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
Hate crimes and hate speech
Topic Started: Jan 17 2005, 01:47 PM (845 Views)
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
Minuet
Jan 17 2005, 04:21 PM
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.

Both those examples are of areas where communications and infomation is hard to come by. You're right about someone preaching that all members of a certian groupd should die being considered hate speech. Those people should go to jail, but saying that all Christians are better than Muslims. Or saying that gays are going to hell. There are laws in places in Europe where you can't say that homosexuallity is immoral, otherwise you could go to jail, even if a preacher says it in a church. I would't consider those hate speech simply because they aren't incinting people to go out and kill Muslims or gays.

You're point of people using hate speech to incite violence is right on, though.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
I say no to both,

1) We have freedom of speech and as much as I don’t like it, it also protects hate speech.

2) A crime is a crime is a crime, there is no need to differentiate between crime motivated by hate and a crime motivated be something other then hate.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
38957
Jan 17 2005, 05:38 PM
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?

:headscratch:

What are you getting at here. Mass murder is a crime no matter what.

In every instance I can think of the type of mass murders we are talking about have had something to do with ethnic violence.

And by the way - where have I stated that one crime is "worse" then another. Hate crime is a category of crime. No one said it was better to kill one person then 1000. I only state that incitement to commit those murders should be punishable. Even if the person who did the incitement does not harm a single person personally.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
The major problem that I have with hate crimes is that it is hard to prove them. Unless the person comes right out and says that they killed a person for that reason, how do you prove that their crime was motivated by hate?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
No on both.

Why ? Because these laws could and would be abused by some.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
doctortobe
Jan 17 2005, 08:57 PM
The major problem that I have with hate crimes is that it is hard to prove them. Unless the person comes right out and says that they killed a person for that reason, how do you prove that their crime was motivated by hate?

I will grant that you are right about the actual crimes (assuming we are talking singular incidents here and not mass murders)

However - there are limits to free speech IMO and the limit comes when we are talking incitement along the lines of the examples I already gave.

I use again 9/11 as an example. It was not just a "simple" murder. It was mass murder, terrorism, and a hate crime.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Jan 17 2005, 10:57 PM
However - there are limits to free speech IMO and the limit comes when we are talking incitement along the lines of the examples I already gave.

Their have been limits put on free speech, but those limits are not specific to hate (nor should they be) they are specific to possibility of easily foreseeable dangerous out comes. For example insighting a riot for any reason (because you hate a group, or because you got cold chicken McNuggets) is illegal. Also causing a dangerous situation through speech (like screaming fire in a crowed area) is illegal. Hate speech on its own is protected by the freedom of speech.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator

...A lot of good commentary here. I certainly abhor censorship, and in this
day and age it's kind of difficult to prove a hate crime. I suppose a bunch of
Klansmen in white robes burning a cross on the front lawn of a black family
would be obvious. Other situations though are not so clear. Sometimes I
think it is better to allow racists and bigots to have their fair say, so that they
can freely reveal to all "where they're really coming from", instead of trying
to restrict what they say, thereby leading us to believe that they are in fact
"moderates".

Unfortunately, I 've noticed a few times that "hate" crimes must always
involve someone of "white European descent". A while back up here in
my neck of the woods a bunch of "visible minority" thugs beat another but
different "minority" kid to death with baseball bats for some trivial reason.
Strangely enough, this wan't considered a "hate" crime, since no "whites"
were involved. (gasp) The media treatment of this little lie did not sit
well with the public. The family of the victim knew very well this was a hate
crime; everybody did. The victim was a straight A student and didn't even
know these thugs; just wrong place at wrong time. Not to mention a shocking
crime even for the Vancouver area.
However, the media and the PC experts still denied that it was a "hate crime"
even to this day. Only one of his attackers got jail time for "manslaughter"
and being a juvenile will probably only serve 4 to 5 years, if that.

Thought you might enjoy that story, tragic as it is.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Coda
Member Avatar
Commander
^ Well written.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I didn't enjoy the story, but you make some good points.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Just a thought.

Just because the law has not been applied properly does that mean it should not exist at all?

The kids in Franko's story should have gotten a much stronger punishment. Applying the proper laws would have done that (to some extent - there is the secondary issue of the attackers being minors which is a whole other issue here in Canada :realmad: )

These kids got treated lightly because they were minors.

One thing his story does illustrate is the point that everyone has been making about whether a murder is "worse" if it involves prejudice. I have been focusing mostly on hate speech and incitement. A single case should be treated as murder. Murder should be a sufficient charge and should carry a significant penalty, no matter what the motive. I am really more concerned with the free speech issue and the reasonable limits placed on free speech to protect the larger public. I go again to my example of a Mullah inciting his people to join Al Queda. This should be punishable even if the Mullah himself harms no one.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Minuet
Jan 18 2005, 08:40 AM
Just a thought.

Just because the law has not been applied properly does that mean it should not exist at all?

The kids in Franko's story should have gotten a much stronger punishment. Applying the proper laws would have done that (to some extent - there is the secondary issue of the attackers being minors which is a whole other issue here in Canada  :realmad: )

These kids got treated lightly because they were minors.

One thing his story does illustrate is the point that everyone has been making about whether a murder is "worse" if it involves prejudice. I have been focusing mostly on hate speech and incitement. A single case should be treated as murder. Murder should be a sufficient charge and should carry a significant penalty, no matter what the motive. I am really more concerned with the free speech issue and the reasonable limits placed on free speech to protect the larger public. I go again to my example of a Mullah inciting his people to join Al Queda. This should be punishable even if the Mullah himself harms no one.

Yes, i agree with you on that. I don't believe that type of speech is covered (protected) under protected free speech in the USA.

One thing that I don't like to see, is superfluous laws for someones political gain.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Minuet
Jan 18 2005, 08:40 AM
One thing his story does illustrate is the point that everyone has been making about whether a murder is "worse" if it involves prejudice. I have been focusing mostly on hate speech and incitement. A single case should be treated as murder. Murder should be a sufficient charge and should carry a significant penalty, no matter what the motive. I am really more concerned with the free speech issue and the reasonable limits placed on free speech to protect the larger public. I go again to my example of a Mullah inciting his people to join Al Queda. This should be punishable even if the Mullah himself harms no one.

I get the feeling if I were to write your words, Anova would claim my words verge on being fascist.

Maybe not, but my point is, just how far does one take the concept of "inciting" speech ... where does that end?

I could sit here and argue, however tenuous, that anti-Bush ... anti-war types are inciting Islamic Jihadist to violence by giving them the idea that enough violence will further drive people to the anti-war side, thus hastening the withdraw of American forces.

I could also make similar arguments about those that claim that the Saddam-ites and Jihadists in Iraq are freedom fighters ... these people are arguably inciting these terrorists to further violence and giving them important moral support.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dwayne - I am not saying that free speech should just go out the window.

The hate speech I am talking about is pretty blatent and clear - it is not really open to interpretation. A KKK member making a speech about killing blacks is pretty straightforward. A Neo Nazi expressing the view that whites must reign supreme and we need to get rid of Blacks and Jews is giving a clear message. Telling people to join Al Queda and kill the infidels falls into this category.

It is not as difficult to draw the line as many of you make it out to be. I know Americans guard thier liberties faithfully, as well you should. But many other countries have been able to draw the lines pretty clearly and have effective laws against hate speech and hate crimes without giving up the concept of free speech.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I don't have the time right now, but there are examples out there of anti-war types making signs calling for soldiers to shoot their officers, or to desert.

If that's not blatant, I really don't know what is.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus