St. Charles high school freshman charged with hate crime

[thegodfather]

You can't compare being called stupid or ugly to being called a ******. That's ridiculous! Hate crime legislation wasn't enacted to prevent people from having their feelings hurt, those laws were enacted to prevent a climate of fear and intimidation. The klan and other groups rally all the time around the country publicly using these terms.

Now should this kid be charged with a hate crime? NO. Obviously the kid was doing whatever he could to get back at the broad for dumping him. BUT, he knew using the most offensive term possible would hurt her to the core (never heard of stupid or ugly having that type of affect on people). Therein lies the problem, people have a habit of trying to oversimplify things to justify their ideals. Anyone who believes simplistic insults are tantamount to racial slurs is simply niave and detached from reality.

I do believe the real culprits are the oversensitive principle and law enforcement that charged this kid. Hate crimes only need to be applied carefully.

And as a 14yr old I never thought any hitler propoganda was cool, no one I associated with did. Everyone knew that history and those who thought it was cool harbored many racists beliefs and somewhat supported that ideology.

On a funny note, I served 30 days as a juvenile because my wife's (then girlfriend) ex-boyfriend decided to exercise his free speech by scratching ****** lover on her car so I deprived him of his ability to use his right hand for a little over 3 months. Moral of the story free speech can get you put in jail! LoL!

It's quite a trivial argument to try and quantify whether or not you calling me "Ugly" has the same effect as a racial slur. That is a very SUBJECTIVE thing, and there is no way for anyone of us to identify which is more hurtful to person A versus person B. And then, who determines what a racial slur is? Is every racial slur written down on the law books somewhere? Should I be able to have a person of another ethnicity/race charged with a hate crime if they assault me while calling me "cracker" or "whitey"? Would you agree with that?

The problem is that hate crime legislation is an attempt to legislate words. It is a persons right under the 1st Amendment to call you or I whatever they please. Carving it into the girls locker, would fall under the destruction of personal property. Trying to qualify it as a hate crime is a real stretch in this instance and I think they are just trying to make an example out of the CHILD.

The other issue with hate crime legislation, is that while we punish crimes more or less harsh based on MOTIVES, it is not logical that we punish a crime more harshly based on FEELINGS or BELIEFS about a certain race/ethnicity. That is what hate is, it is a set of beliefs or feelings. So we have essentially legislated what feelings are morally acceptable and what ones are not. That is a start towards the slippery slope, Canada as an example. In the United States however, hate speech is perfectly acceptable, so long as it does not incite or promote violence. Basically, I oppose the legislation based on principle alone.

[Tock]

The problem is that hate crime legislation is an attempt to legislate words. It is a persons right under the 1st Amendment to call you or I whatever they please.

( s n i p )

Basically, I oppose the legislation based on principle alone.

I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws either. Basically, I like to call Christians "idiots" (and other things) whenever appropriate. Hate crime legislation prevents that sort of thing . . .

However . . . suppose I'm walking down the street, and a couple pickup truck loads of "idiots" surrounds me and start hurling gay slurs at me, and read the homophobic sections of the Bible at me. Or suppose a bunch of "idiots" follow me on the street and read the Bible at me. Knowing what I know about the attitude of Conservative Republican judges here in Texas, things could get out of hand and I could get hurt (or killed), and the judge could say to himself (as what happens down here), "Oh well, he was just an atheist fa--ot out spreading AIDS, and these guys are, after all, Bible beleiving Christians."

So . . . knowing that when people start stating their anti-gay opinions on the street next to me, that means that I might get hurt pretty bad in the next few minutes; well, shouldn't that sort of behavior be punishable as intimidation?

-------

I don't really know what the solution to this problem is . . . On one hand, I'll agree that everyone has the right to free speech, and should be free to express their opinion whenever they like. On the other hand, groups or packs or mobs of people sometimes get out of control, and other people sometimes need to be protected from them (protection for their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

There's a difference between the intimidation and violence wrought by bullys and anti-minority bigots, and the mumblings of jilted teenagers and the inexpert prose of amateur writers. I don't know that hate crime legislation always differentiates between Constitutionally protected speech and criminal acts -- but it should . . .

[lotaquestions]

I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws either. Basically, I like to call Christians "idiots" (and other things) whenever appropriate. Hate crime legislation prevents that sort of thing . . .

However . . . suppose I'm walking down the street, and a couple pickup truck loads of "idiots" surrounds me and start hurling gay slurs at me, and read the homophobic sections of the Bible at me. Or suppose a bunch of "idiots" follow me on the street and read the Bible at me. Knowing what I know about the attitude of Conservative Republican judges here in Texas, things could get out of hand and I could get hurt (or killed), and the judge could say to himself (as what happens down here), "Oh well, he was just an atheist fa--ot out spreading AIDS, and these guys are, after all, Bible beleiving Christians."

So . . . knowing that when people start stating their anti-gay opinions on the street next to me, that means that I might get hurt pretty bad in the next few minutes; well, shouldn't that sort of behavior be punishable as intimidation?

-------

I don't really know what the solution to this problem is . . . On one hand, I'll agree that everyone has the right to free speech, and should be free to express their opinion whenever they like. On the other hand, groups or packs or mobs of people sometimes get out of control, and other people sometimes need to be protected from them (protection for their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

There's a difference between the intimidation and violence wrought by bullys and anti-minority bigots, and the mumblings of jilted teenagers and the inexpert prose of amateur writers. I don't know that hate crime legislation always differentiates between Constitutionally protected speech and criminal acts -- but it should . . .

i wouldnt call you a f-got or a c-ck sucker i would just ask you politely to go be gay somewhere else because you are making my stomach hurt.

[kfrost06]

It's quite a trivial argument to try and quantify whether or not you calling me "Ugly" has the same effect as a racial slur. That is a very SUBJECTIVE thing, and there is no way for anyone of us to identify which is more hurtful to person A versus person B. And then, who determines what a racial slur is? Is every racial slur written down on the law books somewhere? Should I be able to have a person of another ethnicity/race charged with a hate crime if they assault me while calling me "cracker" or "whitey"? Would you agree with that?

The problem is that hate crime legislation is an attempt to legislate words. It is a persons right under the 1st Amendment to call you or I whatever they please. Carving it into the girls locker, would fall under the destruction of personal property. Trying to qualify it as a hate crime is a real stretch in this instance and I think they are just trying to make an example out of the CHILD.

The other issue with hate crime legislation, is that while we punish crimes more or less harsh based on MOTIVES, it is not logical that we punish a crime more harshly based on FEELINGS or BELIEFS about a certain race/ethnicity. That is what hate is, it is a set of beliefs or feelings. So we have essentially legislated what feelings are morally acceptable and what ones are not. That is a start towards the slippery slope, Canada as an example. In the United States however, hate speech is perfectly acceptable, so long as it does not incite or promote violence. Basically, I oppose the legislation based on principle alone.

Well, godfather, you won't hear me say this often but I agree with you all the way. There can be good arguments made for both sides of the issue but in the end the government will use the laws to legislate their beliefs and will be abused. We need look no farther then Canada to see how the law can be abused. Just read how a guy was charged with a hate crime there for flushing a Koran down the toilet.

[thegodfather]

Well, godfather, you won't hear me say this often but I agree with you all the way. There can be good arguments made for both sides of the issue but in the end the government will use the laws to legislate their beliefs and will be abused. We need look no farther then Canada to see how the law can be abused. Just read how a guy was charged with a hate crime there for flushing a Koran down the toilet.

Yup...one word for this bro... Liberals