http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:V2fBTedkPS0J:www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0096P.pdf+Arlene+Elshinnawy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

There is also the young man in Poway who was expelled because he wore an anti gay shirt he made to school when his school was promoting tolerance day.  Apparently they weren’t tolerante of his views.

No you cannot holler fire in a crowded room, but neither of these cases seem to fit that scenario.

Patrick,
like LL I still do it the old-fashioned way,

I’m glad they were convicted, but in my world it would have been for assault and battery, or possibly attempted murder. Hate’s kind of irrelevant, except perhaps as a signal to the larger community.

Exactly, some hate crime laws can be redundant, and seem to just add to the mess. Although many crimes MAY be punished according to the effect on the victim ( other than the direct effect) That seems crazy to me, and again, redundant.
Can’t we just say equal and mean it ?

Heather and GD
The scary ones are the ones that happened here, where Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, are not supposed to have expression boundaries.

I’m not getting the integrity thing revolving around DH.  Did I miss someone calling him a bully, or saying he took out his bad day on the citizens around them?  Did someone imply that he punished people because he hates his life?  :wink:

No one would say those things, silly GD.

and they might be hate crimes, anyway ( He is from Chicago ):D

Of course not.  It would be cowardly to say that on the internet, and then never face him. Don’t think we have any cowards left at BX.

Read the court case you posted, GD.

“Plaintiffs characterize their speech as religious.”

Based on their assertions that they are Christians, I strongly disagree. There may be a place for venom and sarcasm in speech, but it certainly does not belong in the same sentence as anything related to Christ. I challenge the plaintiffs to find a verse anywhere in the Bible that uses the term “sissy-boy.” This makes my heart sick.

Just like those unhinged folks who attempt to forward their views by blowing up abortion clinics, this is not a valid expression of faith-at least not the kind that Jesus taught. I’m sorry.

Whoa, not MY case.

[quote author=“Go_Irish!”]Based on their assertions that they are Christians, I strongly disagree. There may be a place for venom and sarcasm in speech, but it certainly does not belong in the same sentence as anything related to Christ. I challenge the plaintiffs to find a verse anywhere in the Bible that uses the term “sissy-boy.” This makes my heart sick.

Just like those unhinged folks who attempt to forward their views by blowing up abortion clinics, this is not a valid expression of faith-at least not the kind that Jesus taught. I’m sorry.

I couldn’t agree with you more.  As a Christian, I find this sort of thing disgusting and embarrassing.  However, I still have to hold my nose and defend their right to present a dissenting point of view.

Sorry GD, poorly worded. Edited as needed.

[quote author=“Garddawg”]http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:V2fBTedkPS0J:www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0096P.pdf+Arlene+Elshinnawy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

There is also the young man in Poway who was expelled because he wore an anti gay shirt he made to school when his school was promoting tolerance day.  Apparently they weren’t tolerante of his views.

No you cannot holler fire in a crowded room, but neither of these cases seem to fit that scenario.

Actually I think both of these cases come close to yelling fire in a crowded room. 

First the Poway teen was not expelled he was asked to turn his shirt inside out.  The reason being the school was afraid he was going to get beat up.  He later tried to sue the school for violating his free speech he lost when the courts said the schools first duty was to protect the student.

In the second case it seemed the police tried everything in their power to prevent the event from turning into a riot (which in my opinion was exactly what one group wanted), and only after the one group failed to follow the police’ order to move to a safer location they were arrested.  Again it was not because of their message. Trust me I have been in the middle of these protest counter protest events and have seen them turn ugly really quick.  When the police try to do something before violence happens they are stifling free speech when they wait to long they are slammed for not protecting one group from the other it is a no win situation. 

The fact is police (and school administrators for that matter) do not have enough people to offer individual body guards to everyone involved to keep the peace and sometimes have do things in order to protect the people involved.  I think the judges in both of these cases agreed with that.

I don’t know it good be a hard day for Krav students Thursday

This is the point- the hate is not irrelevant when someone is assaulted based solely because of skin color or religion- the injuries are MUCH more grievous.

I will admit that my perspective is probably different because of my experience with the victims of hate crimes but the difference in injuries for similar events is profound and very real.

Using the graffiti example I used earlier.  One family has had someone spray paint their initials on the door of their home.  This homeowner is ticked off and annoyed and will have to spend a little elbow grease or paint to remove the graffiti.  His neighbor is probably indifferent and just glad it did not happen to him.

The second Jewish family has had someone spray paint a swastika on their door.  It will take the same amount of elbow grease or paint to remove but while he might be ticked off he is often much more. He is now afraid, his family is afraid,  and every other Jewish family in the neighborhood is also afraid. He is now constantly looking over his shoulder, he might be thinking of moving, or possibly pulling his kids out of school.

To say both of these families were merely a victim of a little vandalism would be a mistake.  One is the victim of vandalism the other ones whole family and a portion of the neighborhood has been terrorized.

In 16 years of law enforcement I have been to a lot of vandalism calls like the first one described and the property owner is usually a little upset but mostly indifferent.  When I have gone to calls like the second the homeowner and spouse are often crying and sometimes actually trembling in fear, they feel helpless because they cannot change what they inherently are and can not find the rationalization for the act.

[quote author=“Heather”][quote author=“Go_Irish!”]Based on their assertions that they are Christians, I strongly disagree. There may be a place for venom and sarcasm in speech, but it certainly does not belong in the same sentence as anything related to Christ. I challenge the plaintiffs to find a verse anywhere in the Bible that uses the term “sissy-boy.” This makes my heart sick.

Just like those unhinged folks who attempt to forward their views by blowing up abortion clinics, this is not a valid expression of faith-at least not the kind that Jesus taught. I’m sorry.

I couldn’t agree with you more.  As a Christian, I find this sort of thing disgusting and embarrassing.  However, I still have to hold my nose and defend their right to present a dissenting point of view.

I too am a Christian, and regardless of my personal views on certain subjects such as abrortion, I do not think that blowing up someone or something, such as an abortion clinic is defensible. I believe that would be considered a hate crime. And a sin.

[quote author=“Heather”]
Here is where I disagree.  While I think the effort to prevent groups of people from being harassed or spreading fear is a noble one I still see a flaw in the execution of it.  I agree with Patrick that it disinigrates into a way for people in power to shut others up they don’t agree with.  Here is an example:

When grandmas go to jail for witnessing

————————————————————————————————————————
Posted: February 7, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Janet Folger

Arrested for sharing the Gospel? An expected outcome in North Korea, China or any Muslim country on the globe. But in Pennsylvania? Yep. Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, and Lynda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10 (along with nine others), were arrested for sharing their faith on the public sidewalk in Philadelphia, Pa., USA. They faced 47 years (the rest of their lives) in jail for spreading the Gospel because of a Pennsylvania “hate crimes” law that is nearly identical to H.R. 254 – the “hate crimes” bill reintroduced in Congress and said to be on the “fast track” in the House Judiciary Committee. This is the same bill that previously passed both the House and Senate and was killed only because of Republican leadership opposition in conference – something we no longer have.

Don’t believe hate crimes will silence your freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Think again.

Pastors in Pennsylvania are now seeking liability insurance to protect themselves from being prosecuted under the “hate speech” law. That’s right. They are reacting to Pennsylvania’s addition of “sexual orientation” to the state’s hate crimes laws. Of particular concern was the expansion of the definition of “harassment” to include “harassment by communication” – which means one could be convicted based upon spoken words alone.

Also paraphrased in my words from her article:

In Sweden they actually prosecuted and found guilty a pastor named Ake Green for violating “hate crimes” laws because he preached a sermon on Romans chapter 1.  The Swedish supreme court eventually aquitted him, but imagine the anguish and expense his family had to go through first.  (It took about 2-3 years.)

In Canada there is a pastor named Mark Harding who was convicted of “willfully promoted hatred” in violation of Canadian law that had just passed six months earlier. He was then forced to undergo two years probation and 340 hours of “community service” at the Islamic Society of North America in Mississauga, Ontario.  His crime was protesting the actions of a local high school which began handing out copies of the Quran and set aside a special room for Muslim students to pray. 

I find each of these scenarios to be TERRIFYING.  It is punishing people not for something they DID but for what they BELIEVE or SAY.

Clearly protection of free speech is not universally agreed to by all governments (see Saudi Arabia) so I am not going to comment about the Sweden or Canada cases cited.  However the story quoted about the Grandmothers is way out of context. If you read it as written it sounds like storm troopers arrested a group of senior citizens for quietly praying on the sidewalk.  The following is from the court case-

—The charges filed against Petitioners arose out of their alleged actions in the nature of “fighting, threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, making unreasonable noise with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof by protesting a gay/lesbian block party, using bullhorns, and yelling offensive messages, thereby obstructing traffic.—

As often is with these types of cases when an arrest is made it is almost never about what the message is but the way the message is delivered. Trust me no police officer or government agent wants to arrest a couple of 70 year old women and I am sure the officers did everything in their power to come to a different resolution prior to the arrest.

Put it this way – If a bunch of potato eating fanatics came to BrandX and started yelling insults through bullhorns and throwing marbles in the driveway risking injury to people running around the building, blocking the driveway and disrupting classes someone would call the police and ask to have the people removed.  And then they would complain that they were just exercising their right to free speech and marble playing.  Eventually the rights of one group to exercise free speech has to be weighed against the rights of the other group to live in peace.

Again the law is written to defend people against criminal acts perpetuated against someone solely because of their race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.

The following are definitions used in the law- a Hate crime is an illegal act a Hate Incident is not:

HATE CRIME

A hate crime is any criminal act or attempt directed against a person(s), public agency or private institution based on the victim’s actual or perceived race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or gender or because the agency or institution is identified or associated with a person or group of an identifiable race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender.  A hate crime includes an act which results in injury, however slight; a verbal threat of violence which apparently can be carried out; an act which results in property damage; and, property damage or other criminal act(s) directed against a public or private agency.

HATE INCIDENT

A hate incident is any non- criminal act including words directed against a person(s) based on that person’s actual or perceived race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender.  Hate incidents include, but are not limited to, epithets, distribution of hate material in public places, posting of hate materials that does not result in property damage, and the display of offensive material on one’s own property.

Dirty Harry thanks for the perspective from a person who often has to deal with escalated situations that often start from heated speech.

Related to that, but not really to the article: In hate crime charges, do the courts take into account prior hate incidents? Ie…say I have been calling my neighbors racial or religious epithets… like “potato eaters” or something and my neighbors make a complaint but the police tell them no crime was committed. And then later, I throw a potato at some random Burger King customers, will the name calling be considered as evidence of my hate motivation in court?

I’m making fun but I’m thinking of a case where prior non criminal behavior/speech was used as evidence in court cases involving people who were accused of racially motivated violence.

I am on the fence with categorizing crimes or penalties based on motivation (your point with the impact of a swastika vs some punk writing his initals is strong) and I do believe that words mean things and reveal our hearts and minds. We need to be as impeccable in our speech as we are in our behavior. “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.”

Related to the article: The concept of the article is that (and also I believe this happens on both sides, as stated by pretty much everybody above) by throwing around words like “intolerant”,  “offensive” or “racist”, or “pro-abortion” ideological bullies try to stifle their opposition. It’s hard to combat, but throwing mud back does not help.

It’s only in changing your response that you can direct the other person back to an adult debate. When have you ever told a person “You are acting like a BABY!” and had the person respond in an adult manner?