Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'd like to know what your opinions on Hate Crime are. I was looking at the laws in different countries around the world on this subject, and some are very interesting - other rather creepy. I'd like to know your opinion and the regulations in your country.

If a person beats up another individual he/she gets a sentence according to his/her crime, however, the sentence for the same crime may be elevated if the person has beat up another person because they dislike their colour, religion, creed, nationality, sexual orientation....etc.

I'd like to open an argument about this - is it wrong or right to elevate the punishment for the same crime, be it arson, mugging, murder or other, based on person's thoughts and prejudices against the victim? Is it sometimes difficult to identify hate crimes?

If yes - why?
If no - why not?

What if person is to get a longer sentence for a particular grave crime if they are NOT charged with Hate Crime then if they are prejudiced?

Hate speech - does it lead to hate crime, and how should it be punished, if at all? Can freedom of expression be mistaken for hate speech?

Please discuss.

I'm sorry I'm a bit unfamiliar. Hate Crime/Speech as in like racism/predjudicism to say religion?

You don't mean that they hate the person in the literal sense, more based on a prejudice right?

i just like to say me and my brother have gotten into some pretty bad fights with each other mostly him not me since i am the oldest.. he calls me a spic i call him a salted cracker.. is their racial slurs in their sure.. but why should it be a crime? i mean he isnt in the hospital after its over he feels better so do i and none is worse for wear.. i think its stupid that some kids can get in a fight and call one a cracker, spic, ni^&er and end up in juvy for a few months and as an adult a yr for what would have bn nothing more then disorderly conduct or whatever since chances are neither ppl will press charges which leaves it up to the police to come up with something..

i mean how fair is it to be locked up longer for the exact same crime but b/c you said cracker or ni^%er its some how worse..

me and my brother called each other racial names but we still love each other so why would one of us diserve to go to jail for a minor childish life experience of fighting.. it happens all the time through out time

by the way my brother calls me a queer and i call him a f@g and we are adults now.. so its like a f@g what you doing.. bite me queer..
see? no harm no foul no hate the love is there

Originally posted by Liberator
I'm sorry I'm a bit unfamiliar. Hate Crime/Speech as in like racism/predjudicism to say religion?

You don't mean that they hate the person in the literal sense, more based on a prejudice right?

Exactly.
Sorry, I wasn't really clear about what I was asking, I shall fix the first post. But yes, not hate in literal sense, but more based on prejudice.

And religion is indeed included.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'd like to know what your opinions on Hate Crime are. I was looking at the laws in different countries around the world on this subject, and some are very interesting - other rather creepy. I'd like to know your opinion and the regulations in your country.

If a person beats up another individual he/she gets a sentence according to his/her crime, however, the sentence for the same crime may be elevated if the person has beat up another person because they dislike their colour, religion, creed, nationality, sexual orientation....etc.

I'd like to open an argument about this - is it wrong or right to elevate the punishment for the same crime, be it arson, mugging, murder or other, based on person's thoughts and prejudices against the victim? Is it sometimes difficult to identify hate crimes?

If yes - why?
If no - why not? What if the sole purpose of crime WAS hatred?

What if person is to get a longer sentence for a particular grave crime if they are NOT charged with Hate Crime then if they are prejudiced?

Hate speech - does it lead to hate crime, and how should it be punished, if at all? Can freedom of expression be mistaken for hate speech?

Please discuss.

I remember from when I was working in a supermarket back in my student days that one of our security guards was middle eastern and some drunk old man came in and gave him abuse for not letting him into the store. When the police showed and questioned me as a witness, the only thing they were interested in is if there was any racial connotation to the incident. Like the fact that being verbally abused and threatened with violence isn't enough. Even when I was explaining what happened step by step they kept butting in and asking "But was there any racial abuse?" involved.

On this occasion there was and the person who committed it was arrested that very night and charged.

Another security guard got a far worse level of abuse only a week later and because there was no racial slur involved (despite him being from Latvia and being insulted as because of it) the police did nothing.

So from that perspective I don't think it's right to have 1 person be subject to abuse and have their case dealt with higher priority than someone facing worse abuse but without a racial insult involved.

As for the freedom of expression point. Can you give examples...I presume you're meaning the likes of Anjem Choudary, Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri compared with the likes of the infamous "bomb turban" cartoons.

I do think there will be an eventual backlash against certain factions of Islam continuously overreacting to things such as those drawings or the South Park episode.

Still...Can't help but laugh when they do stuff like this.


http://www.jihadwatch.org/juice.jpg

Originally posted by jaden101
I remember from when I was working in a supermarket back in my student days that one of our security guards was middle eastern and some drunk old man came in and gave him abuse for not letting him into the store. When the police showed and questioned me as a witness, the only thing they were interested in is if there was any racial connotation to the incident. Like the fact that being verbally abused and threatened with violence isn't enough. Even when I was explaining what happened step by step they kept butting in and asking "But was there any racial abuse?" involved.

On this occasion there was and the person who committed it was arrested that very night and charged.

Another security guard got a far worse level of abuse only a week later and because there was no racial slur involved (despite him being from Latvia and being insulted as because of it) the police did nothing.

So from that perspective I don't think it's right to have 1 person be subject to abuse and have their case dealt with higher priority than someone facing worse abuse but without a racial insult involved.

As for the freedom of expression point. Can you give examples...I presume you're meaning the likes of Anjem Choudary, Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri compared with the likes of the infamous "bomb turban" cartoons.

I do think there will be an eventual backlash against certain factions of Islam continuously overreacting to things such as those drawings or the South Park episode.

Still...Can't help but laugh when they do stuff like this.


http://www.jihadwatch.org/juice.jpg

Maybe the Fantastic Four will kill all the (zionist) Juice.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe the Fantastic Four will kill all the (zionist) Juice. Id buy that comic. Twice.

Originally posted by jaden101


http://www.jihadwatch.org/juice.jpg

Haha! Juice.

I must make another comment about that though - I don't know if you're familiar, but in Arabic, there isn't really a sound ''P'', so I remember seeing some protests against Israeli occupation where the demonstrators held signs saying (or meant to say) Save the Palestinian People. Due to the lack of P in Arabic, to them it came out as ''Save the Balestinian Beoble''. The problem is that they actually WROTE on the placard, ''Save the Balestinian Beoble''.

I must find the picture.

Arabs actually say "phalestin", I guess whoever wrote it didnt know about that. But post the pic if you find it for the lols.

Originally posted by SamZED
Arabs actually say "phalestin", I guess whoever wrote it didnt know about that. But post the pic if you find it for the lols.

They do, indeed. However, in English obviously it is Palestinian, since they don't have P it came out as B.

They tried their best.

Although if we look at some English translation in the far east...oh lord.

PS. Can't find the pic! If anyone has it, please post.

I disagree about the religious thing.
You always have a choice there.

The other things you can't change. (not that you should want to because some fool decides to rip on you, anyhow.)

Hate Crime legislation over religion is just more-work-for-the-overpayed-lawyers is yet one more thing to keep us all fighting each other and preventing us progressing as a species. (Just like religion)

It could be too much of a double edged sword.
I reckon it would be the first thing that an organisation under scrutiny will try to cite to prevent "Harrassment"(investigation" when its devout are under fair and due investigation. Look at the Catholic church for example or at the crazy death threat wielders with the signs...



And if thats passable as Law, then it should be prosecutable that anyone knocking on my door trying to convert me to their religion first thing in the morning on a Sunday get 28 days in the clink. hehehehee

'Hate speech' as a prosecutable concept seems silly sometimes.

I think it depends on the gravity of the crime committed.

For example, one man murdering another or bringing him near death is bad enough. But if the man doing the murdering/wounding is doing it because his target is gay or black or Jewish? That's just disgusting to me.

As for hate speech leading to hate crime... not necessarily. As Wild Shadow said above, it can be totally harmless, though perhaps still mildly offensive.

first let me say I believe a hate crime can be preformed by any race.....although (im not raciest) if i say something like hey you frikkin retard...to someone that's black,Mexican,Chinese or so on and so forth it necessarily mean its a hate crime...in fact its not......its me saying what i would say to anyone....and you have people being raciest in more then one way.....for instance you have people who hate,make fun of, or attack just based on color but you also have a flip side....

for example if a white male and a black male are on a bus together and the white guys says something to a friend that sounds racist (were assuming he is here) then that's a hate crime but you also have to see it another way.

if the guy says something to his friend that sounds racist (this time were assuming he's not) then the black male jumps up gets in his face and goes crazy over it then its still considered a hate crime because it offended him.

it could be vice verse even because hate crimes are very hard to point out...if someone offends someone of another race by saying something or doing something but has no intent on offending then hows that a hate crime?

take me for example.....when i worked as a dishwasher a long while back their was a black male from another country working with me and he was angry and yelled at me....i couldn't understand him and i said "clam down i can't understand you...it sounds like your speaking gibberish" the something i would have said to anyone...my own parents even if i couldn't understand them.....but he took it as if i was mocking him.

the point is i think unless its an easy to see blatant race crime....then there may be more to it then color and in fact the exact opposite....so i think its just to hard to tell.

Obviously hatred due to a petty prejudice like race/creed shouldn't ever be looked upon lightly because its that ignorance that is so dangerous.

I don't really think Hate Speech should be a criminal offense, instead of being locked up or fined the said 'Hater' should be sent to correction classes and taught other cultures, that way they might get an understanding of the otherside and come to respect them.

Hate Crimes are another matter entirely. The physical violence against someone based on appearance, creed, or race is simply disgusting. But again, locking people up in prison has proven to not solve anything. They need to be taught to understand, for understanding is the cure to ignorance. If we can understand one another we can work together for a more peaceful world.

Hate Speech is one of the most foolish things I've ever heard of.
In America, we have freedom of speech. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and they can voice it if they so choose. There is nothing wrong with disliking or loathing something. It only becomes wrong when physical action is taken upon that feeling, i.e. murder, slavery, etc.

Hate Speech: It's ok by me.
Hate Crimes: Punish them according to the crime committed. Motive shouldn't play into the punishment, only the rehabilitation.

If somebody who is broke and desparate mugs someone of their money, I can understand that, not that it's right. But, if somebody mugs someone because they are a certain race or religion, then that is a hate crime and I think it's good they are punished more severely. It's one thing to know not to walk through a certain part of the neighborhood at night if you don't want to get mugged. But, you could be anywhere and be a victim of a hate crime. I'm all for elevated punishment for hate crimes.

As far as hate speeches, it's a big gray area. Sure there is such a thing as freedom of speech/expression, however there is also such a thing as common sense. I really think there should be 'common sense laws'. You just don't go to a soldier's funeral waving anti-war signs, you just don't do it. It doesn't make anyone stop and think...'Hmm, maybe war is wrong." It just breeds hate, so yes, I do think hate speeches can lead to hate crimes. What should be done about it? That's a hard thing to figure out. I guess there should be more specific laws put into place and enforced to prevent people from doing such cruel things.

Said it before; I think "hate crimes" are generally silly.

A) I beat the crap out of someone and called them moron.

B) I beat the crap out of someone and call them ******, ******, spick, gook or rag-head.

Why should B) be considered more of a crime when both victims were beaten equally? Doesn't make sense.

Because you're not white.

Originally posted by Robtard
Said it before; I think "hate crimes" are generally silly.

A) I beat the crap out of someone and called them moron.

B) I beat the crap out of someone and call them ******, ******, spick, gook or rag-head.

Why should B) be considered more of a crime when both victims were beaten equally? Doesn't make sense.

Motive. The prosecution needs a motive because it makes their case easier to relay to the jury. And for sentencing. If the judge knows why not just what, then he can deliver the proper punishment: prison, the nut house, or whatever.

M&O are the two elements that lead to a crime. (motive and oppurtinity) And the prosecutor has to know both for a solid case.

If a crime is committed because of a prejudice, then it should be judged more severely. Say some people beat up a guy 'cause he's gay... well, it wouldn't have happened ... but the guy being gay was the motive.

It's harder to tell in something less straight forward, obviously. A murderer kills a heterosexual couple and has the trait of being homophobic?

Only if the prejudice pertains to the crime. As for "anti-" signs, the showing of the confederate flag, etc. That falls into free speech, and although I would rather people not be so offensive, as long as no one is being "hurt" then I say suck it up and don't escalate.

Originally posted by Robtard
Said it before; I think "hate crimes" are generally silly.

A) I beat the crap out of someone and called them moron.

B) I beat the crap out of someone and call them ******, ******, spick, gook or rag-head.

Why should B) be considered more of a crime when both victims were beaten equally? Doesn't make sense.

I thinks it's more of 'why' you beat them up...

Why did you beat the guy up you called a moron? Did he grab your girlfriend's ass? Did he spit in your burger? You could call the guy any name you want in a fit of rage. That's what people do in fights. Hell, you could call him a Chink if you want, it's just to piss him off, right? That's called talking shit to a Chinese guy you beat up after he violated your girlfriend's private space. Not really a hate crime, just talking shit.

Now, let's say you beat the Chinese guy up for no reason, except for the fact that he's Chinese. He never touched your girl, he never threatened you, he didn't even look at you when he walked by. You beat him up simply because he's Chinese. Uh.... hate crime? Of course.

Sure, you beat both victims equally. However, one was in defense of your girlfriend, the other a hate crime. Makes sense to me.

Let's use the example of beating the crap out of someone to mug them for money. How is that crime less than beating the crap out of them because they are a different race?
I see no reason why greed, rage, and jealously are somehow more socially accepted reasons to beat the shit out of someone than racial reasons. They all make you dick. How you get to that point shouldn't matter.

Ok, you're all on the point I was trying to make.

Let us, for example take arson.

If you burn down a church/mosque/synagogue because you dislike any of the religions - is that a worse crime than setting a fire to church/mosque/synagogue because a priest/imam/rabbi paid you so they can, I don't know, stir controversy or collect on insurance?

They both dealt equal damage and noone was killed.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ok, you're all on the point I was trying to make.

Let us, for example take arson.

If you burn down a church/mosque/synagogue because you dislike any of the religions - is that a worse crime than setting a fire to church/mosque/synagogue because a priest/imam/rabbi paid you so they can, I don't know, stir controversy or collect on insurance?

They both dealt equal damage and noone was killed.

Personally, if you have the intent of committing a crime based on hate - so, option A in your scenario, the arsonist's intention is so much worse. All right, so no one was hurt, but the action is intended to frighten the people who attend that religious institution. They now know, very certainly, that "someone" is "out to get them." And that that person crossed the line from biased thinking to biased doing, which is a sign of escalation. What if, the next time, the guy doesn't wait until everyone leaves the building?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Let's use the example of beating the crap out of someone to mug them for money. How is that crime less than beating the crap out of them because they are a different race?
I see no reason why greed, rage, and jealously are somehow more socially accepted reasons to beat the shit out of someone than racial reasons. They all make you dick. How you get to that point shouldn't matter.

If the motivation is robbery, then the victim can avoid being assaulted by relinquishing his property, or the assault will cease when the victim relinquishes his property.

If the motivation is race, the victim cannot avoid being assaulted, and the assault will not cease until the perpetrator is satisfied or fears that he will be discovered.

Then he does it for fun, or he does it because he's angry over something else. The reason why he's doing shouldn't change the severity of the action. If you break my nose, it's just as bad if it was you wanted my money, you were angry, or I'm a race you hate.

Originally posted by Tired-Hiker
I thinks it's more of 'why' you beat them up...

Why did you beat the guy up you called a moron? Did he grab your girlfriend's ass? Did he spit in your burger? You could call the guy any name you want in a fit of rage. That's what people do in fights. Hell, you could call him a Chink if you want, it's just to piss him off, right? That's called talking shit to a Chinese guy you beat up after he violated your girlfriend's private space. Not really a hate crime, just talking shit.

Now, let's say you beat the Chinese guy up for no reason, except for the fact that he's Chinese. He never touched your girl, he never threatened you, he didn't even look at you when he walked by. You beat him up simply because he's Chinese. Uh.... hate crime? Of course.

Sure, you beat both victims equally. However, one was in defense of your girlfriend, the other a hate crime. Makes sense to me.

What If I beat person A) up because I thought he he looked stupid and I beat person B) up because I thought he was too black.

Why is the B) crime more severe?

Originally posted by Robtard
What If I beat person A) up because I thought he he looked stupid and I beat person B) up because I thought he was too black.

Why is the B) crime more severe?

Those are both hate crimes in my opinion. My main point is that someone beating people up just because they don't like them... that person is a larger threat to a broader scope of people than the guy who jumps someone in a back alley in the middle of the night and robs them for money.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ok, you're all on the point I was trying to make.

Let us, for example take arson.

If you burn down a church/mosque/synagogue because you dislike any of the religions - is that a worse crime than setting a fire to church/mosque/synagogue because a priest/imam/rabbi paid you so they can, I don't know, stir controversy or collect on insurance?

They both dealt equal damage and noone was killed.

I think at the risk of actually killing someone, both are equal crimes. Now I know what some people are going to say... so howcome hate crimes should be different. In my opinion, if it can be proved in court that violence was bestowed on someone purely out of hate, that person committing the crime is a larger threat to a greater amount of people rather than some dude jumping someone for cash.

It's all such a gray area though, so yes, I feel even my opinion has some flaws. For one thing, even if there's no evidence of a situation being a hate crime, how would anyone ever actually know that it truly was or wasn't. The guy mugging someone for cash maybe is a racist and racism was his true motive, but he made it just look like he commited the crime out of desperation.

So, here's my evolved opinion: Hate crime or not, they should be punished the same, but the punishment should be on the side of the hate crime severity, not the lesser severity of a non-hate crime. Although, I still think hate crimes warrant a further investigation as to what parties or gangs the criminal is affiliated with in order to curb hate crimes as a whole.

Originally posted by Robtard
What If I beat person A) up because I thought he he looked stupid and I beat person B) up because I thought he was too black.

Why is the B) crime more severe?

This is why:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the motivation is robbery, then the victim can avoid being assaulted by relinquishing his property, or the assault will cease when the victim relinquishes his property.

If the motivation is race, the victim cannot avoid being assaulted, and the assault will not cease until the perpetrator is satisfied or fears that he will be discovered.

(Do you honestly not see the difference, or are you just being difficult?)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This is why:



(Do you honestly not see the difference, or are you just being difficult?)

Doesn't logically explain why the crime is more severe when the outcome is the same, now does it. My beating on someone for my perception of them 'looking stupid' (or other non-racial slight) is no more in the control of that victim as say their skin color.

Look at it from another angle:

-If you got into an argument with a non-Hispanic custumer over work you preformed on his car and he ended up calling you a "spick" and walked out after paying his bill, that wouldn't be a crime, at least not one the police would pursue.

-If you got into that same argument, but instead of venting his anger with a racial slur, he cracked you over the head repeatedlt. That would be a crime, assualt; the police would pursue it.

-Now combine both scenarios, the customer both calls you a spick and then proceeds to beat on you while calling you a spick.

Explain to me why that (#3) crime is more severe when one of the qualifiers wasn't a crime to begin with? BTW, the outcome of 2 & 3 are the same in the end, you were assualted. The assailent would technically face more time in jail for what amounted to name calling.

Originally posted by Robtard
Doesn't logically explain why the crime is more severe when the outcome is the same, now does it. My beating on someone for my perception of them 'looking stupid' (or other non-racial slight) is no more in the control of that victim as say their skin color.

Look at it from another angle:

-If you got into an argument with a non-Hispanic custumer over work you preformed on his car and he ended up calling you a "spick" and walked out after paying his bill, that wouldn't be a crime, at least not one the police would pursue.

-If you got into that same argument, but instead of venting his anger with a racial slur, he cracked you over the head repeatedlt. That would be a crime, assualt; the police would pursue it.

-Now combine both scenarios, the customer both calls you a spick and then proceeds to beat on you while calling you a spick.

Explain to me why that (#3) crime is more severe when one of the qualifiers wasn't a crime to begin with? BTW, the outcome of 2 & 3 are the same in the end, you were assualted. The assailent would technically face more time in jail for what amounted to name calling.

The use of insults or verbal abuse does not automatically qualify a crime as bias-motivated.

In the third scenario, the responding officers will investigate whether the assault is bias-motivated or a crime of passion.

Originally posted by Robtard

-If you got into an argument with a non-Hispanic custumer over work you preformed on his car and he ended up calling you a "spick" and walked out after paying his bill, that wouldn't be a crime, at least not one the police would pursue.


Not illegal.

Originally posted by Robtard

-If you got into that same argument, but instead of venting his anger with a racial slur, he cracked you over the head repeatedlt. That would be a crime, assualt; the police would pursue it.


Aggravated assualt.

Originally posted by Robtard

-Now combine both scenarios, the customer both calls you a spick and then proceeds to beat on you while calling you a spick.

Explain to me why that (#3) crime is more severe when one of the qualifiers wasn't a crime to begin with? BTW, the outcome of 2 & 3 are the same in the end, you were assualted. The assailent would technically face more time in jail for what amounted to name calling.

Actually, in this scenario, I don't think the perp would face more time: the prosecutor would focus on assault with money as the motive. The "name calling" (which is constitutionally protected) is just extra ammo for the prosecution to make him look bad in front of a jury. (Like Mark Furhman in the OJ case. Saying the N-word isn't illegal, it just helps the other side.)

^That aint a hate crime, this is: a group of white guys are in a car driving around at midnight and they're on a "hunt" or "night ride" (looking for a minority to kill). They find a Cambodian walking home from work, beat him to death, carve a swastika into his chest, and then pose his body in the middle of the street. That is a hate crime, whether his wallet is taken or not is irrelevant.

Motive, motive, motive.

^
&
^

Alright then, guess I was confused on what could be labeled a hate crime.

So we're arguing now that federal protecion of minorities based on self-identity is now some horrible over-reach of governmnet?

Its about motivation. People get all pissed about genocide, ethnic clensing (and ignore the cleansing of groups they dont like, ie gays in the holocaust) but when it happens on a 1-to-1 basis, suddenly its not a big deal?

Americans are woried that a brown skinned family living in their neighbrohood is going to destroy its character, but if you take out that family because they're brown...meh it was just like any other crime.

Hate crimes are a severe form of pre-meditation and are not only violent against an individual, but are designed to terrorize a specific community as a whole.

"The same crime has a higher price to pay."

Okay - if prejudice is part of the intent/motive, then the crime is worse.
the motive leads to the method - and if the motive has such a personal hatred in it, the crime is very likely to be a much more violent thing. Also, a personal motive leads to a more likely increase in violence even during the crime.

I don't care if there's a disclamer saying the end result "is the same," because that's not possible. A motive of hate leads to terror even after the crime. Post all the hypotheticals you want - hate crime v. "regular" crime - hate crime is worse. Period.

I know you guys are mostly from the USA, so can you tell us how that works in the states.

Those who are not from USA, tell us what the law actually is in your country.

Those who are from USA, are crimes, in fact, punished more severely, nor not, if they are found to be a hate crime?

It depends on the state, the crime commited, the damage done, and who the parties are. Even then you can throw in the personal discretion of the judge.

If you are found guilty of a hate crime you are eligable for additional or alterneate penalties.

Law proper is not a sentance or a paragraph that can just be posted here. Its different everwhere. There are multiple federal regulations, then variable state and local laws too. If you want to know how it works in general, I'm sure there are some great books you can check out at your local university library.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
Hate Speech is one of the most foolish things I've ever heard of.
In America, we have freedom of speech. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and they can voice it if they so choose. There is nothing wrong with disliking or loathing something. It only becomes wrong when physical action is taken upon that feeling, i.e. murder, slavery, etc.

This is a very short sighted view. If freedom of speech doesn't include shouting fire in a crowded theater, it shouldn't include incitement to violence either seems to be one of the main reasons hate speech is criminalized.

Violence is violence, it doesn't matter what the motivation is

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Violence is violence, it doesn't matter what the motivation is

silly

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Violence is violence, it doesn't matter what the motivation is

You're right, police should stop criminals by firmly telling them that they're doing a bad thing.

"self-defense" is a motivation for violence.

You might also "hate" the person who is threatening you or your family

Originally posted by inimalist
"self-defense" is a motivation for violence.

You might also "hate" the person who is threatening you or your family

I don't think that would qualify as a hate crime.

no, but it added to the joke

i get it.

My opinion-
Hate Crime-Any crime violating a person's civil or natural rights primarily motivated by an ideology that classifies a person as sub-human based on any element of their identity or anatomy.

Hate Speech-Any speech that is blatantly derogatory against any group of people based on any element of identity or anatomy voiced with the express purpose to denigrate, incite panic, or incite criminal activity against other persons. By this definition, hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.

The legal test of a hate crime or hate speech is the same as the ultimate test for pornography-I know it when I see it.

Now adays people get offended no matter what you say or how you say it.Which is just stupid.We might as well not say anything.

I too think that "Hate Crime" is a very stupid concept, for reasons people (like Rob) have pointed out. If you beat the sh*t out of a person, hang them, run them over or burn them out of anger (for any reason) it's pretty clear that you hate them. The end result is the same.

Also, I probably use what most people ( PC crybabies) would call "Hate Speech" everyday." Freedom of speech" indeed has it's limits.