3-Year-Olds Branded “Racist,” “Homophobic” Put In Government Database.

[Ponce]

And what the hell is wrong with using the words "gay" or "lesbian"?........if they were to say fag or dike I would then understand it, more or less, but gay and lesbian?.......are the kids supposed to say "those people?".
================================================== ==


Kids’ future careers jeopardized by committing hate crime of saying the word “gay.”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, September 15, 2011

Over 30,000 British schoolchildren, some as young as three, have had their names registered on a government database and branded “racist” or “homophobic” for using playground insults, infractions that could impact their future careers.

The shocking figures were disclosed after civil liberties group the Manifesto Club made a Freedom of Information Act request which betrayed the fact that kids who used petty jibes are now being treated as thought criminals by education authorities.

34,000 incidents of “racism” in total were reported for the year 2009-2010, with nursery school toddlers as young as three being put on a state database for using the words “gay” and “lesbian”. One child who called another “broccoli head” was also reported to authorities. Other cases included a child who used the word “gaylord,” while another who told a teacher “this work is gay,” was also added to the thought crime database.

The majority of the reported cases involved primary school children.

“The record can be passed from primaries to secondaries or when a pupil moves between schools,” reports the Daily Mail.

“And if schools are asked for a pupil reference by a future employer or a university, the record could be used as the basis for it, meaning the pettiest of incidents has the potential to blight a child for life.”

Schools are being pressured to report such incidents to authorities and face punishments for not doing so under anti-bullying policies.

This is a clear example of how hate crime laws have brazenly been hijacked by the state to get children institutionalized on criminal databases at an early age. This is about the state dictating what your child can think and say – it’s the thought police on steroids.

Orwell talked about the state reducing language via Newspeak in his book 1984. By eliminating the very words that come out of children’s mouths and punishing them for thinking certain thoughts, all critical thinking is ultimately abolished, and Big Brother assumes the supreme power to dictate reality – a dictatorship over our very minds.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1102/831/3-Year-Olds_Branded_Racist,_Homophobic_Put_In_Government_ Database.html

[nunaem]

This pisses me off to no end. It isn't just the govt database that pisses me off, but corporations have become the willing servants of the PC thought police. They are soo afraid of losing business due to a 'heretical' employee that they have become just as bad as the state.

We need to organize and patronize the corporations that are willing to employ 'thought criminals'. That is, if there are any such corps, but if there aren't we can create a demand for them.

[skidmark]

Maybe they should just jail them, lest they grow up to be internet trolls

[Gaillo]

This pisses me off to no end. It isn't just the govt database that pisses me off, but corporations have become the willing servants of the PC thought police. They are soo afraid of losing business due to a 'heretical' employee that they have become just as bad as the state.

We need to organize and patronize the corporations that are willing to employ 'thought criminals'. That is, if there are any such corps, but if there aren't we can create a demand for them.


But you're OK with adults who call each other names over the internet being sent to jail?
Something does not compute... ???

[nunaem]

But you're OK with adults who call each other names over the internet being sent to jail?
Something does not compute... ???

Are you having computer problems?

[MAGNES]

This is an article from the UK, you can find many of them like this going back years.

They are truly fucked in the UK, some of the news over there is beyond ridiculous.

It truly is a Police State. And leading. Everyone bent over for ZOG.

[palani]

Ron White ... "They call me 'tater salad"

Case where an alias as a child in Texas comes back to haunt him 20 years later in NYC.

Charge was BEING DRUNK IN PUBLIC. The plea "Hell, I was drunk in PRIVATE. They THREW me into public."

[Twisted Titan]

I wager three mercury dimes if you use the word Goyim you wont get entered into the database

That is if you are of a particular tribe.

[Ponce]

Magnes? like I say.......what happens in the US will happen first in the UK.......

[JDRock]

im racist, cant stand fags, lezzies...fvkn judges....just ranting while we still can.

[General of Darkness]

England is beyond fucked. The major reason, jews. And it's the same CAUSE all across white nations. As my mom use to say, "To bad the gas chambers never existed". I REALLY REALLY REALLY hate to say it, but England needs a White Nationalist at the helm to straighten shit out.

[mick silver]

This is an article from the UK, you can find many of them like this going back years.

They are truly fucked in the UK, some of the news over there is beyond ridiculous.

It truly is a Police State. And leading. Everyone bent over for ZOG.
magnes what pisses my off most about this , most here in this country are asking for the same laws here . call me a name go to jail , say something wrong go to jail

[palani]

call me a name go to jail , say something wrong go to jail

How to create a person

1) say a word
2) do an action
3) be represented

A word is a person but nothing on the internet is said (verbal). Libel (an action in writing) is not verbal but is an action and so does create a person. Anytime a person is created it can be punished.

Here is some information on the topic from Bouviers 1856 law dictionary.


LIBEL, libellus, criminal law. A malicious defamation expressed either in printing or writing, or by signs or pictures, tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, with intent to provoke the living; or the reputation of one who is alive, and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Hawk. b. 1, c. 73, s. 1; Wood's Inst, 444; 4 Bl. Com. 150; 2 Chitty, Cr. Law, 867; Holt on Lib. 73; 5 Co. 125; Salk. 418; Ld. Rgym. 416; 4. T. R. 126; 4 Mass. R. 168; 9 John. 214; 1 Den. Rep. 347; 2 Pick. R. 115; 2 Kent, Com. 13. It has been defined perhaps with more precision to be a censorious or ridiculous writing, picture or sign made with a malicious or mischievous intent, towards government magistrates or individuals. 3 John. Cas. 354; 9 John. R. 215; 5 Binn. 340.

2. In briefly considering this offence, we will inquire, 1st. By what mode of expression a libel may be conveyed. 2d. Of what kind of defamation it must consist. 3d. How plainly it must be expressed. 4th. What mode of publication is essential.

3. - 1. The reduction of the slanderous matter to writing, or printing, is the most usual mode of conveying it. The exhibition of a picture, intimating that which in print would be libelous, is equally criminal. 2 Camp. 512; 5 Co. 125; 2 Serg. & Rawle 91. Fixing a gallows at a man's door, burning him in effigy, or exhibiting him in any ignominious manner, is a libel. Hawk. b. 1, c. 73, s. 2,; 11 East, R. 227.

4. - 2. There is perhaps no branch of the law which is so difficult to reduce to exact, principles, or to compress within a small compass, as the requisites of a libel. All publications denying the Christian religion to be true; 11 Serg. & Rawle, 394; Holt on Libels, 74; 8 Johns. R. 290; Vent. 293; Keb. 607; all writings subversive of morality and tending to inflame the passions by indecent language, are indictable at common law. 2 Str. 790; Holt on Libels, 82; 4 Burr. 2527. In order to constitute a libel, it is not necessary that anything criminal should be imputed to the party injured; it is enough if the writer has exhibited him in a ludicrous point of view; has pointed him out as an object of ridicule or disgust; has, in short, done that which has a natural tendency to excite him to revenge. 2 Wils. 403; Bacon's Abr. Libel, A 2; 4 Taunt. 355; 3 Camp. 214; Hardw. 470; 5 Binn. 349. The case of Villars v. Monsley, 2 Wils. 403, above cited, was grounded upon the following verses, which were held to be libelous, namely:

"Old-Villers, so strong of brimstone you smell,
As if not long since you had got out of hell,
But this damnable smell I no longer can bear,
Therefore I desire you would come no more here;
You, old stinking; old nasty, old itchy, old toad,
If you come any more you shall pay for your board,
You'll therefore take this as a warning from me,
And never enter the doors, while they belong to J. P.
Wilncot, December 4, 1767."

5. Libels against the memory of the dead which have a tendency to create a breach of the peace by inciting the friends and relatives of the deceased to avenge the insult of the fanlily, render their authors liable to legal animadversion. 5 co. 123; 5 Binn. 281; 2 Chit. Cr. Law, 868; 4 T. R. 186.

6. - 3. If the matter be understood as scandalous, and is calculated to excite ridicule or abhorrence against the party intended, it is libelous, however it may be expressed. 5 East, 463; 1 Price, 11, 17; Hob. 215; Chit. Cr. Law, 868; 2 Campb. 512.

7. - 4. The malicious reading of a libel to one or more persons, it being on the shelves in a bookstore, as other books, for sale; and where the defendant directed the libel to be printed, took away some and left others; these several acts have been held to be publications. The sale of each copy; where several copies have been sold, is a distinct publication, and a fresh offence. The publication must be malicious; evidence of the malice may be either express or implied. Express proof is not necessary: for where a man publishes a writing which on the face of it is libelous, the law presumes he does so from that malicious intention which constitutes the offence, and it is unnecessary, on the part of the prosecution, to prove any circumstance from which malice may be inferred. But no allegation, however false and malicious, contained in answers to interrogatories, in affidavits duly made, or any other proceedings, in courts of justice, or petitions to the legislature, are indictable. 4 Co. 14; 2 Burr. 807; Hawk. B. 1, c. 73, s. 8; 1 Saund. 131, n. 1; 1 Lev. 240; 2 Chitty's Cr. Law, 869; 2 Serg. & Rawle, 23. It is no defence that the matter published is part of a document printed by order of the house of commons. 9 A. &E. 1.

8. The publisher of a libel is liable to be punished criminally by indictment; 2 Chitty's Cr. Law, 875; or is subject to an action on the case by the party grieved. Both remedies may be pursued at the same time. Vide) generally, Holt on Libels; Starkie on Slander; 1 Harr. Dig. Case, I.; Chit. Cr. L. Index, h. t.; Chit. Pr. Index, h. t.

[mick silver]

Here is some information on the topic from Bouviers 1856 law dictionary. there was no internet in 1856 so whats does this have to do with name calling on the net

[Canadian-guerilla]

WARNING - LANGUAGE

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81842735/

[palani]

Here is some information on the topic from Bouviers 1856 law dictionary. there was no internet in 1856 so whats does this have to do with name calling on the net

The law in current use goes back well beyond 2,000 years.

A minor technological change such as the internet is not going to divert Leviathan.