Wren wrote:

I disagree with your reasoning. The hate crime law criminalizes thought, and that is anti-American, in my opinion.

But if we can't agree, then we can agree to disagree agreeably.


I do understand your position. I have agonized over hate crime legislation for that very reason. It does not criminalize thought unless that thought has led to action (I know that this seems like a small difference and I do like the idea of equal penalties for equal crimes regardless of motivation with some important exceptions). I believe that it is terrorism that has caused me to adopt my current position. I also think about race. Is there a difference between burning a bag of dog poop on someones porch and burning a cross on their lawn? I think that there is, but I wish that there were not.
While I don't accept your position I do not think that you are a bad person for promoting it (though there are some who have your position for a different motivation that may well receive such judgement). I am willing to watch the impact of such legislation and backtrack if your concerns prove valid and/or the legislation fails in its purpose. I hope neither is the case.

gopherus wrote:

Wren wrote:

I disagree with your reasoning. The hate crime law criminalizes thought, and that is anti-American, in my opinion.

But if we can't agree, then we can agree to disagree agreeably.


I do understand your position. I have agonized over hate crime legislation for that very reason. It does not criminalize thought unless that thought has led to action (I know that this seems like a small difference and I do like the idea of equal penalties for equal crimes regardless of motivation with some important exceptions). I believe that it is terrorism that has caused me to adopt my current position. I also think about race. Is there a difference between burning a bag of dog poop on someones porch and burning a cross on their lawn? I think that there is, but I wish that there were not.
While I don't accept your position I do not think that you are a bad person for promoting it (though there are some who have your position for a different motivation that may well receive such judgement). I am willing to watch the impact of such legislation and backtrack if your concerns prove valid and/or the legislation fails in its purpose. I hope neither is the case.
I remember telling the anti-abortion crowd in our community that they should not be supporting the RICO legislation fifteen years ago, because it could and would be used against them. It has been. It has been used against the liberals.

I think the legislation penalizes free speech, but if the legislation does succeed and then "fails in its purpose", I hope a quick remedy is found.

Wren wrote:

gopherus wrote:

Wren wrote:

I disagree with your reasoning. The hate crime law criminalizes thought, and that is anti-American, in my opinion.

But if we can't agree, then we can agree to disagree agreeably.


I do understand your position. I have agonized over hate crime legislation for that very reason. It does not criminalize thought unless that thought has led to action (I know that this seems like a small difference and I do like the idea of equal penalties for equal crimes regardless of motivation with some important exceptions). I believe that it is terrorism that has caused me to adopt my current position. I also think about race. Is there a difference between burning a bag of dog poop on someones porch and burning a cross on their lawn? I think that there is, but I wish that there were not.
While I don't accept your position I do not think that you are a bad person for promoting it (though there are some who have your position for a different motivation that may well receive such judgement). I am willing to watch the impact of such legislation and backtrack if your concerns prove valid and/or the legislation fails in its purpose. I hope neither is the case.
I remember telling the anti-abortion crowd in our community that they should not be supporting the RICO legislation fifteen years ago, because it could and would be used against them. It has been. It has been used against the liberals.

I think the legislation penalizes free speech, but if the legislation does succeed and then "fails in its purpose", I hope a quick remedy is found.

The bill clearly states that speech can not be penalized. I think you are worrying about nothing.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Can some people be protected more than others?

fefifofob wrote:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Can some people be protected more than others?



No one is more protected, but some are punished more than others. Ever notice that we have several different categories for murder and that they depend on the intent of the person committing the murder? Hate crimes are a little like that, though they are more like terrorism.

fefifofob wrote:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Can some people be protected more than others?

No one is more protected because everyone can potentially be the victim of a hate crime. If a group of African-Amercan lesbian bikers goes on a rampage against white male Mormons, the white male Mormons would be the victims, and the African-American lesbian bikers would be guilty of a hate crime.