I’m all for banning porn and drugs at local gas stations and prostitution on the streets. However, thought crimes are not a traditional way of legislating morality.

I dunno the arguments behind allowing Nazis to parade, but I wouldn’t want anyone parading in my neighborhood. Can’t they express their views in some other fashion?

I misinterpreted your first post as ironically lamenting the Nazis’ current freedom. Yes, a hate speech law may indeed render the parade illegal.

I don’t know if there are “hate speech” laws on the book in this country yet, but it seems like their are those who are actively pressing for such censorship. Even without “hate speech” laws, the general idea of “hate crimes” basically establishes a link between what one thinks/says and what one does that creates a very, very slippery slope.

At present, however, I’m not aware that there are laws banning “hate speech” – only “hate actions.”

Mountain Man pointed out quite rightly that the emotional state of a perpetrator can have a bearing on the punishment, such as “aggravated” assault. But this is different than the concept of “hate crime.” I see no reason to need to make certain actions more “heinous” because they were done purely out of spite or hate. It makes little difference to the victim if he/she was randomly singled out for a mugging because they were simply carrying money on their person, or if they were singled out because of their ethnicity/beliefs. They still carry the same broken bones and bruises. They still lie in the same grave.

It isn’t a stretch to imagine the installation of a camera in every room in the country to enforce such laws.

“Should it (the American Nazi Party) not be able to (parade through a Jewish neighborhood)?”

According to the apparent logic of the proponents of hate speech laws, they wouldn’t. The courts have held that a demonstration, parade, etc. are a type of speech. However, a hate speech law would render the parade illegal. No?

Obviously the “right” to do something isn’t equivalent to condoning it. Although I don’t condone in any fashion the KKK, they have the right to express their views publically and march through the projects of Detroit or Chicago should they have a hankering for severe bodily injury or death. The Nazis likewise have a right to parade through a Jewish neighborhood. Muslims have a right to parade through christian neighborhoods and vice-versa. War protesters have a right to picket outside military funerals.

I remain a firm believer that we should punish people for actions, not thoughts. The idea of adding some type of punishment factor on top of murder charges because it was done in “hate” opens up a Pandora’s Box. What about the abusive husband who kills his wife? Should his punishment be less severe than if we could somehow categorically show that he harbored hatred against all females – not just his wife? The only distinction that should be made in my opinion is between intentional and unintentional – manslaughter versus murder. Other crimes can vary in severity and the punishment can be meted out accordingly, but trying to ascertain the degree of “hate” that motivated a crime and punishing based on the ideology one holds is very dangerous. This is why the Bible has one punishment for murder, not dozens based on “severity” “ideology” and “motive.”

Duke has already given examples in other columns of the extremes to which these hate crime laws will be taken, abridging freedom of speech. Pastors are already being prosecuted in Canada and Sweden for speaking out against things they consider to be sexual perversion (homosexuality) and with our increasing fascination as a nation with becoming part of the “global community” in terms of laws and morals, it won’t be long before we see such situations arise with our own hate crime laws.

It isn’t a stretch to imagine any of the following eventually:

- Those who vocally criticize global warming hype will be accused of hating science and hating the earth. If they break the law in a protest, they would be punished more severely than, say, an anti-war protester.

- Those who oppose affirmative action will be accused of racial hatred. Let’s say they deny a job or college placement to someone who they genuninely believe to be lesser qualified than other applicants. They are sued and they lose. The damages become greater and more punitive because an attorney shows the motive was “hate.”

- Those who oppose abortion will be accused of hating women. If they break the law in one of their protests, they would be punished more severely than, say, an anti-war protester who was “hating the right things” (i.e., hating war).

What I do take issue with is laws that pinpoint an emotional state based on political orientation. If it is wrong to disagree with gays, it also must be wrong to disagree with straights. In essence, then, the government would be obligated to tell everyone that they must be nice to everyone else under penalty of law. The criteria is, of course, how the aggrieved party “feels.”

Government has the constitutional authority to do this? The Founders must be turning over in their graves.

Yes. Should it not be able to?