My wife and I talk about any number of things. One of the topics which has come up in recent days was “hate crimes”, as in “what constitutes a hate crime”, or “are hate crimes even legitimate under the Constitution”.
My contention is, they are flat out Illegal. You can not, by our existing constitutional law, legislate against what a person thinks, only on what formal acts are carried out. In other words, murder is murder regardless of what ideas/thoughts may have supposedly driven a person to commit said act. That unless you are omniscient, you have no real way of knowing and or verifying what a persons thoughts are, or if they in fact had any direct effect on the specific actions they are being tried on.
And by extension, the notion of “aggravated” status to any given offense, seems to me to be the sort of “good intention” which has paved the way for the current drive toward modification of charges with a “hate crime” tag.
One is either guilty of a given offense, or they are not. A murder (for example) in and of itself, is no more (or less) excusable because the individual who committed the act “hated” the person they killed, or “mildly disliked” them.
If as a society we feel the charge of murder carries to light of a sentence, than the law should be revisited and a greater penalty be affixed across the board. For example, if the existing penalty is 20 years to life, but this is deemed to be too wide a scope of time, or perhaps not allowing for the ultimate penalty (execution), then review and revise the statutes on same. Perhaps changing it to 25 years min with no chance of parole up to possible use of the death penalty.
There is no need for “aggravated” or “hate crime” appendages being applied to any laws. All they do is further erode existing liberties and rights as conferred to us by a higher power … one which is much further up the food chain then the government (at any level).
All the above leads to this.
‘Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Atlas, among others, “gets it”. This bill will be instrumental in bringing the blogs to their knees.
Folks, if it passes, and gets signed into law, it will be a feloney to “hurt someone’s feelings”!!! That means all you conservative bloggers out there, if found guilty, you will lose your right to vote, your right to bear arms, security clearances … Now this wouldn’t be something our “progressive buddies” would want to see passed in order to have a tool in place with which to “legally” silence “the right” once and for all?
Naaaaa, of course not! This bill is purely for the protection of the children! As all “hate crimes” legislation is enacted to protect one victimized group or another, because sometimes any plain vanilla charge just isn’t good enough.
*Sigh* wouldn’t it be easier to get rid of the judges who consistently rule far too leniently in any given situation? Or does that smack of far too much common sense.