House passes hate crimes bill.
By on May 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
House passes hate crimes bill.
By a vote of 237-180, the House approved the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bipartisan bill that would enable federal officials to work with state and local officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Twenty-five Republicans joined to pass the legislation. (Read more about the legislation in today’s Progress Report.)
UPDATE: ACLU has more.
UPDATE II: Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the only one of two openly gay members of Congress, announces the passage:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Congratulations
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pmClassic example of feel good liberalism, style over substance. Thanks for the excellent example.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pmIs that a veto-proof result?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 pmTo #3 post, no it isn’t, this will be vetoed. Bush and his religious fanatics think women are secondary.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:23 pmThanks for the excellent example.
Comment by Patrick1 — May 3, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Care to clarify?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm“180 Republican’s voted to protect hate criminals”
See, neo-cons, we can say stupid shit too.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:25 pmWould the nut at Virginia Tech qualify under this PC bill? An asian that murdered mostly those of other races. Sounds like a hate crime, used to be called murder but hate crime makes it more PC and that is important.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 pmSure. Liberalism is all about feelings. This junk bill is about feelings. You can’t have crime you must have hate crime. What a waste of time and money.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pmPatrick1 is worried that he won’t be able to go fagbashing with with his closeted friends anymore.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:29 pmI think that the Democrats should announce today that they will no longer work on any legislation because Bush will veto anything they send his way. They should spend the remaining time in Bush’s tenure investigating everything he has done since the day he took office. Then they should impeach both Chaney and Bush.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:31 pmpatrick1, if Cho ran around screaming “die Honky!” as he shot people it would be a hate crime. Would it be a hate crime if someone beat you with a tire iron as she screamed “die neofacsit republican facist scum!”?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:32 pmPatrick1,
There would have to be some indication that Cho was motivated by a desire to victimize people based on their race. If a black guy hits an Asian guy with a bat and takes his wallet, just to pay for his beer, that’s not a hate crime. If a white sniper hits a white guy, then an Asian guy, then another white guy, it isn’t “murder-hate crime enchancement-murder,” it’s three murders.
It’s not about the demographic profiles of the criminal and the victim, but the criminal’s intent and motive when committing the crime.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:36 pmPatrick that is shamefull, trying to use thr deaths of students for your good. Besides, it was your types that insist on being able to give guns to ANYBODY that comes along. You are pathetic.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:36 pmThere is already a law against murder. Do we need a PC classification for it?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:36 pmWould it be a hate crime if someone beat you with a tire iron as she screamed “die neofacsit republican facist scum!�
It would be a blessing. God is anti-Patrick1.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:36 pmWould the nut at Virginia Tech qualify under this PC bill?
Comment by Patrick1
You running around in your KKK hood, beating muslums would qualify. Is that why you are opposed to it?
I am glad this passed
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pmOn Thursday, the White House confirmed that President Bush will veto Congressional hate crime legislation extending protected status to victims of attacks based on gender and sexual orientation. The announcement comes as no surprise. After all, it was his bizarre discussion of hate crimes that almost derailed the election of candidate George W. Bush in 2000.
For the disturbing history, see:
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm“Bush 2000 Hate Crimes Flashback.”
Virginia Tech was gun free zone. How did that work out?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pmPatrick in a free gun zone
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:44 pmsurely It cant be vetoed – 237 to 180 is over 60% of the vote No ??
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm“There is already a law against murder. Do we need a PC classification for it?
Comment by Patrick1 — May 3, 2007 @ 2:36 pm”
Hate crimes are worthy of harsher sentences than other violent crimes, because they do more damage to society. If a guy in Los Angeles shoots a clerk to rob his store, that’s terrible for the clerk, and his family, and for the neighborhood, but that’s about it.
If some jackass in Texas lynches a black man, black people and white people in New York and Seattle look at each other differently. Maybe some idiot gangbangers go looking for a white guy to beat up, in some twisted version of seeking justice. Maybe some black people stop going outside of their majority-black neighborhoods.
We’re got these fissures in our social fabric, and all sorts of bad stuff tends to happen when people pick at them. Obviously, dead is dead and a broken window is a broken window, but there are other consequences to violent crime that has a political dimension.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:47 pmThe president will apparently prevent inclusion of gay victims of hate crimes within the federal statute. Yeah, great bill.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:48 pmPatrick, I think gun free zones are stupid, only people who obey laws are going to abide by them. I have a conceal carry permit, but I’m not such a nutjob that I don’t believe in background checks and waiting periods, but you know what, the gun lobbyist and the repubs that have them in their backpocket are nutjobs.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:48 pmH.R. 1592, which has stong bipartisan support, includes explicit protection for speech and association, unless it specifically relates to a violent crime.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:49 pmH.R. 1592 fully protects both civil rights and free speech. In fact, the new hate crimes bill has stronger protections for free speech than any other federal criminal law now on the books.
That wasn’t a hate crime, it was a terrorist act by a “suicider”
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:52 pmThis bill will kill the 1st Amendment….
You people are idiots.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmFar right-wing groups ( Like Trolls ) are aggressively opposing this legislation, spreading baseless myths and shrill rhetoric.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmThis is a good law to jail the far right they are the only ones who break the hate crimes bill , soon people like the trolls here could be arrested
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:56 pmSaywho I don’t know who you are, but if you’re a republican you need to hand over your credentials because you seem concerned with peoples rights.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:57 pmThis bill will protect due process and the Constitution, especially our First Amendment rights to speak freely and associate with whom we’d like. When a person inflicts violence based on hate, it is important that they be punished. But defendants must have a fair trial, and should not be judged based on what they say and the company they keep, unless specifically related to the crime.
While we may disagree with some people’s speech, it must be protected or all of our speech is at risk.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:58 pmWho gets to decide what is a PC crime and what isn’t?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:58 pmComment by Tobey Tall — May 3, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
This bill is the END of the 1st Amendment and now puts conditions on free speech.
You people supporting this are communists!
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm26 / This bill will kill the 1st Amendment
no it dont , its only if you commit a crime while calling somebody a name with it
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:59 pmAs I said in the other thread on this topic, this is simply one wrongheaded law.
The so-called “conservatives” are hell bent on policing people’s bedrooms, and it appears that the so-called “liberals” are hell bent on policing thoughts in people’s heads.
A violent act is simply a violent act. If you start making additional distinctions based on what the person commiting the act was supposedly thinking at the time, you might as well set all drunks and junkies free, as they were not thinking much at all, having induced malfunctions in their brains via substance abuse.
Then of course one has to decide what “hate” is. Why limit yourself to “gays”, “women”, “religion” or “race”? What about crimes against midgets? Atheists? Wearers of bad fashion? People with cash in their wallets? Slow drivers on the Interstate?
Can anyone explain to me why I should feel more offended after being called names and then beaten up, versus being robbed and then beaten up?
This thing is simply illogical and only serves to give the “conservatives” valid rethorical ammunition.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:00 pmLet’s take a look into the mind of a gay-hating person now that this breakthrough legislation has passed: “Uh oh. I was just about to go to a gay bar and start beating up some fags; but now I realize that I better not because that would be a hate crime and the dems say that is even worse than a regular crime. In fact, this bill has completely changed my view on gays! I no longer hate them. In fact, I love them! Wait, does that make me gay?”
Of all the stupid, feel-good legislation congress has passed, hate crime laws are some of the most idiotic.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:02 pm“There is already a law against murder. Do we need a PC classification for it?
Comment by Patrick1 — May 3, 2007 @ 2:36 pmâ€
The problem is, Patrick 1, that some people need to be told that murdering members of certain groups is still murder – that membership in a particular group does not somehow make a person fair game. Remember, even the most ardent bigot thinks he is being reasonable.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:02 pmSaywho, can you be specific pease..I realy want to know how this affect’s the 1st amendment….Thank’s….Blessings
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:03 pmCynicon Implant, I don’t think this law is about changing minds. Think what you will of gays, etc. Nobody cares, and, more importantly, it isn’t anyone’s business what twisted thoughts you may harbor against members of other groups. It becomes the business of others when those thoughts are translated into criminal action.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:07 pmSaywho I don’t know who you are, but if you’re a republican you need to hand over your credentials because you seem concerned with peoples rights.
Comment by the Lone Voice of Reason — May 3, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
I’m a Dem. and a Constitutionalist. This bill will destroy the 1st Amendment found in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution and is proof that this congress is just as bad as the last congress.
Facts:
1) You can’t force people to get along.
2) You can’t spread Democracy at gunpoint
3) You must protect the Bill of Rights at all costs
4) The Patriot Act breaks the 4th Amendment and you can’t force patriotism by law.
Beyond that I’m just a guy watching the world go mad!
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 pmsurely writting on Missiles delivered by a military aircraft with “here you go Ragheads” on the side is a perfect example of a hate crime
also Bush cannot hit his wife anymore calling her a bitch at the same time
and also when Jake and Patrick1 have a fight they will not be able to call each other faggots , because then it would be a hatecrime
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 pmPoor Patrick1trickpony, he love crime. He not hate crime. Poor baby. He confused.
Hate crime just adds a higher level to various assault & battery crimes. And the ACLU endorses this law, so it’s not a threat to First Amendment Rights.
If Pigboy, say, slaps a woman, he could be charged with assault. You’re right there, Patrick1trickpony. However, if Pigboy slapped the woman while shouting “You nappy headed ho! All women are hos. You evil, wicked scarlet woman, you”, he’d be guilty of a hate crime and considered a menace to all women. You see? A person who assaults a woman once will be granted lower bail because he won’t be considered a risk to other women or even the same woman unless he uttered further threats to the victim or has a history with the victim or –and here’s the beauty of hate crime– he attacked the victim because she was a woman and he expressed hatred of women. A good thing, I think.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 pmComment by Tobey Tall — May 3, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Your an idiot and a communist!
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 pmYes indeed. Way to go Bush. Veto anything that might actually save lives….except for interrupting your vacation to sign off on a bill for one person who was aready medically dead (Schiavo). Can any of us remember Bush NOT interrupting his vacation after Katrina?
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:10 pmSilly-con Implode, don’t talk nonsense. Some gay bashers offer as their defence that their victim ‘came on’ to them and they were so repulsed that they beat the crap out of him. And some courts buy this BS. Hate crime would eliminate this defence since the attacker admits that the reason for the assault was hatred and loathing for the sexual orientation of the victim.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:14 pmSaywho, can you be specific pease..I realy want to know how this affect’s the 1st amendment….Thank’s….Blessings
Comment by Sharon — May 3, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
1st Amendment allows free speech.
Hate Bill makes hate words a crime that are allowed under the 1st.
This is an EXAMPLE:
Sharon I think your husband is a FAGGOT since I saw him having gay sex with another guy!
If a word like FAGGOT or one of the banned words from TP like
Z
I
O
N
E
S
T
are used that by officials can be considered a HATE CRIME..
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:17 pmSaywho, can you be specific pease..I realy want to know how this affect’s the 1st amendment….Thank’s….Blessings
I hate to be the devil’s advocate here on TP, but Saywho is right.
The way this process works is as follows: if additional distinctions are put on crimes based on ideological motivations of those who commit them, then the next, natural, step in the progression is to claim that it is those ideologies which are the actual cause of the said crimes, which quickly leads to court actions and laws censoring these ideologies.
This is not a theoretical scenario. In Canada and many European countries they have all sorts of truly idiotic “hate speech” laws (a direct extension of “hate crimes” law) which forbid certain kinds of speech, which if enacted in the US would directly violate the 1st ammendment.
Additionally, even without “hate speech” laws, one can quite clearly argue that by adding these “hate crime” distinctions one would induce a suppression of certain kinds of speech because individuals would be afraid that some shrewd lawyers will use their past statements in some court case should they get in a fight or even an accident. Thus a drunken bar fight would quickly become a “hate crime” should one of the parties be gay and the other having expressed some anti-gay sentiments 20 years earlier on some website which the other party’s lawyer got hold of.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:19 pmit isn’t anyone’s business what twisted thoughts you may harbor against members of other groups. It becomes the business of others when those thoughts are translated into criminal action.
Comment by RandiB
Look, if a white guy beats me up because he wants my money or a black guy beats me up because I’m white, I really don’t care what their motivation was. I’m beat up regardless and I just want them to be punished. I don’t see why the black guy should get a harsher punishment — and that is nobody’s business but mine.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:20 pmLook, if a white guy beats me up because he wants my money or a black guy beats me up because I’m white, I really don’t care what their motivation was. I’m beat up regardless and I just want them to be punished. I don’t see why the black guy should get a harsher punishment — and that is nobody’s business but mine.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — May 3, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Cynicon Implant: I would agree with you if you were talking about a civil matter, since civil matters are disputes limited to just the parties involved. However, in a criminal matter it really doesn’t matter whether you care about the motivation of the mugger. Mugging is an assault and battery against you, and a crime against society. When the prosecutor takes the mugger to trial he is representing society – not you. Society is the client; you just happen to be the member of society who was assaulted.
If it was really up to you whether the motivation of the person assaulting you was taken into account then you could, for instance, contract with someone to legally murder you. The law won’t allow that because the law prohibiting murder, mugging, etc., protects society – not just you.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pmto beat someone up and rob them – Is worse because its assult and robbery
to beat someone up because there gay – Is really an Unprovocked attack possible
OK in both circumstances you were beat up
the first guy gets done with robbery as well and is punished heavily
as where the second attack would never had happed if only the other guy had not been different
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pmC’mon chymp veto it. Show your true colors, yellow, yellow and canary.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pmComment by FactsOnly — May 3, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Let me guess, you’re a straight white male?
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:33 pmIn Canada and many European countries they have all sorts of truly idiotic “hate speech†laws (a direct extension of “hate crimes†law) which forbid certain kinds of speech, which if enacted in the US would directly violate the 1st ammendment.
Well guess what – if Congress tried to pass such a law it would be struck down as unconstitutional. Our judiciary may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer, but this is so obvious that even an elementary school civics class would figure it out.
What is it with you people on the right? Intent is, and always has been, an element of the crime. As many people pointed out, that’s why we have murder one, murder two and manslaughter. The end result is the same – the victim is dead – but the *intent* of the killer determines which punishment is appropriate.
And the law is not punishing *speech*, it is punishing *violent conduct* that arises from the speech.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:33 pmas where the second attack would never had happed if only the other guy had not been different
Comment by Tobey Tall — May 3, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Unfortunately that’s a non-sequitur.
A simple response to that fit of illogic is: “as where the first attack would never had happened if only the man had no money in his wallet” — and back you are where you started with this.
There is simply no escape from the fact that the “hate crime” laws, no matter how well intentioned, are simply illogical and counter-productive. And in the long term dangerous.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pmAll of you fools that support this sort of thing are idiots and communists. This is another bill like the Patriot Act. This is like waging a war on drugs.
Bluntly: we (the USA) have never won a war
on drugs
on abortion
on poverty
on terrorism
on religion
on old age
on mental illness
on anything
Now we are going to have “A war on hate”??
YOUR FOOLS, RUBISH, LOOSERS…
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:38 pmThe 1st Amendment allows you to protest. Every day someone here types a phrase like this, “Bush & Cheney are bla bla bla and should be bla bla bla!” This is censorship, wrong, communistic and now we can see what TP posters are all about. I oppose anything that treads on my Rights and yours.
“Who gets to decide what is a PC crime and what isn’t?
Comment by Patrick1 — May 3, 2007 @ 2:58 pm”
A jury. You know, like evey other finding of fact in a criminal trial.
”
A violent act is simply a violent act. If you start making additional distinctions based on what the person commiting the act was supposedly thinking at the time…”
You mean like the difference between First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide, and a simple accident?
“What the person committing the crime was supposedly thinking,” in the form of intent, motive, and premeditation, is exactly what is taken into account when figuring out what a killer should be punished for, in many cases.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:41 pmWhat is it with you people on the right?
You are jumping to conclusions. Attempting to follow logic does not make one a member of “right” or “left” or put one into some other pigeon-hole.
Intent is, and always has been, an element of the crime. As many people pointed out, that’s why we have murder one, murder two and manslaughter. The end result is the same – the victim is dead – but the *intent* of the killer determines which punishment is appropriate.
The purpose of that distinction is wholly diffrent as it pertains to an attempt to establish culpability based on the state of mental fitness of the perpetrator when the crime was commited. “Hate crimes” laws attempt to assign blame based on ideologies, a wholly different matter alltogether.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 pmAnd the law is not punishing *speech*, it is punishing *violent conduct* that arises from the speech.
By linking the two, the law will inevietably punish the speech.
Well it look’s like I had better read this bill and then decide for my self…I’m amazed they are taking time to do this when what we need are investigation’s and Impeachment most of all….Don’t we have law’s already on the book’s that pretty much cover crime’s, murder and riotious behavior?… BTW I am no longer married…I divorced the last mistake I made many year’s ago..To bad we can’t get rid of this administration as easily as I did a husband with bad behavior….In Montana a divorce, uncontested take’s 30 day’s…Shit, were over 6 year’s past when we should of divorced these bad behaving people…Blessings
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 pmYOUR FOOLS, RUBISH, LOOSERS…
Even though I agree with you that this law is badly thought out, I am awed by your truly monumental talent in presenting your own case in the worst possible light.
Hint: calling everyone who disagrees with you an “idiot”, “loser” and a “communist” is not very likely to improve the odds of your arguments being taken seriously.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:48 pmMugging is an assault and battery against you, and a crime against society. When the prosecutor takes the mugger to trial he is representing society – not you. Society is the client; you just happen to be the member of society who was assaulted.
Comment by RandiB
First of all, there is no such thing as a crime against scoiety. That is just something the left made to butt into individual rights.
Second, the prosecutor doesn’t prosecute if I don’t press charges. I am the one deciding that — not “society”.
Time to wake up from your collectivist dream, Randi.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm“There is already a law against murder. Do we need a PC classification for it?”
LOL… I wonder if this moron actually realizes that we already classify murder into various categories?
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:50 pm“By linking the two, the law will inevietably punish the speech.”
Then you should be easily able to demonstrate this by showing the statistics from the states that have hate crime laws. I won’t be holding my breath, though.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:51 pmProgress! Good job!
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm“There is simply no escape from the fact that the ‘hate crime’ laws, no matter how well intentioned, are simply illogical and counter-productive. And in the long term dangerous.”
Dear heart, those are assertions, not facts. And unsupported ones at that.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:52 pmCynicon,
You said – “Second, the prosecutor doesn’t prosecute if I don’t press charges. I am the one deciding that — not “societyâ€.”
This is incorrect. Many DA’s will not press charges against someone if you will not testify against them because if you wont there is no case. If they have enough evidence to get a conviction without your testimony, they can still bring a case on behalf of whatever jurisdiction they represent.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:55 pmBy linking the two, the law will inevietably punish the speech.
Well, then, we should remove incitement to riot and other laws that spring from the decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio because they punish speech as well.
Yes, you have the right to free speech. But the instant your speech causes physical harm (whether by your conduct or the conduct of a listener), it is no longer protected.
“The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused.” – From Justice Douglas’ concurring opinion in Brandenburg.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pmLOL… I wonder if this moron actually realizes that we already classify murder into various categories?
As I pointed out above, the purpose of that classification is to try to establish mental fittness in relation to culpability, not to try to enhance guilt based on someone’s political ideology, as the “hate crimes” law does.
In particular, the “degrees” of murder are based on the “heat of the moment”, i.e. temporary mental unstability induced by emotion (2nd degree) or incidental murder (manslaughter) in order to account for the perpetrator’s ability to think clearly.
“Hate crimes” laws attempt to account for what unpopular political position the person held at a time, a set of criteria light-years removed from that based on logic.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pmThis bill was created knowing it would get the veto, which gives some political ammunition to both sides unfortunately, however I think the bigger gain is going to be with the Democrats. I mean, they just kinda tricked the republican loud mouths into pointing at themselves and saying “look what a racist, sexist, homophobe our party really is” – Dems win even by loosing this one :)
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 pmThen you should be easily able to demonstrate this by showing the statistics from the states that have hate crime laws. I won’t be holding my breath, though.
I can point to cases of prosecution based on “hate speech” laws. This however does not correspond directly because all countries (that I am aware of) who have “hate crimes” laws also do have “hate speech” laws as a consequence. In this case I would have to find one which only has “hate crimes” law and not the other. My point was though that “hate speech” laws follow shortly on the heels of the “hate crimes” law and in that case the evidence is pretty much 100% on my side as all the countries in question did just that.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pmThis is incorrect. Many DA’s will not press charges against someone if you will not testify against them because if you wont there is no case.
No, you are incorrect. Whenever a prosecution occurs in a criminal court, it is always “The State” or “The Commonwealth” or whatever government entity has jurisdiction. In legal ethics classes, we are taught that the prosecutor’s client is “the state”, not the victim.
Are cases dismissed because the victim refuses to testify? Absolutely, but only in cases where the *only* evidence is their testimony.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:03 pmComment by FactsOnly — May 3, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Sorry, Facts Only, the issue of mental fitness only arises when the question is whether the perpetrator possessed the requisite mental ability to understand the nature and consequences of his actions. The issue of intent is ALWAYS applicable and central to the degree of guilt – if any – can be found. Check out the term “mens rea” in Black’s Law Dictionary.
-Comment by FactsOnly — May 3, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Sorry, Facts Only, wrong again. Punishing violent conduct that arises from speech comes under the heading of “inciting a riot” or “fighting words” in most jurisdictions. In those cases the words really do result in violence and the person speaking them is therefore criminally liable. This is where the limit of free speech ends. The hate crimes designation punishes crimes that are committed on the basis of hate against certain groups. The speech doesn’t cause the criminal act. Rather, the speech gives additional insight into the motivation of the perpetrator.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:04 pmWell, then, we should remove incitement to riot and other laws that spring from the decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio because they punish
speech as well.
There is a good reason why this case was deemed deeply controversial and considered as a borderline invalidation of the 1st Ammendment and was furiously opposed by many.
“Hate crimes” laws go much further then that.
Some will point to Brandenburg v. Ohio and say “I told you so”. And if this trend continues, they will be right.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:06 pmHERE: Follow the bold
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act–
(1) the term `crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term `hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term `local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
§ 16. Crime of violence defined
The term “crime of violence†means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or propÂerty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
Comment by FactsOnly — May 3, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Those here that are communists know what they are. I admit that the whole idea that members of TP would support lunacy like this BILL have got my blood boiling. Here I might as well go for broke since if this BILL is made a law then we enter a land of censorship.
Sometimes people blurt out things that would never be acted on. I could lose myself and say something like, “SOnSO should have his arms and legs ripped off and taken to the 4 corners of the world! I hate that guy and his desire for war”
That is the last thing you folks on this site want. You lose the 1st Amendment to censorship and a possible violation based on what I posted at the top of this post (the BILL). Good luck in reinventing the wheel people!
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:10 pmHate crimes act will get rid of SOME of meaningless acts of violence from our society
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:13 pmSorry, Facts Only, the issue of mental fitness only arises when the question is whether the perpetrator possessed the requisite mental ability to understand the nature and consequences of his actions. The issue of intent is ALWAYS applicable and central to the degree of guilt – if any – can be found. Check out the term “mens rea†in Black’s Law Dictionary.
You are incorrect. The mental fitness issue has multiple factors in which “fitness to stand trial” is a different issue from the mental fitness at the time of the crime.
he hate crimes designation punishes crimes that are committed on the basis of hate against certain groups. The speech doesn’t cause the criminal act. Rather, the speech gives additional insight into the motivation of the perpetrator.
Then robbery is a “hate crime”. A man, who was at some point of time a member of some “communist-like” debating club known as a “progressive website”, robs a rich dude. The result of his hate of the minority group of “rich people”.
How about road rage? The driver of a fast car hates the “slow pokes” who “cut him off” and proceeds from waving his fist and cursing at first to blowing their brains out. Clearly a hate issue involving a minority group of “slow drivers”. Etc and so on.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pmCongratulations, queers! I’M KIDDING! I’m very glad this passed. I’m extremely pissed that Bush is threating a veto.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm“As I pointed out above, the purpose of that classification is to try to establish mental fittness in relation to culpability”
Not entirely, dear. Among other things, there are factors of threat to the community, likelihood of recidivism, and so on, all of which are relevant to a discussion about someone who wanted to “bash some queers.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pmThen robbery is a “hate crimeâ€. A man, who was at some point of time a member of some “communist-like†debating club known as a “progressive websiteâ€, robs a rich dude. The result of his hate of the minority group of “rich peopleâ€.
How about road rage? The driver of a fast car hates the “slow pokes†who “cut him off†and proceeds from waving his fist and cursing at first to blowing their brains out. Clearly a hate issue involving a minority group of “slow driversâ€. Etc and so on.
Absurd arguments do not support your position. In fact, making such ridiculous assertions is a sign of desparation.
And if Brandenburg was so controversial, why has it not been seriously challenged in the nearly forty years since that decision?
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pmFacts Only: Your post #74 is just so much syllogistic nonsense. Feel free to use the N-word, the F-word, or any other offensive word to your heart’s content. Nobody will take you to task under this new law, and your constitutional freedoms will not be infringed upon.
However, if in conjunction with the commission of a violent act you use the N-word against an African American, or the F-word against someone you correctly or incorrectly perceive as being gay, the reasonable inference that is most likely to be drawn is that your actions were based upon hate for the class of victim to which the person you are attacking belongs.
This is pretty simple stuff despite your apparent attempts to obfuscate the issue with lunatic, knee-jerk over-reaction. Remember, though, that the law we are discussing here protects EVERYONE, not just those that YOU perceive as minorities in relation to your own demographic. It would equally serve to protect your interests if you were to find yourself on the receiving end of a hate-based crime because someone attacked you based upon your apparent association with or membership in one of the enumerated classifications.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:32 pmAmong other things, there are factors of threat to the community, likelihood of recidivism, and so on, all of which are relevant to a discussion about someone who wanted to “bash some queers.â€
Then approach this as a problem of “likelyhood of recidivism” irrespective of the perpetrator’s political views.
With “hate crimes” laws you are cherry-picking ideologies you dislike and try to pretend that “recidivism” and “threats to community” are your real reason.
Your arguments of “threats to community” must stand on their own, irrespective if you are prosecuting a radical communist or a raging “fag hater”.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:33 pmAbsurd arguments do not support your position. In fact, making such ridiculous assertions is a sign of desparation.
It is called reducto ad absurdum. I am pointing out to purposefuly absurd, but logically flowing from your argument, scenarios.
In particular I am pointing out that the notion of “hate” against a “social group” is wholly arbitrary.
And if Brandenburg was so controversial, why has it not been seriously challenged in the nearly forty years since that decision?
Neither have the principal laws of the “War on Drugs”. Your point? That the political and legal system in the US is growing disfunctional? In that case I agree.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:36 pmHowever, if in conjunction with the commission of a violent act you use the N-word against an African American, or the F-word against someone you correctly or incorrectly perceive as being gay, the reasonable inference that is most likely to be drawn is that your actions were based upon hate for the class of victim to which the person you are attacking belongs.
Or the “you rich white fuck” against … a rich white person. Keep digging.
Remember, though, that the law we are discussing here protects EVERYONE, not just those that YOU perceive as minorities in relation to your own demographic. It would equally serve to protect your interests if you were to find yourself on the receiving end of a hate-based crime because someone attacked you based upon your apparent association with or membership in one of the enumerated classifications.
This is precisely why this law protects no one (maybe with the exception of pocketbooks of lawyers), since the distinction of “hate” and the “target social group” are essentially completely arbitrary, they are meaningless.
And if it was the only downside, besides mucking up and complicating the already completely unmanagable abomination we call “law”, I would just sigh and move on. Unfortunately this wrongheaded “law” is, as the other countries where it was passed clearly demonstrate, is also an excuse for abusing the legal framework in order to attempt to silence or in some way obstruct political ideologies which whatever current crop of ideologues in power finds “unacceptable”.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:44 pmDuring a protest you shout, “Death to the PIGS!” A cop hears that and you get several charges one being a HATE crime. Then you will really HATE the PIGS when your in jail!
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:44 pmThis is a repost, TP is on the fritz … again.
However, if in conjunction with the commission of a violent act you use the N-word against an African American, or the F-word against someone you correctly or incorrectly perceive as being gay, the reasonable inference that is most likely to be drawn is that your actions were based upon hate for the class of victim to which the person you are attacking belongs.
Or the “you rich white f*ck” against … a rich white person. Keep digging.
Remember, though, that the law we are discussing here protects EVERYONE, not just those that YOU perceive as minorities in relation to your own demographic. It would equally serve to protect your interests if you were to find yourself on the receiving end of a hate-based crime because someone attacked you based upon your apparent association with or membership in one of the enumerated classifications.
This is precisely why this law protects no one (maybe with the exception of pocketbooks of lawyers), since the distinction of “hate” and the “target social group” are essentially completely arbitrary, they are meaningless.
And if it was the only downside, besides mucking up and complicating the already completely unmanagable abomination we call “law”, I would just sigh and move on. Unfortunately this wrongheaded “law” is, as the other countries where it was passed clearly demonstrate, is also an excuse for abusing the legal framework in order to attempt to silence or in some way obstruct political ideologies which whatever current crop of ideologues in power finds “unacceptable”.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:53 pmYou go to another protest against “(SOnSO) and shout, (SOnSO),you (blank) sucking whore. Get our troops home now! We hate you and everything about you, you F’in looser!”
If someone hears that you can be busted since that would constitute the definition of a hate crime.
My kid gets grounded and on his way to his room he mutters, “I F’in hate you” with fists clenched! He committed a hate crime!
The BILL violates the 1st and 4th Amendments found in the Bill of Rights contained in the Constitution of the United States of America. The 1st Amendment becomes straddled with censorship and adds more words to a ban list. This sends us deep into a police state. The 4th Amendment is affected since I would have to censor myself in my own home fearing that someone may hear me utter a banned word or phrase. It is not even clear on what the EVIL words are or if they can be spoken or written at all. Words could be added to the list and my ignorance of that would be no excuse.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:05 pmUh, RICH isn’t one of the protected categories. However, RACE IS, and if you are white then someone who attacked you because you are white would be liable under the law.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:13 pmMay 3rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
You go to another protest against “(SOnSO) and shout, (SOnSO),you (blank) sucking whore. Get our troops home now! We hate you and everything about you, you F’in looser!â€
If someone hears that you can be busted since that would constitute the definition of a hate crime.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or something?
This law WILL NOT make *saying* something a “hate crime”. What it will do is when someone COMMITS A CRIME that is motivated by hatred of a particular race or ethnic group, the punishment they receive will be harsher.
For example, if Billy Joe says something racist towards Hispanics and then attacks a Hispanic because of his hatred, the CRIME would be prosecuted as a hate crime. If Billy Joe just says something racist and DOES NOTHING, then NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED and he won’t be prosecuted for being a bigot.
The 1st Amendment is not absolute and NEVER HAS BEEN. If you think that, I sugeest to take a civics refresher course.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:21 pmThis bill will be vetoed, so that the current, corrupt president can keep his Militia/Nazi/KKK/Aryan base (makes up a large portion of the 30% who still support this arrogant piece of corruption).
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:26 pmAnother law to enforce the lack of enforcement of the laws that are not enforced. What Congress needs to do is pass a new law that will outlaw the lack of enforcement of laws that are not enforced and hope it is enforced.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:27 pmAre you being deliberately obtuse or something?
This law WILL NOT make *saying* something a “hate crimeâ€. What it will do is when someone COMMITS A CRIME that is motivated by hatred of a particular race or ethnic group, the punishment they receive will be harsher.
For example, if Billy Joe says something racist towards Hispanics and then attacks a Hispanic because of his hatred, the CRIME would be prosecuted as a hate crime. If Billy Joe just says something racist and DOES NOTHING, then NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED and he won’t be prosecuted for being a bigot.
The 1st Amendment is not absolute and NEVER HAS BEEN. If you think that, I sugeest to take a civics refresher course.
Comment by Trekkie — May 3, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
YOU ARE THE BIGGEST LIAR ON THIS THREAD…
I posted the law and the section 16, title 18, United States Code; stating that The term “crime of violence†means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or propÂerty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force
and
any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force
BOTH INDICATE VERBAL OR WRITTEN
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:29 pmAnother law to enforce the lack of enforcement of the laws that are not enforced. What Congress needs to do is pass a new law that will outlaw the lack of enforcement of laws that are not enforced and hope it is enforced.
A major reason why there are so many unenforced or misapplied laws is that the “law” has become an unmanagable morass of contradictory and dishonest, ideologically motivated attempts at punishing political oponoents.
No citizen of any industrialized country is able to enumerate (without aid of databases and multi-tome volumes) even the basic laws which are supposed to govern his/her community because of their purposeful complexity. And that not even accounting the fact that the laws are, again purposefuly, made incomprehensible to a layman. Combine this with “not knowing the law is no excuse” (which is usually made by some smirking, evil, authoritarian) and you get a receipe for a place where everyone is a criminal and cops and lawyers become priests and accolytes of the “religion” of “law” instead of “law” being a clear set of rules which govern the society.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:36 pmBOTH INDICATE VERBAL OR WRITTEN
If that is what you see, sir, then YOU are misinterpreting the law.
I have told you, I don’t know how many times, that speech AND SPEECH ALONE is NOT threatened by this law. HATE SPEECH COUPLED WITH CRIMINAL ACTION is punished.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 pmLaws are almost ALWAYS enacted for the purpose of remedying some problem. The more complex we humans are, the more complex the laws have gotten in order to reasonably accommodate the very many different situations/problems that arise in our daily lives. Your whining about the multitude of laws we live under is really nothing more than lamentation over our complex lives.
Okay, so make the laws simple and few, you say? If you do that then every law has to be interpreted in light of the fact pattern relative to any given situation or controversy. The result will then be a very elaborate and voluminous common law of precedential case law decisions to guide us instead of a more comprehensive codified system.
Whichever way you go you will have some large body of law – whether codifed or case law – to deal with. The only way to simplify the law is to drastically simplify our lives by casting off technology and reverting to a simple agrarian existence. Even that will only be temporary, since we would undoubtedly resume complicating our lives all over again. Even a simple life will produce complications, however. See Sherwood v. Walker, a case from 1887 that is still taught in law schools today:
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:58 pmhttp://www.law.pitt.edu/madison/contracts/supplement/sherwood_v_walker.htm
What a stupid proposal. As if it is more of a crime to assault a lesbian than a heterosexual woman.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:08 pmI have told you, I don’t know how many times, that speech AND SPEECH ALONE is NOT threatened by this law. HATE SPEECH COUPLED WITH CRIMINAL ACTION is punished.
Comment by Trekkie — May 3, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
You have TOLD me? TOLD me how it is? LOL
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act–
(1) the term `crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term `hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term `local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
§ 16. Crime of violence defined
The term “crime of violence†means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or propÂerty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
or threatened use of physical force against the person or propÂerty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
Anything can be a terroristic threat and all you have to do is threaten me in any way and that is a HATE crime….
YOU ARE A LIAR
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:08 pmFunny, this is one you’d think the Bushies would be totally behind, ’cause as they start leaving office and getting out of prison over the next few yrs, THEY’RE GOING TO NEED ALL THE PROTECTION THEY CAN GET. (But not from me, because I don’t wish violence on anyone, just justice…)
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:10 pmSaywho:
And you are an a$$hole. How many DIFFERENT WAYS do I have to beat this into your concrete skull…you can SAY whatever the f*ck you want to, but if you use what you say to COMMIT A CRIME, it is a hate crime.
Show me where, in the TEXT of the BILL, that HATE SPEECH ALONE is being prosecuted. Otherwise, shut up.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:21 pm#96
Good thing that it’s not the case. Your small vocabulary (which also is indicative of your small mind) and proficient use of profanity gives you away as an angry, hateful person. Good for you–you won’t go to jail merely for being yourself (an idiot).
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:24 pmLaws are almost ALWAYS enacted for the purpose of remedying some problem.
Most of which are either imaginary, produced as a result of political expedience or better yet, a vast quantity of mutually-contradictory, illogical, idiotic laws already on record.
Okay, so make the laws simple and few, you say? If you do that then every law has to be interpreted in light of the fact pattern relative to any given situation or controversy. The result will then be a very elaborate and voluminous common law of precedential case law decisions to guide us instead of a more comprehensive codified system.
The whole idea of “common law” based on “precedent” is one of the major problems contributing to the insanity of the “law” in general. Concise codified law, which is kept as concise as possible every time it is modified is the only way sensible. The fact that “complications” arise is an indication that the law is not clear enough and should be made clearer, which does not mean that more of it has to be written!
Whichever way you go you will have some large body of law – whether codifed or case law – to deal with.
Not true. That is the artifact of the inane process chosen, not a systemic necessity of law itself.
Law at this stage is a religion already, with its own priesthood, where lower ranked priests are praying for guidance of higher priests in elaborate ceremonies, sometimes involving 12 hapless and hopelessly confused members of the community, only to be handed down wholly arbitrary “judgments” which might as well be based on reading of the contents of chicken entrails (same effect but much cheaper), based on their resulting defiance of science and logic.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:24 pmThe fact that “complications†arise is an indication that the law is not clear enough and should be made clearer, which does not mean that more of it has to be written!
How do we make the law clearer? Simplification only goes so far before whatever is simplified becomes useless.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:37 pmShow me where, in the TEXT of the BILL, that HATE SPEECH ALONE is being prosecuted. Otherwise, shut up.
Comment by Trekkie — May 3, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act–
(1) the term `crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
This says see this other law section 16, title 18, United States Code; and OK here is that…
The term “crime of violence†means—
(a) An offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) Any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
Here (A) says: an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or propÂerty of another
“Threatened use of physical force” means that verbal or written threats are not actual violence but in fact “threatened” so if you say, “I’ll kick your faggot ass!” That is a hate crime under this bill.
(b) Any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
(B) Clearly says just about anything goes and so anyone can claim that the other made them feel threatened by using racial slurs or the like.
GFY LIAR
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:42 pm“Threatened use of physical force†means that verbal or written threats are not actual violence but in fact “threatened†so if you say, “I’ll kick your faggot ass!†That is a hate crime under this bill.
Well, there’s your problem – you don’t know what the hell “threatened use of physical force” means. From the legal standpoint, “threatend use of physical force” means that the use of force is imminent. If I have a gun and I’m pointing it at you, I’m threatening use of force. HOWEVER, just saying “I’m gonna kick your a$$!” is NOT “threatened use of physical force” because the danger is not imminent.
(B) Clearly says just about anything goes and so anyone can claim that the other made them feel threatened by using racial slurs or the like.
They can claim it. Hell, they can claim the guy has four legs. But claiming it and proving it beyond a reasonable doubt are two different things.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 pmWell, there’s your problem – you don’t know what the hell “threatened use of physical force†means. From the legal standpoint, “threatend use of physical force†means that the use of force is imminent. If I have a gun and I’m pointing it at you, I’m threatening use of force. HOWEVER, just saying “I’m gonna kick your a$$!†is NOT “threatened use of physical force†because the danger is not imminent.
(B) Clearly says just about anything goes and so anyone can claim that the other made them feel threatened by using racial slurs or the like.
They can claim it. Hell, they can claim the guy has four legs. But claiming it and proving it beyond a reasonable doubt are two different things.
Comment by Trekkie — May 3, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
I don’t owe you this LIAR but it is simple this BILL violates the 1st & 4th Amendments. More than that it uses code from what would constitute a terroristic threat w/ out this bill. All you have to do is threaten someone or gesture at someone or scowl at someone. Yelling in a protest any epitaph constitutes a violent threat and so then constitutes a hate crime.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:01 pmYelling in a protest any epitaph constitutes a violent threat and so then constitutes a hate crime.
No, because as I have explained OVER AND OVER, mere words are NOT ENOUGH. There has to be action.
The fact that YOU can’t see that makes you a MORON.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:08 pmNo, because as I have explained OVER AND OVER, mere words are NOT ENOUGH. There has to be action.
The fact that YOU can’t see that makes you a MORON.
Comment by Trekkie — May 3, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Ooooooooo I rather be a moron than a LIAR like you! Regardless the
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or propÂerty of another, or
or threatened use of physical force against the person
This says nothing about a weapon it in fact means to threaten verbally, in writing or physically.
If I get my hands on you I’m going to bash your Fin brains in you liar! Is a threat as clearly stated in section 16, title 18, United States Code; (a) & (b)
I would be in fear for my life if threatened like that and that threat is a violent crime. Now you lied when you stated, “Well, there’s your problem – you don’t know what the hell “threatened use of physical force†means. From the legal standpoint, “threatened use of physical force†means that the use of force is imminent. If I have a gun and I’m pointing it at you, I’m threatening use of force. HOWEVER, just saying “I’m gonna kick your a$$!†is NOT “threatened use of physical force†because the danger is not imminent.” I’m going to kick your ass is a threat and as long as I am made to FEAR that threat we have a VIOLATION.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:23 pmI’m done. You are being deliberately obtuse and stupid, and I will not waste my time or energy dealing with someone who ovbviously has NO UNDERSTANDING of the criminal justice system.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:30 pmI’m done. You are being deliberately obtuse and stupid, and I will not waste my time or energy dealing with someone who ovbviously has NO UNDERSTANDING of the criminal justice system.
Comment by Trekkie — May 3, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
So then I take it that you’re going to commit suicide since that person is YOU!
Laterzz LIAR
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:37 pmWhat is Saywho’s problem? Threats of bodily harm are already a crime. So what’s your beef? If you threated to kick my ass and did so with the intensity and venom shown here, I’d certain file a complaint against you and see your sorry ass sent to jail. It has nothing to do with Free Speech. Indeed, your threats are attempts to silence my Free Speech. It’s like yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. If you think you have the right to threaten, intimidate, and otherwise verbally abuse humanity because of some misbegotten libertarian fantasy, I say it’s time to send you through the court system to show you what a loss of freedom really feels like.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:10 pmHow do we make the law clearer? Simplification only goes so far before
whatever is simplified becomes useless.
Simplification and clarity are not one and the same. It takes is a great deal of effort to make sure that something is both concise and clear. But it is not impossible. Mathematicians and computer science researchers have developed a whole range of techniques to achieve such an end with structures very similar to that of the codified form of law: computer code.
The issue I have with this bill is that it states that the same crime is different because of the victim. If you kill someone you should face the same punishment regardless who you kill.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:27 pmKevin, if you kill someone, of course you face the same punishment. That’s the extreme. “Hate” intensifies all violent crimes in between. Currently, a gay-basher is tried on the specific assault. But, since it was done out of ‘hate’, the crime is seen as bigger on a social scale. And so carries a stiffer penalty. It’s meant to be a deterrent to those who find beating up gays, blacks, Jews, and other minorities entertainment.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 pmWhether here or at other web sites, the average flaming extremist, awash in vugarity, name-calling and hate speech, left or right, causes normal people to fear for the future of the Republic. This is not discourse, it is a middle school food fight with venum.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:52 pmMathematicians and computer science researchers have developed a whole range of techniques to achieve such an end with structures very similar to that of the codified form of law: computer code.
Comparing computer code to law is like comparing apples and eggrolls…
Computer code, in all of its myriad forms, remains a BINARY system – 1 or 0. Yes or No.
While it would be lovely to think that all human behavior could be reduced down to yes and no, reality has too many shades of grey.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 pmWhat is Saywho’s problem? Threats of bodily harm are already a crime. So what’s your beef? If you threated to kick my ass and did so with the intensity and venom shown here, I’d certain file a complaint against you and see your sorry ass sent to jail. It has nothing to do with Free Speech. Indeed, your threats are attempts to silence my Free Speech. It’s like yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. If you think you have the right to threaten, intimidate, and otherwise verbally abuse humanity because of some misbegotten libertarian fantasy, I say it’s time to send you through the court system to show you what a loss of freedom really feels like.
Comment by david — May 3, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Mind your own looser business! Oh and GFY David
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 pmAh, give a man Free Speech and all he can come up with is GFY. My goodness, wouldn’t Jefferson be proud of you. Or not.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 pmComputer code, in all of its myriad forms, remains a BINARY system – 1 or 0. Yes or No.
It is a common misconception that because computer code is fundamentally composed of binary-state bits, the range of expressions possible in it does also always remain binary. If that were true, no floating point numbers (or color images or music) could have been represented by computers. This of course does not take into account that we are here, in this very thread, communicating via computers, using binary codes to represent letters in our sentences, and yet those represent ideas as far from binary as possible.
I could go on about research areas such as “fuzzy logic” and all sorts of other mathematical constructs possible with those “binary” computers but I hope the point is already illustrated.
Lawyers violently resist any idea of simplification of law because that would mean the end of their, very, very profitable employment, which also, as a bonus, allows them to wield life-and-death power over all other people.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:54 amits obsurd. homosexuals shouldnt impose their choice of lifestyle on priests that preach against homosexuality. Thats like telling homosexuals that they should be straight or they’ll go to jail. Its a bill that tries to tell us what to think; what happend to freedom of speech. Homosexuals exercise it all the time. Why cant straight people do it? If you wanna be homosexuals then that is your choice; please don’t tell us what to think. It puts you more into a corner.
May 4th, 2007 at 4:49 amThis is bad legislation. It is really “thought control”. Here is an example of what we can expect.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070502.wvatican0502/BNStory/International/home
“The Vatican’s official newspaper accused an Italian comedian on Wednesday of “terrorism†for criticizing the Pope and warned his rhetoric could fuel a return to 1970s-style political violence.
In an unusually strongly worded editorial, L’Osservatore Romano said a presenter of a televised May Day rock concert, which is sponsored by Italy’s labour unions, had launched “vile attacks†on Pope Benedict in front of an “excitable crowdâ€.
“This, too, is terrorism. It’s terrorism to launch attacks on the Church,†it said. “It’s terrorism to stoke blind and irrational rage against someone who always speaks in the name of love, love for life and love for man.—
So, is the Italian comedian guilty of complicity in “hate crime”?
Or is some “hate” more equal than other?
This will certainly backfire.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:26 amthis is just another way for law enforcement to charge somebody that is found not guilty by a court of law (for mistakes the police may have made) to get somebody put in jail by federal means. If the state screws up the federal charges will pick up where they left off. Just another way way to get around double jepory
May 4th, 2007 at 6:56 amIt’s meant to be a deterrent to those who find beating up gays, blacks, Jews, and other minorities entertainment.
Comment by david — May 3, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
So it’s OK to beat up white guys. I say use the same stern punishment for all assault. I’m not saying go light on people that commit crime because of bigotry, I’m saying it shouldn’t matter who you assault. You assault someone you get punished.
May 4th, 2007 at 7:24 amTo add to Kevin’s appropriate comment, there are degrees of responsibility. If one does something on the spur of the moment, maybe in anger, that is not considered as serious as if attack were planned.
The only thing that counts is this difference. For whatever reason, if an agression was planned that is enough. It is not necessary to go into speculating about the perpetrators philosophy.
An atheist attacks a xian for some reason. The fascist religious right, who knows how many are judges, will argue that it was a “hate crime”.
A xian creationist kid taunts an evolutionist kid in school. The evolutionist kid gets pissed off and smacks the creationist kid. There you have it, a “hate crime”. The wingnuts will ultimately love this law.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:58 amWhat part of “hate speech connected to a crime” do you people NOT understand?
You can think and say whatever the hell you want. It is when you use that hate as a justification TO COMMIT A CRIME that you run afould of this.
It’s not “thought crime”, so stop with the stupid 1984 comparisons. You look like fools when you continue to spout something that is RIDICULOUS and NOT APPLICABLE!
Lawyers violently resist any idea of simplification of law because that would mean the end of their, very, very profitable employment, which also, as a bonus, allows them to wield life-and-death power over all other people.
Shakespeare was the one who said “First, let’s kill all the lawyers.” He was wrong four centuries ago, and YOU are wrong today. And as someone who works in the legal field, I find your cheap shot insulting.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:18 amAh, give a man Free Speech and all he can come up with is GFY. My goodness, wouldn’t Jefferson be proud of you. Or not.
Comment by david — May 3, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
You sound like a wise a** Comrade David and that is the main reason why I didn’t bother getting into it with you last evening. Let me then cut to the chase regarding this BILL.
During a discussion about said legislation, Comrade Trekkie and I were making and using examples (you could clearly see this if you bothered to read the thread). I brought up a point that the “BILL” states:
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act–
(1) the term `crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
So, at this point I copied and pasted the relevant code sited above like so:
The term “crime of violence†means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or propÂerty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
Comrade Trekkie proceeded to tell me (over and over) that part (a) (see above) is limited to the attacker using a weapon only. However there is no language in the bill and more importantly in part (a) of section 16, title 18, United States Code that clearly states that only an ARMED FELON could be guilty of a HATE CRIME.
I pointed out to Comrade Trekkie as I’m pointing out to you Comrade David, through example if necessary that part (a)’s use of “threatened use of physical force” means that an individual only needs to threaten to use force. More than that should you read the intended law you will see that this happens to be the definition of a terroristic threat. More than that should you bother to read the intended law you will learn that the definition of a HATE CRIME is a CRIME OF VIOLENCE…
When we look at part (a) of section 16, title 18, United States Code it is clear that just the threat of physical force constitutes a HATE CRIME or a TERRORISTIC THREAT. So, I used this fictional example of something that an individual might say during an argument…
“If I get my hands on you I’m going to bash your Fin brains in you liar!”
This statement would be considered a “terroristic threat” as you agreed to in your reply posting with this following comment…
Threats of bodily harm are already a crime. So what’s your beef? If you threated(SIC) to kick my ass and did so with the intensity and venom shown here, I’d certain file a complaint against you and see your sorry ass sent to jail.
Comment by david — May 3, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
So I guess you cleared up the fact that threats can be verbal, written or physical and still be considered a CRIME OF VIOLENCE.
Comrade David you then went beyond that and decided to attack me by stating that…
I say it’s time to send you through the court system to show you what a loss of freedom really feels like.
That is a pretty good idea except that I never threatened you and the 1st Amendment allows me to list examples for the purpose of discussion regarding this topic. However if the BILL were passed then in fact words (even used in statements) could possibly be criminalized. We must always consider how a given legislation would support and uphold the US Constitution.
Since the 1st Amendment is still intact I can for a fact say what I please. You mentioned that…
Indeed, your threats are attempts to silence my Free Speech. It’s like yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. If you think you have the right to threaten, intimidate, and otherwise verbally abuse humanity because of some misbegotten libertarian fantasy,
This is utter nonsense on your part Comrade David. Yelling, “fire†when there is no fire, does not violate the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Bill does in fact CLEARLY VIOLATE the 1st Amendment since it is CONGRESS that “SHALL MAKE NO LAW THAT:
CREATES A NATIONAL RELIGION
STOPS ME FROM EXERCISING MY RELIGION IF I HAVE ONE
CENSORS MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH
CENSORS THE PRESS
STOPS PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY
STOPS ME FROM QUESTIONING THE GOVERNMENT
Yelling FIRE when there is no FIRE may or may not be a violation of local laws. It may or may not be considered a misdemeanor. It may or may not be considered a State offence. It may or may not be considered a Federal offence. It would depend on the issues at the time of the alleged infraction. For instance a woman who is being raped is encouraged to YELL FIRE since statistics have shown that YELLING RAPE is less effective at getting HELP. So, in fact as per that example you can YELL FIRE when there is none. You may see smoke and YELL FIRE to later find out that it was something cooking and so that is another example of when YELLING FIRE is understandable. I can go on and on listing examples that counter all of your points.
Now Comrade David, thanks to the 1st Amendment I can again mention to you that you can GFY since you and your ANTI CONSTUTIONAL BILL are both offensive.
PAX
May 4th, 2007 at 10:57 amComment by Trekkie — May 4, 2007 @ 10:18 am
If I assume that you Comrade Trekkie are a lawyer would I be wrong? Don’t worry if I’m on your ignore list since I’m on Jake’s list too!
May 4th, 2007 at 11:01 amYelling, “fire†when there is no fire, does not violate the 1st Amendment.
Saywho, your ignorance of the law is stunning. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic….The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
While Schenck has been narrowed by the Brandenburg “imminent lawless action” test, the restriction still applies. If you shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater in order to cause a panic, you are NOT protected by the First Amendment. If you shout “Fire!” in an alleyway in order to get help, then you probably would be protected by the First Amendment. So don’t tell me the First Amendment is ABSOLUTE when eighty years of Supreme Court decisions says IT IS NOT!
May 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pmComment by Trekkie — May 4, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
I’m wondering, are you on drugs Comrade? Shouting fire is not a violation of the 1st Amendment and never was. Only CONGRESS can violate the 1st Amendment since the 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
I went on to say in that post, “Yelling FIRE when there is no FIRE may or may not be a violation of local laws. It may or may not be considered a misdemeanor. It may or may not be considered a State offence. It may or may not be considered a Federal offence. It would depend on the issues at the time of the alleged infraction. For instance a woman who is being raped is encouraged to YELL FIRE since statistics have shown that YELLING RAPE is less effective at getting HELP. So, in fact as per that example you can YELL FIRE when there is none. You may see smoke and YELL FIRE to later find out that it was something cooking and so that is another example of when YELLING FIRE is understandable.”
Regardless of anything you may utter here “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This means that you or I can’t violate the 1st Amendment unless we are “Congress”.
So, again let me ask Comrade, would I be wrong to assume that you are a lawyer?
PAX
May 4th, 2007 at 12:35 pmShakespeare was the one who said “First, let’s kill all the lawyers.†He was wrong four centuries ago, and YOU are wrong today.
Ole William got it right and I already explained in detail why that is so.
And as someone who works in the legal field, I find your cheap shot insulting.
You should. The very existence of your kind is a grim reminder that we, as a society, are still incapable of producing a system which does not immediately invite hordes of parasites to feed upon it.
It is of course no surprise to me that you would be “insulted” by (and frightened of) being called by your true name. Nor it is a surprise that you would desperately defend your species, even violently should your oponents get too close to the truth, to make sure that you can continue to feed on the blood of the rest of the society.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pmSaywho, your ignorance of the law is stunning
…. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion … While Schenck has been narrowed by the Brandenburg “imminent lawless action†test, the restriction still applies. …. eighty years of Supreme Court decisions says IT IS NOT! …
Translation: You ignorant peons! How dare you question the High Priest’s pronouncements in the Holy Legal Scriptures, Trice Convoluted and Tenfold Obfuscated?! Those divine declarations of the Annointed Ones are backed up by the Grand Inqusitor Council itself for 80 years now! Don’t you know that we, lawyers, rule and own you!? Heel peons, or we will put you in your place!!!
May 4th, 2007 at 3:23 pmNor it is a surprise that you would desperately defend your species, even violently should your oponents get too close to the truth, to make sure that you can continue to feed on the blood of the rest of the society.
Nice, you don’t even know what kind of law firm I work for or what I do, yet you’re sure that I “feed on the blood of the rest of society”. Generalize much?
I work for a state agency. We represent worker’s compensation cases where the employee gets hurt on the job and the employer refuses to pay. Since we work for the state, our salaries are fixed.
I would say nice try, but it wasn’t particularly nice. It was a try.
As for the rest, I would like to point out that under our Constitution, the Judiciary has the power to interpret the law. If you don’t like it, write your Congressman. Otherwise, leave the hyperbole in your hat.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:49 pmComment by FactsOnly — May 4, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Hello FactsOnly,
This is a bill with the point of elevating a gay minority by the force of law and allowing this minority additional protections that the majority is not allowed. The only way congress was able to make this slightly believeable is by including other minorities like blacks and Native Americans.
Don’t you hate that?
Nice, you don’t even know what kind of law firm I work for or what I do, yet you’re sure that I “feed on the blood of the rest of societyâ€. Generalize much?
I work for a state agency. We represent worker’s compensation cases where the employee gets hurt on the job and the employer refuses to pay. Since we work for the state, our salaries are fixed.
I would say nice try, but it wasn’t particularly nice. It was a try.
As for the rest, I would like to point out that under our Constitution, the Judiciary has the power to interpret the law. If you don’t like it, write your Congressman. Otherwise, leave the hyperbole in your hat.
Comment by Trekkie — May 4, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
So then Comrade Trekkie are you a lawyer or a legal assistant?
May 4th, 2007 at 4:16 pmThis is a bill with the point of elevating a gay minority by the force of law and allowing this minority additional protections that the majority is not allowed.
If a black man attacks a white man because he is white, the hate crime statute would apply just as it would apply if a white man attacked a black man because he is black. Or have you never heard of “reverse discrimination”?
May 4th, 2007 at 5:12 pmNice, you don’t even know what kind of law firm I work for or what I do, yet you’re sure that I “feed on the blood of the rest of societyâ€. Generalize much?
I work for a state agency. We represent worker’s compensation cases where the employee gets hurt on the job and the employer refuses to pay.
Irrelevant. All lawyers exist only due to the fact that law purposefuly obfuscated to the point of incomprehensibility by … lawyers. I am quite sure that some other flea is explaining in this very moment to some other skeptic about how he/she is “defending” the poor downtrotten corporations from those nasty “worker compensation types”. You are just a different sub-species of parasites, but in the end helping each other to feed on the rest of us.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:19 pmSince we work for the state, our salaries are fixed.
Then you are just a marginally competent bloodsucker. But I am sure you will find more nutritious wounds to feed on when you move to the private sector. Quite possibly to join that other defender of poor corporations you are now “defending” against.
Then you are just a marginally competent bloodsucker.
And you’re an idiot. There, are you happy. Now I’m pissed – you can question my politics, but when you question my COMPETENCE I will not stand for it.
There for, you can go f*ck yourself. This is a nation of LAWS, not of MEN. That was the spirit by which the Constitution was written. If you don’t like that, we can go back to the “state of nature” that Locke and Hobbes described – that the guy with the biggest rock makes all the rule. Of course, life then would be “poor, nasty, brutish and short”…
May 4th, 2007 at 5:44 pmComment by Trekkie — May 4, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
Notice how you did that?
1) You didn’t respond to my query three times.
2) You switched to the black/white thing since it is really a gay thing.
Comrade my hat is off to your typical daily obfuscation of the TRUTH.
Notice how a few posts ago you chastised my knowledge? Now you are encumbered by the truth that this BILL is written to give status to gays (and other minorities) to use as a weapon against anyone who they FEEL threatened by. There are no assurances that can be made that this legislation will not be abused since its existence is clearly against the US Constitution.
The idea that a law is based around an EMOTION shows exactly how far from the center you and your fellow supporters of this sort of trash are. Case and point here would be that I am beginning to HATE you and your disregard for the Constitution. The HATE BILL creates and feeds the real hate that is in the real world. This bill does exactly the opposite of what it pretends to do.
I can hardly believe what I am about to say, “Thank you Mr. President for vetoing this Anti-Constitutional bill and please end the war now!â€
May 4th, 2007 at 5:50 pmAnd you’re an idiot. There, are you happy. Now I’m pissed – you can question my politics, but when you question my COMPETENCE I will not stand for it.
There for, you can go f*ck yourself. This is a nation of LAWS, not of MEN. That was the spirit by which the Constitution was written. If you don’t like that, we can go back to the “state of nature†that Locke and Hobbes described – that the guy with the biggest rock makes all the rule. Of course, life then would be “poor, nasty, brutish and shortâ€â€¦
Comment by Trekkie — May 4, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Watch it with that GFY thing Comrade Trekkie! I was chastised by Comrade David yesterday for just such an offence. He may choose to help you spend some time as a guest in one of our camps for reeducation!
May 4th, 2007 at 5:56 pmI see you are also pissed Comrade Trekkie and you know what they say, “Better to be pissed off than pissed on!â€
There for, you can go f*ck yourself. This is a nation of LAWS, not of MEN.
Which the likes of you managed to convert to a nation of LAWYERS instead. Although you probably believe that they are both one and the same.
That was the spirit by which the Constitution was written. If you
don’t like that, we can go back to the “state of nature†that Locke and Hobbes described – that the guy with the biggest rock makes all the rule. Of course, life then would be “poor, nasty, brutish and shortâ€â€¦
I have nothing against concise, sensible laws.
But if a law requires an Annoynted High Priest to “interpret” its meaning, it ceases to be a law governing common individuals and instead becomes a religious scripture, no different from any other gobledey-gook which can be found in any holy book, and which subsequently can be “interpreted” by the Priesthood any which way imaginable.
That is my beef.
A nation of LAWS is a nation where every individual who is subject to that law is not only capable of comprehending all the law but also memorizing most of it and easily looking up the rest.
Presence of lawyers is a sure fire indication of failure of the law and subsequent criminalization (and thus tyrannical control) of every of its subjects, not to mention an estabilishment of an all-powerful, parasitic priesthood class.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:26 pmWhy do we need a bill on hate crimes to include sexual orientation?
Cuz some areas of the country, murder is NOT murder. Nor is murder prosecuted as such. Fagbashing is actually appoved, and local authoriteis and citizens (potential jurors) would NOT give a fagbasher (killer) an appropriate trial or sentence.
With the new bill, the federal govt could be appealed to get a fair prosecution of the case.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:07 amLook, you people are all missing the point. If you punish a crime as a hate crime, you are admitting that there is a difference in classifications of people. Because someone is black the crime commited against them is so much worse, because they are gay the judgement against the criminal should be much more strict. All these laws are doing is dividing our society. If you say its a Much worse crime if you killed a black person as opposed to killing a white person, assuming you are white, you are saying that there is a difference between white people and black. According to our current laws, all races, sexes, political preferences are to be treated equally. But, according to these laws, if you beat someone who is gay you should be punished much more severely than if you beat someone who is straight. You beat someone, that is the basic fact. Whether they are gay, straight, bi, or abstinant should have absolutely no bearing on the case. You beat someone. That is the issue. By dividing these criminal acts in this manner all we are doing is dividing the US up into smaller classifications of people and making them believe that they are somehow different then everyone else. We are all no different according to the law, so why should some people get special treatment according to These laws? We are only pitting people against each other by dividing them in this manner. This only leads to further fracturing of our society.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:06 pmTo kill someone is to kill someone, to beat someone is the crime, to vandalize their car or home is against the law. What does it matter what is believed by the person who commits the act? If the end product is violence the violence will be prosecuted, but it should not be prosecuted according to race, religion, or sex. That only gives the impression that somehow the differences between the two matter. The crime was commited, That is the end product, That should be punished.