by prejudice based on race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of state, local or tribal hate crime laws.

I wonder how the bright light bulbs who came up with the H.R. 1592 Bill consider a case where a black man offends a black woman (saying “ho”), than she calls him a “good-for-nothing nigger.” Do we have two hate crimes here? Or do they think if some one commits a hate crime, then you can commit a hate crime back and it’s OK? You noticed, in my example, she didn’t simply call him “trash” (so blasé) or another non-victim-group-based insult, she went for the horrible, the denigrating and racially based term “nigger,” that is, a HATE crime word.

Then you have a situation where a homo rubs against someone in a purposeful harassment action, and the victim says, “You homo shit!” The homo will sue for hate crime, evidently.

You have a heterosexual guy call a woman a “bitch,” and she calls him back “a sexist pig,” then we have two hate crimes ( they are both insults based on gender!)

I find the topic of “hate crimes” so amazingly fascinating, nothing, NOTHING could be more Orwellian in an Animal Farm way (and that goes for many countries, the U.S. being one of many foremost examples).

This clarification and example from the Alliance Defense Fund’s Report on the H.R. 1592 Bill.

Despite the limitation of the new federal offenses to violent crimes against persons, H.R. 1592 could be construed not to limit federal prosecution to violent “hate” crimes. Although not the most likely construction, section 4 of the Act could arguably authorize the Attorney General to prosecute violations of non-violent state or local “hate” crime laws at the request of local officials.3That would be extremely problematic because some existing state and local “hate” crime laws make “simple assault” or “intimidation” prosecutable offenses.

For example, New Jersey law makes it a “hate crime” to communicate in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm. N.J.S.A. §§ 2C:16-1(a), 2C:33-4.

Washington law makes it a crime to “Threaten[] a specific person or group of persons and place[] that person . . . in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. . . . For purposes of this section, a ‘reasonable person’ is a reasonable person who is a member of the victim’s [category].”
R.C.W.A. 9A.36.080(1)(c).

One would not expect a reasonable person to feel threatened or feel fear of harm as the result of an innocuous communication. Nevertheless, the entire faculty at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus apparently agreed that university librarian Scott Savage was guilty of threatening behavior for a simple statement in 2006.

His “threat”? Recommending four books for freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU Mansfield’s First Year Reading Experience Committee. The four books were The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz,
Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’or, and It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum.

Three Mansfield professors filed complaints with OSU’s Office of Human Resources asserting that the suggested reading list made them feel “unsafe” on the campus. The Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges of sex discrimination and harassment against Mr. Savage because they believed the recommendations constituted “anti-gay hate mongering.” The charges were not dismissed until the Alliance Defense Fund came to Mr. Savage’s defense.

If the faculty at OSU Mansfield are reasonable people, Mr. Savage’s mere suggestion that freshmen read conservative books would qualify as a “hate” crime under Washington law, and perhaps under New Jersey law. And if H.R. 1592 were to be construed to permit federal prosecution of non-violent state or local “hate” crimes, he could be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney General for suggesting the reading list in Washington or New Jersey.

Criminalizing thought – pure and simple.

For example, New Jersey law makes it a “hate crime” to communicate in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.

Annoyance? In what way, exactly? I don’t feel like looking up the law or existing cases, if there are any. But annoyance?


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: