Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Should there be 'hate crimes' and laws against 'hate speech'?
Yes on hate crimes 6 (28.6%)
Yes on hate speech 1 (4.8%)
no on hate crimes 0 (0%)
no on hate speech 1 (4.8%)
no on both 11 (52.4%)
yes on both 2 (9.5%)
Total Votes: 21
Hate crimes and hate speech
Topic Started: Jan 17 2005, 01:47 PM (839 Views)
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
You may pick more than one.

I really don't think there should be either.

On hate crimes, I don't see why it should be delt harsher than a normal crime. If you kill someone because you don't like his religion, you should face murder charges, and that's all. You shouldn't get a harsher punishment becuase you don't like his religion. Hate crimes basicly boil down to though crimes. You'll being punished harsher because of a belief that you have. That, I beleive is unAmerican. We have freedom of thought and speech. Take the Mathew Shepard murder case. It turns out that these two people murdered him, not because he was gay but because they were stoned and wanted money. (New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder) should they be charged with murder? Yes. Should they have recieved a stiffer punishment? No. Even if they killed him because he was gay.

Hate speech laws I think are also unAmerican. We have freedom of speech. If someone wanted to go out and shout rasist comments out on the street, they should have that right. They'd look like an idiot, but should they be arrested for it? No Like ABG has said several times, no one has the right not to be offended. If it offends you, tell me to be quite, or go somewhere else. The only charge they should face should be public nucience or distrupting the public. Not with hate speech.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
No on both, reasoning similar to your own.

Is it better to kill someone for jealousy or money than it is for hatred?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
I voted yes for both.

Hate crimes must be condemned. If I murder an individual then only that one individual gets harmed. If I go out and incite a group of people to go after another group of people the potential for hundreds, thousands, or even 6 million to be harmed is there.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
Minuet
Jan 17 2005, 02:24 PM
I voted yes for both.

Hate crimes must be condemned. If I murder an individual then only that one individual gets harmed. If I go out and incite a group of people to go after another group of people the potential for hundreds, thousands, or even 6 million to be harmed is there.

I understand your point. Hitler brainwashed an entire nation with his hate speech, and it cost a lot. But do you think someone could do that nowadays? Granted, there are always people that don't think for themselves, but I would hope that most people in the Western culture have enough common sense that they wouldn't follow someone blindly. Plus, didn't 1930's Germany have a state run media agency, that was later turned into Hitler's propaganda machine? That is one thing I don't like about state run media, like you have up in Canada (Isn't the CBC state run? Correct me if I'm wrong) or the BBC, or the ones down in Austrialia that Somoled talks about.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
CV6 Enterprise
Jan 17 2005, 03:33 PM
But do you think someone could do that nowadays?

One word answer. Rwanda.
Or how about Iraq (And I mean Saddam, not the US)

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Quote:
 
Granted, there are always people that don't think for themselves, but I would hope that most people in the Western culture have enough common sense that they wouldn't follow someone blindly.


Nazi Germany occured in a "Western" culture. Thinking that Western culture is so superior that it would prevent something like this happening just by virtue of being western culture is short sighted. Sorry we have to work at it like everyone else - that is the reason for hate laws. We are human like everyone else.

Quote:
 
Plus, didn't 1930's Germany have a state run media agency, that was later turned into Hitler's propaganda machine?  That is one thing I don't like about state run media, like you have up in Canada (Isn't the CBC state run? Correct me if I'm wrong) or the BBC, or the ones down in Austrialia that Somoled talks about.


Australia, Canada and the UK do have State run media outlets. But they are not exclusive. They have market run competition. There are 2 other major networks in Canada and a third one just building up. I am really not overly concerned.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
cptjeff
Captain of the Enterprise-J
Arn't all crimes hate crimes? why have a specal catagory for those directed at a smaller group of people? a minority, if you will.

As for hate speech, It should be allowed. those people don't make much sense to a sane person anyway, and it tell you who not to be affiliated with.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Cptjeff, you are so naive sometimes that it is not funny.

I suppose the Germans were supposed to just figure out that Hitler was a madman. I got news for you. Many people have the ability to spew hate while talking convincingly and smoothly. They can sound extremely sane. That's how they get into power.

I am actually very suprised at you. First you come here saying how stupid the American people are for falling for George Bush's rhetoric and later you claim that people are smart enough to see through hate filled speech. You are just a bundle of contradictions.

(This is in no way meant to indicate that I think George Bush is a madman - it is only intended to show the hypocracy of Cptjeff's comments)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Minuet
Jan 17 2005, 03:24 PM
I voted yes for both.

Hate crimes must be condemned. If I murder an individual then only that one individual gets harmed. If I go out and incite a group of people to go after another group of people the potential for hundreds, thousands, or even 6 million to be harmed is there.

You're kind of making a big leap here. Are you saying that a murder for hate's sake that inspires others to murder en masse is worse than a single murder? Or are you refering to someone who encourages others to murder for hate's sake?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I guess another thing that bugs me is who defines what is a hate-crime.
For instance it is illegal in some instance to select the white candidate over the black candidate for a job simply because of race, is this a hate-crime?

But, it is not only legal, but required in some instance to select the black candidate over the white candidate for a job simply because of race, is this government sanctioned hate-crime?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
I think a crime is a crime. And I don't like restrictions on speech. By this I mean talking, not extreme actions without penalty which many define as 'speech.'
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
38957
Jan 17 2005, 05:10 PM
Minuet
Jan 17 2005, 03:24 PM
I voted yes for both.

Hate crimes must be condemned. If I murder an individual then only that one individual gets harmed. If I go out and incite a group of people to go after another group of people the potential for hundreds, thousands, or even 6 million to be harmed is there.

You're kind of making a big leap here. Are you saying that a murder for hate's sake that inspires others to murder en masse is worse than a single murder? Or are you refering to someone who encourages others to murder for hate's sake?

I am refering to "someone who encourages others to murder for hate's sake?'

And to say I am being extreme is to ignore the many times in history that it has happened. And it is still happening today. I only gave two examples above, but there are many others. What of the Sudan? Or only a few years ago - Bosnia?

It is naive to think "It can't happen here" Germany proved otherwise.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
38957
Jan 17 2005, 05:14 PM
I guess another thing that bugs me is who defines what is a hate-crime. 
For instance it is illegal in some instance to select the white candidate over the black candidate for a job simply because of race, is this a hate-crime? 

But, it is not only legal, but required in some instance to select the black candidate over the white candidate for a job simply because of race, is this government sanctioned hate-crime?

In my opinion this is a separate issue.

To me a hate crime does go beyond the individual. Hate speech involves the incitement of a group of people to do harm against another group of people. 9/11 was a hate crime. The intention was to do harm to as many westerners as possible.

I think an American Mullah preaching to his flock that they are in the midst of the infidels and encourages his people to wipe them out should be jailed. He should not be allowed the "freedom" to encourage his followers to join Al Queda.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
Minuet
Jan 17 2005, 03:16 PM
Nazi Germany occured in a "Western" culture. Thinking that Western culture is so superior that it would prevent something like this happening just by virtue of being western culture is short sighted. Sorry we have to work at it like everyone else - that is the reason for hate laws. We are human like everyone else.


My mistake, I was think of the Arab nations as non-western. Certian areas in the Arab world do constiantly spew ant-American hate speech, and incite they un-informed masses againt America and the West or pro-democracy governments.

I guess that what I'm getting at in this thread is why have a special catagory for the same degree of crime. If someone gets assaulted, it shouldn't matter whether or not the person that assualted him was racist. The assaulter should be charged with assault. He shouldn't get a heavier sentence because he's racist. With hate crimes, It's like the government is setting up two differnt classes of victims for the same crime. That just doesn't make sense to me. We are supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Justice is blind.

I reference to Germany is a good example of how hate speech led to awful events. But I would hope that in today's society, people would be bettter informed and be able to pick through the propraganda.

Then again, if some liberal violently attacked me for being a staunch conservitive, I might feel a little differnt. I would hope not, but who knows. I'd still press charges, but would I call it a hate crime?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
If I exterminate a million people because they are a certain religious group and I hate them, is that worse than if I murder them because they occupy land that I really want?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Minuet
Jan 17 2005, 05:30 PM
38957
Jan 17 2005, 05:14 PM
I guess another thing that bugs me is who defines what is a hate-crime. 
For instance it is illegal in some instance to select the white candidate over the black candidate for a job simply because of race, is this a hate-crime? 

But, it is not only legal, but required in some instance to select the black candidate over the white candidate for a job simply because of race, is this government sanctioned hate-crime?

In my opinion this is a separate issue.

To me a hate crime does go beyond the individual. Hate speech involves the incitement of a group of people to do harm against another group of people. 9/11 was a hate crime. The intention was to do harm to as many westerners as possible.

I think an American Mullah preaching to his flock that they are in the midst of the infidels and encourages his people to wipe them out should be jailed. He should not be allowed the "freedom" to encourage his followers to join Al Queda.

Discrimination is a hate crime. I don't see how this is a separate issue. It isn't murder, but it is illegal and therefor a crime and if the motivation was hate, then it was a hate crime.

And yes, enciting people to commit murder is not what I would consider free speech. It is akin to threatening people, which is not considered freedom of speech. Freedom of speech was intended for political expression so that we don't jail those speaking about unpopular political policies.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus