Hate Crime: Policing Thought

[Confucamus]

Hate crime laws wouldn't be so stupid if they were applied evenly across the board. They are not. If a black person painted over a KKK mural, would they get charged with a hate crime? No, of course not.

Give them a fine. Stop acting like BLM is above all criticism.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

He was part of the "conspiracy" to commit the crime.

The crime of vandalism? I've never thought of that as being a conspiratorial offense.

 

[usmctanker242]

Conservatives on Hate crime legislation: Don't police my thoughts! First amendment!

Conservatives on Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem: How dare you insult the troops! I will boycott any team and apparel company that hires you!

PS, before you say its different because public vs private, the principle remains the same. Conservatives get their panties in a bunch about cancel culture except when they cancel people like Kaepernick or anyone they deem insufficiently patriotic. The reason this country is falling apart is because of bad faith arguments and selective application of principles.

The hell are you talking about? The people in the OP are being charged by the state for a crime. Boycotting a team and apparel company is not pressing charges against Kaepernick. Do you see the difference? One is a boycott and the other is using the state to press charges against someone, and possibly take away their freedoms or money via force.

The principle is not the same and it's not even close.

 

[lifelessheap]

Conservatives on Hate crime legislation: Don't police my thoughts! First amendment!

Conservatives on Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem: How dare you insult the troops! I will boycott any team and apparel company that hires you!

PS, before you say its different because public vs private, the principle remains the same. Conservatives get their panties in a bunch about cancel culture except when they cancel people like Kaepernick or anyone they deem insufficiently patriotic. The reason this country is falling apart is because of bad faith arguments and selective application of principles.

It is very different and you went full retard.

 

[Philo-Publius]

The crime of vandalism? I've never thought of that as being a conspiratorial offense.

You have never heard of it being a "hate crime" either, but this is a "brave new world" where the rules are adapted to suit a certain political agenda.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

"Hate speech" is protected by the first amendment. The supreme court has upheld that more than once. So, "hate thought" certainly cannot be a crime under the constitution (even though it continues anyway). Threatening to kill someone is not protected under the first amendment, and that is consistent with premeditation.

The OP is implying any thought based crime shouldn't be a crime though...

I understand what SCOTUS has upheld, however, I'd argue hate speech that ends in violence or tends to end in violence isn't protected

 

[Philo-Publius]

The OP is implying any thought based crime shouldn't be a crime though...

The OP is implying that thought is protected at least where speech is protected.

I understand what SCOTUS has upheld, however, I'd argue hate speech that ends in violence or tends to end in violence isn't protected

That is a slippery slope. Why does it have to end at a violent crime? Why not a crime of vandalism, like in the OP? Or, do you define spray painting something that was painted on a street "violence?"

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

The OP is implying that thought is protected at least where speech is protected.


That is a slippery slope. Why does it have to end at a violent crime? Why not a crime of vandalism, like in the OP? Or, do you define spray painting something that was painted on a street "violence?"

Because speech tending to provoke violence isn't protected. SCOTUS has already said so in Brandenburg

 

[Philo-Publius]

Because speech tending to provoke violence isn't protected. SCOTUS has already said so in Brandenburg

You didn't word that correctly. The ruling said "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." It's not "tending to provoke," it's likely to provoke (for example, encouraging others to do something violent). In fact, the Supreme Court overruled the conviction of the KKK member Brandenburg in that case saying his hate speech didn't provoke imminent lawless action, so the case you are citing doesn't support your argument:

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. The majority opinion was per curiam', issued from the Court as an institution, rather than as authored and signed by an individual justice. The earlier draft had originally been prepared by Justice Abe Fortas before he was forced to resign in the midst of an ethics scandal, and it would have included a modified version of the clear and present danger test. In finalizing the draft, Justice Brennan, eliminated all references to it by substituting the "imminent lawless action" language.[11] Justices Black and Douglas concurred separately.

Hate speech is, again, protected under the 1st amendment, so simply saying something hateful is not a crime. The crime is the violent act.

So, on a side note, do you define vandalism "violence?"

 

[Milton_Gracie]

You mean anti-Capitalism.

No. I don’t mean anti-Capitalism. I mean anti-racism.

But, if those people being charged were on a pro-capitalism crusade, then I respectfully withdraw my position.

 

[Milton_Gracie]

Hate crime laws wouldn't be so stupid if they were applied evenly across the board. They are not. If a black person painted over a KKK mural, would they get charged with a hate crime? No, of course not.

Give them a fine. Stop acting like BLM is above all criticism.

LOL!

BLM exists to draw attention to inequality.

KKK exists to give you an excuse to screw your cousin.

Big difference there buster!

 

[KeepingItReal]

I never understood how motive matters, especially to the victim. If someone close to me got killed why would I care that they died due to someones negligence, or if it was intentional, or if it was premeditated. A life was lost and they were close to me, the punishment should be one-hundred percent the same.

 

[Big Brain]

thought policing sucks

 

[Codpiece]

LOL!

BLM exists to draw attention to inequality.

KKK exists to give you an excuse to screw your cousin.

Big difference there buster!

BLM doesn’t seem to be trying to address mere racial inequalities though.

I have no issue with the words “black lives matter”, and I’ll bet most every conservative poster on here would agree. The lives of black, brown and other minority persons do matter.

But the organisation BLM is a different beast. They aren’t just focused on police brutality against black or brown folks, or anti-racism, or helping communities with high black populations with programs to help them become safer and provide more opportunities for local business. I think if that were the case most everyone would get on board. Instead as a political movement they are focused on destabilising the economic and political environment in North America, challenging established, healthy values and use some overtly destructive and racist methods to achieve their ends.

In short: big difference between the belief that black lives matter and the organisation Black Lives Matter, buster!

 

[Hard To Tell]

Lets hope they catch who ever did this

https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/07/08/tire-marks-tarnish-new-pride-crosswalk-in-west-vancouver/

 

[ElKarlo]

Conservatives on Hate crime legislation: Don't police my thoughts! First amendment!

Conservatives on Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem: How dare you insult the troops! I will boycott any team and apparel company that hires you!

PS, before you say its different because public vs private, the principle remains the same. Conservatives get their panties in a bunch about cancel culture except when they cancel people like Kaepernick or anyone they deem insufficiently patriotic. The reason this country is falling apart is because of bad faith arguments and selective application of principles.

Uh even with the edit, your brains are running out your eats there buddy. Hurp a derp. Boycotting is not bad thing. Rioting and destruction plus racial attacks are not acceptable. These things aren't comparable. Now graffiti on graffiti is a hate crime? GTFO

 

[moosaev]

Uh even with the edit, your brains are running out your eats there buddy. Hurp a derp. Boycotting is not bad thing. Rioting and destruction plus racial attacks are not acceptable. These things aren't comparable. Now graffiti on graffiti is a hate crime? GTFO

"boycotting is not a bad thing" except when liberals call for boycotts of conservative tv & radio shows, ..then they get accused of policing thought, being anti free speech, being authoritarian, intolerant, blah blah blah.

You just proved my point about the complete hypocrisy of conservatives. Thanks.

 

[MMAisGod]

Take it from me, being principled is a HORRIBLE existence haha.

When I defend free speech for liberals... Conservatives hate me.

When I defend free speech for conservatives... Liberals hate me.

People say they want to be principled, but unless you're okay being hated by EVERYONE, it's not worth it for most.

The truth right here, except the last sentence. It is worth it. If you're always in unanimous agreement with one side, or always with the same people, it's probably time to reevaluate. Humans are too unique and diverse to all have the same opinions on the same topics unless they aren't thinking objectively.

 

[ElKarlo]

"boycotting is not a bad thing" except when liberals call for boycotts of conservative tv & radio shows, ..then they get accused of policing thought, being anti free speech, being authoritarian, intolerant, blah blah blah.

You just proved my point about the complete hypocrisy of conservatives. Thanks.

No. Not even the same thing. A legit boycott is one thing, a twitter mafia attacking people for posts or positions and getting them fired is very different. I know it's difficult for you to understand as the MSM has many like you rendered clueless, but please try not to equate things that are clearly very different.

 

[n...not crazy]

Take it from me, being principled is a HORRIBLE existence haha.

When I defend free speech for liberals... Conservatives hate me.

When I defend free speech for conservatives... Liberals hate me.

People say they want to be principled, but unless you're okay being hated by EVERYONE, it's not worth it for most.

There is little reward for being honest and principled. Maybe 5% of the population will recognize it, and for 10 seconds they'll think you're a cool guy. But that's about it.