wiegie Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) I'm with Az and H8 on this one -- nail him for theft, vandalism, destruction of property, whatever... but calling this a hate crime is idiotic. (Question because I don't know: Has the supreme court ever ruled that hate crime legislation is constitutional?) It should not be illegal to hate someone. Edited July 31, 2007 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 How is the destruction of a religious book a felony, yet burning the American flag isn't? its not a religious symbol?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 its not a religious symbol?? Does the First Ammendment only protect religious symbols? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 It would seem to me that for this to qualify as a 'hate crime' as opposed to it being a crime to hate, this would have to have been a far more public display of hate. Although not practiced on the law, but aren't hate crimes things that are meant to incite? I don't see how he's inciting anyone, except those that were in the stall with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 It would seem to me that for this to qualify as a 'hate crime' as opposed to it being a crime to hate, this would have to have been a far more public display of hate. Although not practiced on the law, but aren't hate crimes things that are meant to incite? I don't see how he's inciting anyone, except those that were in the stall with him. If this is a hate crime, then so was the "Piss Christ" display back in the late '80s. It seems to me that both cases are just people acting like complete jackasses. BTW, I'm still waiting for the ACLU to swoop down to defend this man by protecting his First Amendment rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 way to cut right to the meat of the argument. pathetic. would you like to respond to the part of my post you cut out? destroying someone else's book is a misdemeanor. doing it to willingly dryhump someone else's religion is a felony. there is a big difference, or so i learned in law school before i flunked out. I don't have to respond because I agree with you. Hate crime is a ridiculous thing to prove because you're assuming what the intent of the damage was. I can't support it. This thread is entitled: The First Amendment ... which is retarded, and you should know it. H8 was flat out wrong. Right? Show me anywhere in this thread where I defended hate crime legislation, and I'll buy you a pony. All I'm saying is that hate crime require a crime to be committed... and the first amendment does not say that stealing or trespassing is protected by the first amendment. I'll accept your apology now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 How is the destruction of a religious book a felony, yet burning the American flag isn't? It might be if you stole the flag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) If this is a hate crime, then so was the "Piss Christ" display back in the late '80s. It seems to me that both cases are just people acting like complete jackasses. BTW, I'm still waiting for the ACLU to swoop down to defend this man by protecting his First Amendment rights. Well, I sure didn't find 'Piss Christ' to be offensive, and given that it certainly qualifies as a work of art, while flushing a koran down the commade in private really doesn't I'd have to say that's a nice attempt at an anolgy but falls short. Anyways, back to my question: is a hate-crime by definition a wanton and malicious act meant to incite? Edited July 31, 2007 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Wouldn't it be easier and less expensive for the authorities to just point this guy out, laugh at him and say "what a tool", because that's what he is. There's no real crime here, much less a hate crime, just a f'n idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws in general, so that part of these things always piss me off. Because he stole the books from the library and then destroyed them, it's obvious the guy is guilty of the misdemeanor (and being somewhat retarded). The only thing that sort of kind of makes this at least tangentially related to the First Amendment is the fact that the guy was tracked down and dealt with because it was Korans that were thrown in the toilet. If these were math books that got the same treatment, I doubt the guy would have been tracked down and caught. If intent matters in the commission of the crime, intent should matter in the prosecution of crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 On a somewhat related note, a client that we recently testified for received a 36 month jail sentence for flushing his jail uniform down the crapper. Seems that the uniforms clog the influent structure at the wastewater treatment plant. The charge was promoting a catastrophe or some other crazy made up thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Well, I sure didn't find 'Piss Christ' to be offensive, and given that it certainly qualifies as a work of art, while flushing a koran down the commade in private really doesn't I'd have to say that's a nice attempt at an anolgy but falls short. I'd say that submerging a crucifix in urine is just as distasteful and insulting as flushing a copy of the Koran down the toilet. "Work of art," my ass. Too bad this guy didn't flush the Bible down the toilet, as he probably would've been rewarded with an NEA grant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I'd say that submerging a crucifix in urine is just as distasteful and insulting as flushing a copy of the Koran down the toilet. "Work of art," my ass. Many would agree with him that much of what is passing for the 'word of christ' today is, in fact, chitting on his teachings. Hell, nuns lined up behind the guy at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Too bad this guy didn't flush the Bible down the toilet, as he probably would've been rewarded with an NEA grant. What would the reaction been if a bible was found in the toilet? I bet they would have called it modern art and given the kid a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. Is there an echo in here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Show me anywhere in this thread where I defended hate crime legislation, and I'll buy you a pony. All I'm saying is that hate crime require a crime to be committed... and the first amendment does not say that stealing or trespassing is protected by the first amendment. uhh, nobody ever said it was, that would be incredibly stupid. this thread is about laws that call a misdemeanor a felony when it is motivated by "hate". you keep trying to deflect the argument by making it about the petty crime of stealing a library book. the question is how that petty crime becomes a felony with a mandatory jail sentence. the answer is "hate crime" laws. and yes, hate crime laws DO directly involve first amendment issues. first amendment challenges have been levelled against hate crime laws many times, sometimes successful, sometimes not. presidential candidate ron paul... Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.” There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate? HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts – as opposed to willful criminal acts – is inconsistent with a free society. HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves. Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government. i can't see how you think h8 is wrong to bring this case up in the context of the first amendment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Many would agree with him that much of what is passing for the 'word of christ' today is, in fact, chitting on his teachings. Hell, nuns lined up behind the guy at the time. Methinks that the "artist" was more interested in stirring the pot than making a statement on behalf of Christ. That said, this isn't worth arguing about. Art is incredibly subjective and often times just plain retarded. Getting back to your original question, I find it difficult to label any non-violent crime a "hate crime." The Bill of Rights gives all Americans the freedom to make any sort of ridiculously stupid and insulting remark or display - and the burden of dealing with the inevitable criticism. I'd rather save the hate crime prosecution for the gay man who was dragged for miles by a pickup truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Getting back to your original question, I find it difficult to label any non-violent crime a "hate crime." The Bill of Rights gives all Americans the freedom to make any sort of ridiculously stupid and insulting remark or display - and the burden of dealing with the inevitable criticism. I'd rather save the hate crime prosecution for the gay man who was dragged for miles by a pickup truck. This hate-crime' stuff has echoes of the Equal Rights Amendment: an extra law that further complicates a situation that existing laws already handle effectively. Although the ERA had the double-edge sword of somehow implying the Bill of Rights wasn't inclusive enough. I once burned a confederate flag in from of a KKK rally. Would that be a hate crime today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Is there an echo in here? Mega dittos? Think the hate crime aspect of it is BS, but their is a criminal element to it if he stole it. If this guy stole someone's bible and put it in the crapper, I think he also gets arrested and doubt that he would get an NEA grant. It also probably wouldn't become a story or at least not a right-wing rally cry for H8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBalla Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 What would the reaction been if a bible was found in the toilet? I bet they would have called it modern art and given the kid a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. Probably... In the United States if you are white and a christian you have no rights If I would have said this...Ursa wouldn't have been laughing. You are right though...you forgot to mention male though. A white Christian man is foked. I'm with Az and H8 on this one -- nail him for theft, vandalism, destruction of property, whatever... but calling this a hate crime is idiotic. (Question because I don't know: Has the supreme court ever ruled that hate crime legislation is constitutional?) It should not be illegal to hate someone. I agree... I didn't read the whole thing but if he bought those books and trashed them in the toliet he should be charged with littering...I guess. This whole indictment is insane if you ask me. This country is really foked up if we are prosecuting crap like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 If I would have said this...Ursa wouldn't have been laughing. You are right though...you forgot to mention male though. A white Christian man is foked. I agree... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted July 31, 2007 Author Share Posted July 31, 2007 I think you're wonderfully showing the use of the first amendment by arguing that stealing a book from a library isn't stealing, as long as it's handed out _somewhere_ in this country for free. Are you as stupid as the other one? Steal a book? Get detention after class, not a H8crime w/4 years in the penitentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 A white Christian man is foked. ...and the statistics clearly reflect that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 If I would have said this...Ursa wouldn't have been laughing. You are right though...you forgot to mention male though. A white Christian man is foked. I agree... Sure I would. Just for a different reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBalla Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 ...and the statistics clearly reflect that What statistics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 See children, this is called 'backpeddling'. A student in the library is now tresspassing? Taking a book... which the muslims hand out for free, paperback korans, from the library where you go to school is stealing? See, this is why you make copies, coffee boy. Are you as stupid as the other one? Steal a book? Get detention after class, not a H8crime w/4 years in the penitentary. You are claiming in the fist that it isn't stealing if it's in the library and being given out for free, somewhere. In the second you are clearly attempting to abfuscate your stoppid claim I am calling BS on you for. Child, that's called backpedlaing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.