patrick.net

bob2356 says

So you find that using race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation to be lacking criteria? How is that? Are these kinds of things subjective somehow?

80% subjective, the 80/20 rule works well as always. You have few cases where there is a Manifesto, other than that it's mostly subjective, and worse, it goes back into the past. It is entirely possible that somebody made an offensive remark and is later involved in an incident and therefore will be tried per hate crime laws although there is no connection - or even worse or that they will be accused of having made such statements while they didn't, and it is very plausible that somebody who actually hates a groups race/gender/ethnicity and what not will conceal the fact in their crimes, so they would not be tried according to those laws. They are a precursor to thought-crimes and extremely dangerous.

Start applying hate crime laws liberally to minority crime against others. Suddenly everyone will understand how the law isn't fair and should be repealed. The Chicago kidnap/torture case in recent news is an excellent example.

bob2356 says

The United States was based on laws that singled out sex and race. It's right in the constitution. The white male landowners thing.

White male landowners are mentioned in the Constitution?

mell says

Btw. thx for the article, here's an excerpt that mentions libertarianism

I'm glad you read at least part of the article, but I hope you read his whole argument. He identifies as a civil libertarian and recognizes your concern, but supports the laws against hate crimes. The distinction you seem to miss is that although you have a right to say what you think, you don't have a right to burn down someone's house or kill them. If you commit a crime against someone, your motivation becomes an element of the crime.

He mentioned the Rutgers case as a worst case scenario. The best analysis I saw anywhere of that case was here on PatNet, from MMR. The teen suicide resulted more likely due to the parents' religiosity than to anything the roommate did or even could have done. I suspect the court might have had such a strong emotional reaction of sympathy for the grieving parents, and perhaps a bit of confusion about the newfangled technological angle, that they emotion and confusion might have clouded their judgment. It's a concern that must be balanced against other concerns, e.g. the proven risk of lynching and the large number of people who brag about committing hate crimes and the many documented examples of underenforcement. In a perfect world, a black Jewish lesbian could visit a town full of KKKlansmen without needing any extra protection at all, but we have yet to find that perfect world; meanwhile, we maintain law and order as best we can, including refusing adamantly to be fractured along the lines that have divided Americans too often in the past.

The mention of hate crimes was mostly off topic. In order to prove a hate crime, you must prove first a crime. Neither hate nor any other thoughts are crimes in themselves. Implying otherwise is false. The crime is in burning down someone's house, and the mental state is always relevant in evaluating that crime.

curious2 says

they emotion

Ugh. I tried to DELETE the stray "they," making the comment one word SHORTER, but the malfunctioning length limit wouldn't let me SHORTEN the comment.

BTW, regarding the worst case scenario, the availability heuristic can mislead people to overestimate the risk. Planes crash, or even disappear, but that doesn't stop most people from flying on planes. It's a remote risk of a terrible result. It isn't a reason to ban air travel entirely, nor to stop prosecuting hate crimes where they occur.

The risk of being falsely accused of any crime should motivate middle class people to demand financing of the 6th Amendment. Innocent defendants should not need to pay for their defense. The rich can afford to avail themselves of their 6th amendment right to counsel, and the indigent get public financing, but the middle class are at risk in the legal sector as in the medical sector. If the risk of getting falsely accused of a hate crime is the only one that motivates people, that's ironic because it's remote, but if it results in people demanding financing for the 6th amendment then that would help.

rando says

White male landowners are mentioned in the Constitution?

Sloppy wording on my part. The federal constitution directs the states to decide voting criteria. The states put the the voting criteria into their constitutions.

mell says

80% subjective, the 80/20 rule works well as always. You have few cases where there is a Manifesto, other than that it's mostly subjective, and worse, it goes back into the past. It is entirely possible that somebody made an offensive remark and is later involved in an incident and therefore will be tried per hate crime laws although there is no connection - or even worse or that they will be accused of having made such statements while they didn't, and it is very plausible that somebody who actually hates a groups race/gender/ethnicity and what not will conceal the fact in their crimes, so they would not be tried according to those laws. They are a precursor to thought-crimes and extremely dangerous.

It's entirely possible? Many things are entirely possible including the end of civilization due to a major meteor strike. Anything more specific than entirely possible? If there is no connection then there should be no problem with a lawyer getting it thrown out. I'm not familiar with any hate crime law so vague that some casual offensive remark (how would such a remark become court record in the first place?) in the past would trigger it. . So we are back to your ignoring the question what alleged leftists/cultural-marxists hate crime law are you talking about and how has it been applied/misapplied to support your case?

Have you ever been on a jury for a criminal case? Many can be 80% or more subjective. How do you think the difference between first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter is sorted out as an example? It often comes down to subjective judgement of intent based on who's story is more believable. It's the exact same principle. What was the intent? Is this a precursor to thought-crimes also?