Here’s the problem. The person who hates gay people really does (at least in some cases) hate them so much that it affects their lives. They see such people as a personal affront, as something that makes their world much worse than it would be otherwise. So, while I would tend to agree with you, I’m not sure where we would draw the line for definition purposes.
I prefer the term “Malice aforethought.”
Ah, that one strikes me as easy. If you hate gay people so much that your quality of life is affected by your hate, it is still a completely internal problem. If somebody does something to you that is recognized by society as a bad thing, like a cheating spouse, or a businessman that cheated you out of money, then you have a recognizable problem. Again, it doesn’t justify murder, but at least society at large can understand the motive.
And, as another corollary, it is understandable to want to get back at the cheating businessman. It is NOT understandable to want to get back at all people who are in the same business, regardless of whether they have cheated you.
H.
Yeah, but this still strikes me as odd. Understanding is going to be the qualifier? So, in a Muslim state, where everyone understands hatred of gays, we don’t have as big a problem? And if cheating on your spouse is acceptable by society, then it isn’t a mitigating reason? I’m just not sure what the rule of law would be to cover societal recognition of certain situations. Maybe you have a solution?
Hmm. I don’t think I like the idea that justice should be relaxed because deep down inside we’re all really dicks and might do the same given similar circumstances. This is a new idea to me and I may have to think about that a bit more.
Also: Insanity and bigotry are pretty alike in that they are both irrational and unpopular, but one is seen as mitigating and one is seen as exacerbating. Is the distinction that bigotry is maliciously, intentionally irrational? I’m not honestly sure you could prove that.
If someone hates GWB, and assaults him, should he receive the added charge of a “hate crime”? Genuine question.
I think the point of that piece was that the (printed) speech was inciting others against blacks, not just voicing an idiotic belief. In fact, inciting people to unlawful action is a crime already, so what makes the crime deserving of greater punishment if the victims are a minority rather than, say, “the next car that drives by” or some such convenience?
Or Malcom X?
Malcolm never incited hate crimes. Hard to define where the line is, but he never crossed it. If you want to know where it is, George Wallace tap danced on the damn thing.
Right, because by definition “hate crimes” don’t occur against Whitey.
The guy in question was both a neo-nazi and a juggalo. Anything they could have charged him with would have been a delight, in my book.
edit: Aw, somebody censored and cleaned up his myspace page. Until a day or so ago, it was full of photos of him heiling hitler in front of a nazi flag, showing off his 14/88 tattoos, proudly posting the results of his ‘You’re a nazi!’ and ‘You will kill someone with a hatchet’ quizzes, and the impassioned defense from his psychotic yet hilarious clownface pals. Ah well, at least I got to see it before it vanished. (Thanks, POE-N!)
Tim is probably thinking of the follow up to the “Fighting Words” doctrine that justifies the criminal prohibition on inciting a riot. You can say whatever you want about whatever kind of people, and you can even loudly hope that they die, you can even proclaim that, hypothetically, if you were to have a rifle and a clear shot, you would end their children. However, you cannot say, “Go do something to some people!” where something is an illegal act if your attempts to whip the crowd into a violent frenzy have a reasonable chance of success.
Absolutely, positively not. It’s been a while, but that’s why in my first post in this thread I specified I was talking about the logical basis of hate crime legislation, rather than the legal basis. Once you have to legislate something and put it on paper, you have to define it, lay out exceptions, etc. and I have no idea how to do that correctly for something as nebulous as “hate crimes.” I was just making the larger point that if you don’t have any recognizable reason to attack a person individually, then you were probably correctly charged under hate crime legislation.
H.
I think this clearly shows that any one of us can be guilty of a hate crime, since I would have multiple orgasms if I were allowed to throw gasoline on anyone who jointly belonged to those groups.
H.
Uh, no, I said Malcolm never incited hate crimes because I don’t recall him taunting people into riots. Let me know if I’m wrong here.
Well, actually, Flowers I was pointing to this section:
In that case, Beauharnais v. Illinois, the head of the White Circle League distributed a leaflet declaring that African Americans would terrorize white neighborhoods with “rapes, robberies, knives, guns and marijuana.” The pamphleteer was convicted when the court decided that libelous statements aimed at groups of people, like those aimed at individuals, fall outside First Amendment protection.
Hmmm. As opposed to completely misinterpreting or misrepresenting what Jason said in order to make a tangential point about reverse-racism, I looked up a few pages of quotes by the late Mr. X.
As it turns out, his rhetoric generally falls along two main themes:
Fuck with me, I fuck with you,
and
black pride.
He doesn’t explicitly refer to “whitey” very much from my five-minute browse, he’s much more focused on eye-for-an-eye, without identifying who the doer might be.
H.
What’s a juggalo?
That case was overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Yeah, I know. I was just showing that it has before been considered that insulting a group of people can be considered libelous.
Assuming your being serious, it’s a fan of the Insane Clown Posse. Imagine if you will the stylish dress of the Kiss Army, the music of Vanilla Ice post-rap crossed with that shitty band John Cusack managed in High Fidelity, a legion of teenagers driven to concerts by their parents, and a penchant for groupthink. Thus, the juggalo.
H.
That was in a state and time where truth wasn’t even a defense to libel.