Teen Girls Face Hate Crime Charges Over Anti-Gay Flier

So now not agreeing with homosexuality is a crime? What is the world coming to?

If it were against a straight man or a Short girl or a... etc. It would also be a hate crime, they're targeting one person for WHAT they are, not who they are.
Like beating a German because your grandfather died to a Nazi just because he's German is a hate crime
Beating a German because he's an @$$hole isn't.
Handing out Fliers calling a person a fag, and insulting them, JUST because he's a fag is a hate crime
hating a fag because he's a dick is OK.
Not agreeing with Homosexuality is OK
Insulting/beating/etc. a fag because you hate fags isn't.

You and your poor black people in Africa thing...

But you don't see a problem if people are targeting a group that's not black simply because they belong to a certain group that the two girls don't like?

They were inciting hatred against a boy simply because of his sexual orientation - that not hate to you?

..I suggest you seek help as racism is a serious issue. Moreover people are allowed to say what they want...it's called free speech. At least that is what WHITE feminists claim. White females on campuses hand out fliers with false domestic violence statistics on them and they are not jailed for "hate crimes." As a matter of fact a certain group of women have been "hating" for 40 years now. Lesbians HATE heterosexuals every chance they get. They are not in Attica.

So I say let these girls go until they jail EVERYONE that participates in this. One good turn deserves another.

You can whine till you're blue in the face about blacks--specifically black MEN(The women are just as privileged as white females)--not ever being victims. History shows it happened and is STILL happening.

I just don't accept the white guilt for all the injustices black people suffered. I don't care what happened beyond of remembering what took place and not allowing the same thing to happen again.

Like I said before, I don't care what race a person is or what colour their skin is. I just call bullshit on the thinking that says - I'm a black man so I suffer more then you.

Fuck that shit. Men are men, regardless of what colour their skin is. I know white men who've been terribly abused by society. I know Chinese men, Cambodian men, Native American men, East Indian men, Lebanese men all who have suffered huge social injustices.

I'm not for the 'special care for minority men' thing because the way I see it, a man is a man. Assess needs for services on a fucking individual level, not a racial level. To do otherwise risks bringing the problems of feminism to the men's movement. If there is a racial component it will be abused for special privileges while ignoring some one who has suffered more because their skin is the wrong colour.

Like I said in my other post, there is no one alive of any race who is not descended of both slaves and slave masters. To afford special rights - create a victim group based on race is no different in my view then creating a victim group based on gender.

I'm the definition of not racist. I give a shit the suffering you went through, not your parents, or grandparents, or great grandparents or uncles, and cousins.

Don't construe my disagreeing with some of your politics as me having a problem with your race. I don't even buy the notion that there is some common bond among all people of a particular race. I try my damnedest not to buy into stereotypes one way or the other

I don't see any inconsistencies in MrReality's post. Now if he had gone off on the girls just because they were female, that might be cause for concern. But since he demonstrated that he doesn't care that it was girls were handing out hateful flyers, and (by extension) that if boys were doing the same thing, he'd be on their side too, I think he's ok.

http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com

MrReality Wrote: White females on campuses hand out fliers with false domestic violence statistics on them and they are not jailed for "hate crimes." As a matter of fact a certain group of women have been "hating" for 40 years now. Lesbians HATE heterosexuals every chance they get. They are not in Attica.

I don't see where he said it would be ok for boys to do it.

But the inconsistency really is that he's a hypocrite. He's crying from on high about the plight of poor black men - and he blames white men if one is to assume he agrees with the rhetoric of the piece he linked to for his "Blood diamond" post as that piece was overflowing with hatred against White and Jews - but at the same time saying it's just fine for some little white girls to incite the same kind of hate that was the root of the racism in the United States against a gay kid.

I don't believe MrReality is being inconsistent.

There's a big difference between supporting free speech (the flyer, although perhaps it was harassment) and condeming the horrendous working conditions of a group of people (blood diamonds).

An example of inconsistenty would be a person who supports gay marriage yet opposes polygamous marriage. Or someone who supports "a womans right to abortion" but is against "a womans right to be a prostitute."

Some people believe that the blood diamonds article was anti-white and anti-jew. If so, should the authors of the article be charged with a hate crime like the girls with the anti-gay flyer, or do gays deserve rights that are not given to whites and jews? Should MrReality be charged with a hate crime for supporting the article? Maybe we should charge God with a hate crime and start burning bibles since the good book condems homosexuality. All in the name of tolerance.

... hate crimes laws.

I personally do not see a connection of any kind between homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage. Or abortion and Prostitution for that matter as prostitution is a choice of what to do as a job, abortion is a choice of what to do with some one else's body.

The way I see this situation with the two girls is that they were "feuding" with the boy according to the article. In the course of that feud they attempted to recruit others to join them through the use of flayers. It wasn't merely speech. It was actions in accordance with a documented history of conflict between the boy and the two girls.

Actions are not protected as speech. And a recruiting effort is not the same as an opinion

I have no problem with people saying that their opinion is X group is Y derogatory remark. That's protected free speech.

When you are in an active campaign against X group and you are attempting to recruit others to join you, you have crossed the line from opinion to action which is no longer protected free speech.

And just for the record, yes I do think that feminist domestic violence flayers are in the same category but there are further issues complicating that matter and it is not merely a free speech issue.

How far will these psychos take this politically correct tolerance spiel that the pseudo-men's rights members are buying into wholesale?

Free speech and slavery are not one in the same. Whoever thinks so is an idiot.

Oh please feminists--and the pseudo-feminists(i.e. Women that claim not to be feminists but still engage in misandry) that just use "women's rights" to rob men--have been using hate tactics for years and you're still online defending them while trying to hang two young girls and black boys whom are forced to slave away in diamond mines.

Where did I say I wanted to hang anyone? I know I've said repeatedly in many posts I am against the death penalty - as Pen and Teller put it so well - IT'S BULLSHIT!

Like I also said, I agree that what feminists do is not dissimilar to what these girls did and that it is also a hate crime - but there are larger issues in that case.

Small fish are always easier to catch.

But I thought I was pretty clear where I draw the line between free speech and hate crime too. When a person takes ACTION on hateful words it is no longer speech and no longer protected.

These girls were engaged in actions against this boy along with the fliers - that's what crossed the line.

For example, you can run your mouth all day long about wanting to kill women you don't like. But if you started handing out fliers in an attempt to round up a posse to go and actually kill them you cross the line.

Besides, maybe this lesson will prevent these girls from growing up to become the feminists handing out date rape fliers on collage campuses. If that's the result, it's a victory.

All I can say is this, the two girls will most likely walk or end up with such a light steance that it will make a mockery of the hate crimes law since they'll just wave their pussy pass like all women do when they get busted for doing worng, How much would any of you care to bet that if two men did this crime they'ed have the book thrown at them.

Just goes to show what a fucked up world we're living in.

I came to this discussion a bit late, so I'm trying to make some sense out of the thread here...

I have to say, Paragon is making more sense to me than you are Mr. Reality. But I'm still not entirely sure I understand where you're coming from. I will say this though, your posts have got me thinking, and I really appreciate that. :)

I understand that there are at least two highly important issues to you... racism against blacks, and sexism against men.

The point that I see from Paragon (and forgive me Paragon if I too am putting words in your mouth) though is an important one. There are many divisions between people... culture, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc... These divisions for the most part are all orthogonal.

As a group, everyone here is interested in issues around gender... I think that's fair to say. And so I think its fair to say that that is the main perspective that we are all looking at. It makes perfect sense to me to say that all other divisions are secondary considerations within the perspective of a men's rights forum. And I personally think that it makes sense that they all have equal weight within a discussion on mens rights as a whole.

So as I see it, injustices targeted towards males with a specific sexual orientation are just as wrong as injustices towards males due to race or religion. Especially if gender is an overriding factor in how those injustice take shape.

So morally, I agree with Paragon here. One can't be against an action taken against black men, and for the same action taken against another group; say gay men. If the action is wrong, it is wrong.

Now you make the point Mr. Reality, that free speech is the important factor here. The actions taken (slavery vs hate speech) weren't the same in the two cited examples. Fair enough; you're right there. But I'd argue that morally their motivations are fairly close, so even though you might not agree that a law was broken, one might expect you to disagree with the actions. However, you seemed to defend the girls rights to use hate tactics against the boys.

And then later you said the following:

"[feminists] have been using hate tactics for years and you're still online defending them"

which I can't for the life of me reconcile with your stance on free speech with the girls. I didn't see anyone defending using hate tactics; except you defending the right of the girls to use hateful language against gays.... and that really confuses the hell out of me. You seem to be stating that 16 year old girls can use these tactics, but feminists can't.

That's exactly what I was getting at. You nailed it completely, so I wouldn't say you're putting words in my mouth.

You even get that hate speech and enslavement come from the same root. The KKK spread hateful messages about the people they didn't like - and just for the record it wasn't just blacks they didn't like, they were also highly active against Catholics and Jews.