A "very serious" Homophobic Crime?

[Vincent Vega]

Yeah, I was a bit puzzled as well why he had to mention that he and his wife paid taxes all their lifes.

Maybe it's got something to do with the recent Liechtenstein scandal.

[Bono's shades]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Yeah, I was a bit puzzled as well why he had to mention that he and his wife paid taxes all their lifes.

I guess it goes along with the whole "upstanding, law-abiding citizen" thing. This guy probably doesn't give a crap if the police hound people he sees as not living a totally perfect life, but to go after oh-so-perfect him and his family? OH NO!

[Vincent Vega]

Of course, if you are law-abiding and pay taxes you must be holy.

My fault, I haven't paid much income tax in my life so far.
In that context the last thing that would come to mind would be to tell the press that I pay taxes, but well, that might be just me.
I don't value taxes enough.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by deep
[B]

yes,
if I don't want to rent one of my apartments to a gay or a negro

they have "extra special" rights
they can sue me because of their status

if I refused to rent to a white, straight
they can not sue me, based on their status
/B]

you're right about the Negros.

but not about the gays.

your right to the freedom of religious expression is the most cherished one we have. in fact, it's the very reason this nation even exists. without it, we'd be as lost as those shattered nations in Western Europe.

[LemonMelon]

It's against the law, so it should be investigated. Simple as that.

Now, whether or not this is a "very serious" hate crime is certainly debatable. Your opinion on its severity will likely be based upon your culture and upbringing; some will think "Who gives a damn?" and others will take it to heart.

[A_Wanderer]

I disagree with thoughtcrime.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I disagree with thoughtcrime.

that's lovely and tidy and a soundbyte and makes a certain amount of sense, but what happens when one half of the gay couple up the street gets savagely beaten by a gang of teenage males and is called "faggot" the whole time. and the next day "AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD" is spray painted on the corner where the beating took pace.

am i not affected? do i not change my routines? do i not worry a little bit more than, say, you would have to if you lived in my neighborhood?

[A_Wanderer]

A savage beating is a crime, vandalising the street corner is a crime, merely calling somebody gay should not be. You rightly point out that in your example it is sending a message and that makes it impact more people to a degree but shouldn't the severity in intent be one consideration in the sentencing for those pre-existing crimes themselves. Must endowing particular minorities with special victim status in the law be neccessary, can there be discretion in sentencing?

In terms of the far more relevant issue of free speech I think your example is off the mark. Pushing for restrictions and criminalisation of speech that is offensive to you is trading a freedom for security, it may well be for the best of intentions, it may well make society more cohesive (I doubt that - hatred always festers and always will), but regardless of intention the result is the same; less liberty.

Then you get the snowballing effects, if homophobic and racist comments are criminalised then how long until specific religious/racial/ethnic groups are granted special protections (Jews for instance - very broad I know but the next argument does follow). If those particular religious groups are allowed protections then why not equal protection for all religious groups (it would be utterly unfair for Jews to be legally protected from anti-semitic speech but Muslims not be protected from anti-Islamic speech or for that matter Christians - see Archbishop of Canterbury on blasphemy laws).

I feel that in principle criminalising speech that isn't inciting violence or encouraging other crimes is wrong (even when it yields a better outcome). That defining what constitutes hate speech can be arbitrarily applied and that investigations of alleged hate speech wastes resources and that granting protections to some groups (racial and sexual) gives other groups (religious) that are far less deserving of protection from criticism grounds to demand it.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
A savage beating is a crime, vandalising the street corner is a crime, merely calling somebody gay should not be. You rightly point out that in your example it is sending a message and that makes it impact more people to a degree but shouldn't the severity in intent be one consideration in the sentencing for those pre-existing crimes themselves. Must endowing particular minorities with special victim status in the law be neccessary, can there be discretion in sentencing?

it's not calling somebody gay that's the crime, it's the sending of a message that a particular crime was inspired by the sexual orientation, race, or gender of the victim. burning crosses? burning black churches? these are merely "thought" crimes? no, they are much more than that.

we do agree on the issue of how thorny it is to determine which groups are of a "victim status" and which are not, and this is my issue with hate crimes. but i think it's silly to say that a beating is just a beating, whether one was beaten for one's wallet, or one was beaten for holding hands with his partner while walking down the street. these are different crimes, and they are different in the same way that arson is different from the burning of a black church.



[q]In terms of the far more relevant issue of free speech I think your example is off the mark. Pushing for restrictions and criminalisation of speech that is offensive to you is trading a freedom for security, it may well be for the best of intentions, it may well make society more cohesive (I doubt that - hatred always festers and always will), but regardless of intention the result is the same; less liberty.[/q]

it's not that the speech is offensive. people can get up at any neighborhood organization meeting and talk about not wanting faggot couples or dykes moving into their neighborhood. that is protected, vile as it might be. this is free speech.

a hate crime is quite different.


[q]Then you get the snowballing effects, if homophobic and racist comments are criminalised then how long until specific religious/racial/ethnic groups are granted special protections (Jews for instance - very broad I know but the next argument does follow). If those particular religious groups are allowed protections then why not equal protection for all religious groups (it would be utterly unfair for Jews to be legally protected from anti-semitic speech but Muslims not be protected from anti-Islamic speech or for that matter Christians - see Archbishop of Canterbury on blasphemy laws).[/q]


you've conflated crime with speech. one is not the same of the other. i agree with what you're trying to get at, but i fear you're missing the big picture here. anyone is free to say whatever they want, but they are not free to color and enhance a particular crime with comments meant to send a message of violence and fear to a particular group (gays, jews, or australians-in-exile).

there's a phrase about free speech, that many forget: "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater."

that seems to apply here.

I feel that in principle criminalising speech that isn't inciting violence or encouraging other crimes is wrong (even when it yields a better outcome). That defining what constitutes hate speech can be arbitrarily applied and that investigations of alleged hate speech wastes resources and that granting protections to some groups (racial and sexual) gives other groups (religious) that are far less deserving of protection from criticism grounds to demand it.

we're not talking about hate speech. we are talking about hate crimes. i think you've conflated the two.

[A_Wanderer]

This thread was started on an issue of hate speech.