Thread: Free speech vs hate speech

Has anyone been charged with a hate crime yet?

Also, I wonder if it can be applied to people against illegal immigration.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Has anyone been charged with a hate crime yet?

Also, I wonder if it can be applied to people against illegal immigration.

Yes, they have.

Also, it depends on the country. Many countries, (and much probably the USA too) have in their legal protocols that illegal immigrants have little or no rights at all.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes, they have.

Also, it depends on the country. Many countries, (and much probably the USA too) have in their legal protocols that illegal immigrants have little or no rights at all.

Illegal immigrants not having rights doesn't matter. They don't have to press charges against someone for the court system to actively pursue putting someone on trial for a hate crime.

According to the Canadian definition of a hate crime, your actions must be directed towards an "identifiable group". "Illegal immigrants" in general don't constitute an identifiable group.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

According to the Canadian definition of a hate crime, your actions must be directed towards an "identifiable group". "Illegal immigrants" in general don't constitute an identifiable group.

Yes they do. But Canada is very open about immigration and different cultures, you know.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes they do. But Canada is very open about immigration and different cultures, you know.

"Illegal immigrant" is a legal status. An identifiable group is a group of people of a certain colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or health status.

For example, there are a lot of latino (an identifiable group) illegal immigrants in the USA, as well as many legal ones. Illegal immigrants could constitute a host of different identifiable groups, so as long as any groups aren't specifically singled out, it's not a hate crime.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

"Illegal immigrant" is a legal status. An identifiable group is a group of people of a certain colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or health status.

For example, there are a lot of latino (an identifiable group) illegal immigrants in the USA, as well as many legal ones. Illegal immigrants could constitute a host of different identifiable groups, so as long as any groups aren't specifically singled out, it's not a hate crime.

Depends. It is about perception. When people think illegal immigration, they think Mexican most of the time. Also another thought is what if someone hates all races equally? Does that constitute a hate crime? That is really a good question because on a technical basis, if it does constitute a hate crime, then illegal immigration would apply. If hating all races equally doesn't constitute a hate crime, then there is your get out of jail free card.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Depends. It is about perception. When people think illegal immigration, they think Mexican most of the time. Also another thought is what if someone hates all races equally? Does that constitute a hate crime? That is really a good question because on a technical basis, if it does constitute a hate crime, then illegal immigration would apply. If hating all races equally doesn't constitute a hate crime, then there is your get out of jail free card.

You would have to specify "Mexican" then for it to be a hate crime. If your actions are directed towards everyone equally, then it becomes terrorism or disturbing the peace.

The idea of hate crimes seems really screwed up. If somebody bashes somebody else's head in without justification or mitigation, then that person is scum and should be dealt with like scum, period. If it turns out that he did it because he hated the person's race, gender, or religion, should that really make any difference legally? He did what he did for an evil reason. Charging for hate beyond that point is charging for what amounts to a thought crime.

If I got attacked by some freak, I would be more offended if I found out that he did it just because he felt like attacking somebody than I would be if I found out he did it because I'm white. As stupid as that reason is, at least he had something to go on in thinking he was right for doing it. A person who can attack an innocent person without hating him is more cold blooded than a person who has to hate his victim.

Except that a person who specifically targets certain groups is more likely to gain followers and cause copycat or reprisal attacks. Hate crimes are crimes against society rather than individuals.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Except that a person who specifically targets certain groups is more likely to gain followers and cause copycat or reprisal attacks. Hate crimes are crimes against society rather than individuals.

What does the law change about that? Does it somehow make them less hateful?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What does the law change about that? Does it somehow make them less hateful?

I know that in Canadian law, if it can be proven that a crime was motivated by hate towards a group, it gives the judge justification for imposing a harsher penalty (up to the maximum allowable). It's not that simple though, there's a bunch of other factors to be taken into account.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I know that in Canadian law, if it can be proven that a crime was motivated by hate towards a group, it gives the judge justification for imposing a harsher penalty (up to the maximum allowable). It's not that simple though, there's a bunch of other factors to be taken into account.

But how does that make anybody less hateful?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But how does that make anybody less hateful?

I suppose it doesn't directly, it just stops people from acting on their hate. In any case that would be the first step to making people less hateful.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I suppose it doesn't directly, it just stops people from acting on their hate. In any case that would be the first step to making people less hateful.

The punishments they get for acting out do the trick equally on their own. Throwing in something about a hate factor does nothing.

EDIT: I was just messing around on YouTube, and I came across an Ann Coulter video from 2007. She is a slippery, dodgy, dishonest bitch in the video. It is ridiculous. I despise Chris Matthews, but he doesn't come close to standing out as the bigggest jackass in the clip. Ann Coulter is such a psychopath. I'm sure she majorly increased her book sales because of the segment, though.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The punishments they get for acting out do the trick equally on their own. Throwing in something about a hate factor does nothing.

It probably doesn't make a lot of difference for stuff like assault charges, but it allows people to be charged without having physically harmed others (the whole genocide/inciting hatred part).

Originally Posted by Spartiate

"Illegal immigrant" is a legal status. An identifiable group is a group of people of a certain colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or health status.

For example, there are a lot of latino (an identifiable group) illegal immigrants in the USA, as well as many legal ones. Illegal immigrants could constitute a host of different identifiable groups, so as long as any groups aren't specifically singled out, it's not a hate crime.

Nah. "Identifiable group" only means that the hate isn't directed randomly at different groups. Any human group there exists is an identifiable group. 'Housewives who cannot cook properly' is an identifiable group, and can have hate crimes directed at it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah. "Identifiable group" only means that the hate isn't directed randomly at different groups. Any human group there exists is an identifiable group. 'Housewives who cannot cook properly' is an identifiable group, and can have hate crimes directed at it.

I agree. Just because there's different races in a group, doesn't mean it's not a group. I mean, within Mexicans, there's tonnes of different identifiable groups. Housewives who cannot cook properly, Rich people, Drug dealers, Homeless people.... etc.

I knew there was something very wrong with what Spartiate said, but I couldn't explain it so thanks Kromoh.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But how does that make anybody less hateful?

Why does murder carry a harsher penalty than jaywalking? Targeting people because of their group affiliation and either attacking them or inciting attacks is a more reprehensible crime than simple assault, and more corrosive to society, hence more harshly punished. Once upon a time in this country (and to this day, in more than a few places), hate crimes were widely viewed as acceptable or even laudable, and carried out with the support of the justice system. Establishing in law that they are unacceptable does indeed get the message across to a few more people that "hate bad," eroding the network of tacit approval behind those who would commit hate crimes.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Why does murder carry a harsher penalty than jaywalking? Targeting people because of their group affiliation and either attacking them or inciting attacks is a more reprehensible crime than simple assault, and more corrosive to society, hence more harshly punished. Once upon a time in this country (and to this day, in more than a few places), hate crimes were widely viewed as acceptable or even laudable, and carried out with the support of the justice system. Establishing in law that they are unacceptable does indeed get the message across to a few more people that "hate bad," eroding the network of tacit approval behind those who would commit hate crimes.

Murder carries a harsher penalty because there is more of a need to deter it. You can't deter hate. It is not an action. It is an feeling. You can't successfully legislate and deter feelings. It only makes sense to legislate actions. Sending a message of "Hate... bad" does not make anybody less hateful.

Also...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The idea of hate crimes seems really screwed up. If somebody bashes somebody else's head in without justification or mitigation, then that person is scum and should be dealt with like scum, period. If it turns out that he did it because he hated the person's race, gender, or religion, should that really make any difference legally? He did what he did for an evil reason. Charging for hate beyond that point is charging for what amounts to a thought crime.

If I got attacked by some freak, I would be more offended if I found out that he did it just because he felt like attacking somebody than I would be if I found out he did it because I'm white. As stupid as that reason is, at least he had something to go on in thinking he was right for doing it. A person who can attack an innocent person without hating him is more cold blooded than a person who has to hate his victim.

Let's say you got shot and are lying on your death bed about to die in five minutes. Would you rather it be the case that you are about to die because you are a Democrat or because some asshole just felt like shooting somebody for the fun of it? Which involves a lower regard for human life?

I'm pretty sure nobody would care why they were shot, the fact that they were dying would surely be enough, regardless of the reason.

Hate crimes don't occur in a vacuum where the offender's views and actions are fixed from birth. Law can influence attitudes--it can't forcefully alter them to a desired state, but attaching the stigma of criminality to a behavior certainly changes how people perceive it. Maybe you can't deter hate in someone who currently has their mind set on dragging a <epithet> behind their truck, but you might have a shot at the six or twelve year old who sees that guy on the news, or a sixty-five year old who recognizes the stigma and opts not to make the statements that reinforce the worldview behind the sense of self-righteousness that lead the hater to strap someone to his truck.

Laws against hate crime don't just deter hate crime, they stigmatize and thereby reduce the societal attitudes that promote hate crime.

Originally Posted by imran_p

I'm pretty sure nobody would care why they were shot, the fact that they were dying would surely be enough, regardless of the reason.

Knowledge of your own death due to an attack does not make your anger over the attack go away. It increases it. You would be thinking really hard about why you are about to die if you were in that situation.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Hate crimes don't occur in a vacuum where the offender's views and actions are fixed from birth. Law can influence attitudes--it can't forcefully alter them to a desired state, but attaching the stigma of criminality to a behavior certainly changes how people perceive it. Maybe you can't deter hate in someone who currently has their mind set on dragging a <epithet> behind their truck, but you might have a shot at the six or twelve year old who sees that guy on the news, or a sixty-five year old who recognizes the stigma and opts not to make the statements that reinforce the worldview behind the sense of self-righteousness that lead the hater to strap someone to his truck.

Laws against hate crime don't just deter hate crime, they stigmatize and thereby reduce the societal attitudes that promote hate crime.

Teaching that hate is bad does the same thing. Making hate illegal doesn't add a thing. It just makes an emotion illegal, which is absurd.

What is your answer to my question about being shot? Which type of person has less regard for human life?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Teaching that hate is bad does the same thing. Making hate illegal doesn't add a thing. It just makes an emotion illegal, which is absurd.

You're missing the point UM. Hate isn't illegal. The emotion isn't illegal. They can't read your thoughts. It is illegal if you post a video on youtube saying "all <epithet> should die" and then go out and shoot a <epithet>.