Should hate be a crime?

[Big War Bird]

Poor quality OP with non sequiturs and strawmen? We need a "worst thread of the fortnight" comp for this stuff.



Flaming troll is flaming. Selective quoting is as weaksauce trolling as it gets.



Weaksauce argument dies from its own inability to breathe.

Most "hatecrime laws" (a lazy shorthand because politicians) are laws against incitement to act violently. That's not a feeling, its an action.

That does not appear to be the standard in Australia.

Section 18C of the RDA makes it is unlawful for a person to do an act in public if it is reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person of a certain race, colour or national or ethnic origin, and the act was done because of one or more of those characteristics.[10][11]

Exemptions are provided in section 18D, including acts relating to artistic works, genuine academic or scientific purposes, fair reporting, and fair comment on matters of public interest.

Wikipedia cited numerous example of people just stating opinions, not calling for some imminent violent action, and then being prosecuted

I would rather we deal honestly and openly with opinions and ideas which we disagree, bringing to the light of day so they can be examined so we can determine the reasons and motivations for it without fear. Hate speech laws encourage the opposite. It shuts down debate and victory goes to the side that accuses the other of hate first.

In the case of Jerusalem, it may be fairly argued that Jerusalem shouldn't be the capital because of all the baggage of the Palestine-Israel conflict. It is also true that plenty of people who simply hate Jews would say Jerusalem should not be Israel's capital. If hating Jews is a crime then I don't need to listen to any argument. I can criminalize everyone who disagrees.

[Axalon]

"Should hate be a crime?"

Personally, the answer is "absolutely not!" If the answer is supposedly "yes" - then its just a matter of
time before we end up with "Thoughtcrime! Thoughtcrime! Thoughtcrime!" ...Actions can be criminal -
thoughts and opinions should never be - regardless of anything. That's my take.

- A

[Clover]

I belive that the concept of hate crime is an inherit contradiction of liberalism and equality. I am not an expert with non-American legislation or cultural sensitivities, but I do find that the western world shares a common consciousness regarding values and the application of law. When a crime is perpetrated against someone we have an apolitical classification for it. This tier-based punishment is, or rather should be, applied universally with no consideration to gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. This is what makes the justice system blind and thus as close to fair as we can get. The moment that the identify of the victim warrants a higher punishment then this system becomes at odds with itself.

[Clover]

I belive that the concept of hate crime is an inherit contradiction of liberalism and equality. I am not an expert with non-American legislation or cultural sensitivities, but I do find that the western world shares a common consciousness regarding values and the application of law. When a crime is perpetrated against someone we have an apolitical classification for it. This tier-based punishment is, or rather should be, applied universally with no consideration to gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. This is what makes the justice system blind and thus as close to fair as we can get. The moment that the identify of the victim warrants a higher punishment then this system becomes at odds with itself.

I apologize for the double post. I could not figure out how to edit.

Regarding hate as a crime, absolutely not. This would be an irreversible challenge to the foundation of society. People have every right to feel the most abhorrent ways about any issue one can imagine. Provided there is not a call to violence or an attempt to restrict the rights of others, then nothing beyond mockery should be levied at them.

[conon394]

By itself probably not it to nebulous. I can loath a hate my neighbor all I want for whatever reason but as I but you can't really make that a crime till I act on that hate. I would say it should be a sentencing criteria. If white supremists lynch a black man I think obvious racial hated and aim at terrorizing others would be reason to say this is not the same a shooting a clerk in during a bank robbery - both being planed crimes.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Without the anti-hate law called "civil right acts" KKK would still punished for hanging a black man on the next tree with 4 years on probe in lovely Mississippi...

[Infidel144]

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35...ights_act.html
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/...s-act-of-1957/

Neither seem to mention "hate" or "KKK" or "hanging" or "black" or "man".

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Because Mississippi officials refused to prosecute the killers for murder, a state crime, the federal government, led by prosecutor John Doar, charged 18 individuals under 18 U.S.C. §242 and §371 with conspiring to deprive the three activists of their civil rights (by murder).


18 USC § 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...blic_attention

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

[Infidel144]

Because Mississippi officials refused to prosecute the killers for murder, a state crime, the federal government, led by prosecutor John Doar, charged 18 individuals under 18 U.S.C. §242 and §371 with conspiring to deprive the three activists of their civil rights (by murder).


18 USC § 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

Neither of which mention "hate", "KKK", "hanging", "black" or "man".
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...blic_attention

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

I already linked to the CRA of 1964.
And as I said: "Neither seem to mention "hate" or "KKK" or "hanging" or "black" or "man".
Calling it an "anti-hate law" is incorrect. It does not outlaw hate.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Nonsense.

A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence.

Hate crime laws have a long history in the United States. The first hate crime^[67] laws were passed after the American Civil War, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1871, to combat the growing number of racially motivated crimes being committed by the Reconstruction era Ku Klux Klan. The modern era of hate-crime legislation began in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, part of the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." However, "The prosecution of such crimes must be certified by the U.S. attorney general.".^[68]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_States

[Infidel144]

Nonsense.

A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence.

Hate crime laws have a long history in the United States. The first hate crime^[67] laws were passed after the American Civil War, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1871, to combat the growing number of racially motivated crimes being committed by the Reconstruction era Ku Klux Klan. The modern era of hate-crime legislation began in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, part of the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin." However, "The prosecution of such crimes must be certified by the U.S. attorney general.".^[68]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_States

Again, the Civil Rights Act does not outlaw hate. It does not mention hate. You can't outlaw an emotion.

[Axalon]

... You can't outlaw an emotion.

Of course you can! Its just not rational and reasonable to do so, that's all... But have
such puny details ever stopped the unreasonable and irrational (people) from trying?

Nope, it has not!

- A

[The spartan]

Again, the Civil Rights Act does not outlaw hate. It does not mention hate. You can't outlaw an emotion.

Do you literally think he is talking about outlawing an emotion?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Do you literally think he is talking about outlawing an emotion?

Obviously i'm not talking about emotions, but about crimes because of hate. Commonly known as Hate Crime laws. ^^

[Aexodus]

Can you show us where the CA 1964 introduces hate crime legislation?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin"^[19] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.
Persons violating this law face a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both. If bodily injury results or if such acts of intimidation involve the use of firearms, explosives or fire, individuals can receive prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.<sup>[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...I:_Hate_crimes</sup>

[sumskilz]

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin"^[19] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.
Persons violating this law face a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both. If bodily injury results or if such acts of intimidation involve the use of firearms, explosives or fire, individuals can receive prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.<sup>[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...I:_Hate_crimes</sup>

The quote on the Wikipedia page is wrong in that it rearranges the words so that they appear to apply to something broader than it does. In actuality, it only apples to the use of force or threat of force (full text). Consequently, it's inapplicable to the topic of the thread as outlined by the OP, which refers to the criminalization of verbal and written expressions of hate (or whatever is deemed to be such). In fact, all of what the OP refers to, whether legitimately hateful or not, is considered protected speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Quite the opposite of being outlawed, it is illegal for the government to interfere with it.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

And still the law system know two kinds of hate laws:

1. Hate crimes since 60s

2. Hate Speech Laws since 90ts (?)

I was referring the whole time to the first one and i was replying to this post:

I belive that the concept of hate crime is an inherit contradiction of liberalism and equality. I am not an expert with non-American legislation or cultural sensitivities, but I do find that the western world shares a common consciousness regarding values and the application of law. When a crime is perpetrated against someone we have an apolitical classification for it. This tier-based punishment is, or rather should be, applied universally with no consideration to gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. This is what makes the justice system blind and thus as close to fair as we can get. The moment that the identify of the victim warrants a higher punishment then this system becomes at odds with itself.

This is nonsense as it doesn't happened in the past, especially southern states of US.

If a white killed a black, he was not persecuted, as the Mississippi Incidents showed.

Thats the reason, why hate crime laws like the Civil Right Act were introduced.

And now the conservative mob can rant again and mix up hate speech laws and hate crime laws, i'm tired to explain this again and again.

[sumskilz]

And still the law system know two kinds of hate laws:

1. Hate crimes since 60s

2. Hate Speech Laws since 90ts (?)

2. Not in the US:

Hate speech in the United States is not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

I was referring the whole time to the first one and i was replying to this post

I didn't catch that.