Would Hate Crimes Law Limit Free Speech?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Anderson-Henry on May 6, 2009 at 2:47pm

Darrell, "majority rule" is not always right.

Can you elaborate on this particular comment? "(Attack the church and make it an example as to also rob all citizens the freedom of assembling because of the government's perceived threat of that of those with a different ideological belief or faith other than their own.)"

Thanks.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Darrell G. Walton on May 6, 2009 at 6:06pm

Jennifer,
I agree majority rule isn't always best, but from whatever camp something is being advocated, the question must be asked; What over all good will this be to the benefit of society as a whole as measured by any and all statistics pro and con.
As for the "attack" statement: Throughout our history and those societies now socialist/communist around the world, it was always the church that was the gathering place to exchange speech and ideas exempt of government intrusion, but still very influential to the business of government none the less. If the church loses it's aire of exemption and privacy from the government, there will be no other forum exempt from the government intrusion either. By them preventing people to freely assemble, less chance for the people to "conspire" counter to the government's agenda.
This is why it's imperative for the government to have that something like the "Hate Crimes Law" that applies across the board to all citizens regardless of their faith and beliefs that's predominantly preached or taught by the church.
The church is the biggest threat to the socialist/communist agenda hands down.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jack Shepler on May 7, 2009 at 1:34pm

kool-aid anyone?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tim D. Coulter Sr. on May 6, 2009 at 12:08am

Action, other than just speech, should be required to constitute a hate crime. It is a crime to assault (threat of violence with immediate show of force) someone; the same should be true of a hate crime. If you express your opinion (even if it is unpopular) it should not be a crime, unless accompanied by a threat of violence with immediate show of force.

Do I believe hate crime bills or policies will be used to stop or at least to interrupt free speech. Yes, I do. Also, I believe Christians that protest at events, just because they do not believe what is being discussed, are guilty of interfering with the freedom of speech. Would we accept people of other beliefs protesting our Sunday morning services? How can we expect to say what we want whenever we want, but ask everyone with a different opinion to shut up?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Stuck on May 6, 2009 at 6:47pm

First, this bill probably will pass the House but will face restructuring in the Senate.

Second, in the court of law you have to prove intent. Hate crime laws are very hard to prove and never was proved during the infamous Matthew Sheppard case. Because you have for example one person killing another person and you add in the variable the killer was "white" and the victim "black", this doesn't automatically mean the prosecution will tag on the hate crime charge. You would need very strong evidence showing the killer did it based strictly on "hate" of that persons skin color. At that point, you would be tagging on additional years onto a life sentence. What purpose would their be for the hate crime years? The person is going to prison for life, do you think they will care about some petty 5 years added on?

Crimes are committed day in and day out in this country. If you assualt someone, it is assualt. If your gonna tag additional years on because it is labeled a "hate crime", then why not just make all assualt sentences the same length. That is where the rationale of these hate crime bills fall apart.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John R.(Dick) Troll on May 6, 2009 at 8:49pm

"hate crime laws are very hard to prove and never was proved during the infamous Matthew Sheppard case"

Pomt of clarification: Federal hate crime law could not be used in the Matthew Sheppard case. Because it did not apply to sexual orientation. It was his torture and death that began the effort that resulted in the most recent extension of the federal hate crimes statute. BUT the guys who killed him were convicted of felony murder and are( I think) both in jail. So pehaps hate crime laws would not have made any difference.

Set forth below is a brief synopsis of a much more recent story with a different outcome- the verdict was rendered last weekend.
(excerpted from the blog site CROOKSANDLIARS)

You don't have to have been from rural Pennsylvania to have been able to predict the outcome of this case:

Some satisfied, others outraged with verdict for immigrant's death

Friends and relatives of two teens accused in the beating death of a Mexican immigrant struggled to contain their relief as not-guilty verdicts were announced on the most serious charges against the former high school football stars Friday.

Gasps filled the courtroom and some had to be restrained by sheriff's deputies as they tried to rush the defense table after Derrick Donchak, 19, and Brandon Piekarsky, 17, were acquitted of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and ethnic intimidation for the death of Luis Ramirez.

Piekarsky was also found not guilty of third-degree murder for the death of Ramirez, who died of blunt force injuries after an encounter with the teens last summer.

As Avery Friedman argues persuasively in the video from CNN yesterday, this was a pretty clear-cut case of jury nullification: the weight of evidence against the accused was so powerful that it's clear the all-white jury -- like similar juries in the South during the Civil Rights struggle -- was not going to convict two young white men of murdering a Mexican. Even if, as Friedman says, "the only reason he is dead is because he was Mexican."

Prosecutors alleged that the teens baited the Ramirez into a fight with racial epithets, provoking an exchange of punches and kicks that ended with Ramirez convulsing in the street, foaming from the mouth. He died two days later in a hospital.

Piekarsky was accused of delivering a fatal kick to Ramirez's head after he was knocked to the ground.

As they poured out of courthouse, the teens' supporters shouted "I was right from the start" and "I'm glad the jury listened" at cameras that caught the late-night verdict.

But Gladys Limon, a spokeswoman for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the jury had sent a troubling message.

"The jurors here [are] sending the message that you can brutally beat a person, without regard to their life, and get away with it, continue with your life uninterrupted," she said.

Considering some of the details of the killing, it's also inordinately clear this was a classic bias crime, with the incident instigated by racially charged taunts that made clear the victim was selected because of racial animus:

"Isn't it a little late for you guys to be out?" the boys said, according to court documents. "Get your Mexican boyfriend out of here."

... Burke recalled hearing one final, ominous threat as the teens ran. "They yelled, 'You effin bitch, tell your effin Mexican friends get the eff out of Shenandoah or you're gonna be laying effin next to him,' " she said.

That is, of course, the entire purpose of bias crimes: To hold the victim up as an example: "You're next." The purpose is to terrorize the target community, to drive them out, eliminate them.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Stuck on May 7, 2009 at 7:45am

Two kids were acquited and you don't like the outcome. Were you on the juror? Did you go to the trial? Wait, CNN said their opinion it must true.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Martin Klco on May 6, 2009 at 10:08pm

A crime is a crime. All criminal actions should be prosecuted. We do not need "thought" police to criminalize anyone's thoughts. Is it more evil to bash in the head of a gay 20 something guy than a 70 year old white great grandmother (excluding self-defense)? Motivation is irrelevant, both crimes are heinous. The concept of a 'hate" crime is absurd.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jack Shepler on May 6, 2009 at 11:28pm

When you apply that thought to action, it is no longer just a thought.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tim Kern on May 7, 2009 at 9:26am

The middle aged straight white guy who is brutally murdered felt just as much pain, and his relatives miss him just as much, as the lesbian black Jewish lady who was murdered.

The penalty should be the same -- because we're all equal under the law, right?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by PK Koduri on May 7, 2009 at 9:34am

Some comments on this thread give a whole different meaning to the group name "Smaller Indiana"!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by PK Koduri on May 7, 2009 at 10:01am

Murder is murder and it shouldn't be defined by class, creed, race, whatever. Some folks are however using an extreme example to make the case against a legislation that is much needed. I have been called "rag head", "Achmed" and many other things even though I am not middle eastern. Was I worried for my safety - you bet I was!

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last