Criminalizing speech

[daveman]

Sure.



Discarded .... like a slut?

If you'd like to carry on both sides of this, be my guest. You can feel like you "won" easier.

I have to say, its amusing you think you can actually divine the future cell phone record of someone you don't really even know. Who are her "Dem buds" and how often do they speak now? When will the call frequency decline, at what rate, and how long before it goes to zero? Please, tell us all the details!

Does the name "Cindy Sheehan" ring any bells?

Predictably, you will fail to grasp the question.

I haven't kept up with Sheehan's cell phone record, nor was I aware she was a law student. But since you are in the know on such things, fill us in.

My prediction was dead accurate. Thank you for cooperating so unknowingly.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, she is calling for it and they have done nothing.

To FA_Q2: What does “No,. . .” mean? I said they were trying.

No means 'they' are not trying to criminalize anything whatsoever. 'No' means that your accusation that the left is attempting to criminalize speech IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE is way off base. SHE (one person) is calling for him to be charges and 'they' are essentially ignoring her as no charges have been laid. IF they actually charge Rush, you have a point. As I already stated, it is extremely unlikely.

Hate crimes are a bigger travesty than is hate speech. A crime is a crime. Codifying “Hate crimes” is discriminatory in that it makes one victim more important than another in the eyes of the law. If ever the slippery slope argument was applicable it is in convicting an accused defendant based on their motive.

Hate crime legislation is Constitutional, where an enhanced sentence may be imposed, as determined by the Supreme Court:

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993).

What was your point. I don't recall him ever stating that hate crimes were unconstitutional but he did say that they make one victim 'more important' than others. I happen to agree with him. Motives DO count (such as manslaughter vs. murder) but hate due to race or sexuality is no different than hate for political views or any number of a thousand other motives that can make one guilty of the same crime as a 'hate' crime. There should be so such thing as a hate crime, just crimes. It is yet another way to keep everyone focused on race, an act that can NEVER decrease racism and hate, only increase it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, she is calling for it and they have done nothing.

To FA_Q2: What does “No,. . .” mean? I said they were trying.

No means 'they' are not trying to criminalize anything whatsoever. 'No' means that your accusation that the left is attempting to criminalize speech IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE is way off base. SHE (one person) is calling for him to be charges and 'they' are essentially ignoring her as no charges have been laid. IF they actually charge Rush, you have a point. As I already stated, it is extremely unlikely.

Hate crimes are a bigger travesty than is hate speech. A crime is a crime. Codifying “Hate crimes” is discriminatory in that it makes one victim more important than another in the eyes of the law. If ever the slippery slope argument was applicable it is in convicting an accused defendant based on their motive.

Hate crime legislation is Constitutional, where an enhanced sentence may be imposed, as determined by the Supreme Court:

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993).

What was your point. I don't recall him ever stating that hate crimes were unconstitutional but he did say that they make one victim 'more important' than others. I happen to agree with him. Motives DO count (such as manslaughter vs. murder) but hate due to race or sexuality is no different than hate for political views or any number of a thousand other motives that can make one guilty of the same crime as a 'hate' crime. There should be so such thing as a hate crime, just crimes. It is yet another way to keep everyone focused on race, an act that can NEVER decrease racism and hate, only increase it.

He stated that hate crime legislation is ‘discriminatory,’ where ‘ one victim [is] more important than another in the eyes of the law.’

Per Mitchell this is clearly not the case, such laws discriminate against no one nor are they in anyway an illegitimate application of the law.

There should be so such thing as a hate crime, just crimes. It is yet another way to keep everyone focused on race, an act that can NEVER decrease racism and hate, only increase it.

And again: the Supreme Court disagrees with you – you’re obviously entitled to your opinion, but it’s not legally valid.

 

[Flanders]

What was your point. I don't recall him ever stating that hate crimes were unconstitutional but he did say that they make one victim 'more important' than others. I happen to agree with him. Motives DO count (such as manslaughter vs. murder) but hate due to race or sexuality is no different than hate for political views or any number of a thousand other motives that can make one guilty of the same crime as a 'hate' crime. There should be so such thing as a hate crime, just crimes. It is yet another way to keep everyone focused on race, an act that can NEVER decrease racism and hate, only increase it.

To FA_Q2: Absolutely.

I do not want to go too far afield on this, but so-called “hate crimes” make the perpetrators more evil than every other criminal. That is exactly what was done with Hitler and Stalin although there was not a whit of difference between them. Hitler became the most evil man that ever lived, while Stalin remains a hero to many.