Hate crime laws violate freedom of speech?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
You've just pointed to one of many hundreds of examples where motive *does* matter, the entire legal framework of homicide. According to your logic, it shouldn't matter if you kill your wife because you walked in on her sleeping with another man, or if you killed her for life insurance. Yet is typically does matter. It may get your crime reduced to Murder 2 or Man 1, depending on state law. Yet both circumstances are intentional killings.

A example more salient to the issue here is a case where a woman kills a man who molested her child. Let's say the man was incarcerated and she killed him while in court, so there was no argument for self-defense or defense of others. You think that person will get the same sentence as someone who kills someone just for the fun of it?

Motives matter in our criminal justice system. Sometimes they will affect the actual crime with which you're charged. More often they will be taken into consideration by the judge who determines your sentence. The notion that motives don't matter, particularly in sentencing, is simply not grounded in reality.

- wolf
i don't see the difference in killing your wife because she's cheating on you and killing your wife for life insurance money. the first one is lesser because it could be heat of the moment? give me a break, we've ALL been pissed, in fact I've been pissed enough to where I could of killed someone the difference is I didn't because I know it's wrong. just because that's the way it is doesn't mean it's right or ok, it's still retarded.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
On topic, hate crimes are not unconstitutional because the crime is not the hate, the crime is the murder or whatever act of violence committed. The motivation of hate is used as consideration at sentencing. Because motivation is almost always used in consideration of a crime. As already pointed out, without motivation, 9/11 was 'just' an act of mass murder. It was the political and religious motives that made it terrorism.

what about hate speech? that is a crime but is neither murder or violent. are hate speech laws unconstitutional?
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
i don't see the difference in killing your wife because she's cheating on you and killing your wife for life insurance money. the first one is lesser because it could be heat of the moment? give me a break, we've ALL been pissed, in fact I've been pissed enough to where I could of killed someone the difference is I didn't because I know it's wrong. just because that's the way it is doesn't mean it's right or ok, it's still retarded.

Lay off the drugs.

Premeditated murder is psychopathic.

Murder in the heat of passion is incited by uncommon and extenuating circumstances.

Discussing complex ethical and moral situations is apparently above your current mind-frame or potential.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
big?ot?ry??[big-uh-tree]

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

I'm not pointing out you specifically Craig234, and I'm not disagreeing with you either, but if we apply this definition of bigotry to this forum, then we have many bigots, Reps and Dems alike on this forum. I don't believe our ATOT society has any interest in coming together or agreeing on anything. It seems like the same old rederic being spewed on every thread by both sides, day after day, after day, then followed by name calling. If we can't even get along and debate rationally on this forum, what are the possibilities that the society in general ever will?

You're right, but the existence of the sort of bigotry that exists between political groups, and the sort that leads to violence against groups (race, sexuality, gender identitifcation, gender, etc.) isn't the same issue.

If you see a transvestite and don't have a clue about the condition and feel "that's disgusting", that's you're right. If you kill the transvestite person because of those feelings, it's a different level of bigotry.

The former is a right, where citizens can try to improve things by educating others. The latter is a crime - and often one indulgent by a majority, when the majority shares the bigotry.

THat's the one society has an interest to say it needs to stand against bigotry leading to violence oudly and clearly, recognizing the bigotry part of the crime.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
sandorski

"Certain Ideas are best rooted out of Society"

That may be fine for a personal opinion, but I do not want to give the government the power to stamp out ideas.

Too many fanatics and nutjobs already claim that other peoples' ideas are dangerous or destructive. What if they were the ones deciding about your ideas? Other governments have had programs to send people to re-education camps to stamp out ideas they didn't like, and we usually condemn them for it.

I'd rather put up with the ideas I hear and don't like than have the government in the business of stamping out ideas.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Lay off the drugs.

Premeditated murder is psychopathic.

Murder in the heat of passion is incited by uncommon and extenuating circumstances.

Discussing complex ethical and moral situations is apparently above your current mind-frame or potential.

I'm sober now and I still think murder in the heat of passion is the same as premeditated murder. Again I've been pissed enough to kill someone, I didn't in fact MOST people don't, so why is it treated differently?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,101
5,640
126
sandorski

"Certain Ideas are best rooted out of Society"

That may be fine for a personal opinion, but I do not want to give the government the power to stamp out ideas.

Too many fanatics and nutjobs already claim that other peoples' ideas are dangerous or destructive. What if they were the ones deciding about your ideas? Other governments have had programs to send people to re-education camps to stamp out ideas they didn't like, and we usually condemn them for it.

I'd rather put up with the ideas I hear and don't like than have the government in the business of stamping out ideas.

Racism adds no value to Society.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
I'm sober now and I still think murder in the heat of passion is the same as premeditated murder. Again I've been pissed enough to kill someone, I didn't in fact MOST people don't, so why is it treated differently?

1) Psychopath = A menace to society

2) Passion = Loss of Restraint

If you do not see the difference, then you need to go to some empathy classes, if not Ethics courses.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
sandorski

No idea should have to "add value to society" to be permitted no matter how much I might disagree with it.

The helio-centric theory was once considered to be of negative value to society and those in power sought to stamp it out.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,101
5,640
126
sandorski

No idea should have to "add value to society" to be permitted no matter how much I might disagree with it.

The helio-centric theory was once considered to be of negative value to society and those in power sought to stamp it out.

I appreciate that Ideas should not be stamped out by Government(or whatever the prevailing Power might be) and Freedom of Thought and Speech are important. However, there are most certainly Ideas of no Value that should be eradicated. The best way to eradicate them is to simply let it be known how worthless they are. Then let time,, education, and peer pressure force out those ideas.

As for what Government can do, there's nothing wrong with the idea behind Hate Crime as it currently stands. It deals with the issues regarding various forms of Bigotry, but in a limited way by dealing with the fringe effects of such ideas. That lets it be known that the Ideas are bad, but doesn't infringe on Peoples Rights of Speech or Thought at the same time.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
According to UCMJ Sodomy is illegal.

Of course it is also illegal according the the UCMJ to have sexual relations with a person married to another person.

Intersting how laws are different in the Military.

UCMJ = Uniform Code of Military Justice
 
Last edited: