• 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?


  • Total voters
    23
Membership or paraphrenalia. It's federal law and thus does not vary by state. The crime requires organizational involvement, and it requires that there is no other motive. It's basically anti-terrorism law.

Okay, you bastard. Now I have to go look at the text of the federal law.

Lemme see.....

18 USC § 249 - Hate crime acts | LII / Legal Information Institute

Nope. No group membership is required for a conviction.

And yes, there are state laws as well.
 
Okay, you bastard. Now I have to go look at the text of the federal law.

Lemme see.....

18 USC § 249 - Hate crime acts | LII / Legal Information Institute

Nope. No group membership is required for a conviction.

And yes, there are state laws as well.

Read more closely. I'm not gonna argue with you about it any more. Those determined to misconstrue US federal hate crime law will ignore anything to tout the "it creates protected classes!" and "thoughts are not a crime!"; nothing new.
 
Hate Crime enhancements shouldn't exist in the first place.
 
Hate Crime enhancements shouldn't exist in the first place.

Hate crime is simply a way of establishing motive, just like "premeditated murder" or "accidental homicide." It helps us figure out the severity of the threat posed by the person who committed the crime to society.

I am pretty sure that nothing that falls under hate crime laws wouldn't still be a crime even if it weren't committed out of hate. So what is so bad about having hate as a recognized motive?
 
Hate crime is simply a way of establishing motive, just like "premeditated murder" or "accidental homicide." It helps us figure out the severity of the threat posed by the person who committed the crime to society.

I am pretty sure that nothing that falls under hate crime laws wouldn't still be a crime even if it weren't committed out of hate. So what is so bad about having hate as a recognized motive?

Well it seems to me that we ALREADY have those designations. More laws, more policing, more jail time, more government.
 
Read more closely. I'm not gonna argue with you about it any more. Those determined to misconstrue US federal hate crime law will ignore anything to tout the "it creates protected classes!" and "thoughts are not a crime!"; nothing new.

I'm not the one asserting that membership in a hate group is an element of this kind of crime.

You can show me what you are relying on, and I'll look, but eco, I'm 100% comfortable that you are incorrect on this point.
 
Hate crime is simply a way of establishing motive, just like "premeditated murder" or "accidental homicide." It helps us figure out the severity of the threat posed by the person who committed the crime to society.

I am pretty sure that nothing that falls under hate crime laws wouldn't still be a crime even if it weren't committed out of hate. So what is so bad about having hate as a recognized motive?

The problem with hate as the established motive and means (remember, organizational involvement is required) is that the crime moves from the realm of the personal and into the realm of societal. When the crime is organized and committed against a target based on race, gender, etc then we are talking about a whole nother set of impacts. When someone kills someone due to personal reasons, it does not affect society the same as organized terrorism; the implications for society of terrorism are much greater than those of individual crimes.

Organized acts of targetting individuals based on sex/gender/race/etc carry considerably more societal implications. It is a more heinous and potentially dangerous act (for society) than simple murder.
 
Hate crime is simply a way of establishing motive, just like "premeditated murder" or "accidental homicide." It helps us figure out the severity of the threat posed by the person who committed the crime to society.

I am pretty sure that nothing that falls under hate crime laws wouldn't still be a crime even if it weren't committed out of hate. So what is so bad about having hate as a recognized motive?

This is true, except that a hate crime can give the feds jurisdiction they don't otherwise have and that a person convicted of one such typically faces a much harsher penalty.

But yes -- nothing is criminalized under any hate crime law that wasn't already a crime.
 
Well it seems to me that we ALREADY have those designations. More laws, more policing, more jail time, more government.

But, is a crime committed against someone simply because of their race or religion more heinous than a crime committed simply out of greed?
 
The problem with hate as the established motive and means (remember, organizational involvement is required) is that the crime moves from the realm of the personal and into the realm of societal. When the crime is organized and committed against a target based on race, gender, etc then we are talking about a whole nother set of impacts. When someone kills someone due to personal reasons, it does not affect society the same as organized terrorism; the implications for society of terrorism are much greater than those of individual crimes.

Organized acts of targetting individuals based on sex/gender/race/etc carries considerably more societal implications. It is a more heinous and potentially dangerous act than simple murder.

Eco, this might be a Patriot Act type criminal statute, but it isn't the Matthew Shepard Act.
 
But, is a crime committed against someone simply because of their race or religion more heinous than a crime committed simply out of greed?

Yes, because when a victim is chosen at random for nothing other than their race, etc., the community of similarly-situated people is frightened.

I personally oppose hate crime laws because I think they have a bad effect on justice -- they have unintended consequences. But I certainly acknowledge the evil they are meant to address.
 
I'm not the one asserting that membership in a hate group is an element of this kind of crime.

You can show me what you are relying on, and I'll look, but eco, I'm 100% comfortable that you are incorrect on this point.

You know the citation you posted? Well, I've read it several times and taken notes. I didn't just google and skim it right now.

Edit: actually, I read the legislation itself, not that write-up.
 
Last edited:
But, is a crime committed against someone simply because of their race or religion more heinous than a crime committed simply out of greed?

What matters is the infringement of the rights and liberties of an individual by another. Planning out a murder for greed is the same as planning out a murder for hate or planning out a murder for randomness.
 
Yes, because when a victim is chosen at random for nothing other than their race, etc., the community of similarly-situated people is frightened.

I personally oppose hate crime laws because I think they have a bad effect on justice -- they have unintended consequences. But I certainly acknowledge the evil they are meant to address.

Hate crime laws have a certain burden of proof, however. In order to be labelled a hate crime, the crime must be proved to be motivated by someones gender, race, religion, etc.
 
I'm providing the inciting incident. Of course, I'm also promising to pay, but that is also speech.

If you paid for the act I could see an argument being made for an accessory to murder case, but this just appears to be some kind of conspiracy to commit murder. Is that actually a harm though? I'm not saying that is how the courts will see it because I know they will not, but still, is it?
 
Last edited:
Hate crime laws have a certain burden of proof, however. In order to be labelled a hate crime, the crime must be proved to be motivated by someones gender, race, religion, etc.

I hate all humans, if I kill anyone does that make it a hate crime?
 
What matters is the infringement of the rights and liberties of an individual by another. Planning out a murder for greed is the same as planning out a murder for hate or planning out a murder for randomness.

But, if there's a distinction between premeditated murder and murder which occurred "in the moment", why should there not be a distinction such as the hate crime?

Using your reasoning, it shouldn't matter whether a murder was premeditated or not, but what matters in the infringement of the rights and liberties of an individual by another.
 
Btw, the hate crime business only serves to treat people differently because of race, gender, etc. It does nothing else.
 
But, if there's a distinction between premeditated murder and murder which occurred "in the moment", why should there not be a distinction such as the hate crime?

Using your reasoning, it shouldn't matter whether a murder was premeditated or not, but what matters in the infringement of the rights and liberties of an individual by another.

Because premeditation is premeditation. It shouldn't matter for what reason I premeditated a murder, only that I did so and carried it out.
 
Every example listed is protected under the first amendment

Lets review it again..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There you go.


Excellent.

this thread needs no more replies after this.
 
Because premeditation is premeditation. It shouldn't matter for what reason I premeditated a murder, only that I did so and carried it out.

Of all crimes, hate crimes are most likely to create or exacerbate tensions, which can trigger larger community-wide racial conflict, civil disturbances, and even riots. Hate crimes put cities and towns at-risk of serious social and economic consequences. The immediate costs of racial conflicts and civil disturbances are police, fire, and medical personnel overtime, injury or death, business and residential property loss, and damage to vehicles and equipment. Long-term recovery is hindered by a decline in property values, which results in lower tax revenues, scarcity of funds for rebuilding, and increased insurance rates. Businesses and residents abandon these neighborhoods, leaving empty buildings to attract crime, and the quality of schools decline due to the loss of tax revenue. A municipality may have no choice but to cut services or raise taxes or leave the area in its post-riot condition until market forces of supply and demand rebuild the area.

Hate Crime
 

Tell it to Detroit. Hate Crime legislation does nothing to address the concerns you listed. If hate crime in and of itself is the source of these things, as your quote suggests, hate crime legislation cannot prevent it. Laws will not prevent crime, and with something on the level of hate crimes (which are typically emotional affairs), they will still happen and thus we should still realize the consequences listed in your quote. All you're doing is taking on additional punishment for a crime that was already a crime in the first place.

On many level people will react illogically, but that reaction should not pervert justice. Punishment must properly reflect crime. Premeditation is premeditation. You've taken the time to think about and plan taking the life or assaulting another.
 
You know the citation you posted? Well, I've read it several times and taken notes. I didn't just google and skim it right now.

Edit: actually, I read the legislation itself, not that write-up.

That is the law. Cornell's a pretty reliable site.
 
Back
Top Bottom