USA Customs are policing DVD's now.....

[Helmholtz Watson]

justifiably racist

And there was I thinking that racism could never be justified.

Oh. And y'know what else? Every time a politician says something that makes a tiny bit of sense, the fucking Liberal Democrats start running their mouths, and then the poor sod gets disowned by his own party.
I'm referring to Ken Livingstone, and his push for different rape sentences - i.e. Intoxicated sex should get a far shorter sentence than violent rape. This was met by the anti-Ken 'Rape is rape' campaign.

Are you sure you don't mean Ken Clarke? Quite a big difference, one is Labour, the other is Tory.

Ken Clarke was trying to reduce overcrouding in prison by cutting 25% off the sentences of people who plead guilty at their earliest opportunity, for all crimes, not just rape. You've turned it around to where you seem to be saying that you think rape is a less serious crime if it's committed while drunk.

sorry about all the questions, just give this one question your best guess then... what if on January 30th, a Muslim Pakistani community/religious leader went on the News on tv and tried to justify Bloody Sunday? What would be the UK governments response if his comments caused outraged/backlash amongst the Irish Catholics in the UK/Ireland/Irish government?

Pretty sure the government would strongly condemn such statements, regardless of how the Irish Catholic community might respond.

I'm reminded of the black MP who made some generalisation about all white people recently and was made to apologise.

--

OT: US Customs directive concerning 19 USC 1305, the law that this thread is supposed to be about [http://foia.cbp.gov/streamingWord.asp?i=12]:
'A 1978 district court decision, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, interpreted [seditious and treasonable materials to mean] only those materials that are "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action." The court said that this interpretation was necessary for the statute to pass constitutional challenge. Customs officers must distinguish matter that merely advocates lawless action, which is permitted, from prohibited matter that is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action... Prohibited seditious matter does not include abstract teaching that promotes violence and other illegal acts.'

So, "matter advocating or urging treason or insurrection" (OP's phrase) is permitted, and it is unconstitutional to prohibit such materials from entering the US unless they are "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and are likely to incite or produce such action."

I don't doubt you, but could you give me a source?

 

[Thyunda]

justifiably racist

And there was I thinking that racism could never be justified.

Oh. And y'know what else? Every time a politician says something that makes a tiny bit of sense, the fucking Liberal Democrats start running their mouths, and then the poor sod gets disowned by his own party.
I'm referring to Ken Livingstone, and his push for different rape sentences - i.e. Intoxicated sex should get a far shorter sentence than violent rape. This was met by the anti-Ken 'Rape is rape' campaign.

Are you sure you don't mean Ken Clarke? Quite a big difference, one is Labour, the other is Tory.

Ken Clarke was trying to reduce overcrouding in prison by cutting 25% off the sentences of people who plead guilty at their earliest opportunity, for all crimes, not just rape. You've turned it around to where you seem to be saying that you think rape is a less serious crime if it's committed while drunk.

sorry about all the questions, just give this one question your best guess then... what if on January 30th, a Muslim Pakistani community/religious leader went on the News on tv and tried to justify Bloody Sunday? What would be the UK governments response if his comments caused outraged/backlash amongst the Irish Catholics in the UK/Ireland/Irish government?

Pretty sure the government would strongly condemn such statements, regardless of how the Irish Catholic community might respond.

I'm reminded of the black MP who made some generalisation about all white people recently and was made to apologise.

--

OT: US Customs directive concerning 19 USC 1305, the law that this thread is supposed to be about [http://foia.cbp.gov/streamingWord.asp?i=12]:
'A 1978 district court decision, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, interpreted [seditious and treasonable materials to mean] only those materials that are "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action." The court said that this interpretation was necessary for the statute to pass constitutional challenge. Customs officers must distinguish matter that merely advocates lawless action, which is permitted, from prohibited matter that is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action... Prohibited seditious matter does not include abstract teaching that promotes violence and other illegal acts.'

So, "matter advocating or urging treason or insurrection" (OP's phrase) is permitted, and it is unconstitutional to prohibit such materials from entering the US unless they are "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and are likely to incite or produce such action."

Ken Clarke sounds possible. Except there was a debate about rape specifically. Unless they were using that as an example, and then focused on that and only that. It's possible, I suppose.

And I was referring to the fact that intoxicated sex is legally rape. Not that rape while intoxicated is different from regular rape. Bloody hell, pick and choose my words if you want.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Thoughts?

The Tariff Act, Title 19, chapter 4, subsection 1305 was codified into law 1930.
kinda a couple decades late to that party.

This was used during the 'cold war' against potential threats from the 'reds' but was mostly neutered by the 1970's because of conflicts with 'Illegal Search and Seizure' laws.

Late 2010, with concerns over DVD's promoting insurrection and the threat of the 'home grown terrorist' has lead to the latest revision of this specific section of the law which more closely scrutinizes DVD's, CD's, and Digital Information Devices (hard drives, Flash drives, etc.) going through customs.

This revision was codified into law January 7th, 2011.

However, enforcement of this law has been some what relaxed until mid/late 2011, and the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security have scrutinized Customs enforcement leading to more strict adherance to the letter of the law. This coupled with the Patriot Act... well. Then you start running into this..
well this is it.


Also;
the 'Immoral' part is a layover from when this law was drafted.
the 30's and 40's where a very diffrent time then now.

 

[oktalist]

I don't doubt you, but could you give me a source?

Source for what, the black MP thing? Just search Diane Abbott race remarks.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

I take it American customs have caught all the drug smugglers, human traffickers and illegal immigrants, so they are only after dvds because they now have nothing better to do.

but of course, they have also eliminated world hunger, energy dependency, diseases and have begun to send out colony ships to the rest of the solar system. They wouldnt do this because some powermad people have promise to cut them off if they dont promote their agenda right?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.339583-White-House-petiotioned-to-Investigate-MPAA-on-account-of-Bribery

What? Politicians easily swayed from their principals by monetary threats that could damaged their political careers if they don't comply? Surely you jest good sir.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I don't doubt you, but could you give me a source?

Source for what, the black MP thing? Just search Diane Abbott race remarks.

thanks, and wow. How is she not in legal trouble for the things she tweeted? I thought the UK was serious over speech like that(see:crazy lady on the train), no?

 

[oktalist]

I don't doubt you, but could you give me a source?

Source for what, the black MP thing? Just search Diane Abbott race remarks.

thanks, and wow. How is she not in legal trouble for the things she tweeted? I thought the UK was serious over speech like that(see:crazy lady on the train), no?

And that is the difference between merely expressing an opinion, and intentionally inciting hatred or causing harassment, alarm or distress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I don't doubt you, but could you give me a source?

Source for what, the black MP thing? Just search Diane Abbott race remarks.

thanks, and wow. How is she not in legal trouble for the things she tweeted? I thought the UK was serious over speech like that(see:crazy lady on the train), no?

And that is the difference between merely expressing an opinion, and intentionally inciting hatred or causing harassment, alarm or distress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

so then people like Nick Griffin could say racist crap on his twitter and not get in trouble for it?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

... you can understand why that person might be a little bit racist...such as when the influx of a certain race has managed to destabilise the entire city, and it's still suffering from the after-effects.

that's a giant load of bullshit and it stinks of victim blaming.

Would you ever use the length of a woman's skirt to explain how you can understand where her rapist was coming from?

...I take it you don't get what Thyunda, which(imo) means that it is possible to understand someone who has views in contrast of your own(in this case racist), while not agreeing with the person. For example, in relation to your example about the rapist, you could try to understand why the length of a woman's skirt affects them, while at the same time disagreeing with their conduct as a rapist.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

"justifiably" implies that the woman's reasons for being a racist are valid.

that's very specifically what justifiable means: just, right, valid, free of blame.


This woman is none of those things, she's simply a hateful bigot.

 

[oktalist]

so then people like Nick Griffin could say racist crap on his twitter and not get in trouble for it?

If by trouble you mean criminal charges then yes, he can say whatever he likes as long as it is not likely to stir up racial hatred or done with the intention of stirring up racial hatred. He seems to be quite careful to phrase his statements in such a way as to avoid the suggestion that he is "stirring up".

He cannot, however, sit on a train and be threatening, abusive or insulting to other passengers with the intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress.

Although, just because a law exists, doesn't mean it has to be enforced 100% of the time. I'm thinking of groups like the EDL and pro-terrorist Islamist marches who are probably breaking the same law as the crazy train lady, but where the police and prosecutors might think it more prudent to allow it to continue out in the open, rather than driving it underground which would make it harder to monitor such groups and probably result in more radicalisation.