NAMBLA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Ginsberg
Ginsberg also spoke out in defense of the freedom of expression of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

Still against antisemitism? Still think U.S. is a good country?

Ginsberg also talked often about drug use. Throughout the 1960s he took an active role in the demystification of LSD, and, with Timothy Leary, worked to promote its common use.
Yay!

Ginsberg said something I don't like.
Ginsberg is a Jew.
Therefore, hating all Jews is justified.

The U.S. allows the freedom of expression of ideas I disagree with.
Therefore, the U.S. is not a "good" country.
("Good"?  Seriously?  Are you an infant?  Could you use more vague terminology?)

>>3
Shalom, Hymie!

http://www.jewishjournal.com/bloggish/item/5_reasons_jews_didnt_make_the_anti_mohammed_video
In the most recent Public Religion Research Institute poll last April, 81 percent of Jews supported gay marriage.

i.e. Jews support everything evil.

>>3
The U.S. allows the freedom of expression of ideas
"freedom" is very selective. IIRC, even word "nigger" is banned, forgetting about Holocaust denial.

Here ugly Jewish whores got enough chutzpah explain us why the Jews are evil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t_-2dQvEpo

you may also ask yourself, who feeds these Jewish parasites, while they spam you?

>>4
This gets dumber and dumber.

Jews support gay marriage.
I do not support gay marriage.
Therefore, Jews support everything evil.

Your logic, isn't.  Cry harder.  And your ad hominem is quite indicative of your cognitive functioning.

>>5
The word "nigger" is not "banned" in America.  (Whatever "banned" means.  Do you verbalize in such a simplistic manner?)
Neither is holocaust denial.

Guys, I'm not even trying here.  And you still come off as uninformed (>>5) and crazed (>>4).

>>7
Your logic, isn't.  Cry harder.  And your ad hominem is quite indicative of your cognitive functioning.
My logic is.

Jews support evil things.
I do not support evil things.
Therefore, I don't support Jews.

The word "nigger" is not "banned" in America. Neither is holocaust denial.
They're banned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

>>8
Jews support evil things.
I do not support evil things.
Therefore, I don't support Jews.

I'm sorry... I think you gave me a stroke.  Gimme a sec.

Nope, sorry.  Your logic is predicated off the idiotic premises of "Jews support evil things" (what, all Jews?  And lemme guess, "evil" is whatever you happen not to like.)
As already explained, your claim is based off this NAMBLA guy.  All Jews are evil because this one Jewish guy supported something you don't like.  Which is astonishingly dumb.

They're banned

Oh my God.

Forget that calling someone a "nigger" is just a slur and not slander or libel, since no claim is made.

But you think that holocaust denial constitutes "defamation of character" under U.S. law?  I mean, libel suits are notoriously hard to win even with real libel.  But this doesn't even "slander" anybody.  It's just a historical claim!  It's not relevant to defamation!  At all!  Who are you defaming?  History?!

I'm absofuckinglutely speechless.  I gave you the chance to redeem yourself, and you descend into the depths of autism.  Mindbogglingly incomprehensible stupidity.

>>1
- Not sure who this Ginsberg is. Sounds like I haven't been missing out. (non-Yank here)
- Against anti-Semitism: Yes. There are Jews that piss me off, but going racist against them is just plain barking up the wrong tree. (Also, it's precisely what they want: Martyr stamp for them, dumbfuck stamp for us)
- US is a good country: No. The last of my illusions to that effect, was killed off by Bush Sr.

But even the US does do things right from time to time. Like the idea that real democracy demands that people I don't agree with, also get to speak.

>>10
Not sure who this Ginsberg is.
A typical Hymie, who promoted drug addiction, communism and pedophilia.

>>9
Oh my God.
Sorry, Hymie, "God" exists only in your rabbinic imagination.

Your logic is predicated off the idiotic premises of "Jews support evil things" (what, all Jews?
Yes. All Jews are criminals, because the Jews are a nation of all criminals.

Forget that calling someone a "nigger" is just a slur and not slander or libel, since no claim is made.
"Nigger" isn't just a skin color. Usually such slurs imply deeper issues.

you think that holocaust denial constitutes "defamation of character" under U.S. law?
Yes. Because by denying Holocaust you automatically accuse the Jews of fraud.

"evil" is whatever you happen not to like.
Evil is whatever damages host nation.

>>11
Yes. All Jews are criminals, because the Jews are a nation of all criminals.
Evil is whatever damages host nation.

Dem unsupported axioms.

"Nigger" isn't just a skin color.

"NIGGER IS A BANNED WORD IN U.S.
"Uh, no?  It's an insult.  You cannot be arrested on the grounds of insulting somebody in America.  Are you retarded?"
"WELL NIGGER IMPLIES DEEPER ISSUES"

Whatever redneck hicks think is implied meaning is not relevant in a court.  I'm going to tell you this flat-out, because your batshit insane bullshit is apparently your shield: you cannot be prosecuted under "defamation of character" for calling someone a nigger, or any racial slur whatsoever.  Not kike, not spic, not chink, nothing.  It is not possible.  It has never happened, contrary to your completely false claim which you failed to provide one iota of proof for.  "Defamation of character"?  Seriously?  Calling someone a racially-charged slur is "defamation of character"?  How the fuck does that work?  Do you even know what "defamation of character" means?  Can you cite a single court case ever made on that basis?  Holy fucking shit, how do you think it remotely acceptable to makes posts about American law when you reason like a 12 year old?

Yes. Because by denying Holocaust you automatically accuse the Jews of fraud.

Oh really?
So anybody who disagrees with anyone else can be sued for libel/slander?  Because they implicitly called them a liar when they disagreed?

That a Jew claims the holocaust happened and I disagree, so I am "implicitly accusing the Jew of legal fraud?"  And the Jew could sue me on those grounds?


Under U.S. law?
You actually believe this?
That this shit can actually happen?
You must believe it.  I have you saying it in >>8 and >>11.

Do you have one single litigated case where this happened in the U.S.?  One fucking example?  Just one fucking example!
I'm blown away by your autism.  Do you have any brain cells to understand what you yourself are saying?  Do you understand that not only not in America, but no place on the planet, would your logic hold even the veneer of sensibility if brought before a court?  Your legal sense is beyond absurd, it's hopeless.  Please tell me you are not above 12 years old.

My suggestion is to quit while you are ahead.  From such mental dysfunction, nothing productive can come.
"Defamation of Character".  Holy fuck...

>>12
Shalom!

>>12
you cannot be prosecuted under "defamation of character" for calling someone a nigger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_character
is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image.

So calling parasite a parasite, or nigger a nigger will no doubt produce "a negative or inferior image", especially if I don't point particular parasite, but libel the whole group of parasites.

Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League is called after this law.

>>11
Because by denying Holocaust you automatically accuse the Jews of fraud
Except that there are more than just the Jews that benefit from the Holocaust story. Starting with the nations that muscled through the Versailles treaty to punish Germany for being clever (the de-facto goal of WWI).
The first one didn't work, so make a nice propaganda spin on #2. And it's been working beautifully so far.

But, yes, the Jew angle has indeed been given all the air-time.

>>14
First, I'd like to say case closed on your statement on the "banned" USA holocaust denial, which is, I repeat again, dumb beyond words, and indicative of your thought process as a whole.  As expected, your reasoning behind it was sub-par in the extreme.

So what about the other half of your argument?
Oh wow.  Wikipedia again.  And look!  Jesus, you couldn't even link to the appropriate page!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

If you need it spelled out for your leaky brain even more:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/what-defamatory-statement

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/opinion-and-fair-comment-privileges

You actually don't understand.  Unbelievable.
If I call John a jerk, or a nigger or a kike, it is considered an "opinion".  This significantly reduces the chances a court will even bother to look at it, thanks to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
MOREOVER, the court determines if anyone would likely accept the statement as fact.  No court in the entire USA will worry that some redneck called a black guy a "dirty nigger" and that suddenly the guy won't be able to hold a job because he is a "dirty nigger" to everyone.

If you said, "This black guy stole something", THAT would be "defamation of character", since you are making a factual claim which cannot be construed as opinion, and everybody distances themselves from a thief. 
(To preempt the sadly predictable, if you want to claim that the U.S. courts would understand "nigger" as implicitly "a thieving person", you will need to provide a court who understood the term this way.  Evidence!  Gasp!  Which leads to the next point:)

My explanation may tell why you cannot cite any U.S. court case which claims otherwise.  There are none.  You don't have to like my explanations.  You are, after all, not playing with a full deck.  But your arguments fail in the concrete: no black man ever won a court case in the USA because someone called him a "nigger".  Ever.  I challenge you to find me such a case.  You will fail.

I think that you've had enough.
In general, making extravagant and categorical statements on subjects which I have demonstrated you know nothing about whatsoever, makes you look, as I said much earlier, ignorant and crazed.
0/10 for getting me to respond to your shitposting.

>>16
If you said, "This black guy stole something", THAT would be "defamation of character"
But by calling Jew a parasite I imply exactly that. Same by denying Holocaust, because Jews stole these "reparations".

Then the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd63P7mYXzo video could to be considered as a defamation, as it implies that niggers steal bikes.

NAMBLA is awesome. They should have a special board here.

>>18
4chan will never cater to pedos, for a start /b/tards gain more from getting them arrested than trolling people by pretending to be pedos

>>18
It's really quick simple and easy to inform the authorities of pedophiles and their activities.

Just go to

http://www.iwf.org.uk/

and file a report

>>17
But by calling Jew a parasite I imply exactly that.

SIGH.  You actually don't read.
To preempt the sadly predictable, if you want to claim that the U.S. courts would understand "nigger" as implicitly "a thieving person", you will need to provide a court who understood the term this way.  Evidence!  Gasp!
("Don't say X, which is a terrible argument because Y")
("BU WAT ABOUT X?!?!?!")

The word "parasite" can imply different things depending on the context.  The term is ambiguous enough that the court would treat it as just an insult.  If I call John a parasite, or evil (doesn't that imply something?), or WHATEVER, it will be virtually impossible for him to win against me if he tried to press charges.
Unless you have clear evidence of a U.S. court treating the term or terms like it differently?  Or are you just formulating wild theories about what could happen in a fantastical scenario which has not ever played out, since the law functions differently?
Welp, the onus is pretty clearly on you, since I can't prove something never happened.  Happy hunting, dipshit.  Because for the billionth time, this issue never even got to court, so dumb is your claim.


Same by denying Holocaust, because Jews stole these "reparations".

Here you are again, pulling the exact same shit, over and over.  It's amazing you don't get tired.  Your drive to push your half-baked conspiracy of the censorious U.S. court system is limitless.

Because I don't want you to lose track, I would remind you that this isn't about you just wanting to say continually "HOLOHOAX" (or is it?).  This is you making a very particular claim:  That under U.S. law, holocaust denial is banned.

If I claim that the holocaust never happened, I am not accusing anybody of anything, since I have yet to prove that any particular survivor knew this was true, and consonantly knowingly misled people for concrete personal gain.

Even if I could prove that a particular survivor knew this and knowingly misled for personal gain, it would develop into a court case.  It wouldn't be "banned".  It would be settled in court, whether true or not.

Thus, you have yet to offer any solid proof as to how holocaust denial is "banned" under U.S. law.  You certainly haven't proven it ever being litigated as such.  I wonder why?


To recap (since you have trouble understanding my posts, it seems):
You claimed that a "parasite" (or nigger, doesn't matter) has all sorts of implied meanings which could theoretically constitute "defamation of character" under U.S. law, and thus insulting somebody with these words can be prosecuted under U.S. law.
I claimed that a court doesn't legislate on ambiguities of possible offenses, (especially when they are pretty clearly insults/opinions, whether you want them to be or not).  If you disagree further, the onus lies on you to prove that a court legislates in that manner, since I cannot prove that something never happened (logic 101).  Until then, you continue to be full of shit. (The easiest way would be to bring an actual court case supporting your position.  Tough to do when there aren't any, I know.  But by your logic, these should be plentiful!  So where are they?)

On the holocaust denial being "banned" side:
Your proof was that disagreeing with someone on the subject is "implicitly" accusing them of fraud.
This is manifestly not so since prosecution for fraud can only occur if the fraudster knew ahead of time this was true (sorry fucker, you get a big F in the reasoning department).  Thus, holocaust denial alone is not enough to take anyone to court over anything.  Which explains all the people in the U.S. who deny the holocaust openly and proudly, and nothing happens to them ("b-b-but my logic is infallible!")

MOREOVER, even if it were true that that defendant knew ahead of time the holocaust was fake/benefited from it concretely (and this was proved in U.S. court), the matter would be settled IN COURT.  IT WOULD NOT BE THROWN OUT ON GROUNDS OF BEING "BANNED".  WHERE THE HELL DOES THIS "BANNED" COME FROM.
HOW RETARDED CAN YOU BE TO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS SHIT YOU SAY.

Look, I've got to hand it to you.  Without offering any speck of hard evidence to support your claim, no court cases, fuck, not even an easy throwaway web site to do your legal arguing for you (not that you didn't try with an irrelevant Wikipedia article which you read one line from), you just keep spewing.

Is there more to come?  Am I done?  (Famous last words in arguing with a autistic man-child lunatic).

>>21
The word "parasite" can imply different things depending on the context.  The term is ambiguous enough that the court would treat it as just an insult.
That depends on the court. I.e. if judge is Jewish, he/she will interpret it the way he/she likes. Especially if I myself state what I mean by calling Jews parasites.

>>22
I'm tired of your arguing just for the sake of not conceding.  I'll make this brief.

Especially if I myself state what I mean by calling Jews parasites.

Unless you are making a specific claim, ("John stole money"), the court is unlikely to even care.

If you are making a sweeping statement of an entire ethnic group, (ALL kikes/niggers steal), the court is even less likely to care.

Your argument for subjectivity fails in the concrete.

No court ever understood racial slurs and insults this way.

The onus is on you to provide proof otherwise.

For all your moronic bluster and confidence, you have yet to do so this entire argument.  Not one case.  However, you HAVE demonstrated that you do not understand basic concepts of American law (defamation, fraud, First Amendment), which leads me to believe that you are talking out of your ass.  This dovetails nicely with most of your posts on this board.

As already stated (multiple times):
I claimed that a court doesn't legislate on ambiguities of possible offenses, (especially when they are pretty clearly insults/opinions, whether you want them to be or not).  If you disagree further, the onus lies on you to prove that a court legislates in that manner, since I cannot prove that something never happened (logic 101).  Until then, you continue to be full of shit. (The easiest way would be to bring an actual court case supporting your position.  Tough to do when there aren't any, I know.  But by your logic, these should be plentiful!  So where are they?)

>>23
If you are making a sweeping statement of an entire ethnic group, (ALL kikes/niggers steal), the court is even less likely to care.
Entire ethnic group has more means to defend itself, so it is the opposite.

Your argument for subjectivity fails in the concrete.
Sorry, but everything is subjective. If you dislike court decision, you can appeal in supreme court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:O%27Connor,_Sotomayor,_Ginsburg,_and_Kagan.jpg

these Jewish women will be like: “this goyim calls us “parasites”?!”

Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel#Holocaust_denial
Zündel was charged under the Criminal Code, section 181, of spreading false news for publishing "Did Six Million Really Die?".

That is the famous American "freedom" of speech! Asking a simple question like "Did Six Million Really Die?" may get you jailed.

>>25
If Germans really killed that many Jews, how come there are still so much Jews around in every niche of our daily life? Look at Ukrainian government: it has a good share of persons with Jewish ancestry, despite the claims that Germans genocided Ukrainian Jewry.

>>26
Of course there are orders of magnitude more persons with Jewish ancestry, than there are Jews, but that only proves that 6 millions isn't enough to punish the Jews.

>>24
Sorry, but everything is subjective.

Hmm... no, I'm guessing your inability to bring up a court case supporting your position is indicative of the lack of evidence.  In any case, that you have yet to succeed to find anything is certainly objective.  You haven't even tried.  Objectively.

Oh, but look at this, an actual attempt!  Let's see if this will work...

>>25
In 1984, the Ontario government joined the criminal proceedings against Zündel based on Citron's complaint. Zündel was charged under the Criminal Code, section 181...

followed by your triumphant:

That is the famous American "freedom" of speech!

Let's zero in on a few key words here.

the Ontario government
That is the famous American "freedom" of speech!
the ONTARIO government
That is the famous AMERICAN "freedom" of speech!

I know you aren't working with much, but humor me.  Can you tell me, with your copious brainpower, where this case happened?

Oh, and from the database of the CANADIAN Supreme Court:
http://scc.lexum.org/en/1992/1992scr2-731/1992scr2-731.html
The court's decision was overturned by the CANADIAN Supreme Court.  In ONTARIO.

So not only are you misrepresenting facts (because the decision was ruled unconstitutional... in Canada!), you couldn't even get the goddamn country right.  You've evidently eaten enough paste to think that Ontario is in America.

I came back to this thread expecting you to actually make a coherent claim for evidence.  But you can't even get your geography down.  Fuck, even the >Canadian< Supreme Court overruled it!  In CANADA!  Where this fucking case HAPPENED!

The nice thing, of course, is that I don't need to argue to imply you are a retard.  Your posts make the point quite clearly.

>>28
Fail to see much difference between U.S. and Canada, which is more like another U.S. state.

>>29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_state#Canada