Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>As so often, YOU understand what you mean, but you're not articulating it well.<< <I think I'm doing fine. You're having the problem. You often quickly dismiss comments out of hand.> When they make no sense, yeah. >>Please provide an example of this ever happening in the US. Scads of preachers preach against homosexuality every Sunday in this country; please name ONE who has ever been charged with a hate crime.<< <I gave you a hypothetical example. I said as long as this isn't happening, there would be freedom. I fear if we take hate crime legislation too far, this will happen.> Actually, you said "it won't be long." Paranoia backed up by nothing. <I made it clear that this was happening in Europe.> You said it was, but provided no links or anything. Perhaps it is, but a link would be nice. <I also said "It is increasingly difficult to speak your mind with all the hate crime legislation being passed these days."> But gave no examples of this either. And as I said before, most hate crimes only tack on additional penalties when ANOTHER crime has been committed. You've given no examples of it being difficult to speak your mind because of hate crime legislation. You tried to, with the inciting a riot thing, but that's long been illegal, dating way back before hate crimes. <Europe is not an invalid comparison. The US is getting closer in legislation to Europe in some areas.> And not in others. So it's not a very good comparison unless you can provide specifics. <Hate crime legislation has a way of making people censor themselves.> Probably only if they don't really understand what hate crime legislation is, which you don't seem to. If you think someone's going to arrest you for just saying the "n" word, maybe you WOULD censor yourself. But it would be an unfounded fear. <You have a way of getting off the topic with the issue of race. Nice information, but not the topic I'm discussing.> You brought up hate crimes. Every hate crime leg I've ever seen includes "on the basis of race," so of course it's on topic. <Then again, hate crimes is another infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the way it is going.> You say this, but provide no examples. Only your own fears. Now having said this, I should make clear that I generally don't favor hate crime legislation. Basically what it does is add penalty to the existing penalty for, say, assault. There are two schools of thought here: one is that it's silly to tack on an additional penalty because the criminal hates blacks or gays or Jews or whatever; the penalty for assault is enough in itself, and the person shouldn't be penalized essentially for his personal feelings. The other school of thought is that hate crimes target not just individuals but whole groups. For example, if there is a rash of hate crimes against Jews in a particular neighborhood, all the Jews in the neighborhood are terrorized, may be afraid to venture out after dark, etc. So the additional penalty is to discourage such behavior, since it affects more than just the particular victim. I see merit in both schools of thought, which is why I'm ambivalent about hate crimes. I generally don't favor what amounts to penalizing someone for feelings rather than actions. On the other hand, I used to live in a very gay-unfriendly neighborhood, in which gay bashings did occur. I pass for straight very easily, yet I was terrified what would happen if the wiseguys in the nabe ever found out I was gay. Perhaps if you've never been subject to that kind of fear, you can't understand it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The other school of thought is that hate crimes target not just individuals but whole groups.<< I believe that. And if we didn't plea bargain people down to do less time for crimes so often, then maybe the hate crime statutes wouldn't be necessary. As for me, I'm happy to see really bad guys do more time, not less. If hate crime keeps an ignorant maniac off the streets longer, all the better.
Originally Posted By woody Dabob2: After asking for proof or facts, you offer an opinion not backed on facts. I'm trying to discuss this philosophically as you are. However, there are facts if you're willing to look. And finally, I do agree with you on your stance on hate crimes legislation and I don't need proof from you.
Originally Posted By johnno52 Just to lighten up this conv. (Please give an example of someone facing a legal penalty for practicing their religion.) Well wasn't there a few Tele-evangelists that preached a bit too much love and money?
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Freedom is an eagle flying in the sky. She looks down to see her domain. Human property, boundaries and laws do not exist. And when it's dinnertime, there are no Eagle's Bill of Rights for squirrels, mice and trout.
Originally Posted By Mr X ****An example is a church where a pastor preaches against homosexuality. If a person hears about it and acts on it, he will be charged with a hate crime. With hate crimes legislation getting more severe, it won't be long for pastors to get drag into a crime for inciting the hate crime or possibly as an accessory. What happens to your religion? You lost your pastor. The religion gets penalized. It is already happening in Europe. It won't be long for it to happen here.**** Good.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Freedom is a ship on the high seas. >> Spend 6-9 months sailing around on one of those and let me know how free you feel.
Originally Posted By Mr X Yeah...actually being stuck on a ship could really be seen as the ultimate LACK of freedom (assuming you don't want to be there and have no control over your destination (if any), of course).
Originally Posted By johnno52 Give me a some Rum, a tall ship, some wind and a star to steer her by! Arrrrgh!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob2: After asking for proof or facts, you offer an opinion not backed on facts.> No, I didn't. <I'm trying to discuss this philosophically as you are. However, there are facts if you're willing to look.> Are there? It would be nice if you could provide them, then. <And finally, I do agree with you on your stance on hate crimes legislation and I don't need proof from you.> What I did was outline the two main schools of thought on the subject and then gave my opinion - neither of which is the sort of thing that REQUIRES proof. When you make an assertion that people are being arrested in Europe for practicing their religion, for example, that's the sort of thing that does.
