March 22, 2008

What Would It Mean to "Stop The Hate" in Mr. Richardson's Case?

Justin Katz

It would have been helpful of Karen Lee Ziner to provide some detail as to the factuality of this assertion:

[Steven] Brown, of the ACLU, [who isn't a lawyer, by the way] called Richardson's actions "clearly and patently illegal" and said "there are legal remedies available" for people who believe their civil liberties have been violated.

As well as to this:

[José] Genao said yesterday he plans to file a discrimination claim against Richardson with the Providence Human Relations Commission.

Genao's explained motivation is telling:

Genao said he wants people "to know not to be afraid to report incidents like this" and to make others "think twice" about taking actions similar to Richardson's.

So, whatever the actual legal ramifications for a private store owner who has mistreated his customers (in a way having nothing to do with fraud), the idea is to make people believe that such laws exist to inspire self-censorship. In David Richardson's case, a bit of forethought would certainly have been wise, as would be some introspection concerning proper behavior in a pluralistic society. But there's something bullying and dark in the over-hyped reaction.

The potential for a charge of "hate speech" is more than just presumptuous; in its inevitably fluid definition, it's dangerous.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Every bar in America asks for a driver's license at the door, but a store owner can't? It's a strange world where someone who is trying to verify compliance with the laws is accused of acting illegally.

Posted by: Citizen Critic at March 22, 2008 8:27 PM

Brown's "clearly and patently illegal" should be restated as "clearly and patently undocumented" for consistency's sake.

Posted by: Greg at March 22, 2008 8:53 PM

'Please Speak English' sign to remain at Geno's

"The Philadelphia Human Relations Commission has ruled that Joey Vento has the right to make a political statement in posting a sign that reads: "This is America - When ordering, please speak English."

Posted by: Citizen Critic at March 22, 2008 9:39 PM

I'm standing by to be corrected. But my understanding of this incident is that Mr. Richardson actually sold the gentleman the reefer part he came in to buy. Therefore, while he did something ill-advised, Mr. Richardson broke no law.

What would it mean to stop the "hate" speech in this case?

1.) A redefinition of the word "hate".

2.) A redrafting of the First Amendment even more drastic than the redefinition of "private property" which those five Supreme Court Justices inflicted on us and the Constitution with Kelo vs New London.

Posted by: Monique at March 22, 2008 10:00 PM

I always knew this was coming from the aclu and the "advocates"-speech this country if someone wants to hate whoever,it's legal as long as they don't assault people,intimidate them,throw firebombs,etc-may i add that hating an ethnic or racial group is retarded,but there's a lot of messed up people out there-apparently if your hobby is sodomizing children,steven brown hasn't got a problem with that-he'll be right there to make sure you can't be tracked when you're released from prison(which is another issue altogether)-i hope this little scumbag gets pancreatic cancer-i've had cancer three times so i don't have to be nice about it-mr.richardson did something rude,unecessary,and frankly i would not give my SS# to anyone not required by law to request it,but what was the crime?he didn't refuse service and he didn't use racial epithets,which is no crime anyway,although it would sure lose him customers-this incident has unleashed an orgy of REAL hate by people who obsess about race every waking moment and operatives like jerzyk who emits an endless stream of written diarrhea accusing anyone trying to support the rule of law of being a "hater"-and he's a law student-let's not forget david segal,the child of privilege with a guilt complex-since i'm not a Christian i have no problem with feeling a lot of anger towards these people tonight-just wait for the other shoe to drop-a movement for voting by non-citizens-an ethnic whore like pichardo can't wait for it-he made it plain the other day-legal status is irrelevant-and a final thought-where do latino activists get off arrogating for themselves the sole ownership of the recent immigrant experience?think on that one

Posted by: joe bernstein at March 22, 2008 10:04 PM

Greg-great line,buddy

Posted by: joe bernstein at March 22, 2008 10:05 PM

Would rap music --filled with profanity and racist and misogynistic venon --be considered hate speech?

Posted by: Citizen Critic at March 23, 2008 1:21 AM

I'm pretty sure I stole it Joe, but I do recommend changing "illegal" to "undocumented" in everyday life to emphasize the absurdity of it.

Posted by: Greg at March 23, 2008 10:58 AM

The ACLU has zero credibility; it is a left-wing advocacy group masquerading as a civil rights organization, via "selective advocacy" for "civil rights."

Consider that presumably it supported "Piss Christ" as "free speech" and "artistic expression" - displayed in a publicly funded museum. For it's fine to display Christian symbols when denigrating Christianity (obviously this isn't "hate speech" - and doing so with taxpayer subsidies in public facilities. But woe to anyone who would display a crucifix in a positive manner with taxpayer dollars in a public facility.

Public schools (K-12) in California have been giving introductions to Islam to all children to promote "tolerance" - with nary a peep from the ACLU. Were the same to introduce Muslims to Christianity in the name of tolerance the ACLU would have been in federal court faster than a suicide bomber can pull the detonation cord.

While not condoning the store owners actions, the reaction of ACLU and the "advocates" is all about establishing a "chilling effect" upon those with the impudence to oppose ILLEGAL immigration.

Since when is illegally crossing our borders and illegally acquiring employment here a "civil right?"

Because there's no First Amendment in Canada the liberals there have started going after religious institutions for violating the "hate speech" laws in Canada for, among other things, expressing the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality.

Don't think for a minute that using "hate speech" as a lever to impose censorship and a political agenda isn't the ACLU's (and others) end game here as well.

Think about it - isn't there an inherent contradiction between the ACLU's so-called championship of First Amendment rights and its support of "hate speech" laws?

Posted by: Ragin' Rhode Islander at March 23, 2008 11:33 AM

The aclu was founded by roger baldwin,a socialist with the ultimate purpose of bringing down the national form of government in this country and submerging the USA into a one-world system.The aclu is hypocrisy through and trough-they will occasionally defend a neo nazi or two to show how "fair"they are because those particular people they defend have little credibility outside a very limited circle-they will never defend a mainstream conservative.
Here is the prime example of their hypocrisy:
The Curley case and the lawsuit against nambla.If the aclu's purpose is to protect individuals against government intrusion/oppression,etc how did they get involved in a civil suit by the Curleys,parents of a little boy savagely murdered by homosexual pedophiles,one of whom was a nambla member and regularly visited their website?The involvement of the government ended with the conviction of the two killers.The suit involves no governmental elements at all,except for the provision of a court to try the case in.The government is NOT a litigant in the case.I asked the abominable little steven brown about this contradiction on a radio show and the lying piece of s**t said he didn't know about the case because it was in Massachusetts.The killers did have a right to counsel in the murder trial and they were provided with representation-okay,that's the law .But there is no constitutional right to a lawyer in civil cases,and the aclu has taken the money of their contributors for a purpose not to do with the constitutional issues they claim to be the core of their existence.Likewise the attack on Mr.Richardson-he is not a government functionary-he is a private citizen exercising his 1st amendment do not have to condone his actions to understand the virtual lynch law mentality being propagated by steven brown,juan pichardo,joe almeida,rick martinez,et al.brown is the worst of all,because the others are really engaged in the same old ethnic politics game that's been going on forever.brown is like an HIV virus,opportunistically infecting everything he touches.jerzyk isn't that different-just slyer and actually a lot smarter than brown.jerzyk however,thinks no one is as smart as he is,which will be his undoing.

Posted by: joe bernstein at March 23, 2008 12:06 PM

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what law is Richardson supposed to have broken?

I'm not saying that I necessarily defend his actions, I'm just wondering if there is a specific law that has been cited.

Posted by: brassband at March 23, 2008 4:21 PM

"Would rap music --filled with profanity and racist and misogynistic venon --be considered hate speech?"

Only if the MC is white..Don't forget, blacks can't be racist.

Posted by: jd at March 23, 2008 7:07 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.