I don't believe people should be prosecuted under "Hate Crimes"!

[Rigby5]

Car jackers very often hurt people if they don't want to give up their car....

Doubt they're shooting kids but anyone resisting them taking the car, yes

Which means their goal is the property value of the car and not an intent to cause personal harm.
With a hate crime, the goal is ONLY to cause personal harm, and there is no property value motive.

Yea but the calculus they have is not exactly non violent

They're not car jacking empty cars

"they're not violent as long as they don't try to defend themselves from my at best threats" is not exactly saying anything.

Like the guys who return kids and yell at the parents, those guys had no plans to hurt anyone. They thought they were stealing empty cars when that happens for the most part.

Well sure, a person committing a property crime might also be intent on violence, but the point is you can't tell for sure, while with a hate crime where there is no money incentive possible, then you can be pretty sure of the intent on violence.

 

[Rigby5]

If anyone is motivated to commit a crime based on blatantly false and hateful information, the people that promoted and/or propagated that blatantly false and hateful information should be held equally accountable as the person that committed the crime.

For example:

If I spread a false rumor that my neighbor is a child molester, and someone murders my neighbor, I should be held accountable for that murder.

That idea will keep half the wingnuts up at night!!!

Sounds reasonable to me. Although I am far left.

 

[gmeyers1944]

Is 1 crime more heinous than another just because it is motivated by "Hate"? I don't think so. Tell the family of a murder victim that their loss is not so bad because it was not motivated by hate. Evidence of hate can be useful as a motive, but should not be a crime in itself. Murder is murder period.

Could that be because so many White conservative nationalists are guilty of hate crimes and end up attacking people simply because of their race or their perceived sexual identity?

You must be joking! I am white, I am Conservative, I am a loyal American, and I don't hate anybody!

 

[Mustang]

Is 1 crime more heinous than another just because it is motivated by "Hate"? I don't think so. Tell the family of a murder victim that their loss is not so bad because it was not motivated by hate. Evidence of hate can be useful as a motive, but should not be a crime in itself. Murder is murder period.

Could that be because so many White conservative nationalists are guilty of hate crimes and end up attacking people simply because of their race or their perceived sexual identity?

You must be joking! I am white, I am Conservative, I am a loyal American, and I don't hate anybody!

I used the words, "so many," not the word, "all."

 

[Hum Dinger]

If anyone is motivated to commit a crime based on blatantly false and hateful information, the people that promoted and/or propagated that blatantly false and hateful information should be held equally accountable as the person that committed the crime.

For example:

If I spread a false rumor that my neighbor is a child molester, and someone murders my neighbor, I should be held accountable for that murder.

That idea will keep half the wingnuts up at night!!!

Will also curtail speech so we should never do it

Not worth the trade off

The key to why it could be workable is that the information would have to be 'blatantly false and hateful information '

For example:

If instead of spreading a false rumor that my neighbor was a child molester, I had found my neighbor listed on the federal database of sex offenders and told people, then if someone murdered that neighbor based on factual information, I would not be accountable for that murder.

 

[Juicin]

If anyone is motivated to commit a crime based on blatantly false and hateful information, the people that promoted and/or propagated that blatantly false and hateful information should be held equally accountable as the person that committed the crime.

For example:

If I spread a false rumor that my neighbor is a child molester, and someone murders my neighbor, I should be held accountable for that murder.

That idea will keep half the wingnuts up at night!!!

Will also curtail speech so we should never do it

Not worth the trade off

The key to why it could be workable is that the information would have to be 'blatantly false and hateful information '

For example:

If instead of spreading a false rumor that my neighbor was a child molester, I had found my neighbor listed on the federal database of sex offenders and told people, then if someone murdered that neighbor based on factual information, I would not be accountable for that murder.

No matter how finely you tailor it

Still going to be a huge curtailment of speech to avoid those suits. True and false is not as easy to prove as you seem to imagine it is in most things we care about.

So it would never be worth the trade off. Not enough people dying over false accusations to justify limiting the speech of 350 million americans