What constitutes a hate crime?

I have a question, where does hateful words turn into hate crimes? Is a heated argument that goes to mud slinging not just a heated discussion? Or is the immediate use of disgusting words or offensive words considered a hate crime? Just about anyone who has been in a heated argument with someone they knew well can attest to things that are hurtful and mean are said. Does that mean hate crimes are going on in every neighborhood around the nation? Or are people putting the cart before the horse here. Now if the reason for the verbal (or worse) attack are because of someones race/religion/disability/gender/sexual orientation/etc etc then a discussion as to the validity of it being a hate crime can be had.

If we want to go with blanket coverage then a large swath of the people who frequent chat have been the perpetrators of hate crimes (Deb and myself included, if for no other reason then the insulting and demeaning things we have both said about/to a particular chat goer.)

Originally Posted by Randall Turner

I have a question, where does hateful words turn into hate crimes? Is a heated argument that goes to mud slinging not just a heated discussion? Or is the immediate use of disgusting words or offensive words considered a hate crime? Just about anyone who has been in a heated argument with someone they knew well can attest to things that are hurtful and mean are said. Does that mean hate crimes are going on in every neighborhood around the nation? Or are people putting the cart before the horse here. Now if the reason for the verbal (or worse) attack are because of someones race/religion/disability/gender/sexual orientation/etc etc then a discussion as to the validity of it being a hate crime can be had.

If we want to go with blanket coverage then a large swath of the people who frequent chat have been the perpetrators of hate crimes (Deb and myself included, if for no other reason then the insulting and demeaning things we have both said about/to a particular chat goer.)

When someone attacks me first, they are fair game. As long as they are responding in kind, I have no issue with defending myself and airing out my responses to behaviors directed at me. Opinions aired between acquaintances are not crimes.

I suggest people do their own research on what constitutes a hate crime. My research showed E-mails as being listed as a crime (when combined with other actions such as frequency, etc...)

Originally Posted by The BoidSmith

I'm really disillusioned with people to the point that I don't care anymore.

There are good and thoughtful people here, and they do not tolerate the kind of behavior that is in issue. You are not recognizing that.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

. My research showed E-mails as being listed as a crime (when combined with other actions such as frequency, etc...)

I believe that's all that anyone suggested and agreed.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

I believe that's all that anyone suggested and agreed.

Oh, ok. I was reading it as "Sending emails does not constitute as a crime" A general blanket statement. Thanks for clearing that up.

Something can't be a "hate crime" all by itself... "hate crime" is an aggravating factor applied to an ACTUAL CRIME. So, in order for a hate crime to occur, by definition an actual crime has to have occurred, aggravated by an impossible-to-quantify "hate factor".

In the instance in question, no actual crime was committed, therefore a "hate crime" cannot have been committed. "Hate crime" is not a moralistic or metaphysical term we can just arbitrarily use to describe bigoted or racial behavior... it means ACTUAL CRIME.

Now, if such messages were sent with regularity, consistently using the epithets in question, with the intent to harm, hurt, or harass, then a criminal complaint could be made. Then, and ONLY THEN, does a potential aggravating factor constituting a "hate crime" come into play.

If I walk by a black person on the street and call them a "n-word", I have not committed a hate crime. If I accost a black person on the street physically and call them a "n-word" in the process, I may have committed a "hate crime", but only because I committed an ACTUAL CRIME (assault/battery).

I personally think the terms and laws surrounding "hate crime" are stupid in the extreme... it borders on thought police/nanny state mentality, and I'm not sure we want our society going that direction if we want to retain our freedom of the press and of speech. I think a crime is a crime, and whether or not you hate the color of my skin is rather irrelevant to the harm you caused me.

But the fact remains, an ACTUAL CRIME has to have been committed in order for a "hate crime" to have been committed.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

I suggest people do their own research on what constitutes a hate crime. My research showed E-mails as being listed as a crime (when combined with other actions such as frequency, etc...)

That's all well and good, but who is it that is tasked with ENFORCING such a law and punishing the perpetrators? From what I have been gathering from Dan's posts, he expects everyone to form some sort of internet vigilante task force to deal with this issue. To do what? Banishment? Stoning? Hanging? Firing squad? And apparently he is upset that no one appears inclined to do so.

If someone has actually broken such a law outside of this site, then it needs to be taken to the proper authorities responsible for it's enforcement, which is no one here that I am aware of. No one on this site has any authority nor responsibility to do anything concerning what someone does anywhere else in the world.

Bear with me as I try to explain where I am going with this:

When you and Kevin were posting information about the airport scanning machines and (I got the feeling) in an uproar because the "sheeple" were not taking action against the Airports, I understood what you were trying to say. Since there's no way to have an "organized" effort, and no one seemed to want to take the lead, it boiled down to individual decisions.

My personal decision, as a result of the information gleaned from the airport scanners thread was not to support that system. I don't fly, I don't pay for tickets, I use alternative means of transportation (so far), and I encourage my family to do the same. It comes back to rights, people have the right to decide how they will act in absence of any concerted effort to act as a organized group?

I think and believe that perhaps Dan was pointing out that the power to reduce such behavior relies on our individual decisions on how to act towards people that are exposed as behaving in the nature revealed by Jas and Joe and hoping that people would voice their decisions?

Lucille: I didn't see the thread as a means of "guilting" anyone. How can a whole race be responsible for the actions of a few? It is reduced to individual right to decide how one will respond to the exposed behavior. My decision is not to buy from such people, and not to buy from those that support him. That is my right and that is how I will show displeasure in the behavior exposed here.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

That's all well and good, but who is it that is tasked with ENFORCING such a law and punishing the perpetrators? From what I have been gathering from Dan's posts, he expects everyone to form some sort of internet vigilante task force to deal with this issue. To do what? Banishment? Stoning? Hanging? Firing squad? And apparently he is upset that no one appears inclined to do so.

If someone has actually broken such a law outside of this site, then it needs to be taken to the proper authorities responsible for it's enforcement, which is no one here that I am aware of. No one on this site has any authority nor responsibility to do anything concerning what someone does anywhere else in the world.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

My decision is not to buy from such people, and not to buy from those that support him. That is my right and that is how I will show displeasure in the behavior exposed here.

I ABSOLUTELY agree, and I also would not in any way financially support such behavior. It is incomprehensible to me how someone could see such behavior and then make a purchase from such a person.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

Bear with me as I try to explain where I am going with this:

When you and Kevin were posting information about the airport scanning machines and (I got the feeling) in an uproar because the "sheeple" were not taking action against the Airports, I understood what you were trying to say. Since there's no way to have an "organized" effort, and no one seemed to want to take the lead, it boiled down to individual decisions.

My personal decision, as a result of the information gleaned from the airport scanners thread was not to support that system. I don't fly, I don't pay for tickets, I use alternative means of transportation (so far), and I encourage my family to do the same. It comes back to rights, people have the right to decide how they will act in absence of any concerted effort to act as a organized group?

Yes. If you don't like the policies in place at the airports, then simply don't frequent the airports. Hence my recommendation that people just not frequent such places on the web where they will be exposed to that kind of talk with no apparent policies against it. If you choose to walk down a dark alley where you know there are no police on duty and it is quite likely you will get mugged, and you do so anyway because you WANT to, then whose fault is that if you DO get mugged? The internet is filled with more places to go at the click of a button than anyone has ever had available in the history of the human race. It just does not make sense to go someplace where you will be exposed to other peoples' actions that you would prefer not to have to endure.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

I think and believe that perhaps Dan was pointing out that the power to reduce such behavior relies on our individual decisions on how to act towards people that are exposed as behaving in the nature revealed by Jas and Joe and hoping that people would voice their decisions?

Perhaps. I would have to read that thread on the BOI again that this all stemmed from. But my impression was that Dan was quite perturbed that I did not ban Joe from this site because of his and/or John's postings on Facebook. That appears to me to go a bit beyond what you indicate Dan's intentions are.