Hate crimes are certainly very controversial here in the USA, as I suppose they are everywhere. And I don't think anyone is saying the basic underlying crimes shouldn't be punished. But is it an overreach of government to punish people for their private thoughts and motivations. I know that the SCOTUS has ruled they are constitutional. But not everyone agrees with the ruling. The high Court's ruling notwithstanding, some people still find it, well, kind of Orwellian, for the aforementioned reasons. Me personally, I just don't know. But I hope your responses to this thread will sway me one way or another. Thank you in advance to all who reply.
If our private thoughts and motivations cause us to hurt others, then yes...the government has a right to punish.
Private thoughts are not hate crimes. Private thoughts don't hurt others. Acting upon them might. So you 'punish' the action, not the thought. No way should any intelligent person who values freedom of mind (if we allow restrictions on freedom of speech because it can hurt others) be ok with government punishing citizens for having certain controversial private thoughts
I got done this year for calling three cops a bunch of fucking homos, while they were wrestling me on to the floor to take my belt off. I'm the least homophobic person anyone could know. My neighbours, an old lesbian couple drove me to court where I had to plead guilty to this bullshit, and breach of the peace for trying to be nice to two young gay guys, but they felt threatened by me and phoned the cops... So over here in Scotland this Pc nonsense with hate crimes is out of control as well. I nearly had a break down over the whole thing. My view of hate crimes therefore is.. Fuck you, I'll say what the hell I like. I spend my whole life being nice to gay and trans folk only to get treated like this because I got angry because two silly little drama queens have a chip on their shoulders. >:-(
I'm against calling them hate crimes just because it is interracial violence. How can you always prove the crime was hate driven, just because one person attacked another person of a different race or ethnicity?
Aren't most people against calling it like that until they know? I think where it goes wrong is too many people assume too soon in such a case that 'its probably a hate crime' because two different etnicities or skin colors are involved. That's annoying and wrong of course. When we know that was the crux though the term hate crime is correct ...and it just happen to be so plenty of such conflicts with interracial violence are hate crimes indeed.
There is a huge difference between thinking something and acting upon it. I don't care if I disagree with someone, I would defend their right to think/say whatever they want because I expect the same in return. Also, when you limit someone's rights like that, the ones who are most harmed are the marginalized. If you look throughout history, it's that freedom that has actually propelled good changes forward for those who aren't in a position of power.
That's pretty much what I was saying. You can't hurt someone with your thoughts unless you act on them. Thoughts are just thoughts, otherwise.
Someone smashed my car window the other night. Police want to call it a hate crime. It's a window. I think it's a hate crime when a person gets smashed. I think this was kids being kids, despite my gay bumper sticker.
I am posting this from my smartphone, and I still haven't figured out how to do cut and pastes yet. But, FWIW, I think I read it on Wikipedia. Also, I think it is common knowledge. Just do a Google search .
Also, there's a famous Supreme Court quote about it. They use the words "indispensable" and "matrix", I remember.
Good point. I was perhaps wrongly assuming that the whole car was gay, but maybe it was just the bumper. It could indeed have been racially motivated if it had tinted windows.
Civil Rights Act of 1968 disagrees with this. I've been trying to find some documentation online to verify the claim that hate crimes are constitutional. I'm not sure any crime is constitutional. I mean, isn't that why it's a crime? Anyway, I hope you get to your computer soon. You've got us all curious.
This. The motive of a crime is always relevant, whether or not someone chooses a specific victim for the color of their skin or just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time (just as an example) is the difference between a premeditated murder and a manslaughter charge
Yeah and burning crosses doesn't count either, right? All y'all needs to wake the fuck up and see the light.
