NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/motss/48828

Text File | 1992-11-22 | 3.2 KB | 68 lines

Newsgroups: soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!news.service.uci.edu!gordius!gordius!mike
From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: So-Called Hate Crimes (was Gay-Bashing)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:04:28 GMT
Lines: 56

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jess Anderson) writes:
> It boils down to what the First Amendment really means, in
> practice.  Those who think it is *the* main bastion of
> freedom (I'm one) will agree with you: to prosecute people
> for merely expressing themselves through speech and symbols,
> no matter how hate-filled or offensive to community
> sensibilities, is to compromise the 1st Amendment's
> protections and imperil freedom for all.

  Totally agreed.

> >Now, of course, if someone acts on a hateful belief, and
> >goes and beats up on gays qua gays (for example), they
> >should most certainly be tried on assault and other related
> >charges.  But to charge them based, not on the character of
> >their actions, but on its motivation, seems like a dangerous
> >infringement of freedom of thought.
>
> It's mighty inconvenient, but there you have it: if one
> belief is actionable, any other belief can be actionable.
> The strength of the First Amendment's idea is that it's
> protection is not divisible, that is, it protects *all*
> ideas and beliefs equally.  So Nazis and the KKK can parade,
> display swastikas, wear hoods, call for the destruction of
> everyone who doesn't believe as they do, and all sorts of
> disgusting things.  But as soon as we try to prevent that,
> we're exposed to repression ourselves, because our ideas are
> anathema to lots of people.

  I've been think about this lately. Oughtn't the gist of
hate crimes type laws be toward the sentencing end rather
than the actual crime? Clearly, assault qua assault is a
violation of ones rights irrespective of the motivation of
the violator. Therefore, it seems reasonable that a law
against assault should be sufficient protection against
that sort of behavior.
  But all assaults are not created equal, and it is the
severity and motivation for the assault which we should
take into account when deciding what the proper _punishment_
for the crime ought to be. This is where the concept of
hate crimes might have a place: they single out certain
types of behavior as more or less reprehensible from
a moral standpoint. It's not about the crime itself,
which there is no question is wrong, it's about the
proper punishment.
  Right? This seems reasonable since freedom of expression
does not enter into the equation until *after* the violent
act. Basically, this would fit the old addage "your freedom
to swing your fist, ends when it connects with my face."
--

        Michael Thomas    ([e-mail])
    "I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."
        -- Hobbes to Calvin
        USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,    92707-5637
        PaBell: [phone] [phone] (fax)