• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The First Amendment

Are there any examples of free speech that you believe fall under restrictions?

  • Screaming fire and guns in a crowded auditorium/theater/church etc

    Votes: 22 95.7%

  • Not acting on it yet making a film about the joys of children sexuality

    Votes: 8 34.8%

  • Writing or speaking reasons why one might want to shoot or kill a candidate running for POTUS

    Votes: 8 34.8%

  • Speaking inflammatory words to a culture where our troops and tax revenues are invested

    Votes: 3 13.0%

  • Media produced inciting hatred while troops/citizens in that culturein order to incite violence

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Protesting military funerals by taunting the fallen as our pay back for not being perfect

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Making a film or writing a book about that denigrates women as not worthy except for sex services

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Distributing a film in a country where our troops are stationed saying they represent Satan

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • Loudly bellowing sexual, political, and religious insults

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Intentionally speaking of unproven deviant sexual inuendo of another to their community

    Votes: 8 34.8%
  • Total voters
    23
Pinkie said:
Various justifications have been advanced. Deterrence for the violent haters among us. Avoiding the agony of a subgroup when one of their members has been brutally and randomly murdered or assaulted. Reducing the incidence of civil unrest over racial or other divisions. Punishing more drastically those crimes we find most morally repugnant.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if hate crime legislation lows racial divisions or unrest, but I'm inclined to say it does the opposite. Still, I don't find much use in this idea of reducing agony by the use of punishments as it hasn't shown to do much towards those ends.

You think motive is irrelevant? Tell that to anyone who's been acquitted on self-defense grounds.
Click to expand...

Not entirely, but to a large extent, yes.
 
Pinkie said:
O, the Patriot Act? That's a legitimate concern, I agree.
Click to expand...

Gross expansion of government power is always a legitimate concern. Government doesn't give up power, it takes it. When you allow it to grasp new power, it encourages it to do so more often. Government is to be limited, it must be limited. Quite frankly, we already had the laws in place to punish these offenses. The infringement of rights by another party is never anything to take lightly. But the government does not need more ammunition, we had enough prior.
 
Pinkie said:
They are taken into account -- I don't know whaca mean here, dear.
Click to expand...

They are, but they are taken into account incorrectly is my point. It is clear if we think of it there is no harm even attempted by planning and should therefore have no punishment, but we give it a punishment all the same. Just like in the case of words, there is no harm from words but we treat it as if there is.

Oh and you should be aware I'm not phased by being called an extremist. :p
 
Henrin said:
They are, but they are taken into account incorrectly is my point. It is clear if we think of it there is no harm even attempted by planning and should therefore have no punishment, but we give it a punishment all the same. Just like in the case of words, there is no harm from words but we treat it as if there is.

Oh and you should be aware I'm not phased by being called an extremist. :p
Click to expand...

I don't think you are an extremist. I think you enjoy taking an extreme position in this thread, which is fine -- it's even commendable.

If a conspiracy never achieves its goal because the conspirators called it off, there is no charge. That's called renunciation.

If they try and fail, that's a crime.

However, apart from a conspiracy against the president, there's no crime if none of the conspirators takes at least one actual step in furtherance of the conspiracy.

There are a vast array of crimes, like solicitation to murder, attempted bribery, espionage, etc. that can be committed entirely by speaking or writing.

I'm not sure what value you see in decriminalizing any of them, but I'm all ears.

 
Ikari said:
Gross expansion of government power is always a legitimate concern. Government doesn't give up power, it takes it. When you allow it to grasp new power, it encourages it to do so more often. Government is to be limited, it must be limited. Quite frankly, we already had the laws in place to punish these offenses. The infringement of rights by another party is never anything to take lightly. But the government does not need more ammunition, we had enough prior.
Click to expand...

If we're talking about the Patriot Act, I agree (in part).

If we're still talking about hate crimes, I don't happen to agree that this is a valid criticism. I agree with you about the nature of government, but I disagree that imposing stricter sentences for some crimes represents the kind of expansion of government power that I worry about.

We tinker with sentencing laws all the time -- three strike laws are an example. I might think they are unwise, but not as a "grab for power by the government".
 
You may not worry about it, though it doesn't mean that it's not an actual concern. I see hate crime extensions as nothing more than excessive punishment for an unpopular crime. There are a few crimes which I feel we allow ourselves to forgo reason and logic and extend government force and punishment.

As for three-strikes and other automatic sentencing; there should not be one single automatic sentencing crime in the USA. We have judges for a reason.
 
Henrin said:
Planning an act on someones life and failing at it when you actually try to pull it off are different things.
Click to expand...

But I don't see the harm in attempting to kill someone and failing!
 
Ikari said:
Well it seems to me that we ALREADY have those designations. More laws, more policing, more jail time, more government.
Click to expand...

No, we don't. A hate motive is distinctly different from any other kind of motive. Not necessarily better or worse; just different.

How is it "more government?" Any crime that could have a hate motive is STILL a crime even if you didn't commit it out of hate. You're going to jail either way.
 
Some studies have indicated that assaults motivated by hatred are more violent, and more likely to result in serious injury to the victim, than other types of assaults. That is particularly so with respect to victims in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Studies have also shown that most hate crimes are carried out by persons who do not know their victim, and that the victims are selected based on how they are perceived rather than something they said or did. The arbitrary manner in which victims are targeted in hate crimes can be profoundly unsettling, because victims can do nothing to change their appearance or how their characteristics are perceived by others.

Hate crimes also have a much broader impact within communities than many other types of violent crimes or property crimes. Because they are motivated by bias, hate crimes are often intended to, and do, send a broader message of violent intolerance toward a broad class of persons. Like terrorist incidents, the “message” aspect of the offender’s motive can be profoundly threatening to people far removed from the actual scene of the crime. The fact that the victims of such crimes are selected based on characteristics such as their race or religion can cause all those in the community who share that characteristic to experience similar feelings of vulnerability and secondary victimization. In its impact on the community, the fear of becoming a victim of violence can be nearly as debilitating as suffering through an actual crime. The message of intolerance that is communicated through a hate crime can have broadly disruptive social effects as well, and can lead to greater distrust of law enforcement or friction between racial or religious communities.

Investigating and prosecuting hate crimes is a challenge. Victims are often afraid to come forward or lack the confidence that law enforcement will vigorously pursue the offenders. Some victims are reluctant to acknowledge their sexual orientation or immigration status to law enforcement. There may be cultural or linguistic impediments to effective cooperation with law enforcement. Because establishing motive is a key aspect to proving the crime, investigations often must range far beyond the criminal act itself to locate evidence relevant to the defendant’s state of mind before and during the crime.
Click to expand...

USDOJ: Executive Office for United States Attorneys

I don't get how people can manage to not understand the above quote.


I still remember quoting statutes that specifically required the exclusion of other motive and possession of paraphrenalia or membership. But I have not located the prosecutorial requirements, perhaps in Byrd.
 
Last edited:
The arbitrary manner in which victims are targeted in hate crimes can be profoundly unsettling, because victims can do nothing to change their appearance or how their characteristics are perceived by others.
Click to expand...

Citation above.

The bold part means gender. Be it old, young, black, white, gay, straight, Christian or Muslim, targetting based on gender is terrorism. Does this mean pedo is terrorism? I think so.
 
ecofarm said:
Citation above.

The bold part means gender. Be it old, young, black, white, gay, straight, Christian or Muslim, targetting based on gender is terrorism. Does this mean pedo is terrorism? I think so.
Click to expand...

Pedophiles aren't trying to send a message. They get more pleasure out of their victims being children. Terrorists pick targets based on hate or political motives. Pedos, like rapists in general, pick targets based on vulnerability. Reasons why terrorists target who and what they do are more complex. Pedophiles pick targets based on a gut enjoyment of it, and the powerlessness of the victim.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, we don't. A hate motive is distinctly different from any other kind of motive. Not necessarily better or worse; just different.

How is it "more government?" Any crime that could have a hate motive is STILL a crime even if you didn't commit it out of hate. You're going to jail either way.
Click to expand...

It is not distinctly different, in fact it's the same as any other irrational hate. It doesn't matter if you hate an individual because he's black or because she's your ex-wife and she took the kids so that bitch is going to pay! It's the same thing. Irrational hate that leads to planned violence. That's the true source, not some feigned "OMG hating because of color is so much worse than hating because of any other set of random circumstances!".
 
Ikari said:
It is not distinctly different, in fact it's the same as any other irrational hate. It doesn't matter if you hate an individual because he's black or because she's your ex-wife and she took the kids so that bitch is going to pay! It's the same thing. Irrational hate that leads to planned violence. That's the true source, not some feigned "OMG hating because of color is so much worse than hating because of any other set of random circumstances!".
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. If you hate an individual for your personal interactions with them, your hate ends at that person. You may be a generally volatile person, but you aren't a risk to anyone in particular.

If you hate an entire race, you pose a threat to anyone else of that race you meet.

How that person may be rehabilitated looks very different from someone who committed a crime of passion. What sort of risk they pose to society is also very different.

No one ever said anything about "worse." What I said is "different." Different motive, different rehabilitation, different risk.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, it isn't. If you hate an individual for your personal interactions with them, your hate ends at that person. You may be a generally volatile person, but you aren't a risk to anyone in particular.

If you hate an entire race, you pose a threat to anyone else of that race you meet.
Click to expand...

If they assault the entire race, maybe. But these crimes are against INDIVIDUALS and thus, on the individual basis it stands. Let me know when they can assault all black people, and maybe I'll agree that hating on race is worse. But since hating on race makes a person lash out against another person, the reason for that is similar to other premeditated reasons for lashing out against anyone else.

You cannot punish people for crimes they have not committed, not justly. And thus when you look at any of these cases its a case of individual vs individual. You cannot prosecute them for society's ills.

SmokeAndMirrors said:
How that person may be rehabilitated looks very different from someone who committed a crime of passion. What sort of risk they pose to society is also very different.

No one ever said anything about "worse." What I said is "different." Different motive, different rehabilitation, different risk.
Click to expand...

Prison is not so much rehabilitation as much as it is punishment, though it is oft wise to inject rehabilitation programs into the jail. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. You do want a new crime, you want Hate Crime. It didn't exist before, it extends punishments because you think their crime, similar to so many others, is so much worse because it was done because of race or whatever all our protected classes are these days. Prison isn't about minimizing Society's risks per say, it's to punish individuals who have infringed upon the rights of others; it's for the individual. And while it has aggregate effects for society, it doesn't mean that just because you think a crime is worse that it's then OK to extend punishments on it.

In the end you base this decision on this assumption that it's more dangerous because their hate doesn't end at some specific individual (even though their crime will have) and thus they are more dangerous and deserve to be locked up longer. But while that may be statistically true, it cannot be held to the individual. You don't have a crystal ball, you don't know the future, and you do not know if that individual will commit another crime. Yet you are increasing punishments as if it's a forgone conclusion that he will. Improper justice, improper use of government force, improper expansion of crime.
 
Ikari said:
If they assault the entire race, maybe. But these crimes are against INDIVIDUALS and thus, on the individual basis it stands. Let me know when they can assault all black people, and maybe I'll agree that hating on race is worse. But since hating on race makes a person lash out against another person, the reason for that is similar to other premeditated reasons for lashing out against anyone else.

You cannot punish people for crimes they have not committed, not justly. And thus when you look at any of these cases its a case of individual vs individual. You cannot prosecute them for society's ills.
Click to expand...

Danger to society is based on likelihood of the person committing a similar crime again. If all it takes is a superficial aspect to trigger them to commit a crime, they obviously that represents a unique kind of threat. Worse than some, better than others, but unique, and thus a good reason to declare hate as a motive.

Prison is not so much rehabilitation as much as it is punishment, though it is oft wise to inject rehabilitation programs into the jail. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. You do want a new crime, you want Hate Crime. It didn't exist before, it extends punishments because you think their crime, similar to so many others, is so much worse because it was done because of race or whatever all our protected classes are these days. Prison isn't about minimizing Society's risks per say, it's to punish individuals who have infringed upon the rights of others; it's for the individual. And while it has aggregate effects for society, it doesn't mean that just because you think a crime is worse that it's then OK to extend punishments on it.

In the end you base this decision on this assumption that it's more dangerous because their hate doesn't end at some specific individual (even though their crime will have) and thus they are more dangerous and deserve to be locked up longer. But while that may be statistically true, it cannot be held to the individual. You don't have a crystal ball, you don't know the future, and you do not know if that individual will commit another crime. Yet you are increasing punishments as if it's a forgone conclusion that he will. Improper justice, improper use of government force, improper expansion of crime.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. Nowhere have I advocated for making more things crimes. Nowhere have I said that we should increase punishments.

You are simply inventing BS strawmen to knock down as you go, and it has nothing to do with anything I've actually said.
 
All that the good people have now in the good old US of A are the Patriots acts and the NDAA.

US constitution and bill of rights are currently suspended

Remember you have to fight an imaginary enemy FOREVER and ever

The corpocracy will protect you.

Thats what NAZI Germany told its people too in the 1930s and during WW2

Good luck folks!
 
I only voted for the theater example and the sexual slander example. The reasons being that those are the two examples where you can find a causal link between speech and immediate and intended harm. In the case of the theater your lies were intended in the immediate sense to cause chaos, disruption, and physical harm even then however I think the person should only be held and charged if damage or harm occurred, otherwise simply eject them. I was much more strained on the slander and libel example, but I think that the current regimen we have is very tight and good. You have to prove that the lie being told is causing in a very direct causal way, real harm to yourself or your livelihood.
 
Sherman123 said:
I only voted for the theater example and the sexual slander example. The reasons being that those are the two examples where you can find a causal link between speech and immediate and intended harm. In the case of the theater your lies were intended in the immediate sense to cause chaos, disruption, and physical harm even then however I think the person should only be held and charged if damage or harm occurred, otherwise simply eject them. I was much more strained on the slander and libel example, but I think that the current regimen we have is very tight and good. You have to prove that the lie being told is causing in a very direct causal way, real harm to yourself or your livelihood.
Click to expand...

I dont believe any example of speach should be procecuted crimanaly. Even perjury. That does not in no way exempt it from cival suit just criminal.

If some one yells fire in a crowded theater, shouldnt your first response be "Where?"

Sexual slander is heanous. Especially if the slander is of nature suggesting unlawfull acts. IE rape ext. However people gosip. That is what this would be unless PROVEN.

I didnt vote, because there is no box for NOT AT ALL.
 
MadLib said:
But I don't see the harm in attempting to kill someone and failing!
Click to expand...

If no harm was caused then it should not be a crime. If you say discharged your firearm in the attempt, you should be charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Danger to society is based on likelihood of the person committing a similar crime again. If all it takes is a superficial aspect to trigger them to commit a crime, they obviously that represents a unique kind of threat. Worse than some, better than others, but unique, and thus a good reason to declare hate as a motive.
Click to expand...

You cannot punish somebody for a probability.

SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, I don't. Nowhere have I advocated for making more things crimes. Nowhere have I said that we should increase punishments.

You are simply inventing BS strawmen to knock down as you go, and it has nothing to do with anything I've actually said.
Click to expand...

Hate crime is new crime. It is used to extend punishments. That's the functional reality. You can not like reality, you can deny reality, but you cannot change reality. So make the choice.
 
PirateMk1 said:
If no harm was caused then it should not be a crime. If you say discharged your firearm in the attempt, you should be charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm.
Click to expand...

You're first sentence doesn't match up with your second sentence. First you say then if no harm was done, it should not be a crime. Discharging your firearm in an attemptto harm someone doesn't actually harm them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom