Posted on 04/25/2003 12:05:02 PM PDT by RedsHunter
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:42:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
There isn't a sustainable market for pork blood among a handful of nocturnal Tom Cruise fans - they are slightly more Mexicans than Goths in the US and they are the market, not death metal tourists.
Jews use it, when there are no gentile babies available to kill for blood.
</ sarcasm>
"Here is a dime. Call your mother and inform her that you have very little chance of ever becoming a lawyer." -- John Houseman as 'Professor Kingsfield',The Paper Chase (1973)
However, I do believe that there is a rationale in identifying a crime where although only one person may have been targeted, the actual number of 'victims' may include a larger segment of the populace. Namely, 'terrorism': a crime targeted against one or several persons or properties that was designed to inflict damage on a much wider audience.
I'll illustrate:
A hate crime: Painting a swastika on a synagogue is a hate crime because it was designed to terrorize a community. There should be a stiffer punishment for that than what it is for simple vandalism.
Not a hate crime: Uttering a racial epithet after a fistfight. To my mind, that's impossible to show that was directed at a particular community in order to terrorize them.
A hate crime: Uttering a racial epithet before a fistfight that the attacker started. This shows that the attacker had it in mind to start a race war.
A hate crime: Burning a Klan cross outside of a black family's home.
Not a hate crime: Burning the American Flag at an anti-war demonstration.
A hate crime: Burning the American flag at a veteran's cemetary on Memorial Day in front of horrified widows of departed veterans.
I hate to make the last two cases appear to be a cop-out on my part, but I want to remind you why we have an administration of justice as performed by the government in this country: We don't just lynch people without a fair trial (even if they were caught red-handed) in a mob action. Government chooses to add stiffer penalties for hate crimes because a certain crime that may not necessarily enrage the good citizens (simple spray paint vandalism on a liquor store wall) could become a crime that the community wants to see the perpetrator torn to pieces for depending if there was a specific message or goal that the perpetrator had in mind (spraypainting the Lincoln Memorial).
I am sure that some will say "Okay, KG9: You're in favor of enforcing laws against thought crimes in America". Those people have some thinking left to accomplish.
Place it on Muslim prayer mats.LOL
JUst kidding. They make blood sausage with it. I think..
My religion does not have extremists that want to kill non-believers. Can you understand why people like us, make snide remarks about a religion like this? Our God does not promise 72 virgins when we die. I shudder at the thought.
How can you believe in stuff like this? I am not being a smart-a$$, just don't understand this type of beliefs.
So, is stupid insensitivity considered a form of hate, IYO?"
No. It should remain legal to utter epithets and the like.
However, combine that and violent action where it can be demonstrated that the intent was to terrorize, and we've got a completely different situation.
Owning a ski mask is legal. Owning a gun ought to be legal. Put the ski mask on your head and walk into a bank with a gun (toy or otherwise) and your intent is to commit bank robbery, isn't it?
Going back to your earlier position that a vandal was just wishing good luck on the congregation of a synagogue in the Chinese New Year by spray painting a backwards swastika on the door, do you think that you can make a defense for a masked man carrying a gun into a bank?
Even someone lawfully permitted to carry a weapon into a bank (such as a uniformed bank guard or a treasury agent) wouldn't be so stupid as to wear a identity-obscuring ski mask in the course of their duties there, would they? If they are that stupid, they've committed a crime.
I think you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater based upon liberals going too far with what they'd like society to consider a 'hate crime'.
Why would I need to defend it? The act in itself is either a crime or it isn't based on the laws of local juridiction. Intent is not, necessarily, a factor. But, going back to the previous example of a punk marking a epithet on a synogogue. The crime is one of vandalism. It is not a crime for that person to be a bigot, and should therefore play no role in punishment. What you are suggesting, it could be argued (with time and legal precedent), that one's opinion is subject to legal judgement.
It's much more than vandalism.
Sorry that you're in the very small minority on this one.
How is it worse? And what advantage does society gain by illegalizing the thought process?
Sorry that you're in the very small minority on this one.
Explain! On what basis do you determine that an objective appreciation for the American legal system is a minority view? Second, whether or not I am in the minority on this issue, is irrelevant to the argument... except in so much as I could be considered to be 'hateful' in making it if my opinion offends the majority. The danger of subjectivising law is emminent with this issue and that is not arguable. Combining legislated definitions of legal infractions with thoughtful motivations carries the threat of abuse... period. Everything from jay-walking to land use violations becomes subject to your political, religious, and judgemental position. Under that kind of argument, failing to file the proper building permit for a home improvement(a legal infraction) combined with membership in a 'marginalized' organization could subject a citizen to imprisonment if the right argument could be formulated that the person had deliberately intended to oppress the neighborhood population by increasing local property values.
I've already covered this at length, and gave several demonstrative examples.
"... Explain!"
It's true.
While you have provided anecdodal examples and presumptive situations, I suggest that you have shown a benefit to society by enacting controls on the thought process, while I have conversly illustrated the extreme potential for danger.
Its true!
Oh, what the Hell. I'll humor you with an answer.
There's already a similar Constitutional examples for crimes that may be targeted at only one person or property, but are identified as crimes that are far more widespread in their criminal effect, just as 'Hate Crimes' are:
Treason.
Hey, treason is just the government's fancy word used to pin a label on it's malcontent peons that are rightfully working to liberate themselves from the shackles of tyranny, isn't it? Who is government to say who you can and cannot hold conversations with?
Sedition.
Would I be correct in supposing that you consider that assassinating the President of the United States to be the same as killing any other random American, that it's murder alone, and it's not some orchestrated attempt to overthrow the government of the United States? Conspiracy of the same is just a couple of guys exercising their free speech (even if they planned it on paper for tomorrow morning) to propose a scenario for assassinating the President for their own amusement, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.