From: JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Hate Speech is back [Argument against the law]
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:24:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt425405@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
>>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
[hate crimes]
>>
>>the court would have to delve into the thoughts of the perpetrator.  As far as
>>I'm concerned thought crimes are double-plus ungood.
>
> Hold on there.
>
> The Supreme Court would NOT have to delve into anyone's thoughts. The
> SC doesn't have to decide on the FACTS of the case. It only has to
> decide on a matter of LAW

I think what is at issue here is that the trial courts will have to
delve into people's thoughts.

> for hate crimes are barred by the first amendment (I don't think the

probably; "vagueness" may have been through in since it's so easy to
argue

> So Brett doesn't have to decide whether thought crimes are good. He
> only has to decide whether they are constitutional. Right?

right, but he can also say (1) they aren't good (2) are
unconstitutional

> It should also be abundantly clear that courts (the lower kind, and
> especially juries) VERY OFTEN have to make findings about the state
> of mind of a criminal. Don't argue that any penalty that requires
> a finding about a state of mind is unconstitutional. That will be
> a very bad argument.

not here.  here what is being done is that the state is "directly
punishing what the legislature has deemed to be offensive thought, and
violates the First Amendment indirectly by chilling free speech" [from
a column by Nat Hentoff, Village Voice 8/4/92] The problem here is
that the state has to dwell in the mind of the accused, and has the
ability to use the accused opinions and thoughts against him.  It is
these subjective opinions and thoughts that is the crime -- it adds to
the punishment of another crime so is seen as a crime in itself -- not
the original crime (here an attack and robbery).
     Speech that is used to judge objective acts instead of subjective
thoughts is a different story. Discrimination by race can be punished
if it's an objective act ex. firing or not hiring by race, and then speech can
be shown that the accused is racist.  A rapist is being punished for
the objective act of rape, and his words can be shown to prove this.
But, I don't see that it follows that a very sexist rapist via his
sexist language can get a higher punishment because of his sexism.

>>        In addition, how would the court(s) decide whether the crime was
>>initiated by "hate" or the person only yelled politically incorrect things
>>after the incident started?
>
> You mean how would a jury decide what time the things were yelled??

he means how will the courts decide if the hate speech effected the
crime.  If I am poor racist, did I rob because I was racist or 'cause the
best victim just happened to be black?

> And "political correctness" is a red herring, too, Brett. I think
> you are making a false assumption about the facts of the case.
>
> Jamie

not really.  PC is a major reason why hate speech laws are in
existence, especially in colleges.  Laws that use hate speech to
add to the punishment of the crime are connected.

     -Joe

P.S. It is curious to know that both the New Republic and National
Review both object to such laws, while the Village Voice has mixed
feelings about them (Hentoff angrily notices this fact).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU