"Hate speech" laws

[goofyjim]

There has always been special categories. Intent is always a factor in determining sentencing. Was the murder spur of the moment passion? or was it carefully planned and calculated? These things do make a difference, so why wouldn’t the reason a person is murdered? Was it self defense? or was he killed because the suspect hates homosexuals? Do you think these two crimes should have the same sentence?

Self defense is not an act of hate and therefore could not carry the same sentence. All other crimes of hatred should be punished equally. If the suspect kills because he hated the person for whatever reason, it should be the same sentence regardless of the reason he hated the person.

 

[po18guy]

Self defense is not an act of hate and therefore could not carry the same sentence. All other crimes of hatred should be punished equally. If the suspect kills because he hated the person for whatever reason, it should be the same sentence regardless of the reason he hated the person.

Nothong goofy about your response!

 

[Naztakuan]

I think Hate crimes are different in that they are not directed at an individual. If a person kills a person because they disliked that ONE person, then I guess they percieve that the killer would be less likely to kill more since their crime was not based on a belief that they had. When a person kills a person because of their ethnicity (not necessarily a minority one) they aren’t being particular about specifics. It doern’t matter who they kill, just “what” they kill and probably more than just one. If you kill Bob because he slept with your wife, that’s entirely different from killing Kwame because he was black. If being black is his only offense, you’d be motivated to kill his wife, his kids, his black friends and your other black neighbors because you believe that they all need to die for that reason alone. If you kill Bob, he’s the only guy who slept with your wife so that’s the only guy you’ll kill.
At least that’s how I see it. If you wanted all white people to die, you’d be out killing people all the time because you believe it’s your duty to do so. That’s a diferent pschological profile. People motivated by a cause are completely different than people motivated by an isolated passion. I’ve never heard of anyone apologizing for a hate crime but the guy who killed his adulterous wife may be sorry right after. He may even get parole for good behavior. Which really just works out for the courts. I don’t think we live in a society where we WANT people to be in jail forever, doing nothing and living off of our tax money. the point of Jail is to protect society from dangerous people. Because it doesn’t seem to do much by way of reform.

 

[CatholicLeft]

Self defense is not an act of hate and therefore could not carry the same sentence. All other crimes of hatred should be punished equally. If the suspect kills because he hated the person for whatever reason, it should be the same sentence regardless of the reason he hated the person.

So what if he didn’t hate him or her? What if it was an accident? Hitting someone with a car? Or even better what if it was mercy killing, Euthanasia. He killed his dying wife cause he loved her so much that he didn’t want to suffer with end-stage cancer.Wrong by Catholic teaching? Yes, but is it as evil as hanging someone from a tree because of the color of his skin?

Which person should get a longer sentence or should they all get the same sentence.

a) A man comes home and finds his wife in bed with a stranger. His rage builds so much that he suddenly pulls out his gun and shoots his wife who he has loved for 20 years. Do you believe in “instant hate”. He cradles her lifeless body in his arms caressing her face, sobbing with regret, while waiting for the police to come.

b) a man is mentally ill. He becomes obsessed by a famous Hollywood movie star who he proceeds to stalk. One night while stalking, he sees her going into a very expensive restaurant with a co-star. He is filled with jealous rage. He spends weeks and months planning a elaborate way to kill this co-star who, in his mind stole his true love. He plans an entire assassination scenario and even hires someone with a expensive sniper rifle to pull the trigger. Then he coldly follows through.

c) A German Gestapo officer is walking down a busy sidewalk in Munich 1938 with a couple of his sub-ordinates. He is accidentally bumped by a little old lady in a brown jacket with a bright yellow star on the front. He is disgusted with the knowledge that he was touched by a vile, unclean Jew. He doesn’t know this woman from a hole in the ground, but his hate is so great for Jews, he pulls his standard issue Luger from his holster and shoots her in the head. She crumples to the ground.The sub-ordinates giggle.

This logic that all murder is equal doesn’t equate anymore then the statement that all sins are equal. We as Catholics know for a fact that not all sins are equal.

Which sin is mortal…

a) A single mother who has to work trick shifts to put food on her table for her 4 young children had to work the night shift the night before. Exhausted she wakes up to find that 2 of her children are sick and vomiting from the stomach flu. She attempts to get everyone ready to go, cause she knows the importance of the Mass. But is unable to and collapses from exhaustion.

b) A single college student gets invited to the pre-game breakfast on Sunday morning with his secular friends. He knows the importance of Mass but rationalizes that God will understand because after all, that hot girl in his calculus class is gonna be there. He blows off Mass.

Remember, to para-phrase Cristininha:

The motive behind the sin is as important as the sin itself.

 

[Annn]

Can someone provide actual example of so-called “hate speech” laws so that we have something concrete to discuss?

 

[CatholicLeft]

Can someone provide actual example of so-called “hate speech” laws so that we have something concrete to discuss?

Nope, they can’t. Not in America at least. But the Right wing media likes to predend they are out there so they can rally their base to divide this nation.

 

[po18guy]

Can someone provide actual example of so-called “hate speech” laws so that we have something concrete to discuss?

Currently, you must cross into Canada and see what the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been up to. They are arbitrarily stifling free speech. This is not good for truth. It is not good for Canadian society, or any society, for that matter.

 

[Dale_M]

Currently, you must cross into Canada and see what the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been up to. They are arbitrarily stifling free speech.

But conservative Canadians also support stifling free speech, such as in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=291379

I am beginning to think that Canadians do not support the principle of free speech, with the Right and the Left each wanting to suppress one another.

 

[Lujack]

If I shoot a black man, I go to prison under a hate crime for 20 years. I shoot a white man, no “hate crime”, I go to prison for 12 years. You have just placed a higher value on the black man’s life. That is fair? Please explain. Equality under the law is, or should I say, was our goal.

That isn’t the way it works, though. If you tell your fried “I’m going to go kill some [insert racial slur]s” and kill a black man, that’s a hate crime. If you get into a fight with a black man, and shoot him, even if you call him by a racial slur after the fight starts, it still isn’t a hate crime.

Contrary to popular belief, it isn’t a hate crime every time a white man kills a black man. It is only a hate crime if racism, or anti-Semitism (there was a pretty high profile assault perpetrated by a black high schooler near my house who wanted to “beat up some dirty Jews”), or any other bias.

 

[po18guy]

But conservative Canadians also support stifling free speech, such as in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=291379

I am beginning to think that Canadians do not support the principle of free speech, with the Right and the Left each wanting to suppress one another.

All that I can divine from the thread is that you disagree with a Canadian. He bemoaned the fact that info has been suppressed relating to the safety/danger of various sexual practices. Homosexuality is the only, if tangential, connection that I see.

A certain-to-be-not-rhetorical question: Why do those who identify as “left” so often force this into the canard of being a left/right matter, digging up examples from the four corners of the earth as their “proof”?

Those who are defined by their orthodox Catholicism couldn’t care less. Either your politics is shaped by your Catholicism, which it should be, or your Catholicism is shaped by your politics, as it must not be. Truth is not malleable.

 

[Starwynd]

Can someone provide actual example of so-called “hate speech” laws so that we have something concrete to discuss?

Australia

[edit] The Commonwealth of Australia

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 forbids hate speech on several grounds. The Act makes it “unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group.” An aggrieved person can lodge a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. If the complaint is validated, the Commission will attempt to conciliate the matter. If the Commission cannot negotiate an agreement which is acceptable to the complainant, the complainant’s only redress is through the Federal Court or through the Federal Magistrates Service.

In 2002, the Federal Court applied the Act in the case of Jones v. Toben. The case involved a complaint about a website which contained material that denied the Holocaust. The Federal Court ruled that the material was a violation of the Act.[4]

Section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1914 makes it an offence to use the Internet to disseminate material intentionally that results in a person being menaced or harassed. This offence includes material communicated by email. Federal criminal law, therefore, is available to address racial vilification where the element of threat or harassment is also present, although it does not apply to material that is merely offensive.[5]

In the United Kingdom, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred. “Racial hatred” is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group’s colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

    (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

    (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.” The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

    Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

The Criminal Justice And Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting. [33]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

 

[neat62]

“Hate speech” laws are a wonderful means by which groups not suffering from various forms of discrimination and hatred can claim that they’re being persecuted.

Nonsense. They are pandering laws, pure and simple.

 

[sharmin]

They should all be ended. One should be able to speak hatred against anyone or noone. None of this foolishness of protecting some while allowing it against others.

Am I reading this correctly? Do you believe that you believe anyone should be allowed to incite hate with hate speech? You are aware that that often leads to violence against those the hate is directed to, aren’t you?

 

[goofyjim]

So what if he didn’t hate him or her? What if it was an accident? Hitting someone with a car? Or even better what if it was mercy killing, Euthanasia. He killed his dying wife cause he loved her so much that he didn’t want to suffer with end-stage cancer.Wrong by Catholic teaching? Yes, but is it as evil as hanging someone from a tree because of the color of his skin?

Which person should get a longer sentence or should they all get the same sentence.

a) A man comes home and finds his wife in bed with a stranger. His rage builds so much that he suddenly pulls out his gun and shoots his wife who he has loved for 20 years. Do you believe in “instant hate”. He cradles her lifeless body in his arms caressing her face, sobbing with regret, while waiting for the police to come.

b) a man is mentally ill. He becomes obsessed by a famous Hollywood movie star who he proceeds to stalk. One night while stalking, he sees her going into a very expensive restaurant with a co-star. He is filled with jealous rage. He spends weeks and months planning a elaborate way to kill this co-star who, in his mind stole his true love. He plans an entire assassination scenario and even hires someone with a expensive sniper rifle to pull the trigger. Then he coldly follows through.

c) A German Gestapo officer is walking down a busy sidewalk in Munich 1938 with a couple of his sub-ordinates. He is accidentally bumped by a little old lady in a brown jacket with a bright yellow star on the front. He is disgusted with the knowledge that he was touched by a vile, unclean Jew. He doesn’t know this woman from a hole in the ground, but his hate is so great for Jews, he pulls his standard issue Luger from his holster and shoots her in the head. She crumples to the ground.The sub-ordinates giggle.

This logic that all murder is equal doesn’t equate anymore then the statement that all sins are equal. We as Catholics know for a fact that not all sins are equal.

Which sin is mortal…

a) A single mother who has to work trick shifts to put food on her table for her 4 young children had to work the night shift the night before. Exhausted she wakes up to find that 2 of her children are sick and vomiting from the stomach flu. She attempts to get everyone ready to go, cause she knows the importance of the Mass. But is unable to and collapses from exhaustion.

b) A single college student gets invited to the pre-game breakfast on Sunday morning with his secular friends. He knows the importance of Mass but rationalizes that God will understand because after all, that hot girl in his calculus class is gonna be there. He blows off Mass.

Remember, to para-phrase Cristininha:

The motive behind the sin is as important as the sin itself.

Again I do not equate all acts of murder. Yet in the above examples if the person is mentally ill this would reduce culpability and therefore the sentence would have to be lighter. In the second two examples of missing Mass it is pretty obvious that the college student has committed a mortal sin whereas the mother has not since she could not make it due to exhaustion and fatigue.

Crimes of hatred do not need to be investigated by class of the victim. If the motive was hatred it was hatred. We cannot put a greater value on any life based on who it was that was being hated in the crime. An African American victim should be treated equally to an Hispanic or a Caucasion victim. If the motive was one of hate then treat it as such but make all crimes motivated by hatred get the same punishment. Otherwise we might let a suspect off the hook when it is a Caucasian victim and give them a tough sentence when they are African American. That is unfair. Both suspects if convicted should get the same sentence for their crimes if both crimes were done out of hatred.

 

[goofyjim]

Am I reading this correctly? Do you believe that you believe anyone should be allowed to incite hate with hate speech? You are aware that that often leads to violence against those the hate is directed to, aren’t you?

Not saying that at all. I just don’t believe there should be any special protection for some groups and not others. Of course hatred should be punished but all crimes of hatred should be punished equally and not carry different sentences based on class of the victim.

 

[Lujack]

Not saying that at all. I just don’t believe there should be any special protection for some groups and not others. Of course hatred should be punished but all crimes of hatred should be punished equally and not carry different sentences based on class of the victim.

That’s a good thing, because that’s the way the laws work.

 

[Annn]

Currently, you must cross into Canada and see what the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been up to. They are arbitrarily stifling free speech. This is not good for truth. It is not good for Canadian society, or any society, for that matter.

So to answer my question, not if we’re talking the US.

 

[Dale_M]

All that I can divine from the thread is that you disagree with a Canadian. He bemoaned the fact that info has been suppressed relating to the safety/danger of various sexual practices. Homosexuality is the only, if tangential, connection that I see.

I’m surprised you missed the point. The thread concerned a Russian mayor who suppressed the right of homosexuals to form associations and to speak freely. One Canadian said “we need mayors like that!” So I point out the restriction of free speech and and free association and mention that the HRC has restricted Catholic free speech and a couple more Canadians come on and say “Hurray for the mayor!” They would give up liberty so easily.

I realize that the rest of the world thinks we Americans are crazy about certain things (guns being among them), but I worry that the our neighbors to the north don’t value free speech.

 

[KingAlfred]

They should all be ended. One should be able to speak hatred against anyone or noone. None of this foolishness of protecting some while allowing it against others.

Worse yet – it’s a lethal instrument of brainwashing. Talk about a ‘slippery slope’ toward totalitarianism.

 

[goofyjim]

Worse yet – it’s a lethal instrument of brainwashing. Talk about a ‘slippery slope’ toward totalitarianism.

Just remember under my system Catholics would not be immune to hate speech. If one wanted to speak hatred against them they could with no consequences.