[DentsRun]

That seems quite harsh considering that the recordings were legal when they were started (it's not like they advertise when they pass these laws) and the accusations were true.

As I understand the case the Quiglies never did anything to their Jewish neighbors. What they did was fantasize about what they'd like to do over the telephone in private conversations with each other. And that's all they were--private revenge fantasies. Yet when their conversations were recorded they found themselves slandered in court and charged with hate crimes. (I still can't get over the notion that one can be charged with a hate crime just for venting your frustration and/or opinion. If the First Amendment protects anything, it surely ought to protect that.)

[VaGunGuy]

especially when they break the law to get the "evidence"...

[wita]

Bingo! Hate speech, not found in Constitution. Hate crimes, not found in Constitution. Only freedom of speech found in Constitution. So if we make a law regulating hate crimes, including speech, that trumps the Constitution. Just one more nail in the coffin, move along, folks nothing to see here, except don't expect the Supreme Court to back you up just yet. Hate crimes law is so off the map I don't know where to begin.

I question why anyone would seek such a law in the first place, unless there is an underlying agenda, and that is where I am stuck. How can someone be punished worse for a hate murder than a regular murder? The victim is dead, the perpetrator did it, and I'm supposed to feel better that we have discovered a motive involving hate, and that is punishable by death under the hate crimes law, and that death is far worse than the other death?

[Publius6961]

Thank you for a concise and thorough summary of reality.
Actions which have a real palpable and demonstrable negative effect on others should be punishable. Playing the victim and invoking their "semitism" as a weapon in a neighborhood war is demonstrably a risky tactic.