Hate-crime = Thought crime?

Hey mang. I'm picking on you (yes, again) because your (hilarious, shot Mountain Dew out my nose) post inspired this line of thought for me. But my questions are really for everyone in this argument. Bigots are a minority, aren't they? Both in the real statistical sense, a small subset of a large group, but also in the silly-ass language-is-what-we-say-it-is liberal sense some people are using it in, any subset organized to assert special rights for itself.So, would crimes targeting bigots qualify as "hate crimes"? Think about this carefully, come up with reasons why or why not. ACLU does work for them, check. Not a protected class however, check. Keep thinking.Now let's walk through some examples. What if a couple of white guys beat up some people for showing strong bigotry toward women?Now, what if those people happen to be black guys, and that bigotry happens to be loud vile rap music with lyrics encouraging violence toward women? And what if those black guys advance the claim that that's just a cultural thing for them, and they have every right to enjoy their music? Is it a hate crime yet?Super. Now let's try the same scenario, in reverse. What if some white radicals beat the crap out of some klansmen for the usual stuff, wearing sheets, shouting racial epithets. Hey man, that's their culture down heah. Is it a hate crime, or isn't it?Is your answer the same to both questions? If not, why not?Now let's do more substitution. What if it's white women, members of the actual offended class, beating up the black rap fans? What if it's black men, again members of the actual offended group, beating up the klansmen?Is your answer the same for all 4 scenarios? If not, why not? What is the difference that makes the difference? Are you some kind of racist?Now, let's try one more question. What if someone worked to subvert the rule of law to create legislation that specifically targeted one class of people so as to make sure they received a more severe punishment for specific crimes than people not of that class received for the exact same crimes? Wouldn't trying to do that be a hate crime?

Sorry to interrupt while you are kicking ass, I tend to agree with much of what you say. But are we still talking about the same thing we were when the thread started? I have been reading very carefully, and I have seen a lot of neat documentation of laws in California and the UK. I don't think I like those laws, because, like you, I don't think they will do a damn bit of good. But are they even what we are supposed to be arguing about? Is it really a bad idea to further criminalize murder and assault at the federal level when there is a good excuse to do so in the Bill of Rights?What I am thinking of specifically is the murder of some civil rights workers in Neshoba County, Mississippi, the subject of the fictionalized Mississippi Burning. Because the state courts refused to try the suspects for murder, they were instead tried by the Federal government for depriving the deceased of their civil rights. Sentences ranged from 3 to 10 years. On the other hand, actual crimes criminalized as murder by the Feds, such as in the course of interstate dope-running, result in much longer sentences, more appropriate to the crime. Isn't this just filling in that gap?In other words, isn't the Federal law just a way to treat civil-rights-based murders the same way other Federal capital crimes are treated?