Is Hate Speech Protected by Free Speech?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 2 2006, 01:56 PM) [snapback]356755[/snapback]</div>

This is one of the relevant California Penal Code Sections:

Right now, there is a high publicity so-called hate crime trial taking place in the Long Beach Juvenile Court where African American teenagers stand accused of assaulting Caucasian women: Los Angeles Times - Victim testifies at hate crime trial

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 2 2006, 02:15 PM) [snapback]356764[/snapback]</div>

You have a profound misunderstanding of California hate crimes laws. Gays do not have any more protection than heterosexual people nor do Black, Hispanic or Asian people have more protection than Caucasians. The code refers to criminal acts committed because of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victims such as gender, nationality, race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

The last time that I read the applicable code sections, every peace officer in the State of California enjoyed extra protection compared to the average individual. The same goes for judges, prosecutors, firefighters, nurses, lifeguards, jurors and elected officials among others.

Your insistence on comparing gays to prostitutes is offensive. Prostitutes, by definition, are criminals. Gay men and women are not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Dec 2 2006, 02:46 PM) [snapback]356772[/snapback]</div>

Actually, it is the above which is offensive. There are jurisdictions where prostitution is criminalized, and there are jurisdiction where sodomy is criminalized. Neither is relevant here.

Prostitutes, gays, Jews, Protestants, whites, blacks, these are all people. If a person is victimized or killed, the law should offer them equal protection as victims, and their killers should be prosecuted and punished with equal severity.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Dec 2 2006, 02:46 PM) [snapback]356772[/snapback]</div>

You're kidding, right? Is this why, in practice, while "whites" make the vast majority of violent crime victims, only 11% of "hate crimes" prosecutions are in cases involving "white" victims? And, as mentioned before, most of these whites are likely to be gay, Latino or Jewish victims.

Various "Protected Classes," have come into being since 1964, first in Federal, then in State law, including classes based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.. Some, of course, are more "protected" than others. But the "Hate" crime push by interest groups, which started in the '70s, goes beyond that. It makes some victims more important than others. And of course, it provides greater resources (from the Federal/State coffers (to which we ALL contribute) for the prosecution in cases involving such more important victims.

So, again, the real question is, why someone killing a gay man while screaming "Faggot!" should get a longer ("enhanced") sentence, than someone killing a prostitute while screaming "Whore!", or someone killing a fat person while screaming "Pig!"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 2 2006, 04:37 PM) [snapback]356799[/snapback]</div>

You are such a clueless bigot that this challenge does not merit a response. Did you even bother to read the language of the relevant California law or the news article from the Los Angeles Times that I linked in an earlier post?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 2 2006, 04:37 PM) [snapback]356799[/snapback]</div>

In California, prostitutes are criminals, gay people are not. Hate crimes legislation was passed to protect the most vulnerable members of society, not common criminals. End of discussion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Dec 2 2006, 07:46 PM) [snapback]356772[/snapback]</div>

...too bad the streets say otherwise...


Somewhat analogous to this, is a NYT article I read a few months back comparing a couple of folks from different wealth "classes", and how each was treated at various NYC hospitals... I'm sure I need not go further on which class got treated the best.

I guess what I'm saying is, the law is all fine and dandy, with these wonderful, relatively equitable "ideals" of "justice" and such, but when it comes right down to it, I trust anyone who can act in almost any sort of "enforceable capacity" as far as I can throw my Prius. I've witnessed the CRIMES lawmen have committed against the average Joe in the courtroom. Heck on more than one occasion, I've caught a lawman flat out LYING about some detail or other.

I see it like this, after my "exposure" to the legal system:


It is better to shoot first, ask questions, and apologize later, then be the one being apologized to IN THE BOX.


"Justice" is simply another religious deity, the law just another bible, it operates on faith, and will most assuredly, curiously enough, likely be nowhere to be found when you're at the wrong end of a .45.

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 2 2006, 02:53 PM) [snapback]356775[/snapback]</div>

Not really. Surely you realize there's a difference between a murder committed in a moment of passion and the murder that is planned days before, with the killer lying in wait? In one case, the DA probably cannot ask for the ultimate penalty, but the pre-mediated, lying in wait murder can have more severe charges.

We have a class of "murder" that people go to jail for when they don't intend to kill anyone ... "negligent homicide", IIRC. We don't execute those people, but they can be punished.

The victim in all three of these examples is still just as dead. But we punish the perp differently. Don't you think that's appropriate?

Hate crime charges help us clarify that the person intended to do the crime based on a prejudice they have. Our society has seen these crimes in the past, from the "rolling queers" in the 1960s to the lynchings decades before. Our arsenal of weapons against the violent criminals who have, as their incentive, their irrational hate of a group is greater today. And while rarely used, hate crime charges are an important weapon against criminal tyranny.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 2 2006, 02:53 PM) [snapback]356775[/snapback]</div>

You can hold whatever beliefs you want, and in the US, you can set up a website, publish a newspaper, etc., to express those views. I have no desire to punish people for their beliefs, even their hateful ones. And that's why hate speech is allowed and protected by the first amendment.

But if you commit a crime against someone, there's a bunch of laws the DA can use to prosecute you, and put you away. Hate crime laws are used solely to increase the punishment for a criminal; there is no charge of "hate" without some other criminal act that we presume is motivated by that hate.

 

Being a prostitute is criminal? But gun owning is legal? What a ****ed up society you are...

FWIW, prostitution is totally legal here. It's just associated activities (kerb-crawling, pimping etc) that aren't. But if you want to do it discretely, it's fine.

I find IsrAmeriPrius's belief that somehow prostitutes don't deserve protection rather offensive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Dec 3 2006, 01:50 AM) [snapback]356914[/snapback]</div>

That is a distortion of what I wrote and does not represent my belief. This discussion concerns enhanced (as in more severe, heavier or extra) punishments for crimes committed against certain of society's most vulnerable members. I never even remotely suggested or inferred that crimes committed against prostitutes go unpunished.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 3 2006, 03:22 AM) [snapback]356889[/snapback]</div>

Extremely well stated. Most of the objections in this thread keep ignoring that these statutes derive from a need to fight an IDEA larger than the crime itself. An idea that just because you're a certain race, religion, or orientation you deserve to be targeted. Let's face it, that is a noxious idea. It's the fundamental idea behind most genocides. And we also keep getting given the impression that these laws only apply to a few classes (blacks, gays, jews), when a simple look at the reported incidents reveals the uniformity with which such statutes are applied:
Source: FBI, 2005 Hate Crime statistics
Single-Bias Incidents 7,160
Race: 3,919
Anti-White 828
Anti-Black 2,630
Anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native 79
Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander 199
Anti-Multiple Races, Group 183
Religion: 1,227
Anti-Jewish 848
Anti-Catholic 58
Anti-Protestant 57
Anti-Islamic 128
Anti-Other Religion 93
Anti-Multiple Religions, Group 39
Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. 4
Sexual Orientation: 1,017
Anti-Male Homosexual 621
Anti-Female Homosexual 155
Anti-Homosexual 195
Anti-Heterosexual 21
Anti-Bisexual 25
Ethnicity/National Origin: 944
Anti-Hispanic 522
Anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin 422
Disability: 53
Anti-Physical 21
Anti-Mental 32

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Dec 3 2006, 01:50 AM) [snapback]356914[/snapback]</div>

You should worry about hate speech laws in your own part of the world, where freedom of speech is restricted much more than in America:

From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2449027,00.html

Rather than criticize anything in America, perhaps you should look at your own system that even allows such a case to be brought to trial. Here, speech such as that could not even have charges brought by the government, as we have no laws to do so. Its obvious from the context of that story that your laws are being used to try and silence political opposition.

And the response is that they are trying to expand the assault on free speech by writing new laws, specific to "religious hate speech":

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3871867.stm

Its nice that you can pay someone for sex legally, but it would be nicer if you had a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Dec 2 2006, 09:14 PM) [snapback]356863[/snapback]</div>

Ah, such compassion for the "most vulnerable members of society"! You must be a good, Law- and God-fearing, self-righteous, religious man....

The only problem with your "logic" is, that most gays I know (and statistics support it,) are far wealthier, better educated and infinitely more influential, than any of the prostitutes, male or female, I see on the street. Gays are, in fact, as a group, wealthier and better educated, than Joe-Six-Pack. (Come to think of it, some of them are also likely to make better parents than many an average Joe-Six-Pack....)

But back to these "do-gooder" laws, not being there for "common criminals," i.e. prostitutes. The fact that there is a law, doesn't necessarily make the thing right. Until not so long ago, in California those who entered into interracial marriages were "criminals." Those who had, or performed an abortion, were "criminals." Those who drunk alcohol, were "criminals." Heck, there are still a bunch of jurisdictions where sodomy is a crime.

While we have learned that you consider prostitutes "criminals," and thus unworthy of the same protection from violence as say, gays, blacks or Jews, you still have not addressed the gist of the argument:

WHY, WHEN WE HAVE ESTABLISHED CRIMINAL LAWS ADDRESSING VIOLENT ACTS, DO WE NEED "HATE" LAWS, WHICH PERMIT MORE SEVERE PUNISHMENT IN CASES WHERE THE VICTIM IS OF A PROTECTED CLASS?

In other words, why do you think that the punishment for killing someone because they are gay, should be more severe, than the punishment for killing someone because they are homeless, or because they are fat, or because they have a purse which the killer wants? That is the question....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Dec 2 2006, 09:14 PM) [snapback]356863[/snapback]</div>

I suppose you are so certain of all you believe, that you don't see a problem hurling personal insults at someone who dares to disagree with your dogma. But in reality, you don't know anything about me: I may be Jewish, or black, or both, or white, or gay. Irrespective of what I am, I am simply making an argument against laws which I think are wrong. And I have not called you names, while making this argument.

From the Oxford Online Dictionary:

"bigot: • noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others...."

(Somehow, I don't expect you to see the irony here

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 2 2006, 11:22 PM) [snapback]356889[/snapback]</div>

I most certainly do, fshagan That is why I spoke of "intent" being an element necessary for the establishment of certain crimes.

But "hate" legislation is something entirely different: it seeks to establish your prejudices, and if these are prejudices against a protected class, it metes additional punishment for such prejudices ("thoughts?").

Again, if someone who hates prostitutes, because he thinks they are "sinners," kills one, he may get, say, 20 years.

But if someone who hates gays, because he thinks they are "sinners," kills one, he will get not only the 20 years, but also an additional number of years, because he committed a "hate" crime.

All I am saying, is that all victims should be equal, and the punishment for crimes committed against them should be of equal severity.

"Hate" crimes legislation in its current guise is entirely duplicative of established law, and it has generally been promoted by narrow interests groups (see, for example, this: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1065-9129...3B2-2#abstract)

But, in reality, it does little, other than funnel Federal and State money to these groups and their "pet" cases.

The case of Matthew Shepherd, whom someone brought up above, was in fact tried in a state without "hate" crimes legislation, and it resulted in convictions of life without parole (it would have been death, but for the request of Matthew Shepherd's parents.) Similarly in James Byrd's case, where two of the perpetrators were sentenced to death, under current, non-"hate" crime law.

You either believe in treating everyone equally under the law, or you don't. Making certain groups more deserving than the rest, may be done with good intentions but, as you of course know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 3 2006, 08:52 PM) [snapback]357162[/snapback]</div>

Black2006,

Your reasons are well thought-out and articulated and I don't in any way expect to change your mind, but I think the essential difference in a hate crime is the crime's potential to terrorize and intimidate other members of the victim's protected class. Such crimes historically send a message, i.e., don't come into this neghborhood if you're (insert class here). The hate crime statute is there to compensate, in whatever meager way it can. Is everyone treated equally under the law? No, of course not. The law just does the best it can.

 

I've always had mixed feelings about the establishment of "hate" crimes, but my inclination favors the concept.

Take two cases of wildfire arson, so as to remove the notion of "equal protection" from the argument for a moment and simply cast focus on intent. One arsonist is a backpacker who, without permit or training, and with full knowledge he was breaking the law, builds a campfire in an area where open fires are prohibited. His fire gets away from him and burns 10,000 acres of National Forest and 10 homes before it is finally extinguished.

The second arsonist deliberately torches a National Forest because he is a seasonal fire fighter and he hopes to make a lot of money by being hired to help to extinguish his blaze (this really happens!). It also burns 10,000 acres and 10 homes.

The two crimes are identical in both consequence and method, what separates them is only motive. Obviously, both arsonists should be punished and made to make reparation for their crimes, however, I believe most of us would be less severe on the backpacker than on the firefighter; his was a crime of more of negligence than of bad faith (albeit there was some bad faith in that he knew he was breaking the law), whereas the firefighter's motive was decidely, and entirely, bad faith.

So now let's look back at assault. First, I agree completely that it would be hard to argue any mitigating factor such as "negligence" when someone breaks a beer bottle and tries to slash someone's jugular with the severed neck. ANY assault would seem to be an act of pure bad faith (leaving out justified self defense).

But, except for true psychopaths (or other truly mentally aberrant people, who along with true psychopaths are generally under medical supervision), any assault is the reaction to a perceived provocation.

So now here are two cases of assault in a bar. The first is Sam, who without any warning tries to slash Bob's neck with a broken beer bottle because he believes Bob has been having an affair with his wife. In the resultant struggle Sam succeeds in putting Bob into the hospital with serious organ damage. Whether Sam's belief was true in no way justifies the assault, but I think no one would argue that if true, the provocation to Sam would have been strong.

We would punish Sam, not for seeking to punish Bob, but for going about it in a manner that society forbids. If we found out Bob WAS having an affair with Sam's wife, we might even give Sam a light sentence, especially if Bob survives.

The second case is Ram, who without any warning tries to slash Rob's neck with a broken beer bottle because he believes Bob is an East Congolese native. In the resultant struggle Ram succeeds in putting Rob into the hospital with serious organ damage.

Again, two cases identical in outcome and method, all that separates them is motive.

Can anyone seriously contend Ram's motive is equally mitigating as Sam's?

This is why I'm inclined to favor the concept of "hate crime." It reinforces society's disapproval of race, religion and other intrinsic qualities of persona as being considered "provocation," and metes out punishments accordingly. It doesn't have anything to do with protecting one class of people more than another. It doesn't say that being East Congolese is "protected," it says that NO intrinsic characteristic of persona can be construed as provocative. That covers just about everybody, for ALL of us have qualities of persona that some jerk may find provocative.

There's another factor to keep in mind, too.

If, as I suspect, MOST assaults are, at their roots, "hate crimes" of one shape or another, making punishment for same more severe may more significantly reduce assault itself more effectively than other measures.
I don't know if that's the case or not, but if true, it would increase my favorability toward the concept.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 3 2006, 05:43 PM) [snapback]357166[/snapback]</div>

Well, you said "many", and I may have mistaken your comment to mean a majority of the crimes. And that is not the case, as most crimes do not have to have intent proven. In many cases, the "intent" charge is a separate one, and is used to "pile on" charges to give the perp a heavier sentence. As an example, in California shop-lifting is usually a misdemeanor, but if you're a felon, it can be a felony if the DA can show you had intent ... and if you have no money in your pockets, that shows you entered the store with the intent to steal. That elevates the shoplifting charge from a misdemeanor to a felony, and can serve as the third strike for 25 - to - life sentences.

Look at the various murder charges filed ... one person is killed, and there can be several charges. Usually, two or three of the charges are things like conspiracy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 3 2006, 05:43 PM) [snapback]357166[/snapback]</div>

I've never heard that our criminal justice system is designed to treat all victims as equal. Our laws are not written that way. We have much tougher laws for crimes against certain groups ... children, minors, mentally challenged people, etc. For instance, lewd conduct, such as exposing yourself, carries a much stricter punishment if the victim was a child under 14 than if the victim is 15 years old (in California). Certainly you wouldn't want a mooning on a college campus punished the same way as a flasher at the elementary school.

The laws are written to treat all the accused as equal, but have always recognized that certain crimes have to be differentiated and treated as worse than others.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 3 2006, 05:43 PM) [snapback]357166[/snapback]</div>

Irrespective of the cases cited, where a good result was obtained, there is a "method to the madness" of the DA filing several charges for the same crime. Far too many violent criminals go free, even though the conviction rate is above 90% for most violent felonies. It is not unusual for a DA to file murder, conspiracy to commit murder, murder with special circumstances and hate crime charges all for the same event (as well as battery, misuse of a firearm, etc.) In the courtroom, the jury is given the tools to make a legal decision and determine if all the charges apply, or just some of them. Under your suggestion above, unless I'm reading it wrong, you would support the DA only being able to choose one charge, and the jury deciding on that in a "winner takes all" type of decision.

I understand the philosophical point about the threat of hate crime legislation being an affront to free speech, but it simply isn't structured in a way that free speech is restricted.

 

Oddly, I was wondering if there was a such thing as a Jewish prostitute, as it turns out, there are...

An article that touches upon the history of Jewish prostitution...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK21Ak01.html

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 30 2006, 12:20 PM) [snapback]355732[/snapback]</div>

I agree with eagle

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 3 2006, 04:52 PM) [snapback]357162[/snapback]</div>

So long as you insist on denigrating gays by morally equating them with prostitutes, you will remain a bigot in my book.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Dec 4 2006, 09:59 AM) [snapback]357445[/snapback]</div>

Hm, let's see, I suppose I must have denigrated gays by also morally equating them with police officers, fat people, and people who carry fat wallets (since these were some of the other groups in my examples above.)

I am puzzled by your apparent unwillingness to speak to the actual argument at hand, preferring instead to focus in minutiae, which is completely irrelevant to that argument. I fail to see how causing harm to either a prostitute or a gay person, or any other innocent being, can be somehow more permissible, because YOUR morals make you see them as less worthy of protection than others.

I also find your attitude to women or men who, for various reasons, engage in sex for money, disturbing.