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]
Yes. What a stupid question.
Pork blood on a prayer mat = hate crime
Statue of Christ on the cross in a jar of urine = art
g
While I appreciate the humor here, I still don't read in it a response to the issue at hand. That being... how does the benefit of illegalizing of thought outway the danger to the individual in this society. The two issues that you have cited are relatively irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They both involve direct attacks on Constitution authority. The issues involved with that are more complex than the issue at hand and require a different thread. IMO
The issue of thought policing has to do with the Constitutional recognition of an individual right to exist. The Constitution does not protect individuals from offense. It does protect their sovereignty and that includes their values, judgements, and opinions regardless of whether a majority approves of them - that includes the right to be stupid, hateful, and bigoted. Because the process of acting against the soveriegnty of another individual is a Constitutional violation, it is recognized by law as a crime. The action is a crime. The motivation is irrelevant (to the Constitution). In the cases that you mentioned, and in the case of 1st degree murder there is an exception. Motivations in these instances are exceedingly difficult to prove and for good reason, in that they carry the ultimate punishement; the withdrawal from existence (by death or life imprisonment).
When the law recognizes an infraction (agaianst the sovereignty of one individual by another) in terms of degree and based on motivation, it is reducing the significance of the infraction itself while emphasizing the motivation and the nature of the subject. In this way, subjective law subordinates the rights of one citizen (the alleged perpetrator) to another (the victim) and even presupposes guilt by acknowledging the motivation as a catalyst for action.
Is this what you argue is a benefit to society. This might be true if the society you are advocating recognizes the primacy of majority rights - ie. Socialism. This Constitutional Republic, however, recognizes the primacy of the smallest minority... the individual.
1. Generally are an invention of liberal do-gooders.
2. Have only proven themselves over time to protect those that aren't white and/or straight.
3. Appear on the surface to be a violation of the right to free speech (even if the citizen whose rights are being 'violated' isn't someone decent people like you and I would want to be in the vicinity of) and,
4. Now that the camel's nose is in the tent on 'Hate Crimes' that some day the Marxist Morality Enforcers are going to pillory you for daring to speak your mind in public.
... Correct?
If so, what you're mistaking is that swastikas on synagogues and burning crosses in front of black family's homes are more than just an insult. A violent crime is more than just uncouth behavior. Sometimes vandalism is more than just a splash of paint. I agree with you on my points 1 and 2 above, at least.
The day that Hate Crimes laws go overboard is the day I join you.
Regards, and welcome to FR.
1. If it were a good idea, I wouldn't care who came up with it. The idea began to emerge when I considered myself a liberal do-gooder. It was merely one bad notion from the left that steered me right.
2. I'm not a white, racist, homophobe... nor the narrow-minded bigot that you must be for assuming that I'm not a hispanic and homosexual. Inalienable rights are bestowed on all equally. You might remember that.
3. Thought policing is a violation of one's right to exist, and even an indecent low-life is entitled to that protection under the law.
4. My fear is that thought policing will evolve over time to become a method used in conjunction with a tight network of laws to subjugate man into submission to an oppressive oligarchy of 'the annointed'... left, right, religious, or arthropod.
Again the Constitution does not (nor should it) protect from insult. A violent crime is a violation of one citizen's inalienable rights by another. That is equally serious regardless of motivation.
The subjugation of liberty always begins with a given liberty's least attractive practicioner. Ayn Rand reminded us of this, but I think that Ben Franklin pointed it out originally. By the time this type of legislation goes overboard, we may not be able to turn things back around. The frog will be thoroughly boiled by that point.
Be very careful what you wish for and have yourself a great weekend!
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.