6/22    Why aren't hate crime law considered anti-free speech?
        \_ Because you're convicted of the thing you did, and being punished
           for why you did it.
        \_ Because beating someone to death is still murder.  If you did it
           while wearing a swastika and yelling Zieg Heil, then you get an
           extra dose of punishment for being an asshole.  It's still murder.
           All speech is not free.  You may not yell "fire!" in a crowded
           theatre, as you well know.  I hope this wasn't a troll attempt.
           \_ or "bomb!" anywhere in crowded place especially airport.
              \_ shit!  now you've done it!  the black helicopters should be
                 at your place right aboNO CARRIER~~!@~((~
        \_ Assault as speech? If you're talking about the "why" being
           important, mens rea (your state of mind when committing a crime)
           is a long-established factor. For example, the "why" determines
           what kind of charge you get for a homicide. --aaron
        \_ Some people do consider them anti-free speech.
           \_ Insert white power website URL here.
              \_ Yeah, cuz only KKK folk don't agree with tha law...
              \_ No.  It is too easy to knee jerk around and say hate speech
                 should be a crime.  The white power guys have the right to
                 say hateful and racist and whatever things about other people.
                 They do *not* have the right to say those things while they
                 engage in other criminal activity.  Free speech must be
                 carefully tended.  It must be provided to those with whom we
                 disagree or find utterly vile and contemptible.  Who needs
                 free speech more than those who don't have power?  As long
                 as the stupid, the vicious, the mean, the ugly, and the racist
                 haters have free speech, the rest of us are ok.  Once they
                 lose the right to express their hatred of others, watch out!
                 Your rights will be next.
                 \_ you're begging the question.  -tom
                    \_ No, he's not. Some "hate crime" laws regulate only
                       speech.
                       \_ He's begging the question because his assertion
                          (that the most utterly vile and contemptible speech
                          must be protected or else they'll come for you next!)
                          is both unsupported by any argument and at odds with
                          reality.  -tom
                          \_ I don't think that means what you think it means.
                             http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm
                 \_ Sure, they can say whatever they like, as long they don't
                    kill or maim someone because of their hate.  See above in
                    reference to "your state of mind when committing a crime."
                    \- on a related note, you may wish to read about the
                       notion of "group libel". the case to start with is
                       beauharnais v. illinois. on hate speech, see RAV v.
                       St. Paul [a more recent case and probably more relevant
                       today and to this thread than B'harnais.]. In re: the
                       KKK, see the Skokie march incident. I dont remember
                       the name of the case. I seem to remember a lot of Jews
                       "burned their ACLU card" over the ACLU position in that
                       case. --psb
              \_ So rather than discuss the ACLU URL I posted, you simply
                 delete it. On a discussion regarding free speech. Incredible.