I am appealing my Hate Speech/Harrasment Suspension. The first was understandable and Justly Served. The second, however, was without due consideration on the trialbot’s part. I never said “black”, I said “boack”. If we are issuing bans one can assume they should be with clear and dishonest intent. On my part, it can be honestly argued that I was referencing the Boack family that lived in eastern Scotland under the oppressive English rule during the 9th century. A time when indentured servants were slaves until they bought their freedom. A clear distinction between “boack” and “black” should cast room for doubt about my judgement.
Now lets say I did intend to use the word “Black” and reference them to slavery. How is that hate speech? I did not utter a single derogatory term. I did not denounce their faith, intellectual ability, or skin color. I merely stated a recollective fact. “I remember when [blacks] were slaves”. White people were slaves, brown people were slaves, slaves are slaves. This is a true statement. An utterance of honesty so that we, as a country, never forget our lineage of subjugation, less we begin to regress to explicit forms. If I can assume this Trial System is a direct representation of our legal system then one must uphold the understanding that I should be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I do hope that you have taken the time to consider my argument and deem my report innocent.