Skip to main content

Here's why hate crimes are a dangerous idea...

Not because law enforcement decided that a Sarah Palin mannequin hung in effigy as part of a Halloween display in Hollywood is not a hate crime; I happen to believe that's protected speech.

No, the reason that hate crimes are a dangerous idea is because had the same display included Barack Obama it might have been:

[Sheriff's Department spokesman]: Whitmore said that potential hate crimes are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the same display had been made of a Barack Obama-like doll, for example, authorities would have to evaluate it independently, Whitmore said.

"That adds a whole other social, historical hate aspect to the display, and that is embedded in the consciousness of the country," he said, adding he's not sure whether it would be a hate crime. "It would be ill-advised of anybody to speculate on that."


This sort of speaks for itself, and if you don't get it, no comment of mine will cause you to see the light.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Well..yeah...except for this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/racist-obama-effigy-hung_n_135971.html

The best part of that story is that the guy said he did it because he is a racist. Love that one.
Bowly said…
So racist speech isn't a right? No more Klan or neo-Nazi rallies and/or websites?

Morons have rights, too.
Hube said…
Well...yeah... what, Geek? Precisely what is your point?
OK Geek, I hate to admit it, but I'm with Hube on this one: I have absolutely no idea what your point is. Maybe I'm just extra slow today.

My main point that I did not state is that wow, here we've got a sheriff telling you we can't give you an answer as to whether a specific action would or would not be criminal until after the fact, we'd just have to think about it and decide later if you broke the law or not...

The essence of law is predictability: I have to have the ability (under reasonable circumstances) to know whether or not my considered action will be legal. Saying that it's not appropriate to speculate on whether hanging an Obama effigy would be legal or not, after just declaring a Palin effigy legal, is an example of handing over ENTIRELY too much 1984-like discretionary authority over to the police.

"Well, son, I'm a-takin' you in. That there Obama effigy woulda been legal if it hadn't been Black History month. We determined that last week, but it was a double-secret probation type law and we couldn't tell anybody about it. You got a lawyer, boy?"
Anonymous said…
Would it be a hate crime if I burned a Confederate flag in Cecil County? Or would that be an "I hate hate" crime? Besides, you don't have to hang anyone in effigy to start an uproar these days, just hang a noose from a tree.
Anonymous said…
I hate to admit it, but I'm with Hube on this one

Just curious: Why do you "hate to admit it," Steve?
I "hate to admit it" referred to my hating to admit that I couldn't understand what he was trying to say; didn't mean it to read that way.
Anonymous said…
LOL...ok. Cool. I feel better! :-)

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...