The U.S. government and the City of San Francisco are asking Kate Steinle’s family to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit in a hearing on Friday.
Kate Steinle was shot and killed in July of 2015 on Pier 14 along San
Francisco’s waterfront. Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented
immigrant, has been charged in the murder.
Lopez-Sanchez was released from the San Francisco City Jail in Apil.
They really hated that so many people found out what they do with this 'sanctuary city' garbage. And that it drew attention to all the crimes committed by illegals in and around these cities. And they REALLY must hate the idea of this trial not only bringing it all back up, but anything new they can throw into the news.
This is interesting: teacher in Canada talking about the dangers of PC speech and 'hate-crime' laws, especially those involving language. Some bits:
There have been lots of cases where free speech has come under attack, why did you choose this particular issue?
This is very compelled speech. The Supreme Court in the United States
has held that compelled speech is unacceptable for two reasons. One is
to protect the rights of the speaker, the other is to protect the rights
of the listener. The listener has the right to be informed and
instructed without being unduly influenced by hidden sources. If your
speech is compelled, it isn’t YOU who is talking, it’s some other entity
that’s compelling your speech. So I actually think that Bill C-16
is unconstitutional. I’m using American case law, but the principles
apply. It just hasn’t been pushed to our Supreme Court yet.
I was also quite profoundly influenced by [Alexsandr] Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelago.
People say that real Marxism has never been tried – not in the Soviet
Union, in China, in Cambodia, in Korea, that wasn’t real Marxism. I find
that argument specious, appalling, ignorant, and maybe also malevolent
all at the same time. Specious because Solzhenitsyn demonstrated beyond a
shadow of a doubt that the horrors [of the Soviet system] were a
logical consequence of the doctrines embedded within Marxist thinking. I
think Dostoyevsky saw what was coming and Nietzsche wrote about it
extensively in the 1880s, laying out the propositions that are
encapsulated in Marxist doctrine, and warning that millions of people
would die in the 20th century because of it.
Do you believe that society should draw the line at all when it comes to limitations on hate speech?
No. Hate speech laws are wrong. The question – not a question, but
THE question – is ‘who gets to define hate?” That’s not to say there’s
no such thing as hate speech – clearly there is. Hate speech laws
repress, and I mean that in the psycho-analytical sense. They drive
[hate speech] underground. It’s not a good idea, because things get ugly
when you drive them underground. They don’t disappear, they just
fester, and they’re not subject to correction. I made these videos, and
they have been subject to a tremendous amount of correction over the
last six weeks. I don’t just mean from my public response, but also
partly from the university’s response, partly from a group of friends
who have been reviewing my videos and criticizing them to death. This is
why free speech is so important. You can struggle to formulate some
argument, but when you throw it out into the public, there’s a
collective attempt to modify and improve that. So with the hate speech
issue – say someone’s a Holocaust denier, because that’s the standard
routine – we want those people out there in the public so you can tell
them why they’re historically ignorant, and why their views are
unfounded and dangerous. If you drive them underground, it’s not like
they stop talking to each other, they just don’t talk to anyone who
disagrees with them. That’s a really bad idea and that’s what’s
happening in the United States right now. Half of the country doesn’t
talk to the other half. Do you know what you call people you don’t talk