"Emos" now protected by "hate crime" laws

[Kirkland Laing]

You know what this is Lyle, son't you? It's discrimination! Because you're not part of a minority you're being discriminated against. Again! It's just the latest case of a litany of endless discrimination against white Christian folks, especially white Christian males. You guys have had everything against you for centuries now. Blacks, gays and other "persecuted minorities" like emos should walk a mile in your shoes so they can really understand what it's like to be the victim of discrimination and prejudice.

So these laws are about reparations then? Its about learning what its like to be a minority AFTER someone has attacked or killed them....brilliant as always

Also with this new law I can just up and decide to be punk/emo/goth ...I am wearing black today

No, they're about trying to protect people from being picked on, and in some cases killed, by ignorant dumb-as-shit members of the majority.

[El Kabong]

No, they're about trying to protect people from being picked on, and in some cases killed, by ignorant dumb-as-shit members of the majority.

So prior laws did not protect those classes of people then? Murder, assault, those things just didn't cover minorities?


Damn...we could have all been out killing emos....FUCK! We fucking missed our golden opportunity!!!

[Andre]

No, they're about trying to protect people from being picked on, and in some cases killed, by ignorant dumb-as-shit members of the majority.

So prior laws did not protect those classes of people then? Murder, assault, those things just didn't cover minorities?


Damn...we could have all been out killing emos....FUCK! We fucking missed our golden opportunity!!!

We could have an open season.

[TitoFan]

"A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech."


Got this out of Wikipedia, 'cause I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding hate crime laws. Let me make the disclaimer that I'm not looking for confrontation on the matter with this post, but rather try and throw some objectiveness into the subject.

Note that hate crime laws look to "enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws." So basically what I take this to mean is that, yeah... murder is murder. But intent is taken into account.

If a white man murders a black man, it's not automatically considered a hate crime. That would be ludicrous. But.... if a white supremacist gang goes out and lynches a black man... that is a hate crime. It's motivated by hate based solely on race. If there was a militant black group, and these people went out and killed a white person.... I would imagine the same thing would apply. If not, then the law is flawed.

I'm not defending the laws as they are now. I'm sure they could be improved and are probably very flawed. But hate based on race, ethnicity or religion is very wrong... and lawmakers can't be blamed for wanting to legislate to make penalties tougher.

[VictorCharlie]

"A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech."


Got this out of Wikipedia, 'cause I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding hate crime laws. Let me make the disclaimer that I'm not looking for confrontation on the matter with this post, but rather try and throw some objectiveness into the subject.

Note that hate crime laws look to "enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws." So basically what I take this to mean is that, yeah... murder is murder. But intent is taken into account.

If a white man murders a black man, it's not automatically considered a hate crime. That would be ludicrous. But.... if a white supremacist gang goes out and lynches a black man... that is a hate crime. It's motivated by hate based solely on race. If there was a militant black group, and these people went out and killed a white person.... I would imagine the same thing would apply. If not, then the law is flawed.

I'm not defending the laws as they are now. I'm sure they could be improved and are probably very flawed. But hate based on race, ethnicity or religion is very wrong... and lawmakers can't be blamed for wanting to legislate to make penalties tougher.

This is not the case. White people are not a protected class and cannot legally be a victim of a federal hate crime (not sure about individual state laws). I actually didn't know this until last year when having a similar conversation with a FBI agent. These laws are not about protecting anyone but rather a knee jerk reaction by politicians to pander for votes by showing they did "something". While I don't 100% agree with some of Lyle's posts on this thread or his style I think we can all agree that one has the right to be outraged that their nation enacts laws that put the well being of some groups over others. Giving what already are felony offenses steeper penalties has not shown to be a deterrent. People willing to commit assault, rape and murder don't usually stop to consider that instead of one life sentence they might get two. The laws also have the potential to have serious 1st amendment issues by 1) Like other hate crime statutes, the law (2009 federal law) imposes extra punishment based on defendants' beliefs, and 2) it could be used as an excuse to investigate and/or prosecute people for aiding and abetting hate crimes through provocative speech. So in the end we get laws that don't produce a marked decrease in crime, pose Constitutional issues and create more racial divisiveness through unequal protection. If the goal is equality then we shouldn't legislate otherwise.

GB, I would agree intent and other circumstances should be involved in the sentencing but I'd prefer judges and juries weigh these issues on a case by case basis rather than a law that takes the decision making out of their hands.

[TitoFan]

"A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech."


Got this out of Wikipedia, 'cause I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding hate crime laws. Let me make the disclaimer that I'm not looking for confrontation on the matter with this post, but rather try and throw some objectiveness into the subject.

Note that hate crime laws look to "enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws." So basically what I take this to mean is that, yeah... murder is murder. But intent is taken into account.

If a white man murders a black man, it's not automatically considered a hate crime. That would be ludicrous. But.... if a white supremacist gang goes out and lynches a black man... that is a hate crime. It's motivated by hate based solely on race. If there was a militant black group, and these people went out and killed a white person.... I would imagine the same thing would apply. If not, then the law is flawed.

I'm not defending the laws as they are now. I'm sure they could be improved and are probably very flawed. But hate based on race, ethnicity or religion is very wrong... and lawmakers can't be blamed for wanting to legislate to make penalties tougher.

This is not the case. White people are not a protected class and cannot legally be a victim of a federal hate crime (not sure about individual state laws). I actually didn't know this until last year when having a similar conversation with a FBI agent. These laws are not about protecting anyone but rather a knee jerk reaction by politicians to pander for votes by showing they did "something". While I don't 100% agree with some of Lyle's posts on this thread or his style I think we can all agree that one has the right to be outraged that their nation enacts laws that put the well being of some groups over others. Giving what already are felony offenses steeper penalties has not shown to be a deterrent. People willing to commit assault, rape and murder don't usually stop to consider that instead of one life sentence they might get two. The laws also have the potential to have serious 1st amendment issues by 1) Like other hate crime statutes, the law (2009 federal law) imposes extra punishment based on defendants' beliefs, and 2) it could be used as an excuse to investigate and/or prosecute people for aiding and abetting hate crimes through provocative speech. So in the end we get laws that don't produce a marked decrease in crime, pose Constitutional issues and create more racial divisiveness through unequal protection. If the goal is equality then we shouldn't legislate otherwise.

GB, I would agree intent and other circumstances should be involved in the sentencing but I'd prefer judges and juries weigh these issues on a case by case basis rather than a law that takes the decision making out of their hands.

Ok then, if white people are excluded from protection under hate crime laws, then yes... the laws are seriously flawed and people like Lyle have a right to be outraged. And yes again... lawmakers who make laws solely to pander for votes without the slightest concern for the people, are doing more harm than good. I have no issues with anything you said in your post.

Having said that, hate crimes and hate speech are serious issues in an already decaying society. Haters grab on to the Constitutional rights which again... were drafted back when society wasn't such a sick, rotten mess. It's so convenient to claim "free speech" when you're openly spewing hate and provoking violence against groups based on race or ethnicity.

Current lawmakers may not be the best people to have in charge of trying to right the wrongs in society... but something should be done, don't you think? You've seen my posts enough to know that I'm always in favor of doing something, even if that "something" later needs some tweaking. Doing anything is better than sitting around fretting while society continues to flush itself down the toilet.

[El Kabong]

"Lyle has a right to be outraged" did you say?

[VictorCharlie]

Ok then, if white people are excluded from protection under hate crime laws, then yes... the laws are seriously flawed and people like Lyle have a right to be outraged. And yes again... lawmakers who make laws solely to pander for votes without the slightest concern for the people, are doing more harm than good. I have no issues with anything you said in your post.

Having said that, hate crimes and hate speech are serious issues in an already decaying society. Haters grab on to the Constitutional rights which again... were drafted back when society wasn't such a sick, rotten mess. It's so convenient to claim "free speech" when you're openly spewing hate and provoking violence against groups based on race or ethnicity.

Current lawmakers may not be the best people to have in charge of trying to right the wrongs in society... but something should be done, don't you think? You've seen my posts enough to know that I'm always in favor of doing something, even if that "something" later needs some tweaking. Doing anything is better than sitting around fretting while society continues to flush itself down the toilet.

As a white male this means dick but I really don't think hate speech is as big of an issue as the media reports. I personally encounter much more overt racism from blacks than anyone else and remember my wife's family is from East Texas. That being said punishing (ostracizing is cool though) for unpopular speech/beliefs is a slippery slope. Believing in freedom and personal liberties unfortunately means putting up with a nation's lowest common denominator.

[Beanz]

Hate Crime legislation exists in the US and has for some time too but I am not going to comment on the legal ramifications in a system with which I am not familiar. I have worked for the criminal justice system in the UK though and have seen the real impact that the drafting of and prosecution using such a law can and has had.

Hate crimes are not thought crimes. You are entitled to your opinion however bigoted, ill informed and ignorant it may be.

Motive is, and always has been, an important factor in criminal prosecutions and pretending that it is irrelevant, is not a good enough argument. The simple difference between manslaughter and murder is probably the most striking and obvious, but motive and intent are often crucial in securing a conviction. E.G


Someone smashes a window.

Should everyone who smashes a window be treated equally?

A kid who accidentally hits a cricket ball through his neighbours window ?

A person with previous history of breaking into properties breaks a window of a shop intent on stealing what is inside.

A heavy user of Class A drugs who sustains their habit with burglary knowingly breaks the window of a pensioners house intent on stealing personal belongings to sustain their habit

A rapist breaks the window of a young single women he has followed home

A jealous and harassing ex husband breaks the window of his ex-wife on hearing her and her new man are inside

A prominent member of a holocaust denying anti-jewish group breaks the window of a synagogue..............yet again

The crime in all these cases barring the accidental cricket ball is criminal damage but the intent and it's intended consequences are very different.

So intent is important but so is the fact that we live in democratic societies in which the judgement of people purely on their birth characteristics or choices in life is recognised as being discriminatory.

The victim of a crime should not be made to feel that the fact that they were picked on merely for being disabled,the wrong race, religion or sub-culture is irrelevant when the perpetrator has made it abundantly clear that is the motive for the attack. The message the law is supposed to send it is pretty clear in it's wording. HATE CRIME is often premeditated, planned and concurrent. The offender needs to know that the rest of society does see a difference between having a fight when a couple of parties have had too much to drink and going out looking for a victim because they are in a wheelchair, are wearing a kippah, have a different skin colour to you, are gay, a goth, morris dancer whatever.

Sections of society should not be living in fear of unprovoked violence. Hate Crime laws are there to try and deter the proliferation of patterns of violence toward those minority groups. You can not in all seriousness suggest that a gang beating the shit out of someone and saying " take that you fucking nigger, emo, yid, spazzy,morris dancing homo" is not going to make the victim and those in the vicinity think that they are not being singled out for another layer of verbal assault on top of the violence to add to their reticence and fear when next going out in the neighbourhood?

[Spicoli]

Stateside I'm weary of legislation directed at a dress in the same similarity to race and sexuality. Its a slippery slope. You cannot compare to the shit history of this country in regards to race and the level of violence perpetrated. I don't know what a emo is but something tells me they aren't running with people I and others had associated with back in the day. Cops were often siding with the dipshits jumping us, and a couple times the dipshits were wearing badges. There are always roving tribes of assholes claiming to represent the 'majority, or a way of life' who take pleasure in lashing out, verbally and physically, at those they don't feel fit in. I don't live across the pond and I have no idea the level of 'gang' violence or targeting of sub cultures today but its nothing to be justified or dismissed. It has to be high or they find some organized intent to target sub culture. Just as quick as some kid...goth, punk, skater, whateva, and thats mainly who we're talking about...gets pounded on by some insecure mental midgit trying to impress his boys because 'the weirdo' has half a head of hair, that kid is plotting payback. It happenes everyday, in every State and we've watched it play out far too often.

[Kirkland Laing]

No, they're about trying to protect people from being picked on, and in some cases killed, by ignorant dumb-as-shit members of the majority.

So prior laws did not protect those classes of people then? Murder, assault, those things just didn't cover minorities?


Damn...we could have all been out killing emos....FUCK! We fucking missed our golden opportunity!!!

They're being picked on because they're a distinctive minority. The justice system is now going to use the power of the courts and the press to persuade the mindless thugs who attack them for (whatever reason) not to attack them. And that's a good thing! I think we're all in favour of no young kids getting smashed up, brain damaged or worse just because of the way they look. Right?

They're being afforded the protection that the law also gives to other vulnerable groups, ethnic minorities, gay people and so on. To try and prevent violence and death brought upon a group of people for no other reason than they offend the sensibilities of a number of violent idiots. What part of this don't you understand?

[El Kabong]

They're being picked on because they're a distinctive minority. The justice system is now going to use the power of the courts and the press to persuade the mindless thugs who attack them for (whatever reason) not to attack them. And that's a good thing! I think we're all in favour of no young kids getting smashed up, brain damaged or worse just because of the way they look. Right?

They're being afforded the protection that the law also gives to other vulnerable groups, ethnic minorities, gay people and so on. To try and prevent violence and death brought upon a group of people for no other reason than they offend the sensibilities of a number of violent idiots. What part of this don't you understand?

OK, that's fine they are a minority and they are being picked on well the authorities in charge of protecting 100% of their citizens should be aware of this and offer protection. Not in the form of discriminatory laws, but just by enforcing the laws currently on record....are the laws broken? Why isn't assault being charged if someone is beaten up? Why isn't murder being charged if someone is killed?

Ethnicity & sexual orientation aren't "choices" (I guess, I mean I'm not gay so I don't understand how people come to the conclusion that they are...not an insult, I'm just saying I don't know how the process goes). Being emo/goth/punk is a CHOICE....do we see how that might be stretching these already discriminatory "hate crime" laws a bit thin? What's next "Oh, it's a hate crime if you don't invite me to your birthday party because I have low self esteem"? Or "It's a hate crime for you to have peanut butter in your lunch because I'm allergic to peanut butter...how could you, you soulless bastard?!?!"

But hey I'm a white, Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual, Christian, male....so what have I got to worry about, I mean it's not like anyone hates me

[Kirkland Laing]

They're being picked on because they're a distinctive minority. The justice system is now going to use the power of the courts and the press to persuade the mindless thugs who attack them for (whatever reason) not to attack them. And that's a good thing! I think we're all in favour of no young kids getting smashed up, brain damaged or worse just because of the way they look. Right?

They're being afforded the protection that the law also gives to other vulnerable groups, ethnic minorities, gay people and so on. To try and prevent violence and death brought upon a group of people for no other reason than they offend the sensibilities of a number of violent idiots. What part of this don't you understand?

OK, that's fine they are a minority and they are being picked on well the authorities in charge of protecting 100% of their citizens should be aware of this and offer protection. Not in the form of discriminatory laws, but just by enforcing the laws currently on record....are the laws broken? Why isn't assault being charged if someone is beaten up? Why isn't murder being charged if someone is killed?

Ethnicity & sexual orientation aren't "choices" (I guess, I mean I'm not gay so I don't understand how people come to the conclusion that they are...not an insult, I'm just saying I don't know how the process goes). Being emo/goth/punk is a CHOICE....do we see how that might be stretching these already discriminatory "hate crime" laws a bit thin? What's next "Oh, it's a hate crime if you don't invite me to your birthday party because I have low self esteem"? Or "It's a hate crime for you to have peanut butter in your lunch because I'm allergic to peanut butter...how could you, you soulless bastard?!?!"

But hey I'm a white, Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual, Christian, male....so what have I got to worry about, I mean it's not like anyone hates me

The law isn't discriminating. They're publicising this to make voilent thugs out there aware that attacking people because they're emos will bring the same kind of sanction as attacking ethnic minorities or gay people.

And yes, you're a white male. You're a member of the majority and you've got far less to fear than any minority, your racial paranoia notwithstanding. But if somebody ever does attack you because you're white then you'll be afforded the same protection under the law as any other victim of a hate crime.

[El Kabong]

The law isn't discriminating. They're publicising this to make voilent thugs out there aware that attacking people because they're emos will bring the same kind of sanction as attacking ethnic minorities or gay people.

And yes, you're a white male. You're a member of the majority and you've got far less to fear than any minority, your racial paranoia notwithstanding. But if somebody ever does attack you because you're white then you'll be afforded the same protection under the law as any other victim of a hate crime.

Umm yeah it IS discriminating and I'll show you how. Now pay attention little one

A murders B, A is caught, charged with murder and given the typical sentence nothing special 18-life

A murders C, C is a minority, A is charged with murder AND a hate crime and a harsher sentence is handed down.

Is B any LESS of a person than C? 2 lives were taken, the end result is IDENTICAL but why are the punishments different?



What I am trying to say is because I'm white I WON'T be "protected" by hate crime legislation, it has fucking happened already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders...stopher_Newsom ...there ya go partner, read that

[Kirkland Laing]

The law isn't discriminating. They're publicising this to make voilent thugs out there aware that attacking people because they're emos will bring the same kind of sanction as attacking ethnic minorities or gay people.

And yes, you're a white male. You're a member of the majority and you've got far less to fear than any minority, your racial paranoia notwithstanding. But if somebody ever does attack you because you're white then you'll be afforded the same protection under the law as any other victim of a hate crime.

Umm yeah it IS discriminating and I'll show you how. Now pay attention little one

A murders B, A is caught, charged with murder and given the typical sentence nothing special 18-life

A murders C, C is a minority, A is charged with murder AND a hate crime and a harsher sentence is handed down.

Is B any LESS of a person than C? 2 lives were taken, the end result is IDENTICAL but why are the punishments different?

Because in the hate crime case a jury decided the murderer was guilty of a hate crime.