Hate-crime = Thought crime?

Out of curiosity - do you have a link to more details? There are already hate-crime laws on the books, and I'd like to know what's new. And I would agree. I try to avoid being an Internet Tough Guy. I think going with our initial visceral "lock em up forever!" reaction distances us from a rational analysis of the ethical, practical, and legal analysis ot crime and punishment. That goes for crimes of racism, rape, murder, child abuse, and everything else. Of course, in the case of a violent hate crime, "freedom of expression" has transcended what it protected by the Constitution with the commission of a criminal act. In other words, I can really really want my neighbor's TV all I want, but if I actually steal it, we're no longer talking about a thought crime.So too with instances like the example you provided. We're no longer talking about hate speech. We're talking about a physical, criminal act motivated by an ethically deplorable but still legal mindset.I strongly disagree that you can challenge hate crime laws based on the Freedom of Expression for that reason. Racists can spew their verbal vomit until their tongues fall off, and it's perfectly legal. But the attempted murder of a human being has nothing to do with freedom of expression.Remember also that we already differentiate between crimes based on motivation. First, Second, and Third degree murder and manslaughter are differentiated by such things as emotional distress, self defense, etc. There is a significant body of precedent for increasing or decreasing the amount of punishment based solely on motive for identical results. The reason is similar to the rationale behind affirmative action (which, if I recall correctly, you also oppose?).The Constitution grants equal protection under the law. Unfortunately, there are some citizens who have systematically been denied equal protection, despite the fact that the letter of the law applies equally.The lynchings that happened not that long ago, remember, were illegal under the letter of the law...and yet the system repeatedly allowed them to happen with little or no consequences, and the victims were not granted the equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution.Hate crime legislation is not about trying to make certain opinions or speech illegal. It's about compensating for the unequal protection certain minority groups are objectively granted. The problem isn't as bad everywhere in the US...but you can certainly agree that a heterosexual white Christian male is less likely to be the victim of a violent attack than a person identified as a minority of some sort, be that a racial minority, a sexual orientation, a religion, etc. And yet no liberty is being given up. It is still not illegal to hate Asians, or Blacks, or Jews, or Christians, or Muslims, or Atheists, or Caucasians, or Hispanics, or anyone else. No Cosntitutional right is violated, unless you would care to argue that handing down a different sentence for a murder based on whether the crime was in the heat of the moment, was well planned, or was actually a killing in self-defense is also "thought crime."You'd also have to argue that we should not give harsher sentences for those who attack children vs those who attack adults if your argument is that the target of a crime should not matter, only the act itself.Hate crime laws do not legislate against thoughts and opinions. They criminalize singling out the more vulnerable members of our society as targets of a violent crime to compensate for the fact that they are more frequently targeted and they do systematically receive less justice in US courts.

I'm going to ignore most of this discussion because it's completely irrelevant.There is only one issue here: You claim that the 1st Amendment is jeopardized by hate crime legislation. Every other subject in this thread rests upon the acceptance of that single assertion.To put it bluntly, I call bullshit.Let's look at the actual hate crime laws, shall we? Let's see if they actually encroach in any way upon 1st Amendment rights. I'm just pulling this stuff from Wiki.

quote:

---

The 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law, 18 U.S.C. 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [4] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

---

So, if you try to prevent black people from voting, or intimidate asians from attending school (exclusively targeting protected groups, as opposed to trying to prevent everyone from participating in those activities) then you are guilty of a hate crime.Nothing about speech in there. Nothing at all. The law applies to those who target individuals of a protected minority as a compensation for their continued lack of equal protection under normal laws.Yes, this could mean that a person's web posts about how " shouldn't be allowed to be in the same school with good white Christians" could be used as evidence at that person's trial to establish that the person was targeting a specific protected class. So can web postings about wanting to kill a person who was then killed, establishing premeditation.Neither is a violation of the 1st Amendment. In no way is the actual web posting (be it of racial epithets or ranting about wanting to kill someone) illegal under hate crime legislation. Speech is used after the commission of an actual crime to establish the motive for that crime. This basic practice has been part of US jurisprudence since before we classified murder into multiple degrees based on, among other factors, motive.If you think hate crime legislation is a violation of teh 1st Amendment, you'll have to overturn every other law where a person's motivation, planning, or other expressions of speech are used. That's an awful lot of the US legal code, including (as has been mentioned) basically every terrorism law on the books, murder, conspiracy, and more.

quote:

---

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes.

---

This law doesn;t even make an additional charge for a hate criminal - it simply increases sentencing if the crime can be determined to have been motivated by the victim's membershipin a protected class. In other words, if you punch a guy, you're charged with assault. If you punch a guy because he's a racial minority (and this motivation can be supported in court beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury), you get a larger sentence.Still nothing specific about speech. Let's make a hypothetical scenario here. We'll take the DC Sniper - I'm sure we all remember him and his brief reign of terror in the greater DC area. Obviously, he was a murderer. But let's say he targeted specific people instead of just firing on good targets. In fact, let's go a step farther and say that the sniper targeted only women, and made various writings (on web sites, in journals, etc) about how modern, Western women are all whores and need to be executed for offending Allah.This hate law would give him additional sentencing for specifically targeting women, a protected class. The records of his free expression can be used in court to support the accusation that he was targeting a specific group - the speech itself is not illegal, but is used to establish motive. Just like in other murder investigations where expressions of free speech in the form of journals, recorded conversations, etc can be used to establish premeditation or motive.This is not a threat to the 1st Amendment in any way. It doesn't criminalize speech at all. The sniper inour scenario could continue to post his nonsense on the web as much as he wants, so long as he doesn't actually commit the crime. The only "slippery slope" here is in the form of the logical fallacy - your claims rest on the idea that these laws will somhow slide far beyond their scope and threaten a Constitutional Amendment, which is by definition the highest law in the land and would completely override any attempts to do so anyway.The new law was this one:

quote:

---

On October 28, 2009 President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.

---

This changes things slightly, but doesn;t in any way affect the 1st Amendment. This law simply modifies the other Federal hate crime laws to cover gender and perceived gender (ie, it now covers transgender individuals), homosexuals, and disabled persons. It also dropped the previous requirements of the 1969 law that the victims be attempting to engage in a Federally protected act. In other words, this:

quote:

---

"willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [4] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

---

becomes this:

quote:

---

"willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin"

---

You don't have to be just trying to vote or attend school any more. Now, if a person harasses a person with force at a bus stop, that person has committed a hate crime (for example, trying to force blacks to move to the back of teh bus would be a hate crime now, where it wouldn't have been before).It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech. Speech is still protected. The KKK, neo-nazis, anti-gay evangelicals, woman haters, anti-transgender bigots, the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, and every other bigot out there can continue to express their cosnciences however they want, no matter how misguided they are ethically. Fred Phelps can continue to say "God hates fags" and parade around with his family and their offensive signs in peaceful protest all they want. Hate crime laws will only apply to them if they beat a gay or transgender person (and the motive for the beating can be established in court as having been the victim's membership in a protected class, not just a bar fight or self defense or anything else), or if they try to physically bar gays from attending a funeral, etc.So, Hyro - you're in a bit of a pickle. Your argument rests compeltely on the idea that hate crime legislation threatens the First Amendment, which states:

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

These laws do not in any way limit free expression. Everyone is still legally allowed to say anything they want, regardless of how vile the rest of us think it is. In fact, I think you and I would agree wholeheartedly that it is "vile" speech that needs to be protected most, or else the freedom of speech is nothing but an illusion. But hate crime laws do not in any way threaten free speech, any more than using a recorded conversation or journal entry to prove premeditation in a First Degree Murder case threatens the First Amendment.Your basic premise is false, Hyro. The rest of your argument falls like an irrelevant house of cards. Immediately show exactly, specifically, and legaly how any hate crime law (particularly the one the Obama adminsitration just pushed through) abridges the freedom of speech, or concede.

...have actually read the laws in question, or at least the brief summaries I posted back in Message 36?Conversely, how many are effectively verbalizing from their rectums and arguing over laws writ for straw men?What is and is not a hate crime is as clearly written in the laws as in any other. Punching a member of a protected class is not a hate crime. Punching a member of a protected class because he is a member of that protected class is a hate crime, and that motivation must be supported in court beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a hate crime charge to stand - just like premeditation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court to classify a murder as first degree.This isn't South Park, where any and every crime involving a minority as a victim is a hate crime and crimes against whites don't count. The laws as written, out here in the real world, cover any physical force used for harassment, injury, annoyance or blockage that is targeted against members of a specific race, (perceived) gender, (perceived) sexual orientation, religion, color, or national origin.That means that shooting a bunch of people because of their race, regardless of what the race is so long as the race is the motivator, is a hate crime whether the victims were all asian, black, hispanic, or even white - but the motivation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom as having been to target a protected class, as opposed to a purely random mass murder.Yes, it even means that a group of militant homosexuals who attack heterosexuals simply because of the sexual orientation of their victims are also guilty of a hate crime.The law as it is written is not the same law that is being talked about in the majority of this thread. Neither is it what has been presented in popular media. Please, read the laws or at least their summaries before continuing. To do less is simply asinine.

The prosecutor, based on what charges can be supported with evidence and reasonably be expected to stick. Just like with every other charge for every other crime in every other criminal case in teh US.I understand what you're saying, Oni - you're concerned about someone being charges with a hate crime when the incident should nto have qualified, as in your club fight example.But in your club fight example, a hate crime charge would only be able to stick to you if you had made anti-gay statements while fighting, or had earlier expressed a desire to assault gays simply because of their orientation. Otehrwise there would be no evidence to support a hate charge.It's just like murder. Whether you killed someone can be proven byond a reasonable doubt, but that;s a separate issue from whether the murder was premeditated, and that determination has a significant effect on sentencing. The prosecutor, as I said. But why does the identity of the person making the charges matter? If there is sufficient evidence, the accused is guilty. If not, the accused is not guilty. Charges are just charges until a conviction is handed down. Again - the prosecutor does. "Hate crime supporters?"I think you're losing me in irrational conspriacy theory land, Oni.Further, this is an appeal to consequence, and thus a fallacy. Either hate crime legislation encroaches on free speech, or it does not. I have supported my argument that such legislation in no way violates free speech. You have not refuted any of my points, and neither have you made specific claims of your own. All you've done is ask the identity of teh person who selects the charges to bring against the accused, whom we all know is the DA's office, in an effort to insinuate political conspiracies.It has nothing to do with any argument I've made - it's wholly irrelevant. Would you care to debate what I;ve actually said, or would you like to continue with this red herring? Just as much as I can see that disallowing "discrimination" against homosexuals and racial minorities and women in hiring practices can "build hate."Bigots don't like to be called bigots, and usually claim not to be bigots when taking bigoted stances or performing bigoted actions. The fact of the matter is that crimes that specifically target a protected class like race or gender do more harm to society and are often less well protected under the law. Hate crime laws correct for both, and tension between minorities and bigots won;t be solved by pretending the problems dont exist or allowing the old status quo to continue.And again - this is all irrelevant to whether hate crime laws actually violate the 1st Amendment, which is in fact th topic of this thread. This side discussion is an appeal to consequence at best and a red herring at worst.Do you believe hate crime legislation to violate the 1st Amendment? Why?PS - it was no more directed at you than anyone else. I don't think many people have bothered to read about what they're arguing about.

Indeed it was, though it's also a perfect example of what I really don't like about South Park - nobody appeals to the Mindless Middle like they do, and their attempts to satirize reality often leave people with a very distorted conception of real-world issues. Just like this one.Not entirely their fault, of course - hate crime legislation has always been [i]perceived by the public[i] to protect only specific minorities. I don't think many people realize that a hate crime can be committed against an American-born heterosexual white Christian male, just as easily as against a gay black Muslim woman from Egypt. One's just more likely to be the target of a hate crime, nothing more.

I'm only replying to one bit here, because Im strapped for time and because this demosntrates that you arent paying attention: "Racial minority" includes whites, Hyro. The hate crime laws legislate tougher sentencing and additional charges against those who commit violence on teh basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, or color. Any race, national origin, color, sexual orientation, or gender. Any.That means if some Black Panthers\asian street gang\hispanic gang beat up a bunch of white kids just for being white, they get charged with a hate crime.That's equal protection under the law.

Stereotype much?Hate crime laws aren;t simply about helping specific minorities, Oni. This line of thinking demonstrates that either you have no read or have not processed the meaning of actual hate crime legislation. This isn't about giving blacks/hispanics/asians/whoever a boost. It's about recognizing the increased harm of a crime that targets a subset of society specifically as opposed to "normal" crime.Hate crimes are only those crimes that target their victims due to their race, religion, color, national origin, (perceived) sexual orientation, or (perceived) gender. These crimes have a chilling effect on the entire subset - for example, if the KKK were to use harassment and intimidation to prevent blacks and Jews from voting. This is obviously and objectively far more damaging to society as a whole than simple charges of harassment would normally convey.But hate crime laws aren't jsut for "minorities." The apply equally to every race, to every religion, etc. This isn't about "liberals" supporting a bunch of "minorities" who don't want the white man's help. That line of thought is itself absurdly racist and offensive.Hate crime legislation is not about individuals, ro good feelings. It's about protecting society, plain and simple. Society cannot exist when free speech, the ability to vote, to attend school, or even to simply walk down the street is impaired - and the harm is increased more than cumulatively when an entire subset of the population is denied those rights.When one child is prevented from going to school, harm is done. But when an entire subset, say, boys, or girls, or blacks, or Jews, are prevented from attending school, the harm is greater than the total number of children. The chilling effect of such hate crimes on society is far worse than ordinary harassment and violence.To put it bluntly, Oni, this has nothing to do with whether you personally or any given minority group gets the "warm fuzzies." Even the risk of increasing racial tension by possibly identifying a person incorrectly as a racist is nothing compared to the harm done by intimidating an entire community, preventing entire subsets of society from exercising basic rights and participating. It has to do with ensuring that such disgusting practices as have happened in our past (and continue to happen) are punished more severely because the harm they do is also more severe.Do you even comprehend what happens when a subset of society is denied the ability to participate on teh same level as everyone else? We went through this in the Civil Rights era, but you can still see the results more recently and sometimes still even today. It's still difficult for homosexuals to come out of the closet because of fear of violent reprisal, for example. It still results in mockery and derision and in some cases even violence. That subset of society is prevented from exercising their rights on the same level as everyone else. That chilling effect has long-reaching consequences for society as a whole, as segments are alienated from each other and resentment is bred. We are still, today dealing with the social after-effects of the pre-Civil Rights era! Entire subcultures are shaped by the sorts of hate crimes we're talking about here!Whether a given group "feels good" about hate crime legislation or whether they feel that it's just "pussifying America" is compeltely irrelevant. We know the objective, factual results of crimes that target people because of their race, color, national origin, (perceived) gender, (perceived) sexual orientation, and religion. We know the effects because we're still living with them today, decades after most of the country thinks we "fixed" the problems, decades after we made those actions illegal.It is blatantly obvious that, given the increased severity of the harm done to society by crimes of this nature that those crimes, when identified, should carry additional penalties. Are you having fun continuing to stereotype entire segments of the population? Do you think attempting to pigeonhole entire subsets of society into "liberal" and "conservative" boxes helps your argument? Do you think honestly that appealing to popularity and emotion will win an argument here?Unsupported assertion. Quantify the harm done by hate crime legislation, and prove that it is less than the harm caused by harsher penalties for hate crimes.Otherwise you're just spouting personal opinions, not facts. "Racists" are only one group who are likely to commit hate crimes, and they apply to more than just groups like the KKK. Once again your words demonstrate that you fail to recognize that hate crime legislation protects all subsets equally. A person who targets all white people or all men will suffer the same increased penalties as a person who targets all blacks or all gays. I feel no such burden. You're the one making this about race, Oni. Not anyone else. I've listed the subsets covered by hate crime legislation how many times now? This isn;t about "political correctness." It's nto about trying to make people "feel better." It's about protecting society, as I explained above. Individuals do not. Sometimes subgroups do. But society as a whole does require additional protection when a crime targets a specific subset of itself as opposed to random individuals. The effects on society from those crimes is significant and far-reaching, drastically beyond the effects on the individual victims.When a gay person/black kid/whatever is beaten to death simply because of his/her race/gender/religion/whatever, other members of that subgroup are terrorized. In some cases this fear can result in an entire group withdrawing from integrated society - an effect we still see today. It can prevent subsets from going to school or voting - the effects of which we can still see today. It can prevent people from being able to express themselves honestly in public - a problem that still exists today.These effects are far beyond the harm done to the individual victim. When a racist kills a black kid just because he's black, the kid is not the only victim. Every black person in the community is at that poitn avictim of terror, as the racist has attempted to terrorize that community.When Matthew Sheppard was murdered, he wasn;t the only victim - the entire gay community was the victim of an attempt to terrorize them, to force them out of public view.If someone attacks a Christian simply because of their faith, the entire Christian community is a victim of an attempt to terrorize them, to tell them that their community is not welcome in society at large.Hate crime legislation has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with recognizing that hate crimes are those crimes which victimize more people than only the individual(s) attacked or harassed - and therefore should carry harsher penalties. Says you. Becasue all supporters of hate crime legislation are white, right? Because this is all about the fucking white man feeling all guilty like a pussy and trying to make up for the sins of his fathers?Get over yourself. Hate crime legislation is not about race - that's just one of several subsets that these laws protect, and they don't only protect traditional minorities. They protect everyone. The white man is jsut as protected against being attacked by a group of Hispanic thugs as a Hispanic kid is protected against a bunch of white assholes trying to prevent him from attending school because they claim he's an "illegal."It's nto about race, it;s not about political correctness, and you, Oni, are full of shit.

It sends a message of hatred to the targeted group. Are you really suggesting that a person who attacks another person on the basis of belonging to a particular group is not in fact attacking that group?Because that would be absurd, and I know you're smarter than that. THat'slike suggesting that, in war, when a soldier is killed the enemy was not actually attacking our army. The effectiveness of the terrorism is irrelevant, just like blackmail is illegal whether whether the blackmailer gets what he wants or not. It's defined as a hate crime because it is a crime committed on the basis of a protected class that the victim is a member of. When a gay guy gets beaten to death for being gay, regardless of whther it's "in private" or not, regardless of whether the victim "talked shit" or not, the attacker is in fact assaulting the entire gay community in a ddition to his physical victim. He's sending the message that "this is what happens to (insert slur here)."And really - the "talked shit" scenario just reeks of "that (insert slur here) got uppity, so I showed that boy his palce!"CS, I;ve made it abundantly clear how hate crimes are classified. I even posted summaries of the laws, which you reference below. What's with the intentional denseness? It's a hate crime if it can be shown that the attacker killed the minister because he was a Christian. Again, why are you being intentionally dense? It's abundantly clear how hate crimes are classified - when a crime is committed because of a person's membership in a protected class, that crime is a hate crime. If a crime is committed against anyone, even a protected class, but the reason for the crime is not the victim's membership in that protected class, then the crime was not a hate crime. End of story, simple as that, done, no additional scenarios needed. As I said, the effectiveness of the terrorism is irrelevant. If the crime was committed because of the victim's race, then the attacker's intent was to attack that group rather than simply the individual victim. That makes the crime more heinous, more damaging to society,less tolerable, and deserving of steeper penalties. No. You seem to habve some bizarre ideas as to what I consider a hate crime. Here's a clue: it's exactly as the law says a hate crime is. When a crime is committed because of a person's membership in a protected class, that crime is a hate crime. When a crime is committed, even against a minority, but the reason for the crime was not the victim's membership in a protected class, that crime was not a hate crime. Simple as that. When a group is attacked, the entire group is victimized, even if members of the group are compeltely unaware that the attack has happened. The attempt, the attack,is what is relevant, not the success of the attack. The first WTC bombing back in the 90s was no lessan act of terrorism simply because it wasn't particularly successful - neither is a hate crime less of an attack on a community simply because the community wasn't affected. I agree that it's often too difficult to determine. But then, that's why in criminal cases the Jury is instructed to find a defendant guilty only if the evidence proves guild beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a pretty high bar. Granted, it is abundantly true that Juries are often composed of idiots - but as that applies to every charge ever, I think it's rather moot. The fact is, if a person is charged with a hate crime but the evidence is insufficient to prove that the crime was motivated by the victim's membership in a protected class, then the hate crime charge will not stick.If a person commits murder, has various journal notes/blog posts/whatever that say "(insert slur here) must DIE," and the victim was in the group specified by the slur, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the victim's membership in that group was a significant motivating factor - even if it wasn't the only one. Which you say only because you don't see it, personally. Which is why appeals to personal credulity are fallacious, CS.Check this out from the SOuthern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization: Suffolf County, NY in 2009.

quote:

---

Less than one year ago, on Nov. 8, 2008, Marcelo Lucero, an Ecuadorian immigrant, was murdered in the town of Patchogue, N.Y. The killing, police say, was carried out by a gang of teenagers who called themselves the Caucasian Crew and targeted Latino residents as part of a sport they termed "beaner-hopping."

---

This is a fucking hate crime. A person was killed by a gang seeking victims solely because of their race.Or how about these:

quote:

---

Naples, FL
Ten North Naples Middle School students were suspended after district officials said they participated in "kick a Jew day."
Reported:2009-11-20

​

Coral Springs, FL
Several anti-Semitic messages were found spray-painted on a local Jewish community center.
Reported:2009-11-09

​

Muncie, IN
Three men were sentenced to more than a year in prison in connection with a 2008 cross burning.
Reported:2009-11-06

---

Hate crimes are alive and well in the US. The fact that, as individuals, we aren't personally exposed to it on a daily basis is somethign we should be thankful for, but it doesn't mean it's not happening.If you really want to debate State vs Federal rights, make a thread. This isn't the place, and it's woefully off-topic. Which begs the question as to why you think it's okay to legislate against kids getting beat up on their way to school because of their race, but not okay to legislate against the exact same crime when the kids aren't on their way to school.Because that's the only difference.

Hi Oni,I want to make something perfectly clear here.I support hate crime laws...but hate crimes are only those crimes which are motivated by hate.I do not in any way support chilling free speech, even when I personally find some speech abhorrent.I remember the Imus deal. I thought it was racist. But then, I already wasn't a fan of Imus. In cases like that, censorship is never the answer. If you're offended, simply don't listen. Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to listen to Imus. Fortunately.I want racists to be able to speak their minds, even if I think what comes out of their mouths more closely resembles feces than nouns, verbs, and adjectives. I support that right becasue what is considered "offensive" today is not always considered "offensive" tomorrow.For a more recent example (and from the other political side, perhaps), just look at the recent AMA awards, where we had men kissing men and "simulating oral sex" with each other. A lot of people got upset, and are offended. But these men have the right to be able to express themselves. If you personally are offended, turn off the TV or turn the channel.But none of these things are hate crimes. They are, in fact, wholly irrelevant to this thread. Hate crimes involve the use of physical force or intimidation. Hate crimes are beatings. Hate crimes are murders. Hate crimes are cross burnings.I don't support hate crime laws because I'm "offended." I support hate crime laws because I see that they are an attempt to recognize the difference between attacking an individual and attacking a community. I don't care who and who is not "offended.""Offensive speech" is protected by the First Amendment. Speech that is not offensive typically doesn't need protection."Kick a Jew day" and the "Caucasian Crew" are not free speech. They aren't making comments about "nappy hair," and they aren't putting homosexual displays of affection in the public eye. They're committing acts of violence against entire communities.Those are completely different things.