From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:43:40 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <3761@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>The KKK is another example.  Allowing their freedom of speech, no
>matter what they say hasn't resulted in opposing speech causing it
>to die out, no, they just keep coasting along, ebbing and flowing,
>and killing people along the way.  The illegality of the actions
>certainly doesn't stop them does it?  A reasonable anti-hate law
>would have a better chance at keeping their numbers smaller.

I disagree.  It is actions that matter, not the intent behind those
actions.  If I beat someone up I should be punished.  Whether I beat
him up because he is of another race, or because I didn't like the
way he dressed, or because he owed me money is irrelevant.  The crime
is assault, and is already covered by the law.  Anti-hate legislation
makes such things more difficult to prosecute because you now have to
go a step FURTHER and establish that the assault was racially motivated.
Since it is a practical impossibility to establish what was in someone's
mind at any point, such legislation is merely a waste of time.

A recent case was lost because the city prosecutors attempted to prosecute
under new hate-crime legislation instead of as a more simple case
(I think it was assault).  Because intent could not be established,
they could not get the conviction.  The EVENT was never questioned,
but the crime they were trying to get a conviction on was impossible
to prove.

Anti-hate legislation is a waste of time for the legislature to
come up with, and for the courts to prosecute.  Existing laws exist
to cover the crimes regardles of motivation, and they are easier to
get convictions for.

Not to mention that "anti-hate" legislation starts to smack of
"thought police" and 1984.  But then, what is the "P.C. speech"
movement if not an attempt to establish "thought police"....?

[ ... ]

>You can twist the facts as much as you want, but what you say is a
>lie.  The government does *not* determine the Official Truth any
>more than my or your government determines the official truth
>in any other criminal proceeding.  The courts do along with the
>juries.  The speech must be shown false, "beyond a reasonable doubt",
>shown knowingly false on the part of the utterer, "beyond a reasonable
>doubt", and shown non-trivially harmful, "beyond a reasonable doubt".
>
>If that is, in your mind, the government imposing its idea of truth,
>you've just blown the criminal justice system completely out of the
>water.  Now what would you replace it with?

1) the courts are a branch of the government
2) at one point in history, it was obviously false beyond a
	reasonable doubt that the earth was flat.  the fact that
	you can get 12 people to agree w/ you does not make your
	side "the truth" in any objective sense, only a legal one.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And when you stop and think about it	|
(you won't believe it's true)		|	-Richard Hartman	
That all the love you've been giving	|	hartman@uLogic.COM
has all been meant for you.		|