CDZ Hate speech leads to hate killings

[saveliberty]

Where has Trump's comments resulted in violence against Mr. Trump?

 

[saveliberty]

Actually the only reported crime from Mr. Trump's talk was the conviction of a Muslim who threatened to kill Mr. Trump and he was deported. Most likely stopped a jihadist who could have killed many people. Thanks Mr. Trump.

 

[saveliberty]

Silence is taken as acceptance in many cases and we need to let potential jihadists know we do not agree with their actions.

 

[saveliberty]

Tommy wants to restrict the freedom of the Press and Speech. I appreciate the board is trying to protect his rights to assault the Constitution. I do not appreciate their attempt to restrict my rights.

 

[320 Years of History]

The man deserves to be in jail for rest of his life. That being said, I find hate crime laws to be redundant and unnecessary.

That a take I'm not accustomed to encountering. How are hate crimes laws redundant?

We already have laws that punish criminal acts. The additional punishments added by these laws don't deter criminal acts and come hauntingly close to thought crimes in my opinion.

Well gee, I suppose that premeditation shouldn't affect murder sentencing either

You just agreed to MDK's post. Motive, such as hate is covered under premeditation....

LHFM...the point isn't that it isn't covered under "premeditation," the point is that uniform sentencing guidelines don't allow what are deemed stiff enough sentences for non-hate crimes that have have hate as the motivation. Thus hate crime law was created to allow the introduction of hate crime legislation so that stiffer penalties can be levied for crimes of hate. Obviously, if a criminal act is already subject to the most extreme penalty, death, in a given jurisdiction, there isn't an inherent need for a hate crime law that provides for the death penalty.

For example (hypothetically):

• Assault with a deadly weapon:
  • Non-hate/bias inspired: 5 - 10 years; parole possible
  • Hate/bias inspired: 8 - 10 years; no chance of parole

Now if you want to, you may argue that the existing sentencing guidelines can accommodate any penalty that may be dictated. That may well be so, in fact it's likely so; however, there's more to it than that. The thing achieved by creating a class of crimes called hate crimes is that it ensures, for crimes where hate/bias is a motive, that certain dimensions of the uniform sentencing guidelines must be applied to persons convicted of committing the "hate version" of a given crime.

The reason for that is whenever a bias-motivated crime is committed, the victim’s entire community is left feeling victimized, vulnerable, fearful, isolated, and unprotected by the law. Such crimes can also lead to reprisals and a dangerous spiral of escalating inter-group tension and violence. Thus, the impact of the crime is far greater than the already terrible impact on the individual. Since the impact transcends the specific person affected, the convicted hate/bias criminal must pay a higher price (serve a stiffer sentence) than were hate not the motivator.

Taking a cue from another member who queried me on a different topic, I present the following hypothetical scenarios:

• Bill trips you by accident. You fall and break your wrist.
• Mark trips you intentionally because you insulted his mother. You fall and break your wrist.
• Ed trips you intentionally because you are a gay man. You fall and break your wrist.

Assuming the facts above have been established in a court of criminal law and each individual is found guilty as stated:

• Should Bill, Mark and Ed each receive equally stiff penalties for their conduct?
• Which of the following outcomes do you consider ethically right? Ethically wrong?
  • Judge A assigns Mark and Ed the same sentence.
  • Judge B assigns Mark a stiffer sentence than Ed.
  • Judge C assigns Ed a stiffer sentence than Mark.
  • Judge D assigns all three the same sentence.
  • Judge E assigns Bill a lighter sentence than Mark or Ed.
  • [I'm assuming you consider unethical the options wherein Bill receives a stiffer sentence than either of the other two; thus I've not stated them.]

Hopefully the above illustration clarifies for you why society accepts that there should be a class of crimes carved out by hate/bias as a motive. It's only right that hate inspired illegal conduct be punished more sternly and that we have some means of making sure that, judicial discretion notwithstanding, it is.

 

[saveliberty]

Hate crime is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt
and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin,
religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use
explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal
threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable
to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful.
Others may become frustrated and angry if they believe the local
government and other groups in the community will not protect them.
When perpetrators of hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts
not publicly condemned, their crimes can weaken even those
communities with the healthiest race relations.

Hate Crime | CRS | Department of Justice

The problem with hate crimes is it requires the government to see into the mind of the accused. Further, it allows for the reaction of the community to the crime as a basis for making their case. How can anyone know what type of reaction a crime may have on a community? Sentencing guidelines should not be made specifically for hate, but simply use the higher end of the scale in applying justice.

None of this really has anything to do with the OP though. As the OP simply put forth the idea speech results in action, which is clearly not the truth in most instances.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

This is a good example.
Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric spreads coast to coast, what are we becoming?

A few years ago there was a major campaign by a British paper to introduce a law to out Paedos. The language they used was inflammatory and roused up some of their more simplistic readers. None of them were particularly clever.

Anyway they went away and attacked the house of someone they thought was a paedo.

The problem was these thickos attacked the house of a local Paediatrician.

The press and politicos have a responsibility to measure their output when their audience is not bright.

Doctor driven out of home by vigilantes

Hate laws do not reduce the fallout from the press or politicians comments, they simply add to the penalty if a conviction occurs. This post does not support your position. Also it is antidotal as not every inflammatory comment by the press or a politician results in violence as a response. Poor debating to be sure.

Its a decent example but there are many others.

The link between hate speech and violence are well established and are not challenged. Google Anders Breivik and Cultural Marxism and the various crazies who read the Turner Diaries.

Of course not all people who are exposed to hate speech go out and kill. There has to be a screw loose somewhere. However lower down the food chain the disaffected skinhead yob is generally easily led and able to cause trouble for decent people.

Somebody like Cruz legitimises hatred of Gays by cosying up to some pretty sick people. Its like its ok to hate Gays because "Jesus" does.

Im not convinced extra sentencing makes much difference. I think the classification is the key thing. We can see what we are dealing with.

 

[saveliberty]

This is a good example.
Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric spreads coast to coast, what are we becoming?

A few years ago there was a major campaign by a British paper to introduce a law to out Paedos. The language they used was inflammatory and roused up some of their more simplistic readers. None of them were particularly clever.

Anyway they went away and attacked the house of someone they thought was a paedo.

The problem was these thickos attacked the house of a local Paediatrician.

The press and politicos have a responsibility to measure their output when their audience is not bright.

Doctor driven out of home by vigilantes

Hate laws do not reduce the fallout from the press or politicians comments, they simply add to the penalty if a conviction occurs. This post does not support your position. Also it is antidotal as not every inflammatory comment by the press or a politician results in violence as a response. Poor debating to be sure.

Its a decent example but there are many others.

The link between hate speech and violence are well established and are not challenged. Google Anders Breivik and Cultural Marxism and the various crazies who read the Turner Diaries.

Of course not all people who are exposed to hate speech go out and kill. There has to be a screw loose somewhere. However lower down the food chain the disaffected skinhead yob is generally easily led and able to cause trouble for decent people.

Somebody like Cruz legitimises hatred of Gays by cosying up to some pretty sick people. Its like its ok to hate Gays because "Jesus" does.

Im not convinced extra sentencing makes much difference. I think the classification is the key thing. We can see what we are dealing with.

No, it was a horrible example, as no violence has occurred as a result. Just another instance of how most people do not commit violence from such speech. Do you think Cruz has legitimized hatred of gays? You said he did. I think that is false as well.

Your argument seems to boil down to protecting decent people from mentally disturbed people by limiting speech. Even though we have no idea what may set off a particular individual. Very weak.

 

[saveliberty]

I have recanted every point put forth by Tommy. I have also demonstrated how a person (Tommy) can use such restrictions to limit educated responses to such poor debate. Calling mods for word changes and warning posters as to what is acceptable. It is simple intimidation by the weak minded. Fortunately in this case I refuse to be intimidated.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well the violence was that this Dr was forced out of her home by a hate mob. This on the back of a News of the World campaign.


There is another view on the link between hate crime and hate speech here.
There Have Been 19 Hate Crimes Against Muslims in the Past Week

And here is another one where the victim explicitly relates it back to Trump.
Muslim congressman blames death threat in part on ‘toxic environment’

Here is a Cruz supporter.
Kevin Swanson: Hillary Clinton Will Lead 'Tremendous Majorities of American Kids' To Homosexuality

Given the proven link between hate speech and hate crime its right that people should be concerned.

Going back to the OP there is a flood of anti gay rhetoric out there, some on this forum as well, the press and the politicians are playing with fire when they appeal to the lowest class of viciousness in our society.

 

[saveliberty]

Well the violence was that this Dr was forced out of her home by a hate mob. This on the back of a News of the World campaign.


There is another view on the link between hate crime and hate speech here.
There Have Been 19 Hate Crimes Against Muslims in the Past Week

And here is another one where the victim explicitly relates it back to Trump.
Muslim congressman blames death threat in part on ‘toxic environment’

Here is a Cruz supporter.
Kevin Swanson: Hillary Clinton Will Lead 'Tremendous Majorities of American Kids' To Homosexuality

Given the proven link between hate speech and hate crime its right that people should be concerned.

Going back to the OP there is a flood of anti gay rhetoric out there, some on this forum as well, the press and the politicians are playing with fire when they appeal to the lowest class of viciousness in our society.

None of what you quoted from the US resulted in death did it? That was your premise. The case you do mention that resulted in violence was in England right? A country with hate speech laws, so this should have prevented it correct? Failed point after failed point.

 

[saveliberty]

Since you are stuck on Mr. Trump. Why did he bring the subject up? Seems to me he was stating the hate directed towards us in the US by Muslims needed to be confronted to protect our citizens. A speech directed at preventing violence against us. It would be similar to stopping gays from speaking out against people committing violence against gays, to borrow another subject you use.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The OP is an example of a hate crime that led to death.
There are also examples such as the Oklahoma bombings and the lynching in Jasper that were inspired by hate speech. In both cases the Turner Diaries.
I could take a few minutes out and find a load more if you like but the point is proven.
I am not sure where you are trying to go with this.You would not engage at all until I reminded you of the rules and now you are twisting around trying to discredit what to most people is just common sense.

Are people influenced by what they hear and read ? Yes

Should people in the public eye act with a sense of responsibility when putting forward their views ? Yes.

Or are you saying that they have no responsibility ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The man deserves to be in jail for rest of his life. That being said, I find hate crime laws to be redundant and unnecessary.

That a take I'm not accustomed to encountering. How are hate crimes laws redundant?

We already have laws that punish criminal acts. The additional punishments added by these laws don't deter criminal acts and come hauntingly close to thought crimes in my opinion.

Well gee, I suppose that premeditation shouldn't affect murder sentencing either

You just agreed to MDK's post. Motive, such as hate is covered under premeditation....

LHFM...the point isn't that it isn't covered under "premeditation," the point is that uniform sentencing guidelines don't allow what are deemed stiff enough sentences for non-hate crimes that have have hate as the motivation. Thus hate crime law was created to allow the introduction of hate crime legislation so that stiffer penalties can be levied for crimes of hate. Obviously, if a criminal act is already subject to the most extreme penalty, death, in a given jurisdiction, there isn't an inherent need for a hate crime law that provides for the death penalty.

For example (hypothetically):

• Assault with a deadly weapon:
  • Non-hate/bias inspired: 5 - 10 years; parole possible
  • Hate/bias inspired: 8 - 10 years; no chance of parole

Now if you want to, you may argue that the existing sentencing guidelines can accommodate any penalty that may be dictated. That may well be so, in fact it's likely so; however, there's more to it than that. The thing achieved by creating a class of crimes called hate crimes is that it ensures, for crimes where hate/bias is a motive, that certain dimensions of the uniform sentencing guidelines must be applied to persons convicted of committing the "hate version" of a given crime.

The reason for that is whenever a bias-motivated crime is committed, the victim’s entire community is left feeling victimized, vulnerable, fearful, isolated, and unprotected by the law. Such crimes can also lead to reprisals and a dangerous spiral of escalating inter-group tension and violence. Thus, the impact of the crime is far greater than the already terrible impact on the individual. Since the impact transcends the specific person affected, the convicted hate/bias criminal must pay a higher price (serve a stiffer sentence) than were hate not the motivator.

Taking a cue from another member who queried me on a different topic, I present the following hypothetical scenarios:

• Bill trips you by accident. You fall and break your wrist.
• Mark trips you intentionally because you insulted his mother. You fall and break your wrist.
• Ed trips you intentionally because you are a gay man. You fall and break your wrist.

Assuming the facts above have been established in a court of criminal law and each individual is found guilty as stated:

• Should Bill, Mark and Ed each receive equally stiff penalties for their conduct?
• Which of the following outcomes do you consider ethically right? Ethically wrong?
  • Judge A assigns Mark and Ed the same sentence.
  • Judge B assigns Mark a stiffer sentence than Ed.
  • Judge C assigns Ed a stiffer sentence than Mark.
  • Judge D assigns all three the same sentence.
  • Judge E assigns Bill a lighter sentence than Mark or Ed.
  • [I'm assuming you consider unethical the options wherein Bill receives a stiffer sentence than either of the other two; thus I've not stated them.]

Hopefully the above illustration clarifies for you why society accepts that there should be a class of crimes carved out by hate/bias as a motive. It's only right that hate inspired illegal conduct be punished more sternly and that we have some means of making sure that, judicial discretion notwithstanding, it is.

Hmmmm, I might be persuaded on this.

 

[saveliberty]

The OP is an example of a hate crime that led to death.
There are also examples such as the Oklahoma bombings and the lynching in Jasper that were inspired by hate speech. In both cases the Turner Diaries.
I could take a few minutes out and find a load more if you like but the point is proven.
I am not sure where you are trying to go with this.You would not engage at all until I reminded you of the rules and now you are twisting around trying to discredit what to most people is just common sense.

Are people influenced by what they hear and read ? Yes

Should people in the public eye act with a sense of responsibility when putting forward their views ? Yes.

Or are you saying that they have no responsibility ?

You already conceded the violence is from disturbed people. So most of your reply is moot. You are using antidotal retorts. We have over 300 million people here and you find a couple dozen examples. Again, none of them resulted in death. You have failed.

I debate and win. You should have quit when I was less interested in that approach.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So your position is that there is no link between hate speech and hate crime ?

Its barely credible.

I think you might find that a lot of people died in Oklahoma.

I think that your dislike of myself is colouring your standpoint. You would argue black was white if I stated the obvious. Thats just my opinion of course.

Having said that I have posted several examples with back up information and you have not refuted any of them.

 

[saveliberty]

So your position is that there is no link between hate speech and hate crime ?

Its barely credible.

I think you might find that a lot of people died in Oklahoma.

I think that your dislike of myself is colouring your standpoint. You would argue black was white if I stated the obvious. Thats just my opinion of course.

Having said that I have posted several examples with back up information and you have not refuted any of them.

Another poor debate style. Placing words in an opponents mouth.

You will find that person had mental issues and was not driven by what a current politician or media had said leading up to the event.

I have refuted every single one. None have resulted in death. Now you introduce the Oklahoma Bomber. What was his motivation?

McVeigh, a Persian Gulf War veteran, sought revenge against the federal government for its handling of the Waco siege, which ended in the deaths of 76 people exactly two years before the bombing, as well as for the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992. McVeigh hoped to inspire a revolt against what he considered to be a tyrannical federal government.

Timothy McVeigh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hate speech? No, wrong again.

 

[saveliberty]

By the way, I do not know you as a person Tommy. I find your positions distasteful. You may well be a great human being and I assume that until I meet you in person.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So your position is that there is no link between hate speech and hate crime ?

Its barely credible.

I think you might find that a lot of people died in Oklahoma.

I think that your dislike of myself is colouring your standpoint. You would argue black was white if I stated the obvious. Thats just my opinion of course.

Having said that I have posted several examples with back up information and you have not refuted any of them.

Another poor debate style. Placing words in an opponents mouth.

You will find that person had mental issues and was not driven by what a current politician or media had said leading up to the event.

I have refuted every single one. None have resulted in death. Now you introduce the Oklahoma Bomber. What was his motivation?

McVeigh, a Persian Gulf War veteran, sought revenge against the federal government for its handling of the Waco siege, which ended in the deaths of 76 people exactly two years before the bombing, as well as for the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992. McVeigh hoped to inspire a revolt against what he considered to be a tyrannical federal government.

Timothy McVeigh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hate speech? No, wrong again.

The Turner Diaries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A big influence on McVeigh and others.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

As outlined earlier it is the Jewish community that bares the brunt of hate crime.
This from 2015.

Frazier Glenn Cross 'entrenched in the hate movement' - CNN.com
"He was one of the pioneers in the modern hate world," he said. "He's been entrenched in the hate movement his entire adult life."

His father gave him a copy of a newspaper published by the National States' Rights Party, and within two minutes, he said he knew he'd found a home in the movement.
The link bewween speech and killing is made.