Hate Crime or Free Speech?

[lg325]

Vandalisim on another persons property is not free speech.

 

[eagle7-31]

The political class made it one to use against their enemies. So now we use it against them.

I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander but I still do not believe in 'hate crimes'

 

[LeftofLeft]

Texas has a Hate Crimes Law, as do all fifty states.



Recapping, the defendants are allegedly caught on video and do not deny that they spray painted graffiti on the wall of a privately owned building. The graffiti included attacks on a particular religion and profanity.

They could have been charged with misdemeanor vandalism of private property. They prosecutor has decided that they will be charged with a felony hate crime.

Where do you fall on this issue?

Because there are such inconsistencies and fallacies in which hate crime and hate speech are prosecuted, it’s all bullshit and needs not to be considered in crimes.

 

[westwall]

I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander but I still do not believe in 'hate crimes'

Neither do I. But they created the tools, so let's use them.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Crime is crime.

It is all motivated by degeneracy.


Letting the STATE bump up charges will lead to the left defining criminals as hateful when they are in power, and the right doing the same when they are in power.

I remember when the left was in power they wanted to indict anyone that burned a pride flag or left tire marks on rainbow crosswalks as. . "hate crimes."

Just as Hate Crimes should not be an offense on the book, nor should the concept of "hate speech," be taught in America.

We all know there are bigots, but the state should not be in the business of convicting a person on this or that bigotry, depending on who is in power.

Hate crimes Archives

reason.com

Yes, I agree, even if it a minority opinion.

The penalty for vandalism should be the same whatever the intent of the vandal. If a threat is made as part of the graffiti, then get them for vandalism and a threat, because the threat would be illegal regardless of how uttered.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Because there are such inconsistencies and fallacies in which hate crime and hate speech are prosecuted, it’s all bullshit and needs not to be considered in crimes.

Yes, if we had not been giving such light sentences to violent offenders, we would not need to even invent hate speech/hate crimes.
Beat a guy to death, get the death penalty, and then who cares if it can be proven to be a "hate crime."

I assume that the guy who shot Charlie Kirk hated him, and all like him, but if he gets the needle for premeditated murder, there is no need for a supplementary charge.