Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Hate Crime Speech

    Posted by Sgt. Mom on September 10th, 2018 (All posts by )

    When it first became politically trendy to back passage of ‘hate-crime’ legislation, I privately thought it a bad idea, while understanding completely why it was an appealing notion, especially for political and social entities which presumed to act on behalf of those threatened by weaponized hate. The fear in such communities was real, every bit as real as the threats, the vandalism, the lynch mobs, and disenfranchisement. It would take a politician with balls of brass to stand up before a group who justifiably were frightened by all that, and discount those fears. It was the easy way out for politicians, the media and social organizations to portray hate crime legislation as a good and discount those doubts held by those of us with inclinations toward the philosophical. A crime was a crime: there were already laws on the books dealing with vandalism, murder, arson and so on. A motivation for committing a crime ought to be of interest only in establishing the guilt of the perpetrator, not for piling on additional penalties. We do not have windows to peer accurately into the souls of others. Essentially, classifying a crime as a ‘hate crime’ was punishing the thought, over and above the actual crime itself. I didn’t think it was a good idea then, and still don’t think so – especially given the overwhelming numbers of so-called “hate crimes” which turn out to be either deliberate hoaxes, or the deeply imaginative letting their imaginations run away from them.

    I feel the same way about hate crime’s dubious cousin – so-called hate speech, which of late seems to be classified lately as anything which the bien-pensant in academia, the media, or politics don’t wish to hear. Early on, the concept seemed to be that hate speech was the stuff of the KKK and the Nazis campaign against racial and religious minorities and encouraging the excision and/or destruction of those minorities from the human race by whatever means. Which was not just bad, it was also – in the words of my mother, one of the most militantly tolerant women on the face of the earth – rude. However, of late, the definition of hate-speech has become so loose as to be useless; a pity, as it once was a shorthand for the genuinely unacceptable in public discourse.

    And that is not the worst, although the double standard when it comes to defining what is acceptable is galling to conservatives and moderates: why should nasty, bigoted racists like David Duke be un-personed, when a nasty, bigoted racist like Louis Farrakhan be an honored guest in the halls of the bien-pensant? Why is conservative speech on college campuses condemned as “violence” while violence perpetuated by far-leftists is excused as “free speech”? At this point, we know damned well why – and that is one of the reasons that the media, political, and academic members of the Ruling Class are hemorrhaging trust and credit with at least half the country.

    The most troubling recent development on the hate-crime/hate speech front, though, is the concerted and organized effort to cut off organizations accused of having committed so-called “hate speech” (often on very thin grounds) not just from the popular social media outlets, but to pressure credit card and payment processing companies into denying their services. We’ve already seen this done to individuals – now it is an open campaign to economically punish the speech that the current Ruling Class doesn’t want to hear. Discuss our options for routing around this new insult to common sense and decency.

     

    7 Responses to “Hate Crime Speech”

    1. TRX Says:

      My main objection is that “hate crime” is “thought crime.” And the definition of hate crime is very imprecise in some jurisdictions.

      “But we all know what the law is intended for, and nobody would ever abuse it. Even if they tried, the courts would slap them down!”

      Suuure. Tell that to the people who have fought RICO and civil forfeiture charges… and mostly lost.

    2. David Foster Says:

      It has been argued that some traditional laws consider mental state, such as First Degree Murder involving premeditation.

      I don’t think it’s really a good analogy, but it’s a claim that is made.

    3. Christopher B Says:

      I think a better argument against hate crimes is not that they involve mind-reading but that they set up a two-tiered system for victims. To use David’s example, we do draw a distinction between manslaughter and murder but that distinction is based on the criminal’s actions, not who the victim is. Similarly scentencing differences should reflect the criminal’s status (first offender, three strikes, etc) not the victim’s.

      If a Klansman murders a white person he should not get a shorter sentence than if he murdered a black person.

    4. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

      I agree with both your intellectual understanding of the issue and your appreciation of the emotional complications. It does seem worse to commit a hate crime, because it seems to be a threat, and therefore a crime, against an entire class of people. We all notice such things. Even conservatives who deplore the notion of hate crimes will react more strongly against Antifa or radical Islamists acting against indiviuals with the clear intent of terrorising the group.

      Yet five minutes thought reveals that this is impossible to police, impossible to judge, impossible to divine. Only a superhuman insight can discern motive. That, I think, sums up the problem. Those in favor of punishing hate speech haven’t given it five minutes thought.

    5. Mike-SMO Says:

      The concept of a “Hate Crime” may be useful. Burning a cross on someones lawn is not a physical attack and usually does little property damage but it is a threat about political and/or social participation. Such a practice is worth some extra attention.

      “Hate Speech”, is vert “thought crime” since it is justified as the *cause* of some under-performance by a favored demographic. “Hate Speech” is not “political disagreement”, so the theory goes, but is the mechanism by which those of “privilege” suppress and control those who are not performing as well as others.

      Since all people are equally qualified [according to Leftist Theory] “something” must be causing under-performance of “Group X”. Obviously, that is “hate speech”.

      More generally, the narrative always moves to the best and most just outcome therefore any disagreement *must* be due to hate. Life is much less stressful if all failures are *their* fault and no *rational* person challenges your pipe-dreams.

      “Hate Speech” is a tool of totalitarians and those who never matured beyond the level found in most 6 year old children. “Hate Speech” is impossible to police where there are many large “children” running around but tyrants will always love to try. It is, after all, such a handy, adaptable tool to use against unbelievers.

    6. Helian Says:

      @Mike-SMO

      “‘Hate Speech’ is a tool of totalitarians and those who never matured beyond the level found in most 6 year old children. “Hate Speech” is impossible to police where there are many large “children” running around but tyrants will always love to try. It is, after all, such a handy, adaptable tool to use against unbelievers.”

      Exactly. It’s not like this should be a surprise to anyone. We’ve seen “hate speech” laws used selectively over and over again to punish outgroups while manifestations of hate by ingroups that are often much worse are studiously ignored. That tendency will never disappear because the ingroup/outgroup thing is a part of human nature, and won’t be going anywhere soon. Because of that aspect of our nature, “hate crime” laws will always do far more harm than good.

    7. ErisGuy Says:

      The fear in such communities was real, every bit as real as the threats, the vandalism, the lynch mobs, and disenfranchisement

      Yeah, it was. The deliberate contamination of the blood supply by diseased homosexuals—not a hate crime. Zebra murders motivated by race—not a hate crime. The deliberate false accusations of rape—not a hate crime. The patrolling of ballot boxes by black hate groups—not a hate crime. No matter how much hate is involved.

      My objection to “hate crimes” is that hatred remains acceptable as a motivation for crime—as long as the victims can be slandered by Leftist epithets.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.