Arty wrote:

Roland, you've made a very good arguement. I can see the validity of a law to help with situations like you described. I have a couple of questions though.

First, why is this a federal issue instead of one to be handled by the states?

Secondly, why make this a group by group thing if the purpose is to have harsher punishments for crimes committed with an intent to terrorize?

It seems to me that minor changes to our laws regarding terroristic threats, assault and murder would resolve this issue without making certain groups a perpetual victim class and would remove the possible threats to the freedom of speech. If this were done, it would work for cross burnings and assaults on gays as well things currently left out such as assaults on the homeless and the continuous threats and assaults on school outcasts that sometimes lead to shooting rampages.

I get the feeling that these laws are less about protecting victims/punishing criminals and more about pandering to certain political groups by our congress.


I believe that the civil rights movement has shown us that the states are not a good venue for guaranteeing equal rights and protections. If anything states are more likely to serve the need of the local majority and institutionalize bigotry and the restriction of the freedoms of the minority. Our federal government plays an important role in protecting all of its citizens for the very reason that the states have shown the willingness to choose not to do so.

gopherus wrote:

Arty wrote:

Roland, you've made a very good arguement. I can see the validity of a law to help with situations like you described. I have a couple of questions though.

First, why is this a federal issue instead of one to be handled by the states?

Secondly, why make this a group by group thing if the purpose is to have harsher punishments for crimes committed with an intent to terrorize?

It seems to me that minor changes to our laws regarding terroristic threats, assault and murder would resolve this issue without making certain groups a perpetual victim class and would remove the possible threats to the freedom of speech. If this were done, it would work for cross burnings and assaults on gays as well things currently left out such as assaults on the homeless and the continuous threats and assaults on school outcasts that sometimes lead to shooting rampages.

I get the feeling that these laws are less about protecting victims/punishing criminals and more about pandering to certain political groups by our congress.


I believe that the civil rights movement has shown us that the states are not a good venue for guaranteeing equal rights and protections. If anything states are more likely to serve the need of the local majority and institutionalize bigotry and the restriction of the freedoms of the minority. Our federal government plays an important role in protecting all of its citizens for the very reason that the states have shown the willingness to choose not to do so.


Another True Story on this issue!

Hate-crime laws only threaten "liberty" if you want to have liberty of thought and conscience (D&C 134) and you believe that only ACTS which harm others (not intentions or motivations) fall under the proper pervue of government restriction.

Unless that's you, then I guess there's nothing to worry about.

Swmorgan77 wrote:

Hate-crime laws only threaten "liberty" if you want to have liberty of thought and conscience (D&C 134) and you believe that only ACTS which harm others (not intentions or motivations) fall under the proper pervue of government restriction.

Unless that's you, then I guess there's nothing to worry about.

I agree with your reasoning.