Login

Dotard · January 5, 2009 at 8:49 am

One white dude walks up to another white dude and punches him in the kisser. In court the accused is asked why he did it.

"'Cause I hate him, yer honor."

Is he now guilty of a 'Hate Crime"?

**Eilonnwy** · January 5, 2009 at 9:13 am

(January 5, 2009 at 7:48 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:
(January 4, 2009 at 10:59 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: The distinction is the actual crime. Hate speech is actually not illegal in the US thanks to the first amendment. As long as you're just talking, it's freedom of speech. A hate crime is when an action is taken that is illegal (assault, murder) and is spurred by prejudice. Does that clarify it?

Not really ... aren't those things already illegal?

Kyu

You mean Hate Speech? Kind of. Not completely. There is a slight distinction that the US makes concerning Hate Speech, otherwise it's protected under the first ammendment.

Wikipedia Wrote:In some jurisdictions, notably the United States, hate speech cannot be directly regulated because of a widespread consensus that suppressing viewpoints based on content alone is outright wrong or leads to a slippery slope (that is, who is to decide what content is a priori true or correct) which ultimately destroys the marketplace of ideas. In particular, the United States government and the state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can address the harmful effects of speech through laws such as those against defamation or incitement to riot. Even then, incitement in the U.S. is prohibited only if it raises the risk of imminent lawless action, which means that Americans are permitted to express a large amount of hate speech that does not meet that standard (as occurred in the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)).

The full article lists countries that do have hate speech laws.

**Kyuuketsuki** · (This post was last modified: January 5, 2009 at 4:04 pm by Kyuuketsuki.)

(January 5, 2009 at 9:13 am)Eilonnwy Wrote:
(January 5, 2009 at 7:48 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Not really ... aren't those things already illegal?

You mean Hate Speech? Kind of. Not completely. There is a slight distinction that the US makes concerning Hate Speech, otherwise it's protected under the first ammendment.

No ... assault and murder etc.

What I am saying is that defining when freedom of speech becomes hate speech using those as a yardstick seems pointless because those things are already illegal. IOW the person perpetrating them would already be commitment a crime.

I am, BTW, not a Yank so your first amendment means little to me personally.

The link you gave is interesting though I am unsure if there have been any successful prosecutions in the UK for the offences listed.

Kyu

**Eilonnwy** · January 6, 2009 at 9:35 am

Sorry, I miss interpreted your question to be isn't hate speech allready illegal. Murder and assault are illegal, yes. Hate Crime Legislation would increase the punishment a person serves if convicted.

Example:
A black person is beaten badly by a white person
They find out the white person did it because he hates blacks
For the sake of argument, the maximum punishment is 10 years in jail for assault and battery
Because it's defined as a hate crime he receives 20 years.

Hate Crime legislation does make speech illegal, but when a crime is committed and is shown to be based on prejudice, they are given a harsher punishment. That's what hate crime legislation does.

**Kyuuketsuki** · January 6, 2009 at 10:04 am

So, someone beats a person to death but who bears the victim no malice gets punished less than someone who beats up another person but on the basis that they hate something about them?

IOW a stone killer gets a lesser punishment than a racist?

What an utterly appalling idea ... a person is dead, why should a criminal be punished less because of their motivation?

Kyu

**Eilonnwy** · January 6, 2009 at 11:41 am

It's not that a criminal is punished less if it wasn't hate crime, it's that they are punished more if it's a hate crime. I know it may seem like a silly distinction, but it's fair to note that it's not as if they're lessening the punishment for non hate crimes. They still apply appropriate punishment based on the crime, just more if it's a hate crime, more beyond the standard punishment that is decided generally decided for a crime.

After discussing it and thinking about it, I think I'm definitely against hate crime, for many reasons, including the ones you have expressed.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	You think people who hate Queen Elizabeth 2 is same reason MAGA people hated Obama	Woah0	13	1847	December 20, 2022 at 3:55 pm Last Post: brewer
	The problem with "Hate crimes".	onlinebiker	25	2003	February 11, 2022 at 9:03 pm Last Post: Disagreeable
	Why do we hate the American military institution?	WinterHold	16	1408	November 23, 2021 at 1:40 am Last Post: Fake Messiah
	With All the Anti-QAnon Hate, How Come We Never Hear About Christian Zionism?	Seax	21	2537	April 6, 2021 at 7:12 pm Last Post: The Grand Nudger
	USA politics of hate	Richi29	4	625	July 23, 2020 at 12:56 pm Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
	Is Trump Hate Legit or Mob Control?	jessieban	37	7337	June 21, 2019 at 3:38 pm Last Post: Fireball
	The Power of Freedom vs. Hate Speech Laws	Mechaghostman2	13	1974	May 1, 2018 at 10:02 pm Last Post: chimp3
	The biggest crime in the history of humanity	WinterHold	16	3299	September 22, 2017 at 7:04 am Last Post: Edwardo Piet
	This is why people hate America	NuclearEnergy	57	15319	September 4, 2017 at 9:24 pm Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
	No Wonder The Republicunts Will Hate It!	Minimalist	1	725	July 30, 2017 at 2:53 pm Last Post: vorlon13