and ruled on so people can happily go back to calling niggers niggers and kikes kikes, directly to their faces.

0
12

[–] goatsandbros 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

This is criminalizing pure speech

That's precisely what hate crime laws are for. When there's nothing else to charge someone with: hate crime.

I'd like to see nobody charged with hate crimes, including this dumb nog, but as long as somebody is charged thusly, I'd rather see everyone charged fairly.

0
1

[–] Greenzero86 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The ACLU lobbies for legislation that defines hate crimes. It was unfair to begin with, since they have an anti-white agenda. It seems they have a soft spot for the word "Nazi" though.

0
0

[–] Omgaar 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Criminalizing speech, punishing political dissidents, and punishing white people.

0
12

[–] tastywhitemeat 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

And if a white man was being arrested by a black cop and called him a nigger, his hate crime charge would be front page news.

0
3

[–] Negro_Nazi 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I like to say "- why you have to use the N word on me?

0
2

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Well... because you're a negro nazi, obviously.

0
1

[–] Negro_Nazi 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Exactly

0
1

[–] moginspace 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

There should be no such thing as "hate crime". Something is either a criminal act or it's not.

Motive should NOT affect the guilty person's punishment by either lessening or lengthening the sentence. That's thought policing and that is wrong. Unfortunately "hate" crimes statutes have made it on to the books because pandering lawmakers put them there to virtue signal.

0
1

[–] Motoko 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This is wrong on either side, you should not be charged with a crime for a word regardless of your political disposition.

0
1

[–] Alopix 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Does stupid, receives stupid

load more comments ▼ (9 remaining)