From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: So-Called Hate Crimes (was Gay-Bashing) 
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 02:50:34 GMT


In article <BxyCuE.AB@nic.umass.edu>
quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:

>In article <Bxv7wx.Dx5@acsu.buffalo.edu>
>pfohl@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anne Pfohl) writes:

>>and since, in fact, CO #2 *does* legalize discrimination, how 
>>would one go about prosecuting an incident of gay bashing in 
>>Colorado now?  Would it have to be tried as assault, with no 
>>reference to it being a hate crime, or motivated by hatred of 
>>gays?

>>If that's the case, gay bashing wouldn't exist in Colorado,
>>because the crimes could not be identified as such in order
>>to be prosecuted.

>There seems to be a tricky issue here, which I would like to
>bring up.  It's a different thread, I know, but it's also a
>different subject line:

>I really don't think there SHOULD be specific laws against
>"gay-bashing," nor any of the other "hate-crimes" type laws
>which are popping up relative to other categories victims
>(race, sex, religion, etc.).  To me, laws against
>"hate-crimes" only serve to try someone on the basis of
>their ideological beliefs, rather than on their criminal
>behavior.

Ah, a favorite subject.  This is by no means a simple issue,
but I've just been reading a book that deals with all this
in extenso, so many of the facets are fresh in my mind.

It boils down to what the First Amendment really means, in
practice.  Those who think it is *the* main bastion of
freedom (I'm one) will agree with you: to prosecute people
for merely expressing themselves through speech and symbols,
no matter how hate-filled or offensive to community
sensibilities, is to compromise the 1st Amendment's
protections and imperil freedom for all.

>This seems like a fundemental abridgement of rights to free
>expression of belief, or even to simply BELIEVE a belief.
>As abhorrent as it is for someone to HATE someone on the
>basis of their sexuality, race, sex, or whatever -- I for
>one most certainly do not want THE STATE stepping in to
>regulate and illegalize such BELIEF.

And there lies the dilemma.  The crux of the argument is
that some beliefs, when expressed, lead to intimidation and
injury to others by creating an oppressive atmosphere.  We
LGB people are certainly familiar enough with that!

>Now, of course, if someone acts on a hateful belief, and
>goes and beats up on gays qua gays (for example), they
>should most certainly be tried on assault and other related
>charges.  But to charge them based, not on the character of
>their actions, but on its motivation, seems like a dangerous
>infringement of freedom of thought.

It's mighty inconvenient, but there you have it: if one
belief is actionable, any other belief can be actionable.
The strength of the First Amendment's idea is that it's
protection is not divisible, that is, it protects *all*
ideas and beliefs equally.  So Nazis and the KKK can parade,
display swastikas, wear hoods, call for the destruction of
everyone who doesn't believe as they do, and all sorts of
disgusting things.  But as soon as we try to prevent that,
we're exposed to repression ourselves, because our ideas are
anathema to lots of people.

All this, as Humberto suggests, is quite separate from
*acts* of hate; physical assault is a crime, of course.
It's punishable as such:

>All of this is very different from laws against
>DISCRIMINATION.  Discrimination is always, by definition, an
>act which is carried out.

<> Television is now so desperately hungry for material that
<> they're scraping the top of the barrel. -- Gore Vidal
-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
Newsgroups: soc.motss