• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned?

Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Gov.?

  • Yes-banned on your own property,but not a crime.

    Votes: 1 3.6%

  • Yes-banned on your own property and a crime.

    Votes: 1 3.6%

  • Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed but not a crime.

    Votes: 1 3.6%

  • Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed and a crime.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace,but not a crime.

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace and a crime.

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • No-The government has no business deeming any symbol illegal anywhere.

    Votes: 20 71.4%

  • Other.

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • Total voters
    28
jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Gov.?

Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the government?

Yes-banned on your own property,but not a crime.
Yes-banned on your own property and a crime.
Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed but not a crime.
Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed and a crime.
Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace,but not a crime.
Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace and a crime.

No-The government has no business deeming any symbol illegal anywhere.

other.



Please note that a criminal offense is a misdemeanor or greater. A misdemeanor is punishable up to six months in jail.


New California law bans displaying nooses after Sarah Palin, Barack Obama effigies

California law already bans threatening displays of swastikas and burning crosses. Now add nooses to the list.

On Thursday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation making such displays punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Go

Hanging a noose on someone else's property without their permission is probably already covered under the trespassing ordinances. And what is special about a workplace? What if I'm an employer and I think it is okay to have a noose displayed at work for some sort of Hallowe'en event? Now that is a crime?

Just another bit of the First Amendment chipped away, I guess ...
 
Kinda just sounds like feel good legislation. It doesn't stop anybody from hanging an effigy of the president from their gutter.
 
Re: Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Go

jamesrage said:
Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the government?

Yes-banned on your own property,but not a crime.
Yes-banned on your own property and a crime.
Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed but not a crime.
Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed and a crime.
Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace,but not a crime.
Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace and a crime.

No-The government has no business deeming any symbol illegal anywhere.

other.



Please note that a criminal offense is a misdemeanor or greater. A misdemeanor is punishable up to six months in jail.


New California law bans displaying nooses after Sarah Palin, Barack Obama effigies

California law already bans threatening displays of swastikas and burning crosses. Now add nooses to the list.

On Thursday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation making such displays punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
Click to expand...

I chose "other", because I consider it reasonable for the government to disallow some images/symbols on it's property (government buildings, land, etc.) in an effort to profess/protect it's position on things.
On privately owned property, no. (<---note the period.)

Placing an image/symbol on someone elses property without their permission, is, of course, already illegal.
 
Re: Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Go

The Mark said:
I chose "other", because I consider it reasonable for the government to disallow some images/symbols on it's property (government buildings, land, etc.) in an effort to profess/protect it's position on things.
On privately owned property, no. (<---note the period.)

Placing an image/symbol on someone elses property without their permission, is, of course, already illegal.
Click to expand...

The governments property?
 
Re: Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Go

mikhail said:
The governments property?
Click to expand...

It should be tax payer property seeing how the tax payers not government paid for it.
 
No. The government needs to let adults choose what they want to hear, see etc.

The problem is so few believe in personal responsibility anymore.
 
Re: Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Go

jamesrage said:
It should be tax payer property seeing how the tax payers not government paid for it.
Click to expand...

True, but how often to you think our government thinks in those terms?
 
Re: Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Go

The Mark said:
True, but how often to you think our government thinks in those terms?
Click to expand...

I think its not just the government that doesn't think in those terms but a lot of regular people who think its the government's money instead of tax payer or that its the government's property instead of tax payer property.
 
Re: Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Go

jamesrage said:
New California law bans displaying nooses after Sarah Palin, Barack Obama effigies

California law already bans threatening displays of swastikas and burning crosses. Now add nooses to the list.

On Thursday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation making such displays punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
Click to expand...

If it is ok in the governments book to burn the American flag then it should be ok to display anything that a person wants to on their own property or on public land. It would fall under the same catagory after all. Free Speech.
 
I voted no, however I can see the government banning such in government buildings, not so much in the public square. This being said, who can blame the slurred if they happen to feel threatened and defend themselves in an appropriate(foot up offender's ass) manner towards the idiot that put the symbol up, I know we have more enforcement of assault and battery laws these days, but some people just need to get a beating.
 
Re: Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Go

jamesrage said:
Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the government?

Yes-banned on your own property,but not a crime.
Yes-banned on your own property and a crime.
Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed but not a crime.
Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed and a crime.
Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace,but not a crime.
Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace and a crime.

No-The government has no business deeming any symbol illegal anywhere.

other.



Please note that a criminal offense is a misdemeanor or greater. A misdemeanor is punishable up to six months in jail.


New California law bans displaying nooses after Sarah Palin, Barack Obama effigies

California law already bans threatening displays of swastikas and burning crosses. Now add nooses to the list.

On Thursday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation making such displays punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
Click to expand...

Terrible.The test of if you believe in freedom of speech is not defending the controversal things said you agree with, but defending the controversal things said you dont agree with.
 
God California is really a major embarrassment to this country most of the time.
 
Hate symbols and gang symbols are prohibited in the military. So are tatoos above the shoulders and "sleeves." The reason being that military personnel, whether they are on humanitarian missions, occupation missions, or embassy duties, are ambassadors of the United States and thusly must reflect what is supposed to be a certain standard on what America is.

Some Americans believe that if they aren't allowed to embrace the gutter of what freedom has to offer, than the next step is Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Maybe our "ambassadors" should reflect more accurately.
 
“Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the government?” – jamesrage

I live in the South and every election year the question of banning the Confederate Battle Flag from state flags to whatever always seems to become an issue (why it never seems to be an issue during non-election years is something of a mystery to me).

This is a “symbol” that means different things to different people.

To blacks it’s racist.

To Southerners its history and heritage.

And, yea, I know the Klan likes to use it but, unfortunately, there is no patent on the “Stars and Bars” so I’m afraid that any inbred, backwater, unintelligent, uneducated coward that still lives in this mother’s basement and has nick-named his right-hand “Wanda” is free to use it for whatever purposes they like.

So for those that voted “yes” in this poll, perhaps we should also ban the American Flag. After all, this was the “symbol” that the Klan used almost exclusively during their heyday of the 1920s.

Besides, if we start banning things like the swastika we won’t be able to tell who the ***holes are.
 
As harsh of my view of vandalism is in the first place, if you're placing the symbols on display on someone else's property, the intent to intimidate is fairly clear and this should certainly be a criminal offense. This is worse than either merely trespassing or merely vandalism, and should be handled accordingly.

At school or at the workplace? The former, it's part of the school's job to teach students how to behave properly in the real world. This should be prohibited, but not criminal. In the workplace? I'd say that depends entirely on the management of the workplace and their own standards, but unless the placement of the symbols constitutes harassment, it's not a criminal matter.

Pretty simple difference. If I hang a noose over someone else's desk, I'm implying that I'm going to string him up. If I hang a noose over my own desk, I'm implying that I'm going to string someone up, or possibly that someone else wants to string me up.
 
GySgt said:
Hate symbols and gang symbols are prohibited in the military. So are tatoos above the shoulders and "sleeves." The reason being that military personnel, whether they are on humanitarian missions, occupation missions, or embassy duties, are ambassadors of the United States and thusly must reflect what is supposed to be a certain standard on what America is.

Some Americans believe that if they aren't allowed to embrace the gutter of what freedom has to offer, than the next step is Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Maybe our "ambassadors" should reflect more accurately.
Click to expand...

The main reason that symbols are banned in the military is not so much about "image" as it is about not wanting to offend which ever territory/country a particular soldier is in at the time. It wouldn't exactly do to send a soldier to Israel if he/she has a tattoo of a swastika on their head now would it?

And yes I know this also has to do with image...but a different kind than you were referring to.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Pretty simple difference. If I hang a noose over someone else's desk, I'm implying that I'm going to string him up. If I hang a noose over my own desk, I'm implying that I'm going to string someone up, or possibly that someone else wants to string me up.
Click to expand...

If I put a noose on my desk, it means I'm horny and looking for some bondage.
 
Re: Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Go

jamesrage said:
Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the government?

Yes-banned on your own property,but not a crime.
Yes-banned on your own property and a crime.
Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed but not a crime.
Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed and a crime.
Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace,but not a crime.
Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace and a crime.

No-The government has no business deeming any symbol illegal anywhere.

other.

Please note that a criminal offense is a misdemeanor or greater. A misdemeanor is punishable up to six months in jail.


New California law bans displaying nooses after Sarah Palin, Barack Obama effigies

California law already bans threatening displays of swastikas and burning crosses. Now add nooses to the list.

On Thursday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation making such displays punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
Click to expand...

I don't want to see swastikas or a KKK hood or a hanging effigy of anyone.
But i wouldn't want it to be a crime or the Government to get involved in telling me what is offensive or not which they have done anyway. I'd like to be the judge of that and i do always have the option of walking away.

That is how we have gotten to the stage where we are now. "Omgz, ban the 'black boards' because it is offensive to Black people' :doh
 
Last edited:
The Baron said:
Besides, if we start banning things like the swastika we won’t be able to tell who the ***holes are.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the "swastika" and many other symbols were co-opted by the Nazi party from their original use in some religions.
Such religions still exist, and have members, a sadly large part of whom are also white supremacists.

So perhaps not everyone who would wish to wear a swastika is by default then an asshole.
 
Re: Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the Go

jamesrage said:
Should certain symbols deemed racist,offensive or threatening be banned by the government?

Yes-banned on your own property,but not a crime.
Yes-banned on your own property and a crime.
Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed but not a crime.
Yes-banned where ever regular protest are allowed and a crime.
Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace,but not a crime.
Yes-banned on someone else's property or at a school or workplace and a crime.

No-The government has no business deeming any symbol illegal anywhere.

other.



Please note that a criminal offense is a misdemeanor or greater. A misdemeanor is punishable up to six months in jail.


New California law bans displaying nooses after Sarah Palin, Barack Obama effigies

California law already bans threatening displays of swastikas and burning crosses. Now add nooses to the list.

On Thursday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation making such displays punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I find dark skin to be a racist symbol.

Dark skin should be banned.

***
Wedding rings discriminate against gays.

Wedding rings should be banned.

***
Gays discriminate against women, and lesbians discriminate against men, therefore homosexuality should be banned.

Heterosexuality includes both sexes, so it can stay, but bisexuality encouraged among young hot collage teens washing cars in bikinis to raise awareness.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
As I understand it, the "swastika" and many other symbols were co-opted by the Nazi party from their original use in some religions.
Such religions still exist, and have members, a sadly large part of whom are also white supremacists.

So perhaps not everyone who would wish to wear a swastika is by default then an asshole.
Click to expand...
The Nazi swastika and the original swastika(Buddhism's or what-ever's symbol), are different in their shape and appearance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom