[sitetest]

Dear SJackson,

I'm generally opposed to hate crimes statutes, as well. To me, they verge on thought crime statutes. If someone murders another, it seems that the law should deal with the act, not whether murderer was thinking mean thoughts or not. In fact, for most crimes, I have a tought time trying to figure out how they might NOT be hate crimes.

I wouldn't generally support prosecution of disruptors like this under hate crimes statutes.

However, I'm just not sure that any of those laws are even applicable here, so whether or not it's a good idea is moot.

I think. ;-)


sitetest

[SJackson]

I'm generally opposed to hate crimes statutes, as well. To me, they verge on thought crime statutes. If someone murders another, it seems that the law should deal with the act, not whether murderer was thinking mean thoughts or not. In fact, for most crimes, I have a tought time trying to figure out how they might NOT be hate crimes...I wouldn't generally support prosecution of disruptors like this under hate crimes statutes...However, I'm just not sure that any of those laws are even applicable here, so whether or not it's a good idea is moot.

I agree, though since many hate laws are either state of local in nature, I've no doubt they could be applied somewhere. But in general, no.

I guess I'm just suggesting people think about this issue, since the overwhelming majority of posters, who it's fair to characterize as anti-hate crime, seem to think there's a crime here, and consistancy is a nice thing. You've already thought about it.

There's probably a role for prohibiting the advocacy of violence, short of action, irrespective of any form of minority status, but given the failure of sedition laws in the US, I doubt it's practical.