Yukon Cornelius Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 What statistics? jebuss i hope u are fishen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 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. Link to successful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBalla Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 jebuss i hope u are fishen I almost had a bite... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBalla Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 (edited) Nice read here It seems like most hate crimes involve violence of some sort...where does trashing a book fall into a hate crime...assuming it wasn't stolen/OPP? Edited August 1, 2007 by SuperBalla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 (edited) where does trashing a book fall into a crime...assuming it wasn't stolen/OPP? RIF Edited August 1, 2007 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBalla Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 RIF Ahhhh...what did I say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 (edited) 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.i can't see how you think h8 is wrong to bring this case up in the context of the first amendment Oh snap, Az. You're my b:tch today. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment. I could totally be a Supreme Court Justice. You could make my copies. Edited August 1, 2007 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 (edited) 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. Link to successful? R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) it's cool that you agree with rehnquist's restrictive view of the first amendment though. Edited August 1, 2007 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...5&invol=377 That is a case about displaying offensive symbols, which definitely IS a first amendment issue, and has nothing to do with stealing, beating, or hate crimes. You truly are my bitch. This was pathetic. Law school is hard. it's cool that you agree with rehnquist's restrictive view of the first amendment though. It was a unanimous decision of the supreme court that read exactly like I've been saying though this entire thread. Unanimous. That means... every single person agreed... with... ME! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 Atomoranic loves him some sharia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...5&invol=377 That is a case about displaying offensive symbols, which definitely IS a first amendment issue, and has nothing to do with stealing, beating, or hate crimes. you don't read real well, jackass. After allegedly burning a cross on a black family's lawn, petitioner R.A.V. was charged under, inter alia, the St. Paul, Minnesota, Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." The trial court dismissed this charge on the ground that the ordinance was substantially overbroad and impermissibly content based, but the State Supreme Court reversed. It rejected the overbreadth claim because the phrase "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others" had been construed in earlier state cases to limit the ordinance's reach to "fighting words" within the meaning of this Court's decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 , a category of expression unprotected by the First Amendment. The court also concluded that the ordinance was not impermissibly content based, because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest in protecting the community against bias-motivated threats to public safety and order. Held: The ordinance is facially invalid under the First Amendment. Pp. 381-396. i said hate crime legislation has been attacked by first amendment challenges, some successful, some unsuccessful. you asked for a successful first amendment challenge to hate crime legislation, i gave it to you. let me remind you, yet again, that no one in this thread has argued that stealing is protected by the first amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 (edited) you don't read real well, jackass.i said hate crime legislation has been attacked by first amendment challenges, some successful, some unsuccessful. you asked for a successful first amendment challenge to hate crime legislation, i gave it to you. You don't read well! Read the sentence after what you just bolded, dumbass. "....which prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Heeeeyyyy... that sounds like a free speech issue! It also has nothing to do with hate crimes. It has to do with displaying symbols, as I said already. A "hate crime" covers an actual crime that is escalated because of it's motive. A hate crime is not related to free speech.... in any way. As decided unanimously by the Supreme Court. Find ANY example of a successful free-speech argument against "hate crimes", not against the display of symbols in which no other crime was committed. I'll sit right here. For someone who is as anal as you, I suspect that you definitely know how wrong you are and are feebly searching for some technicality to be correct about. What will win? Your need to be right somehow, or your shame? Edited August 1, 2007 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 just so i'm clear here....your argument has now become, "that hate crime law the supreme court struck down has nothing to do with hate crimes"? atomic, i assure you, whatever argument you think you are having.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 just so i'm clear here....your argument has now become, "that hate crime law the supreme court struck down has nothing to do with hate crimes"? atomic, i assure you, whatever argument you think you are having.... Well... I guess since it wasn't called "hate crimes" in the case you quoted.... and the fact that it had nothing to do with escalating crimes based on their intent, which was the definition of hate crimes I already quoted... then yes. If you define "hate crime" as something totally unrelated to hate crimes, then I guess you can make any point you want. Az, you know you're talking out of your ass, and that case you quoted has nothing to do with hate crimes whatsoever, except that the word "hate" appears in it. Explain how that case relates in any way to hate crimes, or admit that you're my b:tch. You know it. I know it. Anyone who read this exchange (nobody, I presume) knows it. The case that I quoted... the one that actually talked about hate crimes... that one was a unamimous decision of the supreme court that said that hate crimes have nothing to do with free speech. God, you're being stupid. The shame you must feel at being so wrong and resorting to such nonsense must be overwhelming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Az, you know you're talking out of your ass, and that case you quoted has nothing to do with hate crimes whatsoever, except that the word "hate" appears in it. so it IS your position that the "St. Paul, Minnesota, Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance" has nothing to do with "hate crimes". you're totally right, that case has absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes whatsoever it's cool that you think you're winning this argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 OK, so let me see if I get this right. 1) a guy steal a book from the library 2) this guy flushes said book down the toilet 3) because this book was the Koran, he's being charged with a hate crime escalation in his punishment. 4) if convicted, he'll do at least a year in jail for flushing a book down the toilet? Let's face it, this country wantes to put everyone in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 so it IS your position that the "St. Paul, Minnesota, Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance" has nothing to do with "hate crimes". you're totally right, that case has absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes whatsoever it's cool that you think you're winning this argument. Dude, this is getting embarrassing. Just let this loser go. The New York statute for hate crimes is clearly defined in this thread, and you're quoting a case that specifically deals with the displaying of symbols. One is specifically a first amendment issue, and one was unanimously decided by the Supreme court to have nothing to do with the first amendment. So when we look at this thread, and it's title "The First Amendment"... who is right? Me? Or 4 pages of you struggling to stop sounding like an idiot? Just stop. This is sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 (edited) Atomic and Az are both correct, there is a difference in various "hate crime" laws ... Wisconsin v. Mitchell (92-515), 508 U.S. 47 (1993)(sentence for aggravated battery was enhanced because he intentionally selected his victim on account of the victim's race -- enhancement not prohibited by 1st & 14th amendments). http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-515.ZO.html Nothing in our decision last Term in R. A. V. compels a different result here. That case involved a First Amendment challenge to a municipal ordinance prohibiting the use of " `fighting words' that insult, or provoke violence, `on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.' " 505 U. S., at ---- (slip op., at 13) (quoting St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance, St. Paul, Minn., Legis. Code §292.02 (1990)). Because the ordinance only proscribed a class of "fighting words" deemed particularly offensive by the city--i.e., those "that contain . . . messages of `bias motivated' hatred," 505 U. S., at ---- (slip op., at 13)--we held that it violated the rule against content based discrimination. See id., at ---- (slip op., at 13-14). But whereas the ordinance struck down in R. A. V. was explicitly directed at expression (i.e., "speech" or "messages," id., at ---- (slip op., at 13), the statute in this case is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment. The "enhancement" statute statute at issue here would appear not to implicate free speech, as Atomic has argued ... Edited August 4, 2007 by Beaumont Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 So, apparently the copy maker lost to the coffee gofor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 Atomic and Az are both correct, there is a difference in various "hate crime" laws ... (snip) The "enhancement" statute statute at issue here would appear not to implicate free speech, as Atomic has argued ... Post #4, baby. And then Az told me that this case was definitely about free speech. Which would actually make him "wrong". The ironic thing is that he started off with "dipschit", then proceeded to spew a bunch of wrong crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 So, apparently the copy maker lost to the coffee gofor? You are correct. Damn you Beaumont! this thread made me chuckle. Why don't you go kick somebodies sand castle over. 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.