Does the hate crimes bill violate free speech rights?

Do we have free speech or not?
Do we have free speech or not?

If we must protect our free speech we should not have double standard.

As it is right now, the current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed against people of different sexual orientations, color, religion, disability or ethnicity to be a violation of the Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. 994.

With that said when does a hate crime becomes punishable under the current law? Can a white person who called a black African American the N word be considered a hate crime or is he exercising his freedom of speech? If we truly have freedom of speech, those who uses racial slur to express their anger toward others should also be protected under the free speech act.

It would seem that the act of one expressing oneself, whether it is politely, racially or visually, should not be punishable under the law until that person physically broke the rules through aggressive behavior that endangered another person well being. As they say, action speaks louder than words. Someone can say whatever they wish as long they don't touch the other person no one is in any danger. It is the combination of actions plus words that creates the hate crime that becomes punishable under the law. To punish someone because of their racial expression, whether it is visually or verbally can be argued for being a violation of their civil rights.

If we must protect our free speech we should not have double standard. By allowing members of our society to make exceptions invite more restriction to our freedom of speech. The moment we start assigning who we should allow to use the N word or which ethic group should be pressured for using the N word under the law we're assigning double standard into our freedom of speech. If the word is prohibited from being used they shouldn't be any exceptions. However, some would regard such prohibition as a violation of the free speech.

If Black man is referring to each other as the "N" word why is it then that the White man can't say the word N? Not that he would want to, but it is the principle of the subject matter that has necessitate these types of questions. As they say " we should practice what we preach." The reverse of that quote is to my estimation the double standard of our freedom of speech. If the law is not a "one size fit all" why should we obey the law. If White man is referring to each other as N in a playful manner why is it a racial slur when they say it before us or addressing us in similar manner - as in "what's up my N" ?

It maybe a racial slur because of the tone, gesture or the manner in which it is used, but it is not because of the word "N", besides the word "N" by definition is applicable to anyone who is pure ignorant I suppose, by that I mean those who has no respect for anyone. You may not accept this view because you wish to be known as a person who carry no prejudices, but in reality we are all prejudice, but we are not all racist. To not be prejudice is to have no biases, liking someone over another for whatever reason is a prejudice. In that sense, Yes! when people are angry they sometimes say all kinds of things they don't mean. That is the nature of life, we're supposed to behave that way because our emotions are control by how we feel toward one another, but these are temporary responses that fuel our emotions until we're back to our normal state.

However, it is because of slavery the word 'nigger' has been associated with black, but by definition this word is descriptive to any of us whom can be considered a "pure ignorant" person by others who feel as though that the person being judge has no respect for anyone. Its like saying that Mr. Dubreze is an imbecile. There is absolutely no difference between the "N" word and the word "imbecile" except that when it is expressed by a white person than we associate it with racism. Meanwhile, the white girlfriend is free at will to slop us, chocked us and call us the "N" word so long as she seduce us while doing it. This is pathetic .....

The more we give importance to the word the more hurtful it will become. The word 'nigger' is synonymous to the word 'Idiot'. If the slave masters had used the word 'Idiot' instead of nigger than the word Idiot would have become a racial slur. So what are we suppose to do now? Are we going to let the word 'nigger' dictates what we are as a people or are we going to define our destiny.

We can only change how people view us through individual effort, educating ourselves and becoming entrepreneurs. Slapping someone for calling us the "N" word is not going to change our circumstances. So let us explore our minds beyond our ignorance, design our future through true education, and stop worrying about the little things that means nothing. The false ego is the 'nigger' when we have allow it to manifest itself on us.

If we have free speech why is uncle telling us to shut up.
If we have free speech why is uncle telling us to shut up.

If your opinion provides no logical explanation that supports your argument, it’s not a valid opinion, it is simply empty statements.

I know some of us might be upset with me, and think that I'm a "N" for given this explanation which to your understanding is a "N" opinion. If you think that my claims are equal to a "N" opinion I have no problem with that. After all that's your opinion. You have the right to opinionate my claims.

However, if your opinion provides no logical explanation that support your argument, it's not a valid opinion, it is simply empty statements. As you have seen in the introduction my claim support the value of "free speech" and that is the intent of my argument.

Look, as a Black man myself; I understand the history of slavery. My ancestors hate it so much that they physically fought they way out of it so to speak, but nonetheless, some of them are still mentally affected a great deal, and that is worst than being physically chain.

As doctor John Henry Clocks said, "The history of the Black man did not start with slavery", our history is as old as human existence. Without knowing our ancient history, our thinking will always be limited by our restricted minds.

We are all sons of Africa, origin of old people from the Babylonian times, we are not "N" for "N" is just a word, we are inventors, thinkers, and entrepreneurs. In order for us to explore our capabilities, we must not be prisoners of our limited minds; we must break free by becoming the explorer of dimensions.

without free speech no other rights would uphold.
without free speech no other rights would uphold.

What is more obvious in our society is the implementation of systematic racism

If we take the word "N" in it's literal sense, then we can say there are a lot of Blacks and Whites "N" here in this country, running around calling each other the "N" word while they know not what the word means. Some simply know that the"N" word is associated with black, meanwhile the word is meant for people like themselves who is ridiculous enough to think that anyone who is black can be a "N" as if the word was genetically patten for Blacks.

I understand that some have indicated to me that the word "N" does not imply white people regardless of the situation. But we can also say that the word "N" does not imply black people as well. We have become associated with the word because it was assigned to us just like a parent can name their child Victor.

The word became a racial slur because of the bad memory that is attached to it. So when white people say the word "N" every branches of hair on our back raised because the word is associated with slavery. However, what has happened now is that the word "N" has been redefined by the new generation.

The meaning of the racial slur "N" has lost momentum, it's no longer means the same for some of us. It's meaning now depends on who said it, in what context it was said, and for what reason. If this was not true than how could we have explained what is happening with the new generation, blacks and whites calling each other the "N" word as if they were two brothers from different mother.

So now I asked you, is it really the word "N" or the memory associated with it. What about the white teen who says to his black friends whom he knows all his life "what's up my niggers" with a big smile on his face as if he had just won the lottery. How do we explain that phenomenon because as we observe we see no signs of hate, but instead contentment. This to me does not imply racism, but trying to make sense out of it demand a closer look. As it should be known, the word "N" is quite different from the term "my niggers." Whereas the term "my niggers" can imply my people, the word "nigger" seems more offensive without knowing exactly how it was used, by whom and in what context.

Although some of you may think that my argument is daring is not surprising. It is really not that daring if one places reason before feelings. As Immanuel Kant stated, "only when we act from duty does our action have moral worth. When we act only out of feeling, inclination, or self - interest, our actions - although they may be otherwise identical with ones that spring from the sense of duty - have not true moral worth." In that sense, It is in our advantage as people if citizen's rights were not violated for exercising their freedom of speech, had that been so, some people would feel more freely to express themselves as they wish.

It can also be said without our freedom of speech many civil rights protest would not have been possible. So in a way our freedom of speech is our foremost right, because without it no other rights would uphold. Our freedom of speech precedes all rights, not even our right to vote - under the constitution.

What is important to know is that by punishing those who are truly racially motivated we have deterred them from expressing their hatred publicly. Instead they have planned it privately or carried it over the internet. By not having racial public expression does not mean there are less racism in our society. We have simply hid those who are truly racially motivated from exposing themselves. Had we known who they were the consequence for their racial expression could have been hurtful later in their lives if indeed they were up of age to be truly motivated to being considered a racist.

You see, allowing the truly motivated racist person to express themselves publicly would reveal to some Americans that racism still exist in this country. You and I both know that it exist because we have experienced it, and witnessed it live on the Internet. However, the fact that those who are racist are sometimes punished for having publicly exposed their racism have caused them to be fearful. This hate crime bill not only violate their civil rights, but at the same time the fear of being punished hide the racist person from society, while giving ordinary Americans the illusion that racism is no longer a factor.

But let it be clear, this is not to say that we have not improve as a nation. Not at all, we have made excellent improvements, and it is only getting better. This is why the white person who is uncomfortable of engaging in conversation that involves race related issues doesn't rest easily with the educated black person. We supposed to have past that stage, the educated black person understands the difference between remorse & compassion. Although we cannot forget our past, at the same time we hold no grudges, and we do not wish for our white brothers and sisters to have remorse for something they cannot change. This is why any sense of remorse can be perceived as holding back on feelings, and we'll pick it up in an instant.

According to the first amendment of the United Stated Constitution, "the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making laws that forbid the free practice of religion, freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. It also limit the right to peaceful assemble or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Now, with that said, how is it possible that citizens are placed in jail on the premise of disorderly conduct for having exercised their freedom of speech?

we are the little dogs fighting the big dogs - there are more of us but we don't collaborate.
we are the little dogs fighting the big dogs - there are more of us but we don't collaborate.

Claiming yourself free human being simply because you have the right to express yourself is the biggest lie

One other thing to consider is that white privilege is often the reason why some white people feel superior. Those who are in position of power wants to remain in power, had it been black people in power like the Moorish Tribes in Europe they would have wanted to stay in power. The Moors did not slave the whites, but they did impregnated their wives. So those who are in power wants to remain in power indefinitely. This is why even without the intelligent, those from the powerful race will always expect to be ahead or in charge of those individuals of the inferior race regardless of their intelligence. This is a condition that derived from being considered the superior race for all these years. This is what Dr. Tim Wise refer to as white privilege.

As a society, we now understand that the physical master that Blacks once had exist no more. What we have now is a universal master that controls everyone of us, but he has its favorite, and that master is the dollar bill. Those who possess too much of it have the advantage of dictating our future, bossing us around, exploiting us. That is one aspect of life as people we'll never be able to adapt ourselves to it, so because of that we fight.

we became silent
we became silent

Calling me a “nigger” doesn’t remove a feather off my back, less off move my spirit.

Nonetheless, what is more obvious in our society is the implementation of systematic racism which has almost eliminated the needs for any racially motivated White to behave racist towards Blacks. The activist Dr. Tim Wise is more of a preferred public speaker on that subject. In his book White like me, he has outlined how the system works in the advantage of whites through the implementation of governmental law.

I honestly think as a society we've made the biggest mistake by punishing those who expressed themselves racially. Had we not done that the possibility for us to detect those who are racially motivated would have been much easier. We would have known which racial group they belong in, they professions and why they behave that way. After all, you can't catch a bird alive by throwing rocks at it each time the bird eats your corn; you must let the bird roaming free so that you familiarize yourself with its moves. Hating someone because of the color of their skin places that person in a position that they can never get out off, they were born this way, they can't change that.

To end this debate, I will conclude that as a society we have made some good progress against racism in this country, but our freedom of speech should not be compromised because of it, not even for racial tensions between the races. By compromising our freedom of speech to punish those who have expressed themselves racially, without the physical act which makes it punishable under the law, we have violated their civil rights while at the same time diminishing our freedom of speech while doing so.

The fear of continuing to restrict our freedom of speech by allowing government to set they own standard in the long run may result to no freedom of speech. One example of that is the elimination of amplified sound for the use of public expression. This is something that the founders of the constitution were afraid of; restricting our freedom of speech is the stepping stone to its elimination.

As a society we must become aware of that condition, and make every attempt to make sure that our freedom of speech remains strong. People should really have the right to say whatever they wish without being punish for it. Our freedom of speech is our right to be, and it should remain so as long as the constitution exist.

If I didn't have the freedom to express myself I would not have been able to caution my society of this matter. Calling me a nigger doesn't remove a feather off my back, less off move my spirit. Although it may be not advisable for any whites to express their racism in public, nonetheless those who have chosen to use the word 'nigger' as a racial slur have expressed their freedom of speech.

More by this Author


Comments 18 comments

TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

Good Hub,

Not just the content, but the writing as well. Thank you.

TMG


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

Hey! thank you

I guest I have improved a little


John Watson 7 years ago

For all of your "thinking," one would think you'd have a better grasp of truth.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

Hi! John how are you

.... what's not true about my thinking John

can you please elaborate ---- so that you make yourself clear.

thank you John.


John W. Watson profile image

John W. Watson 7 years ago

Hi coolbreezing

Sorry if I come off as a little bit abusive. Being Black, myself, that's a fairly touchy subject for me. I'm sure it's our age gap and "intellectual diet" as well. Please, check out my hub written with yours in mind.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

Ok i will certainly do that - but remember in whatever we do - we must have reason as the platform to which we built our arguments. Reason is the foundation that validate all opinions, without reason no opinion is valid, they are all a bounch of empty statements looking for partnershhips.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago

Constitutional issues:

Free Speech Challenges: R.A.V. and Mitchell

In 1992 and 1993, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases addressing the constitutionality of statutes directed at bias-motivated intimidation and violence: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul4 and Wisconsin v. Mitchell.5

4 505 U.S. 377 (1992).

5 508 U.S. 476 (1993).

These well-known cases have now substantially defined which hate crimes statutes are, and which are not, acceptable under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Based on these cases, ADL has been strongly urging states to adopt penalty-enhancement statutes based on the League's model.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court evaluated for the first time a free speech challenge to a hate crime statute. In that case, the defendant had burned a cross "inside the fenced yard of a black family that lived across the street from the house where the [defendant] was staying." The ordinance before the Court, as interpreted by the Minnesota Supreme Court, criminalized so-called "fighting words" which "one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Fighting words are words which will provoke the person to whom they are directed to violence; more than 50 years ago, in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,6

6 315 U.S. 568 (1942). In Chaplinsky, the defendant had been convicted of issuing an insult after calling a city marshall a "racketeer" and a "damned fascist." The doctrine of "fighting words," elaborated in this one case, has not played a significant role in recent free speech jurisprudence. Use of the doctrine in R.A.V. gave every appearance of a last-ditch effort to salvage a problematic ordinance.

the Supreme Court decided that such words were not protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, in R.A.V., the state of Minnesota argued that because all so-called "fighting words" are outside first amendment protection, race-based fighting words could be criminalized.

The Supreme Court disagreed and struck down the statute. The Court held that because Minnesota had not in fact criminalized all fighting words, the statute isolated certain words based on their content or viewpoint and therefore violated the First Amendment. Based on R.A.V., hate crime statutes which criminalize bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech are unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny. Particularly, cross burning statutes or statutes criminalizing verbal intimidation are more suspect after this decision.

However, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Wisconsin statute which provides for an enhanced sentence where the defendant "intentionally selects the person against whom the crime [is committed] because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person." The defendant in Mitchell had incited a group of young Black men who had just finished watching the movie "Mississippi Burning" to assault a young white man by asking, "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people," and by calling out, "You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him."

Noting that "[t]raditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant," the Court rejected the defendant's contention that the enhancement statute penalized thought. First, the Court affirmed that the statute was directed at a defendant's conduct -- committing a crime. The Court then held that, because the bias motivation would have to be connected with a specific act, there was little risk that the statute would chill protected bigoted speech. The statute focused not on the defendant's bigoted ideas, but rather on his actions based upon those ideas. Finally, the Court made clear that "the First Amendment . . . does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent." After Mitchell, challenges to penalty-enhancement statutes on the basis of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution appear to be largely foreclosed.

State constitutions may, however, provide greater protection for speech than does the United States Constitution. Thus, notwithstanding Mitchell, states are free to decide that penalty-enhancement statutes violate their own state constitutional provisions on free speech. However, no state has done so and four state supreme courts have denied such a claim. The highest court in Oregon has rejected the claim that the Oregon Constitution prohibits penalty enhancement,7 and the Supreme Court of Washington upheld the constitutionality of the Washington statute.8 The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a motion by Mitchell, after the

7 See Plowman, 838 P.2d at 562-64; State v. Beebe, 680 P.2d 11, 13 (Or. App. 1984), rev. den., 683 P.2d 1372 (Or. 1984).

8 State v. Talley, 122 Wash.2d 192 (1993).

9 504 N.W.2d 610 (1993).

10 624 N.E.2d 722 (1994).

11 U.S. Const. amend. V ("No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"); U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1 ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law").

Supreme Court's decision, to assert Wisconsin state constitutional grounds.9 The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Ohio statute, after State v. Wyant10 was remanded by the United States Supreme Court.

Other Constitutional Challenges

Several litigants have claimed that penalty enhancement or bias-motivated crimes statutes violate the due process clause of the United States Constitution11 because the statutes are unconstitutionally vague. The due process clause requires that a criminal statute give clear notice of what activity is proscribed and provide adequate guidelines to prevent arbitrary law enforcement actions. Primarily, these state cases have focused on the "by reason of" or "because of" language which triggers the bias motivation element of the crimes. Defendants argue that these clauses do not make clear when bigoted behavior will be punished. Because the statutes require the commission of an underlying crime, however, the state courts largely have rejected these claims.

Finally, several litigants have argued that state penalty enhancement or bias-motivated crimes statutes violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. These parties have suggested either that the statutes unconstitutionally benefit minorities, because minorities are more likely to be victims of bias crimes, or that the statutes unconstitutionally burden majority members because majority members are more likely to be prosecuted. In each case, the state court has rejected the argument, noting that the statute is neutral on its face and that the state has a legitimate interest in punishing hate crimes more severely. As previously noted, the defendant in Mitchell was Black and his victim was white.


Native Son 7 years ago from Northeast Florida

I personally believe that America would be better off if the tainted N word were dropped from our vocabulary. In your response to the use of the word today, there are far more descriptive and apt words that can be used in lieu of said word to describe someone's ignorance (while being totally indifferent to said person's ethnic heritage). Why friends that truly respect each other would refer to each other in such a manner is a social anomoly if you think about it. That being said, good stab at a tough subject. You've inspired me to take a stab at it myself in a hub.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

Hi! Ralph Thanks for your knowledgeable insight - Your respond was exactly what was needed as supporting facts for this hub. The battle for free speech rights is a never ending battle in the court system.

Thanks native son - You right - there are other words that one can use but teens now days don't give the N word that much importance. Especially in big cities, where blacks and whites are becoming roommates. And yest maybe you should consider writing one yourself- you might bring a different perception into the argument.


killthegirls profile image

killthegirls 6 years ago from planet baltimore

The idea that the word "nigger" means an 'ignorant person' is a flaming brown bag of bullshit; no offense. A dumb nigga probably made that up as a lame rebuttal to some jerk that consistently referred to said dumb nigga as "a filthy nigger." Nigger means, 'a black person.' Period. To afix these made-up denotations to the word actually absolves the cracker-ass-cracker who made up the word. He totally intended to use nigger as an alternative appellation for his human livestock. White folk of good ol' dixie could careless how well read you were. To them, you were just a talking, reading, nigger, who probably should be hanging from a tree. Learned Blacks were the equivalent, in the minds of such virulently racist pigs, of Mr. Ed. I have yet to find one dictionary that defines a nigger as an ignorant person.

I use the word nigga ad nauseum. Why, you ask? Because I can and it makes people really uncomfortable. "Oh, he's so smart. He's not like the other niggers," say the liberal whites, that I encounter, behind my back (I'm pretty certain they say it exactly like that). But, when they hear me drop the N-bomb, it puzzles them. And, I love it! White people will literally ask you to stop using the word, which, of course, is like an invitation for me to say nigga, nigga, nigga even more flippantly and frequently. I'm like a child, first discovering the reactions he can elicit from his parents just by saying fuck really loud in front of Grandma.

Some niggas even went so far as to stage a 'nigger funeral.' They took it upon themselves to officially kill and bury a word. What a waste of revolutionary energy that was! Save it for the coup d'etat, dipshits! Anyway, me and a couple friends, drunk off of our asses and acting like complete, well, niggas, decided to get some shovels and dig that lil' bastard up. I now carry the word everywhere I go, using simple pullies and such to make it look as if he's waving his hands, a la Weekend at Bernies. Yes, I am driving around with a decomposed, stank, zombie word in my car, who is dressed in sun shades and a bright blue windbreaker. What's it to you?


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 6 years ago from New York, New York Author

Thanks for your opinion and also for exercising your freedom of speech. Anyhow, in regard to the word 'nigger' you said it simply means 'black'. Well in that case I would have to ask you what qualify someone for being black?

What are the criterions for being a black person? And where did white people came from? Please don't think I'm just pulling your leds, I truly want to hear your opinion on this?


garynew profile image

garynew 5 years ago from Dallas, TX and Sampran, Thailand

In order to establish motive for a 'hate' crime, you have to institute a 'thought police' state. It really is that simple, and that wrong. Murder is murder and rape is rape, etc. regardless of reason and punishment should be for the murder, not the thought (or lack thereof) process behind it. And to answer the question of your title: yes.


Man from Modesto profile image

Man from Modesto 4 years ago from Kiev, Ukraine (formerly Modesto, California)

Recent hate crime laws are actually part of a much, much broader attack on Christianity. The hate crimes legislation specifically mentions, in its applicability, "Christians", but does not mention any other group specifically.

Most hate crimes, 70%, target Jews. In the media, we see the victims as Muslims and blacks. Why is that?

In my life, I have seen a lot of blacks getting along with whites. It is almost always perceived as some special exception. It isn't. People NATURALLY GET ALONG. Division only starts when some influential source promotes that division. Today, that source is media: television, Hollywood, et al.

Truth is, in the local environment, we ARE getting along. The people who continue to think that all whites hate them because they are black, or that all blacks are like movie-stereotype gangstas are the odd ones, not the silent majority who are getting along every day, every week, every month, every year.

People in power LOVE division. They use it to play us against each other, with them in role of honorable mediator and savior and donation recipient.


Light436 4 years ago

Hate crimes legislation is about further restricting free speech. The facts are that already Minnesotans are being charged with felonies for having peaceful conversations with others. In the case of Stockwell VS. Minnesota Stockwell tried only to have one peaceful conversation with a person and they charged her with stalking, a felony.


Black Guilt 4 years ago

BLACK SKIN will protect the white man from his black haters.


Page Gogan 3 years ago

i thank whoever wrote this. i supposebly am going to be arrested for using a racial slur when im got my life threatened from this guy and my fiancée got physically assaulted. and because of the color of my skin im in trouble for it. i want to fight for our freedom of speech. everyone has their own opinion and right to say what they feel. thank you so much the wise man that has posted this i read throught this and wish there were more people like you in this world. keep your head up and again thanks.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 3 years ago from New York, New York Author

Please keep in mind that I'm Not promoting racism. I understand that you have freedom of speech to say whatever it is that you wish. However, understand that African Americans (black people) went through a lot during slavery, and the frustration that is expressed come from these memories.

Nonetheless, I am not saying that African American or anyone has the right to hit someone else for expressing their racist attitude. The educated African American understand that the racist attitude that is Not expressed is more dangerous than the person who has demonstrated it. The person who has articulated it is letting out the anger, while the person who held it in is being diplomatic about it. We can only respect one another by respecting ourselves, and the moment one of us hit the other we lose respect for ourselves.

With that said, please understand that we are Not equal. Systematic racism exist and alive ever than before. The route cause of our problem is economic - unequal distribution of resources. The attitude between whites and blacks are strongly motivate because of that factor. Peace and love...One


amy christianson 2 years ago

Do not ever threaten to criminalize someone's exercise of free speech in this country. I do not care whether a term is offensive to a group that perceives themselves to require preferential treatment and fails to comprehend that nearly every group in this world has been subject to mistreatment at various times in history by other groups.

Do no suggest that using the term 'nigger' is a criminal act on the part of a person, white, or any other color.

Children must be coddled and protected from certain terms. Only children.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working