Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheGenes
Yes, and no. Yes, gays and lesbians are able to make decisions for themselves (even when many of those decisions - gay marriage, adoption, etc. - are stymied, but that's a whole different topic)
|
I meant the individuals of currently protected groups are mentally or emotionally incapable of making decisions, and usually have family members or guardians who are responsible for their daily care. That's why children, people with mental retardation, senility, Alzheimer's, etc., are in a protected class.
Quote:
|
...and can physically defend themselves (although 1-2 defenseless gay guys getting beat on by groups of teenagers with baseball bats isn't quite what I'd call a fair fight)...
|
I meant people who can
never defend themselves under any circumstances, not people who are circumstantially overpowered. That means children, frail elderly people, people who are paralyzed or in comas, etc.
Quote:
|
but isn't this also about members of our society being systematically TARGETED and VICTIMIZED on a regular basis?
|
Will hate crime legislation truly correct
systematic targeting and victimizing?
Just asking.
Quote:
|
I understand what you're saying, I do. But... there is ALSO an implied threat of violence associated with hate speech. Try walking down a hall, or an alley, etc. and have someone sneer, "Fucking faggot!" in your direction, and tell me that you don't instantly feel menaced/threatened. Why? Because typically, those lovely words are the prelude to violence.
|
Those words are horrible. I definitely don't condone that kind of language or attitude. But those ugly words don't
always preclude violence; it's not a prima facie situation. You can't arrest someone for their nasty, insulting words (remember the First Amendment?) Much as we might not like it, the First Amendment works both ways.
Quote:
|
By your own definition, "it's the threat of violence that needs to be prosecuted". Perhaps the difference between our opinions is that you don't see a threat where gays do. Hyper-sensitivity? Perhaps in some instances... but on the whole, I don't believe so.
|
Sometimes the "threat" aspect is in the eyes of the beholder. That's always been a problem in assault and stalking cases. There are some words that are clearly threats ("I will kill, murder, beat you to a pulp, slice you up, feed you to the fishes," etc.). But the law also doesn't accept that every verbal or written insult is a threat of physical violence. That usually has to get sorted out in court.