Started By
Message

re: 2 Terrebonne students arrested on hate crime charges for saying n-word in video

Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:35 am to
Posted by MFn GIMP
Member since Feb 2011
23008 posts
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:35 am to
quote:

Houma police say the investigation is ongoing.

Why? First, in 99% of cases simply saying words should not be a crime. Second, it was a snapchat video, presumably, sent to their friends and not intended for anyone else to see. How is it "cyberbullying" or any crime? Insane.
Posted by MFn GIMP
Member since Feb 2011
23008 posts
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:36 am to
quote:

For the record, are you for or against racial slurs?

What a dumb gotcha. You can be against racial slurs without wanting to make saying them a crime. Stop policing thought.
Posted by OZ88
Member since Oct 2022
2 posts
Posted on 10/27/22 at 4:57 pm to
Is it illegal to say the N-Word, now? Only if you're White.

The System does everything it can to disenfranchise and attack White people, while bending over backwards to help black people. Then, it complains that White people are becoming radical. What exactly did you think would happen? Under the thin veneer of modernity, these people are Vikings, Visigoths, and Saxons. Less than a century ago, they conquered the entire world. And you think it's a good idea to stab them in the back the second they start being nice?

This will only end one way, and everyone who has ever supported the Anti-White system is asking for it.
Posted by OZ88
Member since Oct 2022
2 posts
Posted on 10/27/22 at 5:05 pm to
NAZI's were anti-Marxist, anti-Communist, pro-White, pro-Christian, and pro-Family. The people that tell you otherwise are the same people that tell you gender isn't real and White children are evil at birth. Why would you let your enemies write your worldview?
Posted by SlickRickerz
Member since Oct 2018
2290 posts
Posted on 10/27/22 at 5:12 pm to
quote:

What do you mean with fighting words...like trash talk that pisses someone off?

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire introduced “fighting words” and said they weren’t protected under the 1st, which led to many cases arguing against it and one, specifically Cohen V. California led to basically overturning “fighting words” including:
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 5:14 pm
Posted by slowmoe
Member since Mar 2022
600 posts
Posted on 10/27/22 at 5:33 pm to
so what.
Posted by mtntiger
Asheville, NC
Member since Oct 2003
29727 posts
Posted on 10/29/22 at 10:31 am to
quote:

For the record, are you for or against racial slurs?


For the record, mtntiger, does not give a warm crap in the sunshine.

Every race has a slur it uses about other races. Hell, there are even regional slurs within races (hillbilly, redneck, redbone, etc.).

After protecting political speech, the other main purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech most people would find offensive or worse, provided no threats of harm are included in it.

Reasonable speech, or speech no one finds offensive, needs no such protection, because no one will object to it in the first place.
Posted by Tesla
the Laurentian Abyss
Member since Dec 2011
9146 posts
Posted on 10/29/22 at 10:39 am to
quote:

Is there a chart that says what amount of black you have to be to use the no no word? Is it half? 25%? It's unbelievable that this word still gets power.


First thing my son said when he got back his Ancestry DNA results showing he was 28% sub-Saharan African was, “Sweet! Can I use the N word now!”
Posted by TigerVespamon
Member since Dec 2010
7514 posts
Posted on 11/1/22 at 8:04 pm to
quote:

bye
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 6Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram