Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/18/01 07:44 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 8/18/01 07:40 AM, shorbe wrote: Anarchy: Censorship of any form is the thin edge of the wedge.

I said specifically violent acts. I don't consider stoping violence to be censorship.

The violent acts are already considered crimes. How do you propose to define a hate crime without either repeating the definition of a violent crime or punishing the nature of the motive?

At 8/22/01 04:58 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 8/22/01 09:45 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: But what if I broke into a store, just because I like the stereo in the window? Could I be charge with a hate crime if the owners were not white?

There is no message sent. If for example you then defiled the area with racial slurs then it would be.

I'm starting to see your point a little more clearly, although I still think it's something a little more complicated. Somebody might still use the *n* word, but not be a racist- he/she might just know that certain words or phrases will spark certain feelings.

Will these hate crimes only pertain to those committed against an ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious group? Or would they cover other groups as well, eg high school glee club, professional baseball team, etc?

At 8/23/01 03:46 AM, Radam wrote:

At 8/18/01 07:44 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 8/18/01 07:40 AM, shorbe wrote: Anarchy: Censorship of any form is the thin edge of the wedge.

I said specifically violent acts. I don't consider stoping violence to be censorship.

The violent acts are already considered crimes. How do you propose to define a hate crime without either repeating the definition of a violent crime or punishing the nature of the motive?

I already answerd this question... maybe 4 or 5 times. These are seperate acts. Granted, charges over lap, just as if you were to Break into someones house and assualt them, that would be breaking and enter and assualt.

Nature of motive is punishable, as I described before with the example of murder in 1st, 2nd or manslaughter. Let me add another example, if you walk into an air port and say "I have a bomb in my suitcase", you'll be arressted... Why? Becuase you are causing clear and present danger to those who are around you by saying this. Sending a violent message to a peole group etc... Is very similar, simply showing clear and present danger.

At 8/23/01 10:22 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:

At 8/22/01 04:58 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 8/22/01 09:45 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: But what if I broke into a store, just because I like the stereo in the window? Could I be charge with a hate crime if the owners were not white?

There is no message sent. If for example you then defiled the area with racial slurs then it would be.

I'm starting to see your point a little more clearly, although I still think it's something a little more complicated. Somebody might still use the *n* word, but not be a racist- he/she might just know that certain words or phrases will spark certain feelings.

Will these hate crimes only pertain to those committed against an ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious group? Or would they cover other groups as well, eg high school glee club, professional baseball team, etc?

As I stated before in my prior posts, Racial ethnic and "other". To clarify, I meant by this, any group of people whom is targetd by the offender. Saying a racial slur wouldn't consitute a hate crime... It would fall under some censorship law I assume, I don't really know. My proposal is to make it illegal to send a message to any group by use of violence. The diffrence is, if you attack an individual you only get prosecuted for attacking the individual, if your attack an individual and attempt to send a message to a targeted group, then you are prosecuted for the attack of the individual as well as the targeded group.

Anarchy: You should be able to send any message you like to anyone. That's freedom of speech. Until you commit an act, nothing has happened. Once we start talking about "sending a message," then we're talking about censorship and freedom of speech.

Next thing, all controversial ideas or those deemed to offend anyone are taken as an attack on that person or group and the whole thing gets out of hand.

Society really is becoming so incredibly piss weak.

shorbe

At 8/22/01 09:45 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: Every crime should get its own treatment, and lumping things into categories may mistake it. I agree with AP, there should be some kind of "rules" over crimes commited to send a message. But this should be limited to racial or ethnic groups alone, but also to social groups, clubs, and individuals. If I were a mother, and someone hated me, they might kill my child and leave it on the doorstep to send a message to me.

People are too offended and the media tends to label too many things as hate crimes, when in reality, most crimes are hate crimes. But what if I broke into a store, just because I like the stereo in the window? Could I be charge with a hate crime if the owners were not white?

Dammit, most people living in the US are American. We live in this country. We work here, go to school, have fun, suffer, etc. Fuck all this racial and religious bullshit. It's really starting to piss me off.

All those people racial demogogues, like Duke, Jackson, and Sharpton are idiots. We are all Americans!! We are all shitbags if you think about it.

At 9/4/01 08:53 PM, NewYorkGuy wrote: All those people racial demogogues, like Duke, Jackson, and Sharpton are idiots. We are all Americans!! We are all shitbags if you think about it.

Amen, brutha!

At 8/23/01 03:53 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Nature of motive is punishable, as I described before with the example of murder in 1st, 2nd or manslaughter.

No, no, no. That's presence of motive; not nature of motive. Nature of motive should not be punishable. It's no more inherently wrong to kill a man because of his race than it is to do so for his money or your satisfaction or whatever.

At 8/23/01 04:00 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote: My proposal is to make it illegal to send a message to any group by use of violence. The diffrence is, if you attack an individual you only get prosecuted for attacking the individual, if your attack an individual and attempt to send a message to a targeted group, then you are prosecuted for the attack of the individual as well as the targeded group.

So, your proposal is essentially an attempt to circumnavigate double jeopardy laws for the purpose of charging an alleged offender twice for what is only one violent act.

At 9/10/01 02:23 AM, Radam wrote: So, your proposal is essentially an attempt to circumnavigate double jeopardy laws for the purpose of charging an alleged offender twice for what is only one violent act.

Furthermore, you want to defy the first amendment of our nation's constitution by illegalizing sending a message. Violence may not be protected, but sending a message is, and the day it's not, what's the point in living here?