Hate Crime Legislation

[Free Arabian Nation]

That would just criminalize the entire internet!

Sounds great.

True, lol

[Ifreann]

So a literal call to violence is a-okay?

Doesn’t really create controversy as much as it shows that you don’t understand the existential threat faced by minorities.

Idiotic speech doesn't threaten existance, unless it is backed by actual violence. Also, people get arrested in Britain over jokes. Count Dankula is a perfect example. Surely the government can find better use of resourses.

People get arrested in America over jokes.

[Eglaecia]

That doesn't answer the question. At all. Why should it be a factor?


firing at someone is still assault even if you miss them.

Because like roof hate and bigotry was a factor. The synagogue massiwas motivated by anti Semitism and belief in white genocide conspiracy theory. Why shouldn’t that be a factor in the charges?

So what if they're a factor? Should we reduce sentences for people who shoot up schools because they were sick of being bullied?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Idiotic speech doesn't threaten existance, unless it is backed by actual violence. Also, people get arrested in Britain over jokes. Count Dankula is a perfect example. Surely the government can find better use of resourses.

People get arrested in America over jokes.

Actual threats with the veneer of being a joke, yes, but not something stupid like having a pug lift up its paw.

[The New California Republic]

Again, I am "easily offended" by a stranger shouting at me "you are a faggot and deserve to die" in the street? Fucking hell. Sorry that I'm not some kind of Übermensch that can dismiss death threats without batting an eye.

And mental and emotional harm shouldn't be criminal? So domestic abuse that is mental and emotional should be legal? Be careful what kind of Pandora's Box you are opening here, be really careful.

One brief, negative interaction with a stranger cannot constitute abuse. It may be an abusive interaction, but you can't jail someone for telling you to eat dog smegma after you accidentally step on their shoes. It's also rather insulting to actual victims of abuse to insist that an offensive exchange of words with strangers should qualify as abuse. That's just ridiculous. Harassment, maybe. And under current legislation in the US, mental and emotional abuse are legal, mainly because it's so hard to legally define what those things are, even if you can describe them very easily in words.

Death threats are a criminal offense in many jurisdictions of the USA.

[San Lumen]

Because like roof hate and bigotry was a factor. The synagogue massiwas motivated by anti Semitism and belief in white genocide conspiracy theory. Why shouldn’t that be a factor in the charges?

So what if they're a factor? Should we reduce sentences for people who shoot up schools because they were sick of being bullied?

Because motive is important

That’s a absurd argument

[Eglaecia]

So a literal call to violence is a-okay?

Doesn’t really create controversy as much as it shows that you don’t understand the existential threat faced by minorities.

Idiotic speech doesn't threaten existance, unless it is backed by actual violence. Also, people get arrested in Britain over jokes. Count Dankula is a perfect example. Surely the government can find better use of resourses.

Okay as much as I hate the government for their infringement on speech, "Count Dankula" should be arrested just for his stupid fucking username.

[Lanoraie II]

One brief, negative interaction with a stranger cannot constitute abuse. It may be an abusive interaction, but you can't jail someone for telling you to eat dog smegma after you accidentally step on their shoes. It's also rather insulting to actual victims of abuse to insist that an offensive exchange of words with strangers should qualify as abuse. That's just ridiculous. Harassment, maybe. And under current legislation in the US, mental and emotional abuse are legal, mainly because it's so hard to legally define what those things are, even if you can describe them very easily in words.

Death threats are a criminal offense in many jurisdictions of the USA.

I didn't mention death threats, did I.

[Des-Bal]

I do not disagree with the idea of taking motive into account at sentencing, as called for in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. What I object to is making motive an additional charge, as was done in the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

If I kill you because I do not like you, I am charged with one crime. If I kill you because I do not like your race, I am charged with two crimes. That is not, in my opinion, right.

What you're talking about is purely a technical issue.

[Eglaecia]

So what if they're a factor? Should we reduce sentences for people who shoot up schools because they were sick of being bullied?

Because motive is important

That’s a absurd argument

It isn't an absurd argument at all. Motive is important but it shouldn't be a separate charge.
You didn't answer my question, again, either. If they're getting bullied that explains why they commit, therefore they should be charged with "revenge against bullies" ??? Or what about someone's wife leaving them? Should they be charged with "anger towards wife" ???

[The New California Republic]

Because like roof hate and bigotry was a factor. The synagogue massiwas motivated by anti Semitism and belief in white genocide conspiracy theory. Why shouldn’t that be a factor in the charges?

So what if they're a factor? Should we reduce sentences for people who shoot up schools because they were sick of being bullied?

As I said earlier, mens rea is an important part of the law:

Mens rea is a well-established component of criminal law. It allows us to differentiate intentional acts from accidental ones, which can make a world of difference in terms of deciding whether someone is criminally liable or negligently liable for something, and can also make the difference between someone being charged with murder or manslaughter.

Because the mens rea of the perpetrator for targeting an individual of the community is on the basis of a trait that is shared by an entire subset of the community. The perpetrator poses a risk to said subset of the community on the basis of that, and the law has a safeguarding duty to the community. It is an aggravating circumstance of the crime that dramatically increases the risk that the perpetrator will strike again, if they encounter another individual of that particular subset of the community again. Therefore the Judge is entirely justified in taking it into consideration during deliberations.

[The New California Republic]

Death threats are a criminal offense in many jurisdictions of the USA.

I didn't mention death threats, did I.

Well it's what I was talking about, so I can't be held responsible if you have changed the subject in your response to what I said...

[Ifreann]

People get arrested in America over jokes.

Actual threats with the veneer of being a joke, yes,

A joke that was obviously a joke.

but not something stupid like having a pug lift up its paw.

Like broadcasting yourself repeatedly saying "Heil Hitler" and "Kill all Jews". The dog was irrelevant, obviously.

[Des-Bal]

It isn't an absurd argument at all. Motive is important but it shouldn't be a separate charge.
You didn't answer my question, again, either. If they're getting bullied that explains why they commit, therefore they should be charged with "revenge against bullies" ??? Or what about someone's wife leaving them? Should they be charged with "anger towards wife" ???

So we're clear your issue is purely statutory construction and the idea that a person can be charged with a motive rather than having that motive codified as an aggravating circumstance?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Actual threats with the veneer of being a joke, yes,

A joke that was obviously a joke.

but not something stupid like having a pug lift up its paw.

Like broadcasting yourself repeatedly saying "Heil Hitler" and "Kill all Jews". The dog was irrelevant, obviously.

It was obviously a poorly executed joke. He was trying to prank is girlfriend by tuning the pug "evil". Context should matter.

[Ifreann]

A joke that was obviously a joke.

Like broadcasting yourself repeatedly saying "Heil Hitler" and "Kill all Jews". The dog was irrelevant, obviously.

It was obviously a poorly executed joke.

The one I'm talking about? It wasn't funny, but it was obviously not sincere. But there was nothing about Hitler or killing Jews, so I guess the internet wasn't interested in the young gamer arrested for using his free speech in America, in Texas as I recall, in a way that the police didn't like. Truly a bastion of free speech that other nations would do well to emulate.

[Elwher]

I do not disagree with the idea of taking motive into account at sentencing, as called for in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. What I object to is making motive an additional charge, as was done in the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

If I kill you because I do not like you, I am charged with one crime. If I kill you because I do not like your race, I am charged with two crimes. That is not, in my opinion, right.

What you're talking about is purely a technical issue.

The law is nothing but technical issues.

[Des-Bal]

The law is nothing but technical issues.

No it's also rife with moral issues and principles of justice, fairness, etc. What you're talking about is almost exclusively an issue of whether Statute 432.01(a)(3)(C) or a combination of Statute 432.01 and 565.02 are the reason you got 10 years. You're not talking about justice you're talking about filing systems.

[Elwher]

So there should not be a difference between first degree murder and voluntary manslaughter?

This makes no sense. The difference between murder and manslaughter isn't motive?????

Of course that is one of the differences. But, you cannot be convicted of both murder and manslaughter for the same incident, only one or the other. Hate crimes should be the same thing; either you are convicted of murder or of hate crime, not two separate charges.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Where did I say that I would?

And someone making threats against my life does cause harm.

If the words aren't going to physically harm you then they shouldn't be illegal.
Mental or emotional harm maybe, but that shouldn't be criminal. You should just stop being easily offended.

Did you know how the Rwandan genocide started?

[Des-Bal]

Of course that is one of the differences. But, you cannot be convicted of both murder and manslaughter for the same incident, only one or the other. Hate crimes should be the same thing; either you are convicted of murder or of hate crime, not two separate charges.

Actually if you're charged with murder you're also charged with manslaughter. You can be charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter as a lesser included crime. What you're talking about has no impact on the actual sentencing it's just how the charge is listed.

[Galloism]

It was obviously a poorly executed joke.

The one I'm talking about? It wasn't funny, but it was obviously not sincere. But there was nothing about Hitler or killing Jews, so I guess the internet wasn't interested in the young gamer arrested for using his free speech in America, in Texas as I recall, in a way that the police didn't like. Truly a bastion of free speech that other nations would do well to emulate.

Btw, those felony charges have since been dropped, and the teen pled to a misdemeanor.

[Ifreann]

The one I'm talking about? It wasn't funny, but it was obviously not sincere. But there was nothing about Hitler or killing Jews, so I guess the internet wasn't interested in the young gamer arrested for using his free speech in America, in Texas as I recall, in a way that the police didn't like. Truly a bastion of free speech that other nations would do well to emulate.

Btw, those felony charges have since been dropped, and the teen pled to a misdemeanor.

I know. Got sentenced to time served, as I recall.

[Galloism]

Btw, those felony charges have since been dropped, and the teen pled to a misdemeanor.

I know. Got sentenced to time served, as I recall.

Yep.

Also, he should have taken it to trial. Even in Texas, there's no way they'd convict. A red blooded american vs a scared Canadian? No contest.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

It was obviously a poorly executed joke.

The one I'm talking about? It wasn't funny, but it was obviously not sincere. But there was nothing about Hitler or killing Jews, so I guess the internet wasn't interested in the young gamer arrested for using his free speech in America, in Texas as I recall, in a way that the police didn't like. Truly a bastion of free speech that other nations would do well to emulate.

Well at least Count Dankula wouldn't have been arrested here for the stupid thing he said. And that is the case I was talking about, and I explicitly mentioned this posts ago.

Edit: If you're going to talk about another case, say that you're talking about a different case.

Further Edit: I found the case of the gamer in question. This case has nothing to do with hate speech against minorities, and I don't recall ever saying that America was perfect when it came to free speech. I only argued that hate speech shouldn't be criminalized, and even I make an exception for direct threats of violence.