Hate Crime

My opponent argues that, "If someone is attacking a gay because he is rich not because of him being gay and yells something about gays, he could get charged for hurting the gay because the guy being was gay and could get all sorts of benefits. Hate crime restrains and limits my freedom speech and opinion towards the people because I can't say anything that could hurt them."In such a scenario it is reasonable to suspect that the victims wealth is not the primary reason for the attack, the fact that the attacker would make some sort of derogatory reference to his victims sexuality implies that this is partial motivation for the attack.It is quite clear that the hate crime designation simply seeks to protect 'minorities' from ACTS that are already illegal. Not thoughts, nor ordinary speech."1st Contention-Hate crime destroys our thought freedom.If a person does a crime not because of their hate for gays, but for other reasons such as being rich though he is against homosexuality, if the individual gay finds out he opposes same sex marriage he can get extreme benefits and more protection if he can prove that the person doing the crime thought he was gay and attacked hm for this reason."My opponents resolution concerns the claim that the Hate Crime designation infringes his freedom of speech, this argument utterly fails to affirm that. He instead claims that it violates his freedom of thought, however he ends by saying "if he can prove that the person doing the crime thought he was gay and attacked hm for this reason." which is the whole point of the hate crime designation and which violates neither his freedom of speech nor thought.Before and after the creation of the hate crime designation my opponent was free to say what he liked about homosexuality (subject to existing laws), to think what he liked about homosexuality. He was not free to physically attack homosexuals for being homosexual. Before the hate crime designation that was illegal, after the hate crime designation it was illegal.---"2nd Contention-Hate crime is against the law.The 14th Amendment guarentees equal protection to everyone under the law. This law creates a special protection status not available to others. By elevating gays and lesbians to a higher level of government protection, everyone else is treated as second class citizens."Again this argument is irrelevant as my opponents objection to Hate Crimes is motivated by the claim that it infringes freedom of speech, not that it violates the constitution or a sense of equality.My opponents argument concerns section 1 of the 14th amendment which states,Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Hate Crime laws simply provide an aggravating factor to be taken into account when sentencing, much in the same way that if instances of drunk driving rapidly increased a Judge might choose to 'make an example' of someone as a deterrent. Or if he had presided over a string of assault cases against homosexuals he might choose to make an example of a particular defendant. In the case of Hate Crimes, the law itself has been altered to automatically make an example of such people, this does not detract from the conditions laid down in the 14th amendment.---"3rd Contention-Hate crime can easily lead to the prosecution of hate speech.Physical violece can easily lead to verbal violence in the minds of some law enforcement officials. It always comes up bit by bit and then it becomes hate speech."Verbal violence, such as threats and incitement to violence are already illegal. In any case it is not sufficient for my opponent to claim that Hate Crime can easily lead to the prosecution of hate speech, he must show this to be an inevitable consequence and demonstrate that hate speech is protected under his right to freedom of speech.