Why are these acts of ignorance happening in academia, it's 2010? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_black_history_mock_party
I do not agree with the acts of racism mentioned in your article. However I don't agre with legislating what people think either, even if I don't argee with what they think. Here is another similar article: http://www.newschannel34.com/entertainment/story/Radcliffe-films-anti-homophobia-ad/q_oNXqiA7UCJKvnLmlX1pg.cspx This is a line from the article: "I have always hated anybody who is not tolerant of gay men or lesbians or bisexuals." Why is it OK to hate intolerant people? What aren't they entitled to their opinions? At what point will my beliefs be deemed not mainstream and there make it justfiable to hate me? It's like the Hate Crime laws. A crime should be punished, but saying it is worse because of hate, well, I don't agree. Hate is a thought. Once we start to legislate thought I believe we are on a slippery slope to somewhere I prefer not to go.
In the context of hate crime laws hate is a motive, not a thought. We also enhance criminal penalties based on characteristics such as the age or occupation of the victim, but I've never seen anyone complain about that.
I've never heard of enhanced penalties based on occupation of the victim. As for age, I believe that is due to the vulnerability of the victim. As in, most older people are unable to effectively fight back against a younger, stronger attacker. It's like the school yard saying, pick on someone your own size. (I don't think it's OK to pick on someone of any size). If someone were to take a swing at me, I'm not terribly concerned if it's because of race, finances, status, etc. Use this info to catch the person, but I see the situation as very much the same on my end.
I don't understand the issue really people should have the right of free speech even if that speech is utterly repugnant and last time I looked that protected quite a bit. There is no fundamental right not to be offended by some practice of free speech.
One thing to keep in mind is that many "hate crimes" are actually staged for attention. So I tend to take these reports with a grain of salt.
Yes. Our constitutional freedom of speech is established under the first amendment. There is case law that makes exceptions to the first amendment. "Fighting words: In the famous case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572 [1942]) This famous exception is much discussed in recent decades, but rarely the basis for a decision upholding an abridgement of free speech." Obscenity: In Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]) the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-pronged test for obscenity prohibitions which would not violate the First Amendment: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C
Looking at one single statute in my state, there are enhanced penalties for battery if the victim is working as a: law enforcement officer; penal or juvenile detention facility employee; firefighter; civilian police volunteer; employee of the state chemist; employee of the department of correction; employee of a school corporation; or health care provider. Such enhancements are fairly common.
Similar statute in Texas; and those persons serving in the occupations you’ve listed along with some additions are considered “public” officials in Texas. And assault /battery on a public official DO provide enhanced penalties for the perpetrator. I served for 5-years as a principal within the juvenile justice education services division arena. Any student found guilty of assaulting a staff member (e.g. teacher, juvenile probation officer, juvenile correction officer, support /administration staff, etc. typically warranted transfer to a Texas Youth Commission facility.
