Posted on 01/24/2002 7:41:39 PM PST by cmvc3
Unfortunately for you, this is wishful thinking because you ignore the facts. In the Gore case, there was specific law about solicitations made on federal property ergo the reason it *was* a "gaffe"; in Cheney's case no one has shown specific law which indicates he conducted these meetings in an illegal fashion.
Again, regarding Hillary's Health Care Taskforce, she was not a Constitutional Officer, the Vice President certain is one. For more detail on how/why this is a critical distinction read some of the other replies.
There's no inconsistency just an effort to raise the old "hypocrisy" canard. Yawn.
Different concepts so far as I know. "Hate crime legislation" augments existing criminal statutes often where violence is involved. There's no violence in what Hess was fined for doing in Germany, he wasn't defacing anyone's property. His was a classic case of censorship.
Suddenly I wonder if one can't justify "hate crime legislation" in the way one might justify capital punishment: There are some crimes so beyond the pale that the State has a moral obligation to address them in a special way so as to encourage and reinforce self-discipline and discourage the irrationality which lead to the crime's commission. Persons engage in "hate crimes" attempt to send a message, not for money or some other motive.
Hate crime legislation doesn't exist to be "thought policing"--the ideas can be freely expressed, heard and debated in the public square or spoken in one's private home--but to discourage (primary young) persons for taking extreme action sometimes borne of such thinking. It's a fine line I admit, but an important distinction.
I don't have a problem with the State saying in my name you can't go around intimidating, injuring or murdering persons for a religious preference, skin pigmentation or because you're not interested in a potential date any differently than my supporting capital punishment as a response to unspeakable crimes.
Lastly, it's not as if we, the People, are entirely powerless to rightly defend free, protected, speech. I'm not so blind as to suggest there aren't persons who wouldn't want to go so far as to control thoughts, control unwanted speech. I can see that everyday anytime Democrats get on talk shows and "debates" by attacking persons, not defending ideas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.