Because, Mr Orwell, the idea of hate crimes legislation turns my stomach. Hate crime laws are an assault on freedom of not only speech, but thought.
OK, how about this: James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King Jr, this we all know, suppose now, that he committed that murder, not because he was a racist scumbag, but, because he didn't like the way Reverend King drove, would that make it less of a crime? Of course not, you and your ilk, however, would have any crime motivated by a bias more of a crime than others. Both ideas are patently ridiculous, that so many people don't understand that is scary.
I'm afraid, perhaps, that you don't understand.
Hate crimes legislation can neither restrict free speech or thought-though, and I'll get to this, it's possible that its interpretation and prosecution can.
In the meantime, though, I'll point out that there's nothing preventing the fellows over at
the Stromfront ("White pride world wide"-btw, they have a rather long "sticky" thread there on "hate crime hoaxes..
:lol: ) from preaching hate daily, and that the 1st Amendment rights of various
Christian Identity churches aren't being infringed upon. I'll also point out that up until very recently, in very many places in the United States it was illegal for my wife and I to be married. While it's no longer the law, it is still the right of anyone who thinks that "mixed race" marriages are wrong to go on thinking it, and to say as much. They can't, of course, shoot us down for walking hand in hand, and I think it's a good thing that there are laws that bring an additional level of penalty for anyone who might perpetrate such a crime.
However, just as RICO statutes have been more broadly applied than what was originally intended, and sometimes abused, there are also potentials for abuse of hate crime legislation. It's entirely possible that if an individual from one of the organizations I mentioned were to commit a hate crime, that the prosecution might extend to the organizations themselves, for fomenting the thought that became the action. This just might be an abuse-though some, like Marginal, might call it just...in the end, though, it would be up to a jury, if such a case were to come to trial.
The notion, then, that hate crimes legislation are an affront to free speech, and free thought, is a blatant canard-one usually foisted upon us by media pundits with little or no stake in the matter, or politicians trying to curry favor with a segment of their constituency
As for "hate crimes" themselves, I believe a recent FBI report indicates that whites are more likely to be victims of hate crimes than perpetrators...
.
