Comments on: Senate Hate Crimes Bill Threatens First Amendment

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:15:27 +0000

So far, there has been exactly one person here who has had any concerns with profanity: you. We were always focused on the big picture of free speech. Get over that.

By: RoadScholar

RoadScholar — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:48:47 +0000

Before you get in a tizzy about hate crime legislation impinging free speech, bear in mind how blithely the Christers limit our ability to hear Chris Rock use the F word, or why I have to use the euphemism ‘F word’ here. Or even that a thug on Law and Order can’t even say “sh.t!” when arrested.

They want the freedom to say “Death to fags,” but want to prevent you from hearing the word “tits” on TV.

Speech is limited all the time. Get over it. The main thing the Founders had in mind was making sure you couldn’t be punished for criticizing the government.

By: nrafter530

nrafter530 — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:16:05 +0000

Still, you’re using the same arguments they do…that people are more important than the Constitution…that sometimes it’s ok to subvert it so long as it protects some people.

By: esseff44

esseff44 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:21:21 +0000

I found this study. It’s based on economic theories but does bring up issues that need to be studied. It raises the notion that greater penalties for hate crimes could backfire and actually increase the targeted criminal incidents. Since the laws requiring statistics be kept for hate crimes have been in effect for such a short time, it is too soon to tell what effect the enhanced penalties have.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/pd.....cadams.pdf

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:02:24 +0000

Glad to hear it. Wouldn’t want you to think that you should have ownership of your own shit or shitter.

By: esseff44

esseff44 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:22:06 +0000

It seems to me that the hate crime notion needs more study to see if it will do more harm that good. If the point is to deter a certain kind of behavior or violence, it might deter only the verbal expressions of ‘hate’ but not the actual behavior. What would then be the evidence to make it a hate crime? There’s a lot of hateful speech out there, but what good does it do to drive it underground or replaced by coded language and symbols?

I think we would do much more good by concentrating on education and closing social gaps and schisms than adding to the list of federal crimes and adding to sentences already so long that adding to them becomes meaningless in most cases. Do we have case studies to show that there is any change in the real world? I agree with others that the risk for abuse by prosecutors is too great. Then, one gets into the complications of who can sit on a jury and who cannot for certain categories of hate crimes. Once again, backgrounds and attitudes would come into play.

Does anyone know of any research done on these questions?

By: Cellar47

Cellar47 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:03:49 +0000

Uh no. Coservatives claim to uphold the constitution.

For white breeders only, needless to say.

By: Cellar47

Cellar47 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:02:33 +0000

I’m an anarcho-syndicalist myself.

Capitalism is the problem. Property is theft.

By: Cellar47

Cellar47 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:01:35 +0000

So typical. So redolent of elementary school playgrounds.

By: nrafter530

nrafter530 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:17:43 +0000

Dangerous territory…this is the same argument Conservatives use to justify stuff like torture and warantless wiretapping…people are more important than the Constitution.