What do you thinkof H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Act of 2007?
2007-08-22 12:46:55 · 11 answers · asked by cryptique_keeper 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Hate crimes do not exist.
All crimes are hate crimes.
I haven't decided which of the about I believe, but no one can convince me of any position between the 2.
The 1st amendment protection of free SPEECH (note: speech, not expression) is designed specifically to protect speech some consider offensive. Non offensive speech does not require protection.
2007-08-22 13:37:00 · answer #1 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The real concern would be - "Who would define the hate groups?"
THe first amendment has to be across the board for everyone. OTher wise there will be someone who has the power to chose who has that right and who doesn't. No one person or group should have that power.
What if you had a conservative administration who decided that ecology groups were hate groups? What about a liberal admin who thinks the NRA is a hate group?
There really isn't a way to draw a line between who is and isn't allowed to speak, without relying on someone's judgement. And ultimately - people are falible -- they system would have an opening for abuse of others rights.
So in order to protect the rights of the majority - you have to protect the rights of everyone -- Even those who are speaking a view supported by a minority or that is hurtful.
The good thing is: the first admendmant is that you have the freedom of speech - but you are not guaranteed anyone will listen. Nor are you guaranteed everyone will agree.
Freedom comes with the responsibility to think about the views offered and to make conscientious choices about what you think and agree with. Even oppposing views cam make you think more about how you feel on the subject.
This doesn't mean hate groups are good or should be suported -- Just the opposite.
People who stop and think about what hate-mongers are saying, should understand intuitively these groups are morally wrong.
2007-08-22 20:04:21 · answer #2 · answered by yardchicken2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I assume you mean the free-speech clause (as opposed to the religion and press clauses) but regardless the answer is yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Nazis were protected by the 1st Amendment to demonstrate in Skokie, IL (the county w/ the largest population of holocaust survivors, btw) because the first amendment prohibited laws based on the content of the speech. However, in VA v. Black, the Court held that conduct with the threat of violence to a person or group is NOT protected. In that case someone was charged with placing a burning cross on the lawn of a black family, and the Court found it was done in a way to threaten that family, (though a burning cross is not prima facie evidence of threat of violence). Who cares what the Court thinks? In the U.S. the Supreme Court "say's what the law is".
So if you're planning to start a hate group, just don't threaten to harm the group you hate. Otherwise, hate away, and tell as many people you want that you hate. It's protected.
2007-08-22 20:05:00 · answer #3 · answered by Holy Grail 55408 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The First Amendment applies to EVERYBODY, because otherwise it can be taken from ANYBODY.
I'm not actually seeing the connection between this bill and the first amendment- violent crime is not protected by the freedom of speech. If you read all the way down, however, the bill does put limits on how severe a judge can be when imposing a sentence- whereas before it was left to their discretion. If you intend to commit a hate crime anytime soon, this bill is actually your friend. It means the D.A. has more money to hunt you down, but they can't just throw you in jail for the rest of your life, or execute you simply because you're violent against a specific minority.
2007-08-22 19:59:23 · answer #4 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's not a question of "should" the First Amendment be "applied," it's a matter of whether there is any reason to withdraw the protections of the First Amendment to certain types of speech...in the case of hate speech, not so far...although I could see the USSC going that way, since "offending" anybody is just about a federal offense these days...
2007-08-22 20:00:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The 1st Amendment applies to everyone whether you like what they have to say or not. (This board is proof of that, if I had my way half the people who post on here would be banned!)
A crime is a crime...to me it just another way to waste the taxpayers money. Send murderers to the gallows and those who commit other violent acts to prison for an extended period of time.
2007-08-22 20:16:33 · answer #6 · answered by Tater1966 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
all ammendments should apply to everyone and the hr 1592 is bad because a crime is a crime and shouldn't change based on who the victim or perp is or their motive
2007-08-22 20:05:50 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hate isn't a crime. Besides, everyone is too politically correct now a days. Sure it isn't fair to hate someone because they are gay, or black etc..., but if it is just words people are supposed to suck it up if it's just words. Crimes are crimes, and hate crimes are already punished more than regular crimes, so nothing more needs to be done about hate groups.
2007-08-22 19:57:55 · answer #8 · answered by Full Metal Jackson 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The First Amendment was created for the single, solitary purpose of protecting unpopular speech.
That means it doesn't matter who said it, who was offended by it, what was said, how it was said, or why.
2007-08-22 19:56:52 · answer #9 · answered by Hillary 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes. As long as they are not breaking any laws hate groups do have the right to express themselves as they see fit.
2007-08-22 19:52:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋