Hate crime laws violate freedom of speech?

[sandorski]

This is a totally theoretical discussion. There is no such thing as a "simple hate crime" as he defines he. Not in these United States.

- wolf

Yes, thanks for the clarification.

 

[woolfe9999]

hate crimes are thought crimes. i personally don't really give a fuck why someone did what they did, unless it was self defense. if i punched you in the face because i didn't like your face or because i hated what race you were or i didn't like the shoes you were wearing or i thought you were flirting with my girl, it's all the same the result was i hit you in the face, the reason doesn't really fucking matter. A to B how you do it doesn't matter, it's what you did.

Motives don't matter, eh? So much for two thousand years of jurisprudence...

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

I used to agree with South Park on hate crimes. Namely that the motivation for a crime shouldn't affect sentencing.

But if that were true, then 9/11 was only an act of murder, not terrorism.

I'm not sure what to think about it yet.

IMO you need to recognize that bigotry is a unique problemand motive that society has an interest in addressing specifically.

Society can only do so much about the desire for money causing a murder, the murders committed in jealous rages - but when bigotry has infected a group who acts on it, that's another matter.

We've seen how it can work - how there used to by lynchings the families in a city would bring their kids to for an afternoon entertainment.

The act may be the same, but the bigotry behind it is its own problem - and that problem is one for society to try to discourage as it does othe crime, when it motivates violence.

Part of that is just society making the target group feel somewhat safer, and 'sending a message' what the public stands for on this issue.

It's an individual right to, say, favor the return of slavery - but there are issues on which society feels it's important to take a societal stand on, while not violating individual rights.

 

[bfdd]

Motives don't matter, eh? So much for two thousand years of jurisprudence...

- wolf

If you don't have motive it's manslaughter, if you do it's varying degrees of murder. i fail to see WHY you did it matters. it was an accident, then it's not murder, it wasn't an accident then it was murder. see that's pretty simple right? so we give different penalties on how or why you murdered them? that's retarded

 

[HumblePie]

Try waiting more than 7 or 8 posts before contradicting yourself; it's too easy to catch otherwise.


If by "not incorrect" you mean "inaccurate, imprecise and misleading", I agree completely.

By Constitutional law, illegal immigrants do not have a right to own land. Period. Where is the contradiction? The Constitution doesn't expressly state they can't own land, but the Constitution only grants in-alienable rights to US citizens. It does not grant those rights to non US citizens. It also only grants certain rights to non-law abiding citizens such as the 8th Amendment.

My only misleading point in the original post was stating that criminals lose their Constitutional rights. That is not an incorrect statement as they DO lose rights. They don't lose all their rights, which is the misleading point. This is because someone, like a few here, took what I wrote to mean instead they lose all rights. The fact I didn't fully quantify my statement I make amends to. However, excuse me because I didn't realize there would be so many internet lawyers trying to pick apart my post for who knows what reason.

The fact remains, if you do a crime you lose quite a few of your Constitutional rights. If you want to figure out what rights you retain look it up yourself because I am not going to type it all out here. But in relation to the original post, a criminal has lesser freedom of speech than the average citizen.

However, labeling a crime as a hate crime has nothing to do with freedom of speech in my opinion. Like someone else stated, it's jurisprudence to determine motivation and has everything to do with motivation.

 

[Munky]

About time someone stood up to the thought control nazis.

 

[Pens1566]

I shudder at the thought there's a lawyer out there that you "helped" understand the law ...

 

[DietDrThunder]

IMO you need to recognize that bigotry is a unique problem and motive that society has an interest in addressing specifically.

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?

 

[jackschmittusa]

I still think the whole "hate crimes" thing is BS.

I could even logically argue that any crime motivated by hate is a "hot-blooded" crime and point out that a "hot-blooded" act is usually considered a mitigating circumstance calling for a lesser penalty.

 

[Munky]

IMO you need to recognize that bigotry is a unique problemand motive that society has an interest in addressing specifically.

And YOU need to realize that what you classify as "bigotry" are personal opinions, and are not a "problem" unless it causes a crime.

Society can only do so much about the desire for money causing a murder, the murders committed in jealous rages - but when bigotry has infected a group who acts on it, that's another matter.

Are you saying crimes committed out of "bigotry" are somehow worse than those committed out of greed or jealousy? Because it seems that you are, and it's complete bullsh!t.

We've seen how it can work - how there used to by lynchings the families in a city would bring their kids to for an afternoon entertainment.

Ah yes, sensationalism at it's worst. There used to be a lot of things, but what the hell does it have to do with the present reality?

The act may be the same, but the bigotry behind it is its own problem - and that problem is one for society to try to discourage as it does othe crime, when it motivates violence.

Incorrect. The ACT you speak of IS the crime, not whatever label you want to attach to the motives. Crimes committed out of "bigotry" should be prosecuted with the same objectivity as those committed from other motives, don't bring your emotional propaganda into the justice system.

Part of that is just society making the target group feel somewhat safer, and 'sending a message' what the public stands for on this issue.

The message you're sending is "if you don't think the way the authorities deem proper, you're a criminal..." That message violates personal rights and freedoms, and is unconstitutional.

 

[sandorski]

I still think the whole "hate crimes" thing is BS.

I could even logically argue that any crime motivated by hate is a "hot-blooded" crime and point out that a "hot-blooded" act is usually considered a mitigating circumstance calling for a lesser penalty.

It is an important distinction. Especially where it's deep seated and Historical context is part of it. Certain Ideas are best rooted out of Society, especially those that lead to Violence.

 

[Genx87]

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.

I am not entirely sold on this logic. When it comes to 1st degree murder vs manslaughter. I dont think the law is sentencing people based on motive as much as intent. For instance if I am fooling around with a gun or car and kill somebody. The law takes that into account that my intent was not to murder the person. Where as if I decided to plan out my killing the law will apply a harsher sentence because that was my intent.

With hate crime laws you are now allowing the govt to effectively decide certain motivation are more punishable than other. While I am not agaist the idea of it, the practice can be ripe for abuse. Politically unpopular views and ideas can be punished more under the law, which can effectively curb free speech. Especially if we start allowing hate speech laws to become widespread.

btw love your sig. But I would say in todays climate it should read.

"If you owe the bank $100 dollars, that's your problem; if you owe the bank $100 million dollars, that's the tax payers problem." -- J. Paul Getty

 

[HumblePie]

I am not entirely sold on this logic. When it comes to 1st degree murder vs manslaughter. I dont think the law is sentencing people based on motive as much as intent. For instance if I am fooling around with a gun or car and kill somebody. The law takes that into account that my intent was not to murder the person. Where as if I decided to plan out my killing the law will apply a harsher sentence because that was my intent.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/motive

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/intent


see a connection?

 

[MJinZ]

hate crimes are thought crimes. i personally don't really give a fuck why someone did what they did, unless it was self defense. if i punched you in the face because i didn't like your face or because i hated what race you were or i didn't like the shoes you were wearing or i thought you were flirting with my girl, it's all the same the result was i hit you in the face, the reason doesn't really fucking matter. A to B how you do it doesn't matter, it's what you did.

LOL @ incoherence. First you're arguing "why someone did it" doesn't matter, then you conclude "how you do it doesn't matter, it's what you did".

 

[bfdd]

LOL @ incoherence. First you're arguing "why someone did it" doesn't matter, then you conclude "how you do it doesn't matter, it's what you did".

i'll be honest i'm on meds right now and i have no clue what i'm even thinking.

 

[MJinZ]

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/motive

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/intent


see a connection?

Motive is the reasoning for an intent. If someone intended to murder you, their motive could be any number of things, including money, jealousy, hate etc. They are tied inextricably and can no way be diametric.

 

[HumblePie]

i'll be honest i'm on meds right now and i have no clue what i'm even thinking.

*WARNING WARNING WARNING*

Step away from the keyboard.

 

[Genx87]

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/motive

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/intent


see a connection?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intent

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/motive

These are two different meanings. They are not one in the same.

 

[bfdd]

*WARNING WARNING WARNING*

Step away from the keyboard.

I just realized the meds they gave me for nausea are anti-psychotics.

 

[inspiron]

Hate crimes are stupid and the ignorant people who commit them deserve what they get... enough said.

 

[sandorski]

I just realized the meds they gave me for nausea are anti-psychotics.

Awesome!

 

[bfdd]

Awesome!

not really, but back on topic


hate crimes are retarded.

 

[woolfe9999]

If you don't have motive it's manslaughter, if you do it's varying degrees of murder. i fail to see WHY you did it matters. it was an accident, then it's not murder, it wasn't an accident then it was murder. see that's pretty simple right? so we give different penalties on how or why you murdered them? that's retarded

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

 

[MJinZ]

By Constitutional law, illegal immigrants do not have a right to own land. Period. Where is the contradiction? The Constitution doesn't expressly state they can't own land, but the Constitution only grants in-alienable rights to US citizens. It does not grant those rights to non US citizens. It also only grants certain rights to non-law abiding citizens such as the 8th Amendment.

My only misleading point in the original post was stating that criminals lose their Constitutional rights. That is not an incorrect statement as they DO lose rights. They don't lose all their rights, which is the misleading point. This is because someone, like a few here, took what I wrote to mean instead they lose all rights. The fact I didn't fully quantify my statement I make amends to. However, excuse me because I didn't realize there would be so many internet lawyers trying to pick apart my post for who knows what reason.

The fact remains, if you do a crime you lose quite a few of your Constitutional rights. If you want to figure out what rights you retain look it up yourself because I am not going to type it all out here. But in relation to the original post, a criminal has lesser freedom of speech than the average citizen.

However, labeling a crime as a hate crime has nothing to do with freedom of speech in my opinion. Like someone else stated, it's jurisprudence to determine motivation and has everything to do with motivation.

Jurisprudence is the study of Law, people need to learn what the words mean before using them.

 

[MJinZ]

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

He's not grounded in reality, don't worry, he's on drugs.