Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Itreminds me of court case on what some see has offensive speech in law. Such things as the F ..y.. and shooting the finger has been ruled by courts as common speech of the people some years ago. Meaning it not reason for charge of disorderly conduct. But courts made each what is called fighting words and allowed as defense in assault cases. Its often said that every fray( fight in law) is started by someone throwing the first punch but its still a fray; because both took part in why it happened.
As I understand it, the hate speech has to be accompanied by some other underlying crime, such as assault. If the underlying crime is accompanied by hate speech regarding race, gender, orientation etc. then it is upgraded to a class C (lowest level) felony.
Typically the perps are scuzz balls who deserve every charge prosecutors can pile on. However, I still say that we should be arresting, prosecuting, and jailing people for their criminal behavior, not for what was in their mind when they committed it.
As I understand it, the hate speech has to be accompanied by some other underlying crime, such as assault. If the underlying crime is accompanied by hate speech regarding race, gender, orientation etc. then it is upgraded to a class C (lowest level) felony.
Typically the perps are scuzz balls who deserve every charge prosecutors can pile on. However, I still say that we should be arresting, prosecuting, and jailing people for their criminal behavior, not for what was in their mind when they committed it.
Those aren't hate speech laws.
The first link involves the threat of violence, already illegal.
The second two involve actual physical assaults, again, already illegal.
None of these people were arrested for what was in their minds, they were arrested for their actions. In fact, if they had kept it to their minds, or limited it to just their mouths (and in the first link, if he hadn't threatened the victims with violence), they never would have been arrested. Hate crimes laws are not hate speech laws, they're simply an added deterrent used to prevent people from committing hate crimes because of the added penalty involved.
Just curious how many of you believe so-called "Hate Speech" laws will be implemented in this country?
Personally, I tend to think so. I won't get into which groups/factions I believe would support them. But it seems from many posts on whatever topic, there are some out there who back laws that would restrict/prohibit certain speech/writings they believe is "intolerant" of others (however defined). Also, there is a generation growing -- in fact, already of age in many cases -- that honestly believe they have some kind of "right" to not be offended.
Anyway, which of the choices best indicates your outlook on it all?
And then they'd hire a bazillion government workers to enforce it and the courts would go crazy. None of the choices are "No, and I wouldn't support it."
By the way, if you are going to charge someone for "hate speech" you may as well punch the receiver in the nose and at least get some satisfaction out of your criminal "hate" act.
=Votre_Chef;38042676]Those aren't hate speech laws.
The first link involves the threat of violence, already illegal.
The second two involve actual physical assaults, again, already illegal.
None of these people were arrested for what was in their minds, they were arrested for their actions. In fact, if they had kept it to their minds, or limited it to just their mouths (and in the first link, if he hadn't threatened the victims with violence), they never would have been arrested. Hate crimes laws are not hate speech laws, they're simply an added deterrent used to prevent people from committing hate crimes because of the added penalty involved.
Oh lord, if they just "shut their mouths"? Do have a clue as to the implications of that remark?
Hate crime laws? What difference does it make if someone kills another person over the color of their skin or over the price of a jar of pickles? It is still homicide (on whatever level). What reason does the difference make other than to satisfy the appetites of those who see "racism" in every corner (interesting that Hispanics are classified as "white" when it comes to "crimes" committed, but as "Hispanic" when it comes to victims).
BTW -- would you support interracial rape to fit under the heading of being a "hate crime"? After all, rape is generally agreed to be a crime of violence, not sex. So please answer the question. If so, why. If not, why not?
Oh lord, if they just "shut their mouths"? Do have a clue as to the implications of that remark?
Hate crime laws? What difference does it make if someone kills another person over the color of their skin or over the price of a jar of pickles? It is still homicide (on whatever level). What reason does the difference make other than to satisfy the appetites of those who see "racism" in every corner (interesting that Hispanics are classified as "white" when it comes to "crimes" committed, but as "Hispanic" when it comes to victims).
BTW -- would you support interracial rape to fit under the heading of being a "hate crime"? After all, rape is generally agreed to be a crime of violence, not sex. So please answer the question. If so, why. If not, why not?
I didn't say they should shut their mouths (why did you put it in quotes, I didn't say that). I said if they had only used their mouths meaning, since English is clearly your second language, that if it had only been speech (with the exception of the threats of violence), they never would have been arrested.
Also, I already said WHY they exist, they are to deter hate crimes.
*shrug* Not upset at all. Just seeing the writing on the wall. I have seen quite a few posters on various threads who -- whatever the issue might be -- take the position that certain speech on certain issues is indicative as a hateful bigot who needs to be silenced. Plus, just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it wont, or is a "conspiracy theory."
Somehow -- in studying/researching history -- these "conspiracy" theories and/or "it can't happen here" have a way of becoming a reality.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen because I don't see us creating any hate speech laws. The thing about freedoms is that you have to accept the bad things that come along with a freedom to have that freedom.
As I understand it, the hate speech has to be accompanied by some other underlying crime, such as assault. If the underlying crime is accompanied by hate speech regarding race, gender, orientation etc. then it is upgraded to a class C (lowest level) felony.
Typically the perps are scuzz balls who deserve every charge prosecutors can pile on. However, I still say that we should be arresting, prosecuting, and jailing people for their criminal behavior, not for what was in their mind when they committed it.
The first one, the man was arrested for harassment. What he did went well beyond just hate speech.
The second one, the man attacked a person with a bat....that is a crime in itself, not hate speech....that is an actual violent act.
So, no Washington doesn't have hate speech laws based on those two articles you posted. Those were both actual crimes the people committed.
The first link involves the threat of violence, already illegal.
The second two involve actual physical assaults, again, already illegal.
None of these people were arrested for what was in their minds, they were arrested for their actions. In fact, if they had kept it to their minds, or limited it to just their mouths (and in the first link, if he hadn't threatened the victims with violence), they never would have been arrested. Hate crimes laws are not hate speech laws, they're simply an added deterrent used to prevent people from committing hate crimes because of the added penalty involved.
Wrong. What happens is that what would otherwise be a misdemeanor (e.g. misdemeanor assault) is upgraded to felony. So perhaps they are not being arrested for what was in their minds, they are certainly being prosecuted for what is in their minds, or more precisely for their words or other form of hate expression (so to speak).
If we're charging people based on hate speech, then we have a hate speech law. The distinction between 'hate crime' and 'hate speech' is semantics.
Where did I put anything you said in quotation marks? Sometime I put words in quotation marks that I regard as extremely "Orwellian", but I never intentionally misquote anyone as in the way you are suggesting...
And oh yeah, English is my "second language". Now then, don't you feel all intellectually superior? Oh man, ok, if it floats your boat, then feel free to think it. ROFLMAO.
Now then, answer the question. Why are crimes motivated out of "hate" any worse than those motivated out of just a desire to kill someone? And again, should interracial rape be a hate crime? It is a crime of violence and hate, after all...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
