peacefuljeffrey 0 #26 June 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteI doubt there's ever been a war during which the propriety of criticizing the government was not debated. It probably always will be. But we have not passed laws to prohibit it. And if Congress did, we have the Supreme Court which would presumably strike it down. And if they did not, there would be a huge public opposition to the law and any enforcement of it. WTF?! - Well, there was the Sedition Act of 1798 (?date?). Clearly not a good idea, lasted only a couple of years before being repealed by Congress. No-one has been stupid enough to try that again. Doesn't this very fact expose your fear of a crackdown on criticism of the President as the boogeyman that it is? Sedition was outlawed, and then that mistake was dealt with. And as you said, no one has been stupid enough to try it again -- and they likely will not be. Blue skies, --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #27 June 14, 2004 That's completely ludicrous on so many levels. First of all, hwo knew Brigitte Bardot was still alive? Secondly, who cares what she says? Seriously, though, that kind of censorship is f'd up. I'm assumping she didn't advocate violence against them. I also don't see what this has to do with the hate crime laws we were discussing in the US. Those laws are predicated on the commission of another crime. They don't outlaw hate, they make the repurcussions of commiting crimes based on hate more serious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #28 June 14, 2004 One question. What makes you think that this law has "run amok"? It sounds like it was applied precisely as it was intended to be. http://www.dictionarybarn.com/SOCIOCENTRISM.php _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #29 June 14, 2004 I've generally associated that cop out with kallend, not you Andy. (please go easy on godwin's law, I just happen to have studied that example more than most others) Nazis sent juden und untermensch to concentration camps. That law "was applied precisely as it was intended to be," as well. Does that mean we should pretend it doesn't exist, even though it relates to problems our own country is facing? (I could also use Rhodesian intolerance based on race and religion, or Chinese lack of human rights, or a dozen others - I chose that topic because I can debate it more readily) ps - yes, I see hate crime legislation as a problem, and I am referring to the USA as our own country, though I don't know your citizenship.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #30 June 15, 2004 QuoteThey don't outlaw hate, they make the repurcussions of commiting crimes based on hate more serious. Only certain types of hate are more severely punished under hate crime law.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 June 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteThey don't outlaw hate, they make the repurcussions of commiting crimes based on hate more serious. Only certain types of hate are more severely punished under hate crime law. Yeah. Say a perp robs some old lady and stabs her in the stomach. He targeted her because she was an old lady, and had little chance of defense. Old folks are also known to carry cash. He didn't hate her. He was thinning out the herd and getting what he could. He shouldn't get much time in jail, even though he targeted her because she was old. But, say a perp picks out a gay man to rob and stab. He's discovered that gays don't fight back as much and also are known for carrying cash. Oops! Targeted because he was gay, and should face the consequences. No, he didn't intend to go bootin'. I actually wonder whether if you took a man who had just robbed and stabbed an old lady to death, and stacked his sentence against a man who had just beaten the hell out of some poor gay man (think "As Good as it Gets") for the sake of doing a little bootin', who would get the longer sentence? Who should get the longer sentence? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #32 June 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteThey don't outlaw hate, they make the repurcussions of commiting crimes based on hate more serious. Only certain types of hate are more severely punished under hate crime law. The original statement is flawed. If the only variable between a crime punished with X sentence and the same action, classified as a "hate crime" punished with Y sentence, is the motivation (hate), and sentence Y is greater or more harsh than sentence X, sure as shit you have "effectively" outlawed hate. It is what garnered the additional punishment. In a paradoxical way, it is troubling that they have not outlawed hate, since this amounts to being punished additionally for something that, as you point out, is not a crime. Blue skies, --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
