Racist Comments on Internet Could Become Illegal

TV NZ, August 24, 2011

Denying there was a holocaust and posting racist comments online could become illegal if New Zealand signs up to an international treaty.

Adopting the Europe Cybercrime Convention is up for consideration in Police Minister Judith Collins’ three-year plan to stamp out organised crime.

The convention criminalises “the dissemination of racist and xenophobic material” on the internet.

“We are looking at whether to sign up or not to that strategy,” Collins told TV ONE’s Breakfast .

“But it’s very important to understand that before we do so we will go through it, and look at all the pros and cons.

“We can sign up to conventions but still have some reservations on them.”

Identity theft, money laundering and hacking are other issues targeted in the plan, which aims to remove impediments to fighting organised crime.

Collins said the point is to send the message that New Zealand is “not open for business” to organised crime syndicates.

She said while New Zealand was at the bottom of the world geographically, it is not at the bottom of the world when it came to involvement in money laundering.

“The whole point of the strategy is to say that we are looking at all these areas, that we do have a plan in place,” she said.

“We believe it is quite a problem and certainly some of the steps being taken in the last year or so have been about addressing that.

“When we have things like methamphetamine being used in the way that it is in this country, quite clearly we do end up with money laundering.”

One of the obstacles in addressing cybercrime to date was a lack of information shaing among Government agencies, Collins said.

“That’s really crucial to this because we have lots of Government agencies which have lots of different bits of information.

“When they’re all put together, you can sometimes get a pattern which shows we have criminals working to undermine our country”

Collins said she did not think it would be necessary to monitor bank accounts as part of the crackdown, but the plan does propose more reporting of suspicious transactions.

If National is re-elected the plan will implemented over three years.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • sbuffalonative

    They certainly do know how to cast a wide net by including money laundering with Holocaust denial. As they say, the devil is in the details.

    The noose tightens. Denied a means to voice their opinions in public without fear of repercussions or reprisals, men of conscious will find other means to express their views.

  • Anonymous

    “posting racist comments online”

    And which Orwellian apparatchiks, pray tell, will make that assessment?

  • tom in illinois

    would it be illegal to be called racist white names by a minority then?

  • German

    The problem with the Internet is, people can talk and think without borders. And lefties run out of arguments pretty soon, because “you’re racist” doesn’t work on the Internet.

    So with simple questions like:

    “Name me one single majority black city in the world which is rich or safe” people start to think.

  • Anonymous

    Hmm, well, wait a second, isn’t your rising crime rate from all the non-white Chinese gangsters? Oh, wait, that’s racist, uh, oh, here they come. Guess by suppressing the issue, you won’t have to worry about it. Eventually, this will be the law in all formerly white countries. Whites have a suicide gene, apparently.

  • OleWhiteBroad

    Leave it to a snotty Socialist country to try and censor the Internet for no-no viewpoints!! Problem is, what is “no-no” is totally subjective; it is simply the OPINION of the judger. To me, opinions are like noses – everybody’s got one, and some blow out more hot air than others. (This is the CLEAN version). I don’t think anyone is going to be able to successfully censor the Internet without destroying it. Better people should say what they want and leave other people to decide whether they want to accept it or not. That’s what freedom is, after all.

  • voter

    What on earth does money laudering or drug using have to do with personal opinions on the holocaust?

    And, for that matter, what does New Zealand have to do with any “European” convention?

  • Anonymous

    This is just more intolerance and control courtesy of the ADL, SPLC, and the ACLU. Nothing is ever enough for these insatiable enforcers of political correctness. Of course they want to censor the Internet–that’s the only place left for people to express themselves freely without fears of social and financial reprisal for their “incorrect” or “insensitive” points of view.

    These groups will be the first to defend someone’s right to show hardcore pornography on cable t.v. as “free speech”–after all, if you don’t like it, just change the channel. Well, the same holds true for the internet–if you don’t like what you read on a website, find another one that you like.

    And “incitement to violence” has no reasonable enforceability or standard. By the ADL’s standard for “dangerous” White “extremists”, every Rap singer, Rap producer, and Rap record company employee could be charged with incitement of racial violence.

    Every left wing professor in every college who creates anger over marxist wealth inequalities could be charged. La Raza and all its members could be charged for inciting hatred of the White man. But we all know that’s not who the ADL is interested in censoring.

    As far as Holocaust Denial goes, does New Zealand really want to go down that road? There are numerous people–writers, historians, and scientists–sitting in prison just for raising questions over this historical issue. And their lawyers have been jailed for trying to effectively defend them. If you allow this, where does it stop?

    Question racial equality? evolution? the moon landing? homosexuality? It all becomes fair game because potentially everyone, for their own personal reasons, can be offended by something somebody does or says.

    There are already laws on the books to punish people who engage in violence regardless of their motivation. This left wing “thought crime” mentality can lead to only one place–totalitarianism. Just ask the Russians.

  • Detroit WASP

    Would these facts be considered racist or hate speech ????

    70% of US black children are brn out of wedlock today. In MI the rate is 80%. In 1960 25% were out of wedlock

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4865449

    75% of black males drop of high school in Detroit.

    Detroit News, 2010.

    http://www.grpundit.com/2007/06/12/detroit-schools-75-dropout-rate/

    71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)

    75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)

    85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)

    85% of all youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

    2003 Bureau of Justice Statistics analysis shows that 32 percent of black males born in 2001 can expect to spend time in prison over the course of their lifetime. That is up from 13.4 percent in 1974 and 29.4 percent in 1991. By contrast, 17.2 percent of Hispanics and 5.9 percent of whites born in 2001 are likely to end up in prison. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/young_black_males_headed_for_e_1.html

    A study that looked at the relation between divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birthrates and violent crime between 1973 and 1995 found that nearly 90% of the change in violent crime rates can be accounted for by the change in percentages of out-of-wedlock births. (Mackey and Coney 2000, p. 352)

    A study that looked at crime in rural counties in four states concluded,

    “[A]n increase of 13% in female-headed households would produce a doubling

    of the offense rate.” (Osgood and Chambers 2000, p. 103)

    http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.crimefamstructure.pdf

    U.S. incarceration rates by race, June 30, 2006:

    White: 409 per 100,000

    Latino: 1,038 per 100,000

    Black: 2,468 per 100,000

  • Anonymous

    I object to any censorship beyond perhaps pornography, because it is so easily viewed by minors and has allowed racial exploitation (of white women) to explode. But I couldn’t care less if some two digit IQ Nazi wants to claim that there was no “holocaust” or whatever you want to call it. They are easily countered and exposed as idiots. Everyone knows that there are endless cases of misinformation and false representation on the internet.

    What I worry about is when people are fined or even jailed for disparaging programs like Diversity, or arguing against AA or Protected Groups, the myriad of anti-white programs that exist in the Western nations. The rise of white consciousness is happening because of the internet. When any nation decides that it must censor free speech for any reason, including the inciting of hatred we are nearing the establishment of the true Orwellian state(hate is a valid human emotion, and therefore not subject to legislation, and will always be a tool for harassing a target group). In order to remain humans with human rights, we have to insist on free speech everywhere.

    But because I fear censorship and tracing, I have taken to using Anonymous. I believe that legal harassment is in our future.

  • Anonymous

    Anti-racist internet prohibitions are an action by politicians who have no idea what the Internet is. The internet provides for global freedom of expression with as much or little anonymity as one likes. It allows the ultimate freedom of expression experience by anyone. This is a good thing.

    Racism is a natural product of humans wanting to associate with those like themselves. Racism is not necessarily violent or an act that holds other people down.

    Whould Interneting among whites with similar beliefs be considered racist by way of disparate impact? If it is, how about like-minded whites or any ethnic group to the circumstantial exclusion of another group? Jewish dating sites would be deemed racist as there are too few blacks. The NAACP sites are inherently racist. This is a bizarre restriction on the freedom of speech. The fact that these politicians even consider this is an alarming for all peoples with ideas and beliefs.

  • Anonymous

    The funny thing is that illegal drug importation and socialism is more closely tied together than drug smuggling, money laundering, etc, by “Nazis” or “holocaust deniers.” It would be fascinating to learn just how they made the correlation?

  • Pro-Magnum Man

    All this is going to do is create an entirely new “cyber-language” amongst bloggers & posters. It will have an unintended effect from those who want to block free speech. Rather, FOR those who want to block speech in the blogosphere.

    So good luck to these Communist Marxist wannabes. A free voice for all,huh? Except for those who have a dissenting voice. Nazi Germany all over again. Actually, modern day Mesopotamia. Where US soldiers have to go in the cover of night and hundreds of miles off post to celebrate Christmas. What a world, huh.

    Historically when things that the society craves are banned, there is a strong community of “underground” activists. Prohibition in America led to Chicago and New York style mobsters who are still idolized to this day by fringe types. Bootleggers thrived on playing both sides. Check a show out onHBO called “Boardwalk Empire” about this topic.

    When the government(s) in Western civilizations try to be the thought police in telling people whom to marry, where you had to work, where you had to live the libs fought against that and they got what they wanted. Now that they are facing confrontations & obstacles they don’t want to give an inch on something as trivial as what is typed in a chatroom? Do they want to be the pot or the kettle this time? Remember we have been told all Summer about the modern day uses of social media that caused dictatorships to crumble in Africa/Middle East? They praised it only because it wasn’t the Western governments being toppled.

  • Stokey

    And what does “the dissemination of racist and xenophobic material” have to do with a “three-year plan to stamp out organised crime”?

  • fred

    The problem with “free speech” is that the powerful don’t need it and wish the weak didn’t have it.

  • Anonymous

    Denying there was a holocaust and posting racist comments online could become illegal if New Zealand signs up to an international treaty.

    ——————————–

    Odd that they put those two issues at the very start of the article. So anything “they” say is right makes those of us with opinions and facts will be wrong? Censorship of the nth degree. Beware of anything with “international” in it’s name. Stick to your guns, New Zealand! Don’t let the enemies within your gate.

  • margaret

    “Identity theft, money laundering and hacking are other issues targeted in the plan, which aims to remove impediments to fighting organised crime.”

    I think this is called a rider. Before a perfectly good law is passed sneak in a bad provision like this. Our congress is absolute master at this.

  • Varina

    1 — sbuffalonative wrote at 5:50 PM on August 24:

    They certainly do know how to cast a wide net by including money laundering with Holocaust denial. As they say, the devil is in the details.

    The noose tightens. Denied a means to voice their opinions in public without fear of repercussions or reprisals, men of conscious will find other means to express their views.

    ————————————————————

    You’re right. I seem to recall reading years ago when the USSR fell that people had used fax machines to spread the message. We’ll find a way, too.

  • Ken

    You people are getting worked up over nothing.

    blacks, Hispanics, Asians, whatever, will still be able to call whites anything they wish to call them so even if this law were passed it would only affect white people.

    This might be easier to take if the white race were being overrun by a Superior Race which they are not.

  • Jeddermann.

    “cast a wide net by including money laundering with Holocaust denial.”

    Right, this is supposed to be an effort to fight organize crime. And so called Holocaust denial is the same as organized crime?

    Let me say too that the New Zealanders come from the same tradition of English common law, legal code and justice as does the U.S. But contrast the freedom of speech in the U.S. with what they propose in NZ. NOT the same.

  • Bill R

    Put simply, internet blogs and websites like AMREN are having an effect. It’s the last truly free forum in much of the world. Here’s a racist comment for them to squelch.

    Europeans and whites use the internet for discussions, commerce, getting the truth out, and pushing freedom of thought. Blacks use the internet for forming flash mobs to destroy, rape and pillage. The Chinese use the internet to cyber attack the Western World and flood the world with their slave labor goods. The hispanics don’t use the internet except to track drug shipments, and to track border patrols. So, of course, the Marxist international community want to shut down the Truth and freedom of discussion, but none of the reasons given for controlling the internet speaks to the abuses of the minorities and ethnic “others”. They would NOT have money laundering in New Zealand if they had NOT LET IN the Chinese. And if all they tell us about the Holocaust is the truth, then it should be able to stand up to any investigation and examination and data mining. This is just another form of the “it’s for the children” argument as to why we should allow tyrants to crush more freedoms.

  • Anonymous

    The core issue is that nothing factual/scientific can be reasonably considered racist and nothing racist can reasonably be considered factual/scientific. Until there is some climate of tolerance for the harsh facts and scientific inferences relevant to human differences, it is corrupt and contradictory to attempt to oppose racism. From this perspective, might it not be possible to harness the proposed rules, so that adoption of them would inextricably protect controversial scientific research and the dissemination of such research?

  • Ben

    I’ve been to NZ.

    It is predominately Caucasians.

    I do hope it stays that way.

  • Anonymous

    All the sooner to bring about a cataclysmic explosion of white awareness, and rage.

    Don’t totalitarians EVER get it?

    No, I don’t suppose they do. Hitler blew his brains out because he did not get it.

    Mussolini was mutilated and hung upside down because he did not get it.

    Individual will, especially of the white race , will never be put to the yoke.

    But I suppose fools like those proposing this sort of tyranny, will only learn when they are crushed by the masses they sought to enslave.

  • WR the elder

    Apparently the alleged need to prevent “money laundering” means that New Zealand must criminalize holocaust revisionism and “racism”. No doubt the latter includes such things as recognizing the reality of differences in average IQ among the races. So the truth becomes a crime.

  • rockman

    who determines what is racism and what is not? What standards will they follow? Would opposing Obama in an election be racism?

  • SunnyvaleSal

    Coming soon to America?: ‘I know there is this thing called the First Amendment, but the international community speaks! We have reservations about these new regulations, but we just have to do it.’

  • RegvlvsSeradly

    “She said while New Zealand was at the bottom of the world geographically, it is not at the bottom of the world when it came to involvement in money laundering.

    “The whole point of the strategy is to say that we are looking at all these areas, that we do have a plan in place,” she said.”

    “The whole point is…” you and your image team are trying to sneak past the public an Orwellian assault on free expression by clouding the issue with nonsense about money laundering and “organized crime”.

    Leftist, we know who the real organized criminals are.

  • John Engleman

    While – I would like to say “because” – I am a Nordic Christian, I love Jews, Judaism, and Israel. Holocaust denial irritates me. It is also so preposterous I am not threatened by it and doubt most Jews are.

    There are countries in Europe where it is illegal to own a copy of Mein Kampf. I have read it. No one who does not already hate Jews will hate them after reading that book.

    Rush Limbaugh has made a career telling his dittoheads what they want to believe, even when it is not true.

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895

    Nevertheless, as long as it is legal to point out that it is not true, I think we are safe. Of course, some of what Rush Limbaugh says is true.

    It would bother me greatly if American Renaissance was shut down, or if it became illegal – it is already dangerous in some environments – to publicly agree with people like Charles Murray.

    Most people are swayed by emotion in determining what is true and false. I am too. Nevertheless, I think open debate is a better way of determining truth than the dictates of a United Nations Ministry of Truth, especially if these dictates are backed up by coercive power.

    The internet enables the spread of facts and ideas. Dictators have reason to fear the internet. Minorities I admire do not.

  • shaunantijihad

    I demand all crackers be renamed “colourless biscuits”. And I want my compensation, of course.

  • Rebelcelt

    I wonder how many of those Klunkerheads have figured out that censoring someone for their racial comments is the begining ..not the end.

  • cpascal

    One of the problems about international treaties is that there’s not much of a way to change them if they don’t work out. One of the reasons why there are so many badly behaved kids these days is because of the UN Declaration for the Rights of the Child. Most of the world’s nations have ratified it, and in many countries, a parent can land in jail if they try to discipline their kids. So, how do we abolish it? And there’s the fact that the will of people was never considered on this matter.

    If New Zeaoland wants to fight organized crime, it would be better if they either passed new laws targeting the specific crimes, or better enforcing the ones which they have. There’s no reason to criminalize opinions on the internet in order to fight money laundering.

  • Duran Dahl

    It is inevitable that the System will crack down on dissidents of the race-realist (etc.) variety…especially on the internet. This has been on the enemies agenda from the outset. Our side has the brains and means to fly under their radar. Pushing us underground would be a disastrous strategic error on their part…so bring it on!

  • Anonymous

    There are many nations that ban ‘racism’ online. Uniformly, religious texts (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) are exempt from these laws. Otherwise Jews would have to answer for Numbers 12:1, Christians would have to answer for John 7:13, and Muslims would have to answer for Sura 5:51. Regarding ‘hate speech,’ Jews would have to answer for Leviticus 20:13, Christians would have to answer for Romans 1:26-28, and Muslims would have to answer for Sura 7:80-81.

    It is likely that international bans on online hate speech and racism will also give religion a pass. American Renaissance is likely written and read mostly by religious men and women, but the site itself is a secular site. Lacking the hate-pass given to religion, AmRen will vanish overnight if similar laws come to the USA. Sites disappear for less dramatic reasons every day, and that’s why I archive sites that I like on my home computer.

  • Boondoggler

    Into my heart an air that kills

    From yon far country blows.

    What are those blue remembered hills,

    What spires, what farms are those.

    It is the land of lost content.

    I see it shining plain.

    The happy highways where I walked

    Will never walk again.

    Houseman

    Remember when saying your mind was OK. We couldn’t imagine life without it. Now, everytime we open our minds to let something out, the powers that be do their utmost to push it down our throats and penalize us for it. America, the land of the weak-kneed, and the home of which we are scared.

  • Roy

    @Detroit WASP – those claims aren’t hate speech – they’re hate ‘facts’, which the left despise more than anything. Vlaams Blok in Belgium was outlawed despite being the single biggest political party in that country for expressing similar ‘hate facts’.

    If I were to claim that Blacks make poor sprinters then I would simply be called ‘wrong’. If I were to claim that Blacks commit a great deal of gun crime and sexual assault then I would be called ‘racist’. Notice the difference?

  • Spirit Wolf

    Yes, the lights are going out everywhere. Let the chumps choke on this:

    http://4footedmessiah.wordpress.com/

  • ghw

    18 — Varina wrote at 10:31 PM on August 24:

    1 — sbuffalonative wrote at 5:50 PM on August 24:

    They certainly do know how to cast a wide net by including money laundering with Holocaust denial. As they say, the devil is in the details.

    The noose tightens. Denied a means to voice their opinions in public without fear of repercussions or reprisals, men of conscious will find other means to express their views.

    ——————————————————————————————

    You’re right. I seem to recall reading years ago when the USSR fell that people had used fax machines to spread the message. We’ll find a way, too. — Varina

    ============================

    Yes, there was a word for it. As I recall, this unauthorized “publishing” (or dissemenition) of illicit material was called Samizdat publishing.

    In the large scheme of things, the invention of the fax machine (or xerography?) has been perhaps as big a change-producer as the invention of the printing press. History will tell. And the computer will revolutionize everything. We are living in an era of tremendous change, never before known to humanity on such a vast and rapid scale. It is dazzling.

    A mere decade now introduces more technological innovation than a whole century did in recent Europe or America, or a thousand years did in the Third World. As a consequence, we can expect to see many more upheavals, and the toppling of traditional, established authority (such as political and religious) coming in the future. Upheaval and chaos will be hallmarks of the future.

    I think the mayhem will be worst in the Third World because they have been stagnant for so very long that they, unlike us, are utterly unprepared for such dramatic change. Look at places in the Arab world which have gone from camels and tents to airplanes and air conditioning within a generation! The cultural change is staggering. It must be vey hard for them to digest.

    I think this fact alone condemns Islam to the trash heap, at least in its traditional form… no matter how much the imams and ayatollahs try to fight it. Change is inevitable! Resistance is futile. They can accommodate themselves to it, or go under.

    Perhaps we need not worry too much about Islam, in the long run. Not sure about that (wish I could be), but it’s an encouraging thought. History may do the job for us of eliminating the problem. Either Islam reforms itself drastically, or history will make Islam irrelevant. We won’t see this ourselves. It won’t happen in a generation, but in a century or two. The whole future world will be very different.

  • jack in Chicago

    It is the case that whenever some new media like Talk Radio opens up some free speech for Whites, the POWERS THAT BE work to take it over or take it down.

    The internet has been very hard for these POWERS THAT BE to take over – as few people want to read the old media powers like Time Warner Communication, the LA Times and New York Times on the internet.

    So yes, expect a big push to censor the Internet the same way politically incorrect speech is not allowed on American college campuses – and we’re talking Glen Beck and Ann Coulter not Jared Taylor or any of us!

    We have to put up a better fight on this than we did opposing the Federal Hate Crime Bill. Watch while all kinds of system powers that be including corrupt Religious Right tax exempt conservatives look to sign on to ban HATE and Crime on the Internet – the Crime being “Thought Crime”.

  • Anonymous

    I can’t follow the reasoning at all. New Zealand wants to curb

    Identity theft, money laundering and hacking. The way to do it is to monitor the internet and let the cybercriminals and money launderers do their thing. This measure seems to close down internet applications that the identity thieves, hackers and money launderers use. That is no way to catch a criminal.

    The way to catch the criminals is to monitor the internet and let the cybercriminals and money launderers do their thing.

    When the investigators have the evidence needed for a conviction arrest and charge them.

  • Fr. John

    As with Ron Paul’s being ‘ignored’ by the Media.

    As with the 2008 Bank bailouts,

    As with any serious inquiry by those not of a specific nasopharyngeal content.

    the question to be asked is,

    CUI BONO?

    Who benefits?

    Gee, I wonder…..

  • Anonymous

    34 — Anonymous wrote at 12:11 PM on August 25:

    “There are many nations that ban ‘racism’ online. Uniformly, religious texts (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) are exempt from these laws. Otherwise Jews would have to answer for Numbers 12:1, Christians would have to answer for John 7:13, and Muslims would have to answer for Sura 5:51. Regarding ‘hate speech,’ Jews would have to answer for Leviticus 20:13, Christians would have to answer for Romans 1:26-28, and Muslims would have to answer for Sura 7:80-81.

    It is likely that international bans on online hate speech and racism will also give religion a pass. American Renaissance is likely written and read mostly by religious men and women, but the site itself is a secular site. Lacking the hate-pass given to religion, AmRen will vanish overnight if similar laws come to the USA. Sites disappear for less dramatic reasons every day, and that’s why I archive sites that I like on my home computer.”

    Obviously, it is time to compile the Race Realists Bible, which rather than be full of any extant religious bias (sorry Christian conservatives), it would be full of factual, scientific reasons combined with historical reasons for race realism and separatism.

    I nominate Jared Taylor as Pope!

    Additionally, I would like to put in that I THINK that many non-Christians read Amren and sometimes post. We can’t know, but my guess is that as Amren gets more publicity, it causes more younger people to look it up out of curiosity. Many of them I predict, are seeing the sense of the many excellent arguments made by Amren articles and posters.

    By the way, your post was excellent.

  • Cui Bono?

    The internet enables the spread of facts and ideas. Dictators have reason to fear the internet. Minorities I admire do not.

    John–

    It is the so-called “minorities”, including the very ones you so champion, who fear the truth and use government force to shut down views they don’t like — with attendant harsh penalties such as prison time and punitive fines.

    Why do the Holocaust deniers need to be shut up? Why can’t they state their beliefs? Where do we draw the line? White people are vilified and disparaged every single day in the most vile manner, white history rewritten and/or lied about.

    Will legislation EVER be passed to put an end to this obscenity? If not why not?

    This is EXACTLY what the founding fathers had in mind when the First Amendment was drafted! It is to protect unpopular opinions and views.

    Denying there was a holocaust and posting racist comments online could become illegal if New Zealand signs up to an international treaty…The convention criminalises ‘the dissemination of racist and xenophobic material’ on the internet.

    Who gets to say what constitutes “obscene” or “Xenophobic” material?

    This is Big Brotherism at its worst!

    Hypocritical power seekers who wish to impose THEIR new world views on others and lord over society as to what can and cannot be said — BY FORCE — should be fought tooth and nail.

    THEY ARE MONSTERS who will set up a police state over which they will rule with an iron fist. Those who don’t go along with their world view or central plan will be shot in the back of the head. This is what happened in the Soviet Union with great loss of life the result.

  • Stewie F.

    If the current view of hate crimes is any indication, blatantly racist genocidal comments by NAMs will be completely ignored when prosecuting hate speech online.

  • Jeddermann.

    “I nominate Jared Taylor as Pope!”

    He’ll do just fine. There is nothing that stipulates the Pope must be Catholic.

  • Anonymous

    an anonymous stated that hispanics dont use the internet. They do – a lot- and they make death threats if you question the legal status of a friend co-criminal or relative. They harass puerto ricans for being part black. trust me they are a strong force and try to censor everything in their favor. There appears to be something in the mindset of latins mexicans etc, in that they believe God forgives them everything, and anyone who questions them needs to be harmed. look at all the killings in Mexico by mexicans.

  • Anonymous

    Ref Post 22

    A shared sense of reality about “racism” would arise only from

    a common understanding of what the expert consensus is about evolved human group (overlapping) differences. It would arise

    by a steadily growing consensus about what human sentiments and values and policy options were deemed ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM to be intolerable for interface with the science.

  • Michael C. Scott

    And just how is anyone abroad going to enforce a law like this against American citizens posting opinions that are constitutionally-protected by the US First Amendment, online from our own country?

    This is just more hot air from the Usual Bolshevik Suspects.