Germany's flashmob neo-Nazis

[das_nut]

Oh really? Saying that I have no objection to a law enacted by a democracy, a law which targets criminal behavior, is hate speech? I guess voicing support for the death penalty for murder is also hate speech by your definition.

When you mentioned you rather have others killed first, that could be considered hate speech. Considering how much lobbying goes on by meat producers and research companies, and previous laws passed to attempt to limit animal activists rights, I wouldn't be in such a hurry to expand the government powers to limit free speech if I were you.

 

[mlp]

Again, it's simply a matter of defining "hate speech", just as we define other things for legal purposes. After all, all killing isn't "murder" for purposes of the law. There's no reason that "hate speech" can't have a specific legal definition, which it in fact does in Germany and I would assume in other jurisdictions that have enacted hate speech laws.

Again, we draw distinctions and establish limitations all the time, including about free speech in the U.S.

 

[das_nut]

Well, as long as advocating that certain people shouldn't be killed first isn't hate speech...

 

[mlp]

Well, as long as advocating that certain people shouldn't be killed first isn't hate speech...

Strangely enough, we seem to be able to make these kinds of distinctions. For example, if I target someone because he's of a certain race/gender/religion/sexual orientation, that's considered a hate crime in many jurisdictions in the U.S. However, if I target someone because he's a child molester/thief/baker/lawyer/writer/embezzler, that's not considered a hate crime. I know it's a difficult concept to wrap one's mind around, making such fine legal distinctions, but there you are.

 

[FortyTwo]

Yeah, to hell with the embezzlers. They can party down there with the fags.

 

[das_nut]

Strangely enough, we seem to be able to make these kinds of distinctions. For example, if I target someone because he's of a certain race/gender/religion/sexual orientation, that's considered a hate crime in many jurisdictions in the U.S. However, if I target someone because he's a child molester/thief/baker/lawyer/writer/embezzler, that's not considered a hate crime. I know it's a difficult concept to wrap one's mind around, making such fine legal distinctions, but there you are.

Oh, I got the concept. I just disagree with it, because it's bloody stupid. Seriously, think about it - you got two murderers. One killed a person because of their religion. The other killed a person because of their occupation. Now technically, only the killer who acted on skin color qualifies for the longer sentence under hate crime laws. But IMO, when you're killing people based on arbitrary reasons (such as their occupation or skin color), you present a continuing threat to the safety of individuals in society.

It's also remarkably inconsistent to say that what religion someone chooses is protected, but what occupation someone chooses is not.

Yeah, to hell with the embezzlers. They can party down there with the fags.

*pfft* Now that's some black humor right there.

PS: You missed your chance, at least on the federal level. Gender identity and sexual orientation are now included in hate crimes. Has been for about three years.

 

[FortyTwo]

 

[das_nut]

Not sure what the face palm is for. Care to explain?

 

[FortyTwo]

I ooze black humor.

Also it was sarcasm, and mostly unrelated to the conversation. You acted like I was making some sort of political statement.

 

[led.boots]

Well, depending on my personal proclivities and/or upon how obnoxious my neighbor is, denying me the right to shoot my neighbor infringes upon my liberty and/or upon my pursuit of happiness, both of which were considered fundamental rights by the Founding Fathers.
.

I read somewhere that my right to punch ends at the other guy's nose. Or something like that.

 

[das_nut]

I ooze black humor.

Also it was sarcasm, and mostly unrelated to the conversation. You acted like I was making some sort of political statement.

Oh, sorry. Thought I made it obvious that I knew you were joking.

 

[mlp]

Oh, I got the concept. I just disagree with it, because it's bloody stupid. Seriously, think about it - you got two murderers. One killed a person because of their religion. The other killed a person because of their occupation. Now technically, only the killer who acted on skin color qualifies for the longer sentence under hate crime laws. But IMO, when you're killing people based on arbitrary reasons (such as their occupation or skin color), you present a continuing threat to the safety of individuals in society.

It's also remarkably inconsistent to say that what religion someone chooses is protected, but what occupation someone chooses is not.

You misunderstood me. I brought up hate crimes legislation. not to discuss its merits, but as an example of how it is perfectly possible to define a specific type of activity without it becoming criminal for me to say "I hate you."

But if you want to debate the merits of hate crime legislation, I'll have to say I disagree with your post.

 

[das_nut]

You misunderstood me. I brought up hate crimes legislation. not to discuss its merits, but as an example of how it is perfectly possible to define a specific type of activity without it becoming criminal for me to say "I hate you."

Obviously the law against hate crimes does not criminalize free speech, and thus isn't applicable.

But if you want to debate the merits of hate crime legislation, I'll have to say I disagree with your post.

That's because you're wrong. The proper way to deal with crimes is to give enough flexibility in sentencing for judges to impose stricter sentences on those who have a greater chance of re-offending. This would include those who commit crimes due to race, but it would also include those who aren't covered by current hate-crime legislation (for example, those who decide to firebomb abortion clinics).

 

[FortyTwo]

Obviously the law against hate crimes does not criminalize free speech

DING DING DING, we have a winner!

 

[das_nut]

Now laws against hate speech can infringe on free speech. That's the problem.

 

[mlp]

Obviously the law against hate crimes does not criminalize free speech, and thus isn't applicable.

You continue to miss the point, which is this: Hate crime legislation is drafted to cover a narrow, specific category of crimes; there is no reason that hate speech legislation cannot be drafted to cover a narrow specific category of speech. And, in fact, it has been drafted in such a manner in Germany, and I am sure in other jurisdictions as well. I could have cited other legislation which also is drafted to cover only specific kinds of activities within broader categories, but I picked hate crime legislation because it's something with which lay people are generally familiar.

That's because you're wrong.

Gee whiz. Here I thought we had differing opinions, only to find that I'm actually wrong. I guess that means your opinion isn't just an opinion, but a statement of fact, and my opinion isn't just an opinion, but an incorrect statement of fact? I am awed by your ability to magically turn opinions into fact, truly I am.

The proper way to deal with crimes is to give enough flexibility in sentencing for judges to impose stricter sentences on those who have a greater chance of re-offending. This would include those who commit crimes due to race, but it would also include those who aren't covered by current hate-crime legislation (for example, those who decide to firebomb abortion clinics).

The strict sentencing guidelines that were imposed some years ago have definite problems. But only someone who is ignorant of the workings of the judicial system would not know of or ignore the very real and major miscarriages of justice that resulted from the wide ranging discretion in sentencing that judges used to have. In case you aren't aware, individuals end up on the bench because they have political influence and/or they have accumulated political favor points. As a result, there are a lot of idiots on the bench, not to mention a lot of bigots.

 

[das_nut]

You continue to miss the point, which is this: Hate crime legislation is drafted to cover a narrow, specific category of crimes; there is no reason that hate speech legislation cannot be drafted to cover a narrow specific category of speech.

And what definition do you think would be not prone to abuse?

The strict sentencing guidelines that were imposed some years ago have definite problems. But only someone who is ignorant of the workings of the judicial system would not know of or ignore the very real and major miscarriages of justice that resulted from the wide ranging discretion in sentencing that judges used to have.

There are multiple solutions to the problem of bad judges. Why is removing discretion in sentencing the best solution?

 

[mlp]

Well, das_nut, properly drafted legislation takes time to put together; frankly, more time than I'm willing to waste in this argument with you. The last piece of legislation that I participated in drafting took weeks of work by a number of lawyers.

I don't know that removing discretion in sentencing is the best solution to the problem of bad judges; as I said before, it has its own set of problems. There aren't a whole lot of practical, workable solutions to the problem of bad judges though, not in our current system, even though you apparently think there are.

 

[das_nut]

Well, das_nut, properly drafted legislation takes time to put together; frankly, more time than I'm willing to waste in this argument with you. The last piece of legislation that I participated in drafting took weeks of work by a number of lawyers.

What percentage of legislation would you say is "properly drafted"? What is the risk that improperly drafted legislation would be used to penalize those who say unpopular things?

I don't know that removing discretion in sentencing is the best solution to the problem of bad judges; as I said before, it has its own set of problems. There aren't a whole lot of practical, workable solutions to the problem of bad judges though, not in our current system, even though you apparently think there are.

I said there were multiple solutions. I didn't say any of those solutions were perfect.

 

[mlp]

What percentage of legislation would you say is "properly drafted"? What is the risk that improperly drafted legislation would be used to penalize those who say unpopular things?



I said there were multiple solutions. I didn't say any of those solutions were perfect.

Most legislation (at least on the federal level) actually gets the job done that's intended to be done.

What solutions do you think actually exist? I'm curious to see what you actually know about the judicial system in the U.S.