Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (111542)	5/20/2009 10:37:23 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541336

From what I read some people seem to be worried that just thinking (or saying) "I hate gays" is going to be a crime. Unless you actually commit some kind of action against them, it's not a hate crime. I think I have read of a couple crimes (though I'm not going to look this up- so could be wrong) where hounding black people or gay people with literature aimed just at them, and which created a hostile environment, was considered criminal. But I don't have a problem with that. No one should have "fun" nooses draped on their doors, or be targeted by a campaign of hate literature when they are just pursuing their normal lives- at school or at work. That's harassment - a crime- and it's enhanced by the hateful motive. I can see how public figures- be it Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh- would be impossible to protect in this way, but I think that public private distinction used in liable cases (from what I recall, from years ago) could be imported (or may already be imported) in such cases.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (111542)	5/20/2009 11:29:18 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 541336

"Funny how folks who are always screaming "Soft on crime! Soft on crime!" now object to people who have committed violent assaults getting harsh punishment." To whom are you referring? I've heard no one objecting to such a thing.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (111542)	5/21/2009 9:39:13 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541336

I spent some time surveying what hate crimes laws are being used for: cnn.com ojp.gov Most hate crimes described by victims accompanied violent crimes - a rape or other sexual assault, robbery, or assault (84%). ........... hmmmm Weird that some people on SI seem to think they could be targets of hate crimes- but I guess people have all sorts of hobbies we don't know about... like violence against others I'm not going to spend any time worrying about hate crimes laws being enforced, as long as the enforcement stays the way it is now. I have to say, considering what these crimes look like- the folks who perpetrate these crimes are getting off lightly.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (111542)	5/21/2009 12:09:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541336

now object to people who have committed violent assaults getting harsh punishment. I don't see any such people. Wanting serious punishment doled out for serious crimes, without regard to the "victim class" status of the person the crime is committed against doesn't resemble your statement at all. As you said, if the perps didn't kick someone else's ass for no good reason, they wouldn't have a legal problem to begin with. If you "kick someone's ass for no good reason" you already have assault and battery charges, and possibly (if the beating is severe enough) murder, manslaughter, malicious wounding, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder etc., as well as lawsuits, and also possibly a rash of lesser charges. And if its beyond "attacking someone for no good reason", and is actually an organized campaign of violence and terror (like say what the KKK did) than terrorism charges might be reasonable.