SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (125773)7/17/2005 8:12:38 PM
From: D. Long  Read Replies (1) of 793689
 
They should be. It is outrageous that the Supremes passed this by

They distinguished hate crime from hate speech - hate speech law is pretty much flat out unconstitutional. RAV v. City of St. Paul is the case.

The hate crime cases they've heard are sentencing enhancement statutes, like in Wisconsin v. Mitchell and more recently Apprendi v. NY. They're ok because they proscribe conduct, not speech, and intent and motive is a valid sentencing factor. So some guy kills someone because of their race, they get murder and a hate crime sentencing enhancement, for example. But after Apprendi, the finding of bias has to be determined by a jury, and has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so it's a pretty high bar.

I still think it's totally redundant hooey.

Derek
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News