Freedom to hate

Well, Ok, Professor:

"A crime is a crime, regardless of the victim's race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. A murdered white heterosexual male is no less dead than an Hispanic, gay Christian. Suppose three murders occur: one for money, another out of jealousy, and a third because the victim is a black, gay Wiccan. (etc)"

Some will tell you they should not.

Or that this is what hate crimes are about.

Yes, anyone might be personally targeted for crime over money or *personal* feelings. Yes, if they die, they're just as dead.

But it's sophomoric at best to say that people should be subject to ideological, orchestrated, and entirely generalized hate by any given individual who feels that their victims' personhood, or perceived kind of personhood, ...and that members of these groups, or perceived members are somehow fair game to be targeted interchangeably. Cause of who they are or are seen to be. All the time.

Anyone can get in a fight. Anyone can get in a bad relationship. Anyone can be a target for getting killed over their stuff. Generally, victims know when this is happening, or at the very least, we all share the risks of being in these circumstances evenly.

Hate crimes are different.

Hate crimes are not crimes that would otherwise happen to some other random person. They are targeted, in a general way 'premeditated,' cultivated, if we do not disapprove, and in general based on hateful ideas that are not related to the selection of victims or crimes of personal passion, but rather, terroristic crimes which minorities live in fear of *every day.* Every day, all the time, and especially when people get away with these crimes, thinking that it's all right to attack an entire community, using any individual they may think may be a member of this community to 'prove' something...

These are not crimes that are different based on who is targeted. They are crimes that *would not happen if society did not tacitly permit them, ignore them, downplay them, even, from too many pulpits, subtly encourage them.*

Make every given 'believer' or hater a time bomb for next time their 'piety' slips. And every given LBGT or disabled person have to go through our lives wondering when it'll happen next.

(continued below)

(cont from above)

In the world of certain political religion, it's not hard to get the idea the conservative clergy think that just being gay is at least 'just as bad' as being a violent assaulter of gays. They can't even say *Don't assault anyone* without qualifying the statement by calling us 'sinners' on the same order.

Only takes a few beers for someone to add up that strange math and decide God or 'morality' wants someone like me harassed, beaten, or words filtered out of this forum. . They can always 'repent' later, or figure it was 'righteous.'

Hate crimes laws protect *all* orientations. Not just minority ones.

But they're needed *precisely* because you, Professor, have no idea what you're talking about from your tower.

These aren't crimes that would otherwise happen to someone else.

These are crimes that would not happen if people didn't think acting on their hate was going to be tolerable. In fact, bullies are cowards. They need to think society is behind them.

So we're saying 'No.'

Lose the sophistry on this, sir. This ain't that abstract. Nor are the perps exactly what you'd call 'cerebral' about it.

Trust me on that.

I think all jurisdictions recognize a difference in the magnitude of the crime and the severity of the punishment between premeditated crimes and spontaneous crimes of passion. I think, by definition, a hate crime must be a premeditated act. For that reason I have no problem with hate crimes laws. It would send a powerful message to the public as to the values of our society. And as to those who argue that hate crime legislation would punish "thought," I would point out that part of the prosecutor's role in almost any crime of violence is to determine the perpetrator's intentions. state of mind, premeditation at the moment the crime was committed.

A hate crime is more than an assault or a murder of one person, it is intended to create an atmosphere of terror to others.

On the one hand I agree with the author, that adding the complexity of "what was in your mind" to a trial is a bad path to go down. On the other hand "motive" is part of proving a crime and hate is a legitimate motive in court.

Wasn't all that long ago at all that a man could invoke a "gay panic defense" in court and have his sentence mitigated or even the charge thrown out. Murders of gays went uninvestigated and unpunished .. "unmarried antique dealer," code words for gay, told the tale.

I don't honestly favor charging assailants and murderers with "hate."

But if they commit their crimes out of hate then they are seeking to terrorize and should be treated as terrorists.

Hate crimes reflect the darkest side of human nature and are especially violent. Particularly when people are unconsciously motivated and driven by hate. Hate directed towards specific groups and persons is particularly repugnant and should be punished more severely. Such hate has a viral quality and spreads throughout society like a cancer among the morally inept. Watching Fox News, Glen Beck, Limbaugh, and other right wing drivel,it becomes obvious why the level of hatred, bigotry, and racism in this country has risen to a dangerous level unmatched since the Civil War days. Such media outlets should also be held to account for the virulent hate that they propagate over the networks.

A hate crime is more than an assault or a murder of one person, it is intended to create an atmosphere of terror to others.

On the one hand I agree with the author, that adding the complexity of "what was in your mind" to a trial is a bad path to go down. On the other hand "motive" is part of proving a crime and hate is a legitimate motive in court.

Wasn't all that long ago at all that a man could invoke a "gay panic defense" in court and have his sentence mitigated or even the charge thrown out. Murders of gays went uninvestigated and unpunished .. "unmarried antique dealer," code words for gay, told the tale.

I don't honestly favor charging assailants and murderers with "hate."

But if they commit their crimes out of hate then they are seeking to terrorize and should be treated as terrorists.

Violence and assault are crimes by themselves. If a black person assaults a white person but keeps repeating 'I love you, Ilove you" as he does it , is he free?? This politically correct revving up an already criminal offense is absolute BS, It is against the law to assault anyone...if you are assaulting someone, it is obvious that you do not like them. What is all this window dressing about?

The ideology of "punishment" as deterrent is not just dated logic, it's completely ignorant of the purpose punishment serves to the guilty. Sure, in a classroom you may send a kid to the principal to deter others, but that punishment plays a dual role. The one who commits the crime is not just punished for the sake of others, but punished because they've committed an offense.

So yes. We're deterring hate. Hate, for the purpose of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, or any other factor that defines who we are and is not defined by our very own selves, is not just a crime of logic but a crime by the terms of our very own constitution. That, coming from the mind of a white male who has never had found himself in fear because of these attributes, may explain your dated ignorance.

so-called "hate crimes" are illogical:
I am free to hate gays and also free to say that I hate gays,

BUT if I strike a gay and say that I hate gays, now thinking or saying the hate is a crime - INCONSISTENT: the hate itself is either a crime or not.

I think all this is simply a way to make an easy Federal case for objectionable behavior. They could make the (state) crimes also a Federal crime. But that would bring up issues of double-jeopardy and be hard to prove. So Congress took the easy way out.

Hmm... on one hand, I don't like intolerance of homosexuals.

On the other hand, I don't like thought crimes.

But, I guess if they can check your cellphone, or blood levels after an accident and link cause and effect in law, not having murder linked with the impetus is somewhat contradictory.

I disagree with Herb on this issue. This is not an issue of free speech [which also has restrictions against incite to riot, advocating violence, not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.] or thought [think whatever you like]. This is an issue about what happens when hate motivates violent crimes against someone based on race, religion or non-belief, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. If a racist, homophobe, anti-Semite, or other hater targets someone because they are a member of a group that person hates, the crime includes the violence perpetrated against the victim as well as the effort at intimidation of the targeted group. This purposeful, premeditated attempt to intimidate an entire community by brutalizing one of its members is why extra penalties are attached to hate crime legislation. It is not a penalty on free thought or speech, but a penalty on violence committed by a perpetrator who beat or killed a person for being a member of a group that the perpetrator hates and wants to marginalize, intimidate, or exterminate. The distinction is important.

fr johnadams1:

>...Do you think 100% of gays do not deliberately discriminate or create work discord by hate based comments (gay gossip) about straights?...

We don't. Deal with it.

What the downside of anti-hate laws?

In Sweden, an member of parliament is being prosecuted for writing an editorial about Muslim immigrants:

http://www.thelocal.se/22762/20091020/

The US has a constitution and this particular law contains language specifically protecting the right to those activities. But the antis have never been shy about claiming the constitution needn't be interpreted literally if it interferes with the multicultural agenda.

I believe that "Hate Crime" legislation is misnamed.

A better term would be something like "Terrorism Prosecution Act" and, in the case of the federal law, the "FEDERAL Terrorism Prosecution Act."

Hate Crime legislation isn't about giving "special rights" to groups of people. It isn't about making hate a "thought crime".

It's a tool--an arrow in the quiver of law enforcement and prosecutors.

Read the federal legislation. The point is to make it possible to prosecute at the federal level, especially when local or state jurisdictions refuse to, or to provide aid--financial or otherwise-- to local or state law enforcement.

Now WHY would local or state jurisdictions fail to prosecute, or need help in pursuing terror cases against unpopular groups, you might ask.

In cases where a group of citizens are targeted for terrorism or violence, local police, local prosecutors, even local judges have been known to be part of the problem. You have only to peruse some of the statements of judges in these cases where there is a suggestion that "you were asking for it" to begin to get the picture.

Even now, whenever the case of Matt Shepard is brought up, I can guarantee that someone will say "he came onto those straight guys and so he was just asking for it."

No. He REALLY wasn't asking to be attacked and crucified and left to die. Really he wasn't.

And even now, some communities refuse to allow schools to put on "the Laramie Project" --the story of Matthew Shepard-- because they feel it might look like they are "condoning the homosexual lifestyle." I've HEARD people actually say that.

That tells you a lot.

In particular, it tells you that while all groups deserve equal protection under the law...

but that we aren't quite there yet.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

You can think and feel what you want, it's when you put those thoughts into action to intentionally intimidiate and harm another individual and group that you run into a problem. People who commit hate crimes do so based on superficial reasons ( ex.color, geneder)that they attempt to justify with person opinion not neceassrily grounded in fact or reality. The people who commit hate crimes do not think of the individuals they persecute as human beings and therefore should be treated as terrorist. And when it comes to gay people. being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual acts is two different things, although most people only associate gayness with the act. So under that pretense, imposing your own interpretation of morality on something like adult consensual sex is just for the sake of injuring another is ridiculous. So yes, it would be nice to be able to trust people to just do the right thing, but the reality is that we all have prejudices in some way, its just that there are those who take it too far. Therefore we need laws in place to be able to prosecute these people, otherwise it will be the wild west all over again, with people getting shot because they spit on someone.

Hate crimes are different than crimes committed against individuals. Hate crimes are meant to send a message to a particulair group of people to intimidate and scare them into submission or into hiding. The hiding part for the gay community is especially accute since in many cases one cannot determine someone is gay or not just by looking at them but by their personal associations. If perpertrators succeed in scaring individuals into hiding, this adversley affects other gay individuals by isolating them from one another in fear of retaliation by association. Hate crimes should be noted differently since it is a crime not only against an individual but also against a particulair group of people. There are actually two crimes committed one against the victim and the other against the community that is targeted by chosing this victim by the perpetrator. We need as a culture, community, and responsible society to make it clear we consider such targeting of individuals being part of a particulair group as criminal, unacceptable and morally wrong.

Good question - ask Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton

Hate crime laws do not punish what people are thinking, only what they verbalize when they are committing a physical assault. The crime is essentially a threat against a whole group of people, not just that one person.

In fact, whether the victim is a member of that group is not relevant. Like others have said the crime is a threat a against a large group.

Threats have been illegal for centuries - this is not a slippery slope, but the gradual reevaluation of the value of minorities .

I was categorically opposed to all hate crime legislation on the grounds mentioned- thought crime? - until recently. I read a column (from Kathleen Parker, I think) that mentioned that hate crimes are really two crimes in one, which changed my mind. The first crime is the direct injury against the individual; the second is the harassment and intimidation of that individual's community. I think hate crime legislation should reflect the view that hate crime is terrorism and demand proof of intent to harm a community.

The author:
"Suppose three murders occur: one for money, another out of jealousy, and a third because the victim is a black, gay Wiccan."

Under the current criminal justice system, the first two crimes would probably not be punished equally. Murders because of jealously are sometimes lowered to second-degree murder or manslaughter depending on the circumstances (like catching a spouse in the act of cheating). Murder to gain money is viewed as more depraved and "cold-blooded" than murder "in the heat of the moment."

Therefore, people who say that hate crime bills are taking steps down a slippery slope of thought control are making a mistake. We already look inside people's heads to give them heavier or lighter sentences.

And that's even not to mention self-defense, which is entirely a question of what is going on in the murderer/defender's head.

Yes.

This January we ended eight years of a Republican president, during six of which his same conservative party controlled both Houses, yet no attempt was made to repeal the existing federal hate crime law. But the addition of the category of sexual orientation inevitably causes a flurry of consternation among conservatives. What does that say? I think the answer is clear enough. At any rate, you seem to contradict yourself with your example of smoking. Discouraging it may be right in your view as long as government discourages everyone equally. Well, I see no mention of a particular race or religion in existing law and the proposed category is "sexual orientation", not "homosexual orientation". That gay people are in fact hardly known to commit crimes against heterosexuals because they are heterosexual is obviously beside the point. Equally beside the point, though perhaps a legitimate concern, is uneven application of the law in practice. So let's be consistent here. Either let's get rid of all of it or add sexual orientation. The message from government is clear enough if we don't - crime motivated by antipathy toward a person's sexual orientation, but not motivated by factors like race and religion, has some justification and, in practice, that means crimes against gay Americans.

To question the question would be to ask, "What is the meaning of longer sentences for crimes?" Are they to act as warnings to deter crime? Are they to vent society's sense of outrage at the crime?

I suspect that hate crimes legislation is pointed at the latter and that is a completely legitimate use of the law. The idea of justice is to drain off the anger and place justice in the dispassionate hands of the machinery government. Blood feuds are a miserable way to organize ourselves.

The biggest problem with hate crimes legislation is that why are some hates specifically designated and others are not? Why, if someone beats up an overweight person and utters the epithet, "I hate fat people" not subject to hate crime laws?

So are we saying that terrorists who kill are to be treated exactly the same as an irate husband who kills his wife's lover?

Are we saying that a group of men who go out and target a minority for lynching (no matter how he is actually killed, it's still a lynching) should be treated the same as a group of men who rob a bank and murder someone in the process?

Justice evolves, folks.

The people decide.

Al Capone could never be brought to justice for murdering someone because he seldom did the actual killing.

So, enter "conspiracy to commit murder," a method to deter the "planning or ordering" of a killing.

That was followed by laws purporting "conspiracy" to do just about everything, tax fraud, extortion, etc.

Hate-crime laws are simply evolving to meet the demands of the public.

These laws may reverse in a few years or decades. Who knows?

Should everyone in a lynch mob be charged with murder?

I think so.

My goodness, that would mean there are literally hundreds of thousands of murderers and/or descendants of murderers right here in the good old USA!

No time limit oon murder except the death of the murderer.
can you say DelaBeckwith?

I agree with Professor Silverman that a crime is a crime. We cannot legislate against hate, but we can punish crimes that are committed. I am not an advocate of capital punishment since I don't believe that additional killing improves the quality of society nor does it send the right message. I doubt that the death penalty deters many killers. If one believes in the death penalty then one should be able to look the killer in the eye and pull the lever on the electric chair. How many proponents of the death penalty would truly be willing to do this?

much of what is written in the wapo blogs by lib readers would be considered hate speech...
to keep everyone honest...
no more anonymous posting...
everyone uses their real names...
so they can be prosecuted...

I am 100% with Mr. Silverman; they should all face equal and harsh punishment.

If hate laws are to be enforced I would like to see equal application on the race hate rule, right now most hate crimes done by African Americans are ignored. If I used the n word in a fight with a black man I would get a hate crime charge added onto my list of crimes if a black man said "white boy", "cracker", or "honky" he would not likely get the additional charge which I think is wrong. We see stories about this all the time.

Hate needs to be addressed that is for sure but we need to stop ignoring the hate from some minority groups like they are justified in their hate.

Can we get a hate enhancement (admittedly a mild one) for blasting rap music from rolled-down car windows?

It's obviously done to make whites feel uncomfortable in their neighborhoods.

Hate is thought. We don't punish thought. You can think anything you want. It is unacceptable behavior that we punish. We punish illegal actions.

When we start punishing thought, Winston Smith walks into the room.

Perfection in law and politics does not mean that every outcome is perfect. It means that the process is as good as it can be.

The hatred of any group of people should
be against the law, with one exception. The
hatred and subsequent killing of all those owners of professional teams who bear
the name "Dan Snyder".

Freedom of speech was guaranteed so that all conflicting points of view could be heard and vetted in the public realm. The vetting process diminshes the uncompetetive ideas and elevates the competetive ideas, which are presumably better. The founding fathers understood that the process is not perfect, but knew it was as good as it would get.

and the losers here is the white male...
so now we know...
if you have any adverse feeling against someone...
keep it to yourself...
before you do anything...

To those who think hate is a crime: What a bunch of hypocritical double-speak! Your arguments advocating harsher punishment for thought crimes are fundamentally flawed because there are already laws on the books to protect everyone equally against violence, and those laws are zealously enforced. There is no need for new laws because it is already illegal to commit crimes against anyone, period. An assault committed out of hate is no worse than an assault committed out of lust or greed – the result is the same. Only in a sick mind is it desirable to dole out harsher punishment for a crime solely because it is based on hate, but unacceptable to use the death penalty for the worst forms of murder. Talk about a double standard. LOL!

Consider this sequence of events:
(1) Repulsive Republican White Guy makes public statements denigrading African Americans.
(2) Repulsive Republican White Guy gets into an argument with Meek and Gentle Black Guy and punches him in the nose.
(3) Flaming Liberal Diversity Democrat Prosecutor learns of the public statements made by Repulsive Republican White Guy.
(4) Flaming Liberal Diversity Democrat Prosecutor prosecutes for both assult and hate crime.
(5) Impartial Judge gives Repulsive Republican White Guy one year for assult and doubles the sentence because it was a hate crime.

Why not interrupt the sequence between steps #1 and #2? Throw Repulsive Republican White Guy in jail for a year for making public statements denigrading African Americans. You accomplish several things:
(1) Repulsive Republican White Guy spends one year in jail instead of two.
(2) Meek and Gentle Black Guy doesn't get punched in the nose.
(3) Everyone who is not in jail gets along better.

Do gays, blacks and jews have a right to hate?

do you really think gays, blacks,jews do not descrimnate in the workplace? do really think work services are delivered evenly by minority groups? Do you think 100% of gays do not deliberately discriminate or create work discord by hate based comments (gay gossip) about straights? do you think all blacks do not practice reverse discrimination? do you think jews don't hate?

how is this being addressed?

My opposition to the death penalty arises from one specific fact - there is a nonzero number of innocent people killed. If it were perfect, if there were some way to determine real guilt separate and distinct from the judgment of emotional juries, incompetent defense attorneys, DAs and Judges on the political hunt for resumé-padding prosecutions ... I wouldn't be against it.

It's not the kind of mistake you can "do-over." Too many people in the process of trying, judging, and executing a person have interests beyond the guilt or innocence of that person.

For the same reason I'm against the notion of hate-crimes. Who determines whether it is a hate crime, the same imperfect judges I've already mentioned?

What about those imperfect juries, if it can be shown that they judged a man guilty of a hanging crime because they hated him ... shouldn't they or the prosecutor be prosecuted for a hate crime?

Your opinion of what constitutes a hate crime will differ from another's. Look at the pure hatred espoused by the freak known as Bill Donahue in his recent op-ed in this newspaper. How would you like to be an innocent man accused of a hate crime against a religious fanatic being tried in front of a jury of people like him?

I don't trust the fuzzy definition of hate crime. I don't trust the system to be able to implement it fairly. And lastly I don't trust anybody in government to be able to prosecute hate crimes without political ambitions as their first concern.

I generally agree that people should all have the same protections, but this raises another question I often ask--why do police officers have special protections? Isnt it just as bad to kill/attack a regular person as it is to do the same to a law enforcement agent. Why are there different penalties? Why are they held higher by society --or more clearly--why are other people valued less?

Before you know it, Congress will make hating Obama a Federal Hate Crime - We'll all go to jail.

I disagree with Herb, but only slightly. Like Herb, I am quite skeptical of creating a category of crime based on the personal views and prejudices of the defendant. This comes dangerously close to policing thoughts.

But, although I generally oppose the notion of creating "hate crimes" as a category, I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow judges to consider the nature of a crime when handing out sentences. Therefore, the guy who punches someone in the nose because he is a racial bigot might get a stiffer sentence than the guy who punches someone in the nose because of a nonracial barroom disagreement. This would allow common-sense public policy ends to be considered without creating an entire new category of crimes called "hate crimes."

Herb, everything you said is unassailable, but you left something out. History shows that group hate messages have the power to make hate respectable to the masses (see Nazi Germany), and crimes based on such hatred have the power to persuade otherwise law-abiding people that such crimes are socially desirable (Nazi Germany, Sharia law, murder of abortion doctors, 9/11, the list goes on). So hate crimes are different from murders and assaults which are based on ordinary anger or greed, because the latter are unlikely to convince the masses that they should all join in. The rationale is not more punishment for the same harm. Nor is it deterrence, because unfortunately laws do not deter criminals, even when they bother to think about the law before committing the crime. The purposes of hate crime laws is to incorporate into the law our collective judgment that these are crimes with potential for large-scale harm, and not merely individual tragedies.

Behavior does not become a "crime" until there is legislation prohibiting it. Thus, we do need to specify as against the law any abuses based on sexual orientation so as to eliminate the possibility of any excuses. This tells us something about our reluctance to be aware of when we might be infringing on someone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We find it so easy to rationalize our behavior.

Many terrible crimes have been carried out against people of differing sexual orientation and it is never acceptable for the BGLT community to be discriminated against or harmed in any way. Prosecutors have sought out the proposed legislation before Congress to more effectively punish those who have caused these crimes, and possibly to hold those responsible, accountable for longer periods of time and away from others they may harm. While I am also against the death penalty, I see this proposed legislation as a protection for society that might be effective and just.

With respect, I disagree. Hate crimes develop out of hate discourse, which is rampant in our culture, although less so than it was in the past.

Unless the penalties are very severe, it is unlikely that those who foment hate will decrease in number. It is likely they will increase.

Without the hate crimes designation, someone who defaces a synagogue with a swastika, places a noose outside a black church would be convicted of vandalism.

There is no way to stop racism, sexism, etc., other than systematic indoctrination, repression, re-education, stiff penalties for racist violence.

That is how this country got a handle on its anti-black racism, which is still with us although infrequently manifested on this blog. Why? Unacceptable.

Other forms of discrimination, bigotry, however, are not.

IMHO, hate crimes penalties are essential. We need to do much, much more to end hatred, however. Not every hater commits crimes, but any hater can contribute to the likelihood of violence.

The problem with your logic is that hate crimes are not merely about the murderer and the victim.
Just as lynchings were intended to strike fear into the black community using the death of one person as the instrument of instilling that fear, gay-bashings are intended to strike fear into the BGLT community using the injury or death of one person ad the instrument of nstilling that fear.

Such behavior is terrorism, and needs to be dealt with as such.