Should Legislation Be Passed Making Overt Racism a Criminal Offense?

[Mac-7]

So, you want to look people up for holding the wrong opinions?

Exactly so

libs want to revoke free speech

 

[Correll]

So, you want to look people up for holding the wrong opinions?

Exactly so

libs want to revoke free speech

I've made the point that liberals obvoiusly hate us, and yet are angry that we don't support them politically.


Which really shows what delusional, and entitled assholes they are.


They generally claimed they did not hate us.


Now we see were they were headed all along. And we all knew it.


When will it stop being "loony" to call these people Marxists?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

Stupid question. Make racism a crime? Aside from the fact that racism is a totally SUBJECTIVE thing, a thing of PERCEPTION, it is an ATTITUDE. You really think we want to go down that road of following Canada in making it a crime if someone doesn't LIKE what they think you said or did? Or their belief in the INTENT? Much less criminalize what you think, choose to LIKE or DISLIKE? Punish you for attitudes and wrong thinking?

Why don't you just go suck George Orwell's dick and be done with it. This is trying to shift America 180° from what it was founded to be---- tolerance of differences and protection of those whom disagreed with you. Just flush America down the toilet of fascism and be done with it.

Apparently I have been giving you all far more credit than you've deserved since the legislation I mentioned already exists.

The potty mouth doesn't help your case at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

Fortunately the United States is a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy – in our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly.

And there is no greater threat to liberty than government deciding what is or is not hate speech and acting on capricious, subjective criteria as to what might manifest as hate speech.

I sniff a contradiction........
Rule of Law is written by men!

Whatever America’s faults and failings – and there are many – I’d still rather live in our Constitutional Republic where my rights and protected liberties are safeguarded by Constitutional case law, immune from attack by government, and not subject to the fear, ignorance, and stupidity of ‘majority rule' as in the UK.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here is an example of existing legislation

RCW 9A.36.078
Hate crime offenses—Finding.
The legislature finds that crimes and threats against persons because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disabilities are serious and increasing.

The legislature also finds that crimes and threats are often directed against interracial couples and their children or couples of mixed religions, colors, ancestries, or national origins because of bias and bigotry against the race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin of one person in the couple or family.

The legislature finds that the state interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors such as criminal trespass, malicious mischief, assault, or other crimes that are not motivated by hatred, bigotry, and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias.

Therefore, the legislature finds that protection of those citizens from threats of harm due to bias and bigotry is a compelling state interest.

The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member.

In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror.

Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust.

Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.

The legislature also finds that attacks on religious places of worship and threatening defacement of religious texts have increased, as have assaults and attacks on those who visibly self-identify as members of a religious minority, such as by wearing religious head covering or other visible articles of faith. The legislature finds that any person who defaces religious real property with derogatory words, symbols, or items, who places a vandalized or defaced religious item or scripture on the property of a victim, or who attacks or attempts to remove the religious garb or faith-based attire of a victim, knows or reasonably should know that such actions create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the victim.

The legislature also finds that a hate crime committed against a victim because of the victim's gender may be identified in the same manner that a hate crime committed against a victim of another protected group is identified. Affirmative indications of hatred towards gender as a class is the predominant factor to consider. Other factors to consider include the perpetrator's use of language, slurs, or symbols expressing hatred towards the victim's gender as a class; the severity of the attack including mutilation of the victim's sexual organs; a history of similar attacks against victims of the same gender by the perpetrator or a history of similar incidents in the same area; a lack of provocation; an absence of any other apparent motivation; and common sense.

The legislature recognizes that, since 2015, Washington state has experienced a sharp increase in malicious harassment offenses, and, in response, the legislature intends to rename the offense to its more commonly understood title of "hate crime offense" and create a multidisciplinary working group to establish recommendations for best practices for identifying and responding to hate crimes.

[ 2019 c 271 § 1; 1993 c 127 § 1.]

NOTES:
Severability—1993 c 127: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1993 c 127 § 7.]

“Here is an example of existing legislation”

Actually not.

This legislation doesn’t criminalize being a racist or engaging in hate speech; rather, it concerns criminal acts such as assault or vandalism motivated by hate, racism, or bigotry.

It is un-Constitutional to subject racists and bigots to criminal prosecution for no other reason than being racists and bigots, regardless how ‘overt’ that racism or bigotry might be.

Likewise, it is un-Constitutional to preempt hate speech as a matter of First Amendment jurisprudence, where ‘overt’ and ‘imminent lawlessness or violence’ are not the same – the latter not entitled to Constitutional protections.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So, you want to look people up for holding the wrong opinions?

Exactly so

libs want to revoke free speech

I've made the point that liberals obvoiusly hate us, and yet are angry that we don't support them politically.


Which really shows what delusional, and entitled assholes they are.


They generally claimed they did not hate us.


Now we see were they were headed all along. And we all knew it.


When will it stop being "loony" to call these people Marxists?

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level. I voted no. Hate crime laws are precursor to what was called "thought crimes" in the old George Orwell novel 1984 . When we begin legislating on what people can and cannot think, we are returning to what the colonists came here to get away from in the first place. What happens next? Will some ugly guy say that women who won't go out with him should be jailed because he thinks those women are haters?

Well thank you for at least letting me explain what I was trying to say. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with what anyone thinks, feels or believes, it's what they do but I will admit this was prompted by the 3 Wilmington North Carolina police officers who were fired for racist and violent comments they made while on the job.

The state of California has a certain category of defamatory offenses in which the harm caused by the defamation does not have to be proven, it's considered defamation per se.

In some states, libel can sometimes be charged as a crime and be punishable by a fine and jail time.

The categories of defamation per se are

• Charges any person with crime…;
• Imputes in a person the existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
• Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business…
• Imputes to a person impotence or a want of chastity; or
• Which, by natural consequence, causes damage

So I was wondering if something similar could be crafted along those lines with a similar concept. We know calling the police on people when the activity they were engaged in was not unlawful can be humiliating, traumatic, can result in lost wages or even a lost job which in turn can lead to late payments for housing or loss of housing, child care, etc.

I am aware that laws do not stop behavior however knowing that there is a pre-determined penalty or punishment for engaging in certain behaviors which causes harm to others that the targeted party can utilize may bring some sense of justice or move towards feeling whole again.

The opposition to legislation of this type is what I was wanting to hear mostly because from my perspective it could be helpful (for those targeted by racism, not for the racist, I can't believe I even have to say this).

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level.

Newsvine is a troll who starts a thread and then just sits back to watch the feathers fly

I asked a serious question to which he/she/it will never reply

Yeah calling me a troll simply because I'm not interested in engaging in conversation with you i

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

So, you want to look people up for holding the wrong opinions?


I knew you guys were working up to it.


It was annoying when libs pretended that PC was just about being polite, when it was obviously laying the ground work for tyranny.


How many people do you see imprisoning, if you get your way? How long will you imprison them? Until they recant?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The fact that you even asked this shows how truly fucked up you are as a person.

And your response indicates concern that you'd be adversely impacted by any such legislation (because you exhibit racist proclivitives).

No, that you want to lock people up for holding the wrong opinions, is all about something being wrong with you.


How long would you plan to imprison people for the crime of disagreeing with you?

 

[petro]

Why should we make any new crime laws? The leftists clearly want no police, so why would we create new legislation? Who is going to enforce this new law?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Here is an example of existing legislation

RCW 9A.36.078
Hate crime offenses—Finding.
The legislature finds that crimes and threats against persons because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disabilities are serious and increasing.

The legislature also finds that crimes and threats are often directed against interracial couples and their children or couples of mixed religions, colors, ancestries, or national origins because of bias and bigotry against the race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin of one person in the couple or family.

The legislature finds that the state interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors such as criminal trespass, malicious mischief, assault, or other crimes that are not motivated by hatred, bigotry, and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias.

Therefore, the legislature finds that protection of those citizens from threats of harm due to bias and bigotry is a compelling state interest.

The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member.

In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror.

Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust.

Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.

The legislature also finds that attacks on religious places of worship and threatening defacement of religious texts have increased, as have assaults and attacks on those who visibly self-identify as members of a religious minority, such as by wearing religious head covering or other visible articles of faith. The legislature finds that any person who defaces religious real property with derogatory words, symbols, or items, who places a vandalized or defaced religious item or scripture on the property of a victim, or who attacks or attempts to remove the religious garb or faith-based attire of a victim, knows or reasonably should know that such actions create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the victim.

The legislature also finds that a hate crime committed against a victim because of the victim's gender may be identified in the same manner that a hate crime committed against a victim of another protected group is identified. Affirmative indications of hatred towards gender as a class is the predominant factor to consider. Other factors to consider include the perpetrator's use of language, slurs, or symbols expressing hatred towards the victim's gender as a class; the severity of the attack including mutilation of the victim's sexual organs; a history of similar attacks against victims of the same gender by the perpetrator or a history of similar incidents in the same area; a lack of provocation; an absence of any other apparent motivation; and common sense.

The legislature recognizes that, since 2015, Washington state has experienced a sharp increase in malicious harassment offenses, and, in response, the legislature intends to rename the offense to its more commonly understood title of "hate crime offense" and create a multidisciplinary working group to establish recommendations for best practices for identifying and responding to hate crimes.

[ 2019 c 271 § 1; 1993 c 127 § 1.]

NOTES:
Severability—1993 c 127: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1993 c 127 § 7.]

“Here is an example of existing legislation”

Actually not.

This legislation doesn’t criminalize being a racist or engaging in hate speech; rather, it concerns criminal acts such as assault or vandalism motivated by hate, racism, or bigotry.

It is un-Constitutional to subject racists and bigots to criminal prosecution for no other reason than being racists and bigots, regardless how ‘overt’ that racism or bigotry might be.

Likewise, it is un-Constitutional to preempt hate speech as a matter of First Amendment jurisprudence, where ‘overt’ and ‘imminent lawlessness or violence’ are not the same – the latter not entitled to Constitutional protections.

So what's the difference between committing a crime of assault, vandalism etc. and committing them when motivated due to hatred or animosity due to the race or other protected class status? Or rather WHY is there a distinction made in the statute if there is no difference? By the way this law used to be entitled "Malicious Harassment".

And why is racism actionable but not prosecutable? Is it simply due to the 51% versus 98% threshold required to prevail?

 

[harmonica]

..a lot MORE blacks would be going to jail

 

[Vastator]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

No. Because I believe in individual Liberty. Nuff said...

 

[irosie91]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

So, you want to look people up for holding the wrong opinions?


I knew you guys were working up to it.


It was annoying when libs pretended that PC was just about being polite, when it was obviously laying the ground work for tyranny.


How many people do you see imprisoning, if you get your way? How long will you imprison them? Until they recant?

the OP is, very simply, seeking what it imagines is a USA legal way of
imposing its OWN SICK "CULTURE" upon all of the USA

 

[Desperado]

How would you define OVERT Racism?

 

[Vastator]

Here is an example of existing legislation

RCW 9A.36.078
Hate crime offenses—Finding.
The legislature finds that crimes and threats against persons because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disabilities are serious and increasing.

The legislature also finds that crimes and threats are often directed against interracial couples and their children or couples of mixed religions, colors, ancestries, or national origins because of bias and bigotry against the race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin of one person in the couple or family.

The legislature finds that the state interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors such as criminal trespass, malicious mischief, assault, or other crimes that are not motivated by hatred, bigotry, and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias.

Therefore, the legislature finds that protection of those citizens from threats of harm due to bias and bigotry is a compelling state interest.

The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member.

In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror.

Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust.

Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.

The legislature also finds that attacks on religious places of worship and threatening defacement of religious texts have increased, as have assaults and attacks on those who visibly self-identify as members of a religious minority, such as by wearing religious head covering or other visible articles of faith. The legislature finds that any person who defaces religious real property with derogatory words, symbols, or items, who places a vandalized or defaced religious item or scripture on the property of a victim, or who attacks or attempts to remove the religious garb or faith-based attire of a victim, knows or reasonably should know that such actions create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the victim.

The legislature also finds that a hate crime committed against a victim because of the victim's gender may be identified in the same manner that a hate crime committed against a victim of another protected group is identified. Affirmative indications of hatred towards gender as a class is the predominant factor to consider. Other factors to consider include the perpetrator's use of language, slurs, or symbols expressing hatred towards the victim's gender as a class; the severity of the attack including mutilation of the victim's sexual organs; a history of similar attacks against victims of the same gender by the perpetrator or a history of similar incidents in the same area; a lack of provocation; an absence of any other apparent motivation; and common sense.

The legislature recognizes that, since 2015, Washington state has experienced a sharp increase in malicious harassment offenses, and, in response, the legislature intends to rename the offense to its more commonly understood title of "hate crime offense" and create a multidisciplinary working group to establish recommendations for best practices for identifying and responding to hate crimes.

[ 2019 c 271 § 1; 1993 c 127 § 1.]

NOTES:
Severability—1993 c 127: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1993 c 127 § 7.]

“Here is an example of existing legislation”

Actually not.

This legislation doesn’t criminalize being a racist or engaging in hate speech; rather, it concerns criminal acts such as assault or vandalism motivated by hate, racism, or bigotry.

It is un-Constitutional to subject racists and bigots to criminal prosecution for no other reason than being racists and bigots, regardless how ‘overt’ that racism or bigotry might be.

Likewise, it is un-Constitutional to preempt hate speech as a matter of First Amendment jurisprudence, where ‘overt’ and ‘imminent lawlessness or violence’ are not the same – the latter not entitled to Constitutional protections.

So what's the difference between committing a crime of assault, vandalism etc. and committing them when motivated due to hatred or animosity due to the race or other protected class status? Or rather WHY is there a distinction made in the statute if there is no difference? By the way this law used to be entitled "Malicious Harassment".

And why is racism actionable but not prosecutable? Is it simply due to the 51% versus 98% threshold required to prevail?

“Hate Crimes” are unconstitutional. So are “protected” classes.

 

[Mac-7]

but I will admit this was prompted by the 3 Wilmington North Carolina police officers who were fired for racist and violent comments they made while on the job.

Being fired for opinions that your employer disagrees with is far different from serving hard time for exercising your first amendment right to free speech

 

[Mac-7]

Yeah calling me a troll simply because I'm not interested in engaging in conversation with you i

One the first thread you posted in the bullring you never engaged anyone

this time you have at least dipped your toe in the water

 

[Correll]

So, you want to look people up for holding the wrong opinions?

Exactly so

libs want to revoke free speech

I've made the point that liberals obvoiusly hate us, and yet are angry that we don't support them politically.


Which really shows what delusional, and entitled assholes they are.


They generally claimed they did not hate us.


Now we see were they were headed all along. And we all knew it.


When will it stop being "loony" to call these people Marxists?

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level. I voted no. Hate crime laws are precursor to what was called "thought crimes" in the old George Orwell novel 1984 . When we begin legislating on what people can and cannot think, we are returning to what the colonists came here to get away from in the first place. What happens next? Will some ugly guy say that women who won't go out with him should be jailed because he thinks those women are haters?

Well thank you for at least letting me explain what I was trying to say. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with what anyone thinks, feels or believes, it's what they do but I will admit this was prompted by the 3 Wilmington North Carolina police officers who were fired for racist and violent comments they made while on the job.

The state of California has a certain category of defamatory offenses in which the harm caused by the defamation does not have to be proven, it's considered defamation per se.

In some states, libel can sometimes be charged as a crime and be punishable by a fine and jail time.

The categories of defamation per se are

• Charges any person with crime…;
• Imputes in a person the existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
• Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business…
• Imputes to a person impotence or a want of chastity; or
• Which, by natural consequence, causes damage

So I was wondering if something similar could be crafted along those lines with a similar concept. We know calling the police on people when the activity they were engaged in was not unlawful can be humiliating, traumatic, can result in lost wages or even a lost job which in turn can lead to late payments for housing or loss of housing, child care, etc.

I am aware that laws do not stop behavior however knowing that there is a pre-determined penalty or punishment for engaging in certain behaviors which causes harm to others that the targeted party can utilize may bring some sense of justice or move towards feeling whole again.

The opposition to legislation of this type is what I was wanting to hear mostly because from my perspective it could be helpful (for those targeted by racism, not for the racist, I can't believe I even have to say this).

How long in jail for holding the wrong opinion?

 

[Mac1958]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually.

Absolutely not.

Look at this board. Between the flat-out racists and those who blatantly cover for it -- enablers of racism -- we have a very clear picture of who we need to be aware of, and who agrees with them. And that demonstrates for us, loud and clear, how much work still needs to be done.

Make these ignorant, paranoid mouth-breathers go underground and it gets tougher, and we still haven't solved the root problem. And we'll almost certainly make it worse by making them even MORE feral.

Thank goodness for freedom of expression. Let the cockroaches shine the light on themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.