Perhaps it’s only a small change. But I genuinely hope that I can encourage David Smith to ask himself if he really believes what he’s saying or if it has a shred of truth.

For too long, anti-gays have never even asked themselves that question. The see or hear something anti-gay and just repeat it or embellish on it.

No one in their camp calls them on it, and they don’t care what we write on our blogs – they think we are the liars.

But if we can gradually point out that their statements are untruthful, perhaps over time some of them will choose to either only tell the truth or, at least, refuse to repeat the lies of others.

The most important part of the process is to get them to really think about whether they are lying. I believe that some of them actually care whether they are.

In spite of a small change in the language he’s used, David E. Smith is still a liar. He may not like being called a liar, but is pointing out a single example of his dishonesty really going to make him change his behavior in the long term?

Do you not know that establishing motive is part of criminal investigations? It’s also the basis upon which we sentence lawbreakers?

Think about it, if we are to ignore intentions then everyone who acts in self-defense can be charged with murder and (where applicable) given the death penalty. Self-defense is a motive, an intention, a thought. But if the action ends in the death of someone else — if we go by the “only punish the action” rationale — then a cold blooded killer is no different than a father protecting his family from an intruder.

By the same reasoning, we already had “thought crimes” before we ever even considered hate crimes legislation. We have always dealt severely with those who callously take life with no remorse. Or steal without regret. By that same rationale, we’re punishing those people for their feelings AND thoughts!

Then we would have to do away with manslaughter or murder — because the difference between those two crimes is based upon intent, animus(or lack thereof).

If you accidentally kill someone, and you didn’t mean to, that’s often charged as “manslaughter” because you demonstrate no animus.

Should someone who lost control of their vehicle and plowed into a pedestrian serve the same time as a cold blooded killer who planned the murder for month?

just a point here: as a 5’6″ tall gay male, i’ve noticed something rather striking. i’ve never been assaulted by someone making a point of my sexuality. but i have been targeted any number of times because of my size. are we going to set up a height-based test for hate crimes next?

Of course this is just ridiculous, as everyone knows. “Other countries” (e.g., Canada, Sweden) have hate speech laws; we have the first amendment. No local law is going to trump anyone’s first amendment rights in this country, and that’s just a really glorious thing.

Ocourse this is just ridiculous, as everyone knows. “Other countries” (e.g., Canada, Sweeden) have hate speech laws; we have the first amdendment. No local law is going to trump anyone’s first amendment rights in this country, and that’s a really glorious thing.

Donna, you clearly don’t understand what a hate crime is. It doesn’t punish thought. It punishes action.

So what’s the action? Harassment, assault, intimidation. That’s the action.

Someone writing “My Town is Cool” on the side of a business in spray paint is just committing one crime – vandalism.

But someone writing “Jews Must Die” on the side of a synagogue in spray paint is committing two crimes. They are using vandalism to commit harassment and intimidation. Picture this synagogue in a predominantly jewish community and it’s not hard to see that harassment is part of the equation.

Surely you see why mere vandalism is much less of an issue than vandalism with a threatening message?

Bigots often intimidate and harass their victims and community with petty crimes, the kind of thing that serves no jail time. Fines, slap on the wrist, and they’re out the door to commit another misdemeanor to harass and intimidate their victims. This becomes a campaign of harassment, often with the victim terrorized and finally murdered. Why not nip it in the bud when it first happens rather than waiting until they escalate?

Prosecuting as vandalism doesn’t do enough, hate crime law enhancements however, act as a deterrent to more harassment crimes (hate crimes).

The thing to remember about hate crimes is the word “crime”. If no crime is committed, then there CAN’T be a hate crime. Which is why these aren’t punishing thought, they’re punishing action.

And even if they did punish “thought”, then you should also be worried about murder vs. manslaughter because the difference is based on intent — in other words, thought.

Are you suggesting that we should just have one charge, murder, and we apply it regardless of circumstances? Well, it would take the guesswork out of sentencing if nothing else.

I’m actually not fond of hate crime legislation myself because of that.

However, if we’re going to have them on the books, they need to be applied equally.

But it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s freedom. It just doesn’t. That’s a fact.