I just read an article on CBS news which is disgustingly full of deception and lies.
It is entitled: "Stephen Hawking bashes religion, but what does new paper say about God?" Steven Hawking announced that there is no way there could be a creator of the universe. The article can be found here:
Also CBS had another deceptive news cast that made a little black boy appear to want to have a gun and be a criminal when he actually said he wanted to be a police officer but they cut that part out. Of course there is the Rupert Murdoch media empire, all of which I no longer view or take seriously. The Washington Post is reaching the same lows of Fox News.
What sources can we trust? I have a few websites I go to for secular and unbiased news. Does anyone else feel as if we are being filled with lies more and more and deceptive news?
They have never been inside of a courtroom for yelling the N-word; the Supreme Court has ruled that as free speech. In fact, you can say a good nice "fuck you" to a police officer and he has no right to arrest you.
Now, if you threaten and say you are going to "kill them" or "hurt them" - that is a threat.
You are drifting off the point. Geert Wilders was not charged with saying 'nigger'. I don't actually see where he was charged with uttering any racial slur, but that was never the point to begin with.
All countries place limitations on free speech, including the United States. Wilders was not being charged because of his ideas, sentiments, or any specific words he chose; he was being charged (and not convicted) for the ramifications of his words in practice.
While the United States certainly sets the bar at a different place, it does have at least one limitation to free speech that is of a similar nature. If I'm not mistaken, it's called 'fighting words'.
1. That part of c. 378, § 2, of the Public Law of New Hampshire which forbids under penalty that any person shall address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place," or "call him by any offensive or derisive name," was construed by the Supreme Court of the State, in this case and before this case arose, as limited to the use in a public place of words directly tending to cause a breach of the peace by provoking the person addressed to acts of violence.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
(1) That, so construed, it is sufficiently definite and specific to comply with requirements of due process of law. P. 573.
(2) That, as applied to a person who, on a public street, addressed another as a "damned Fascist" and a "damned racketeer," it does not substantially or unreasonably impinge upon freedom of speech. P. 574.
(3) The refusal of the state court to admit evidence offered by the defendant tending to prove provocation and evidence bearing on the truth or falsity of the utterances charged is open to no constitutional objection. P. 574.
2. The Court notices judicially that the appellations "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace. P. 574
APPEAL from a judgment affirming a conviction under a state law denouncing the use of offensive words when addressed by one person to another in a public place. [p569]
You are using obsolete local statues that would be overturned if an individual appealed it to the supreme court. It is also illegal to have oral and anal sex accorded by some local statues. If Mr. Wilders had referred to Muslims as "Sand N******" I think we all know he would have been found guilty in the case agianst him; do you concur Arcus?
It's still applicable to current US law though and it is a limitation of the first amendment recognized by the Supreme Court. If not, when was the 'fighting words' limitation done away with? I'm sure it has been reshaped over the years, but it still exists, does it not?
As for your comment on Wilders' case, no, I don't think that would have changed the verdict because the verdict was based more on context than the content of his speech. What does that matter though? What use is arguing on speculation? I'm not sure you understand the point of any of what's being said. This is all about your tangent that you could never end up in a court of law over such a thing in the United states. On the books, it really seems like you could, even if it's unlikely. Maybe you couldn't actually be convicted, but that's not the point; Geert Wilders was not convicted either. Now we're back to where we started.
If he referred to Muslims as "Sand N******" he would have been convicted since he would have been then referring to individual Muslims and not simply the religion. The whole reason he was found "not guilty" is because the judges ruled he didn't attack individual Muslims but simply the religion itself.
against*, today I keep making fuckin typos.
The n-word is english and I doubt it would be punishable in a Dutch court. It's not really words which are punished, but rather an incitement to hatred against weak minorities. On the other side, a doubt a Dutchman could ever be convicted for hate speech against Germans, and they quite often have some choice ideas about what to do to/with their neighbors (usually humorous). You can also see some of this rhetoric used by the Flemish against the Wallonians by Vlaams Belang.
It should be noted that I ardently oppose any hate speech laws on the basis of only acts of violence, not words of hated, should be punishable by law. Pointing out in vivid language the issues with any violent dogma should be heralded, not punished.
You shouldn't trust any source to be unbiased and unfair, and that even includes academic papers. Trust your own critical and skeptical mind!
I think Jon Stewart of the Daily Show summed up my opinion quite nicely in his interviews with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly and Chris Wallace.
-The 24hr news networks have a left leaning sensationalist bias, meaning they'll try to make some things more newsworthy than they are to get a emotional rise out of people, thus keeping ratings high (or to get them higher)
-Fox News is the conservative response to the left leaning bias specifically, in which some ways they are right that the bias exists; however, the response by the network and right wing radio has been so extreme that the political and media spectrums have been heavily polarized. Not only was the response incorrect but it is now done in an activist and immature fashion.
-The more neutral networks are boring as hell.
-The Daily Show is a comedy program that should not be in the same category as a news network yet it is for 2 reasons: news media outlets are heavily polarized and lazy, and due to this polarization and laziness, this news media circle has unknowningly drawn itself closer to the comedic satire sphere.
-The Young Turks has good amount of liberal bias too-hell practically anything involved in the blogosphere or youtube/internet does have a bias on either side of the spectrum.
-as of yet, there is no large news network of straight up news and honest debate, while also keeping the viewers entailed in watching the network.
There is no news source that is completely unbiased you can never truly trust any of the news media to be giving you the full/accurate story. The best you can do is inform yourself about your sources and read multiple sources.