From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.african.american,alt.activism,misc.legal,soc.culture.
Subject: Re: [UPI] High court strikes down ethnic intimidation law
Date: 6 Sep 92 16:58:13 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Sep4.125020.27141@gdstech.grumman.com> david@gdstech.UUCP (David Nettles) writes:
>In article <D0XJqB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>>david@gdstech.grumman.com (David Nettles) writes:
>>
>>> In article <1992Aug27.194232.18207@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> >Copyright 1992 by UPI.  Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
>>> >Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.clari.local.ohio and
>>> >clari.news.groups.jews.  For more info on ClariNet, write to
>>> >info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
>>> >
>>> >	COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) -- The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled the state's
>>> >ethnic intimidation law is unconstitutional because it is an
>>> >infringement of the right of free speech.
>[Stuff deleted]
>>> "What is the difference between manslaughter and murder?", I asked.
>>> 
>>> "I don't know?"
>>> 
>>> "Intent.  It is the intent that decides whether or not the accused
>>> will spend ten years in prison or fifty or even further receive the
>>> death penalty.  It is the intent that makes all the difference.  There
>>> is a difference between scrawling ''Joanie loves Chachi'' on a
>>> deli-owners wall and scrawling ''Niggers Go Home!''."
>>
>>Okay, but then the question comes down to, "what is the intent of
>>a cross burner?" To intimidate, yes? Are their laws against intimidation?
>>Yes, there are. Existing laws will suffice.
>>
>>It seems extremely odd to me that those who write and support these
>>"hate crime" laws are the same people who say that you cannot 
>>legislate morality.  Is not racism a moral question?
>>
>>Double standard, is it not?
>
>No.  It is not a double standard.
>
>We have a right to free speech.  And it is legal to express our points
>o view.
>
>We cannot yell "Fire!" in a movie theatre.  Even if fire is the symbol
>of our religious beliefs and we feel that the utterance of such a word
>brings great power, it is still illegal.

That's because yelling "fire" is more than speech. It's like hitting the
fire alarm in a building. It's a simple principle once you understand it.

>Nothing is absolute.

So, by changing the perspective, everything can be made to look like
something else? Okay, to what is the color "red" relative?

>To promote the better good in a society, there has to be laws created
>to support that good.

So you follow the doctrine that all crimes are "crimes against the
king's peace"? I thought the reason you defined crimes was to protect
individual rights. It's not?

>For example, there are laws that exist to deal
>with the crime of rape.  While rape can be broken down to being
>assualt and kidnapping, there is a recognition of the harm done by
>this specific form of "assualt and kidnapping".

Rape is not necessarily kidnapping. If the perpetrator indeed abducts
his victim, that is kidnapping, but if he rapes her where he found her,
it is no more a kidnapping than a mugging is. Rape is, however, an act
of torture.

>As a result there are
>laws specifically designed to protect women in this special case of
>"assualt and kidnapping".  Example: laws that protect women from rape
>by their spouses.

I didn't know there were *separate* laws to deal with spousal rape. I
would think that all you would need to do is remove any exceptions
under the law that spousal rape may have had.

>We do have the freedom to publish works if we have a printing press,
>but if we print slanderous material, then the object of such slander
>does have the legal right to defend themself.

Hmmm... I thought that if you *published* it, it was libel, not
slander. The general term for both is defamation. Defamation is
currently a crime, but not everyone believes it should be.

Mr. Nettles, implicit in your arguments is that the law is the way it
should be. The people arguing in favor of freedom fo speech often
don't believe that.


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk