Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheGenes
That said, we DO already have laws on the books right now that extend "special" protection for certain groups of people; typically people that are vulnerable in some capacity, or not able to adequately fend for themselves. Children are the example that immediately springs to mind. We have laws that protect children in a lot of different ways, whether it's Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, child labor laws, truancy laws, curfew laws, etc. Yes, I know it's not QUITE the same thing, but the point I'm trying to make is that in our society, we've established a precedent that some groups are deserving of additional laws and protection... so this wouldn't QUITE be breaking the mold.
|
That's true that there are laws protecting the vulnerable members of our society. Like you stated, the reason is usually because they are unable either to physically defend themselves, or they are unable to make decisions for themselves. I don't think the sexual orientation category (
as a whole) fits into those situations.
Quote:
|
If society decides that we are well served by protecting those that are habitually victimized (and trust me, Reba... while it might not be something that you've ever had exposure to, but for a lot of folks out there - gays, blacks, jews, etc. - it's an all-too-real phenomenon, and for many, an ever-present threat), how can that be a bad thing?
|
I'm not against protecting victims. I just don't support this legislation as the way to do it.
Quote:
|
I'll tell you what DOES bother me about it (and is part of the reason that I'm conflicted about it): it basically amounts to legislating thought, which is abhorrant to most democratic ideals.
|
Not just legislating thought, but judging it. A very mirky mire indeed.
Quote:
|
Attempting to draw a simple analogy: if someone spraypaints an image of a rabbit on my garage at Easter-time, it might piss me off, because it's damaged my property... and there are laws that could be used to prosecute the offender, even though the offense (to some) might seem relatively minor. If, however, that same person spraypainted "Get out of our town, you fucking FAGGOT!", or "All N****rs Must Die", or "Jews killed Christ, it's time for Payback!"... technically, the same physical act has taken place (the spraypainting and damage of property), but an entirely different element has entered into the picture: Hate. How is being hateful towards one another productive to society?
|
Except for the rabbit example, all your other examples didn't just express the feeling of hate, they also threatened violent action. It's the threat of violence that should be prosecuted, not the name calling per se.
If someone just spray painted "Get out of town!" or "You must die" or "It's time for payback!" on your garage door, those phrases don't specify hate against any group but they are still
threatening. It's the
threat that needs to be prosecuted, not the "thoughts" or "emotions" behind them.
To me, here's the difference:
1. Spraying paint on my garage door with a nasty word or picture, or just a bunch of squiggles is vandalism.
2. Spraying paint on my garage door with a phrase "I hate Christian women!" That is a "hate" phrase but it's still just vandalism, under current laws. Why? Because it just expresses a thought and a feeling.
3. Spraying paint on my garage door that says "I love you--I will kill you, and release you from this awful world." Hmm. That phrase isn't hateful but it's a threat of murder. That's not just vandalism, that's a threat of physical harm. As a threat it might be prosecutable; as a potential "hate" crime it doesn't meet the criteria. Hate crime laws would NOT apply. Yet, the threat is there.
Quote:
|
One last comment... just because you don't think that the law will make much difference (and again, Im know we disagree), doesn't necessarily make the best argument for why a law shouldn't be enacted. That's like a parent never setting boundaries with their recalcitrant teenagers, because they "know" that they'll be ignored. That, to me, is irresponsible thinking.
|
I think the law is redundant (we have laws against violent attacks), and too hazy (judging hearts and minds instead of actions).