Falsehoods Of Christian Nationalism?

[Rebecca]

I just wonder how long it'll be before pastors are charged with hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin.

Protected by the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is an idea or a piece of paper. If not respected they have no value. Same idea as the Order of Protection that only works for those who screwed up but are normally law abiding.
Do you really not see the erosion ? to the Bill of Rights which you sound like you support as i do.   The guy who did win but was arrested for joking about covid 19 .
"Waylon was taken to jail and booked, though the absurd charge was dropped when a prosecutor reviewed the case. But when Waylon brought a civil-rights lawsuit, the deputy responsible for the arrest was granted qualified immunity by the district court. To add insult to injury, the court also said that Waylon didn’t have any free speech rights to make a joke in the first place. The 5th Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court, which will now fully consider Waylon’s civil-rights lawsuit."  erosion that he was arrested in the first place.
   Second Amendment is being nibbled on. https://rumble.com/v27rqxa-second-amendment-under-siege.html?mref=9yobh&mc=2cpbn  . Mark  Levin  on the second amendment.  Love that guy. 

[Fenris]

I'm all for assuming that a crime victim's identified group and the alleged perpetrator's intent makes the crime victim more dead, more raped, more battered, or more tortured.

C'mon, Professor. You're an attorney. You know that intent matters in criminal law. Why exclude intent when it's hate?

[Fenris]

The Bill of Rights is an idea or a piece of paper.

So is every court ruling.

If not respected they have no value. Same idea as the Order of Protection that only works for those who screwed up but are normally law abiding.

A violation of an OOP is a crime. So yes, that "piece of paper" matters.

Do you really not see the erosion ? to the Bill of Rights which you sound like you support as i do.   The guy who did win but was arrested for joking about covid 19 .

We're not talking about being arrested for making jokes. We're talking about a person who committed a crime, and their underlying motive was hateful.

[RabbiKnife]

I'm all for assuming that a crime victim's identified group and the alleged perpetrator's intent makes the crime victim more dead, more raped, more battered, or more tortured.

C'mon, Professor. You're an attorney. You know that intent matters in criminal law. Why exclude intent when it's hate?

I understand mens rea from the standpoint of intent to do an act, not as intent to have a feeling

[Fenris]

I understand mens rea from the standpoint of intent to do an act, not as intent to have a feeling

NYS penal law has 240.26 harassment 2 as "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person" (does annoying thing), which is a violation.

It also has 240.30, aggravated harassment 2 "With the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person,  he  or  she strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person   to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because  of   a  belief  or perception  regarding such person's race, color, national   origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age,  disability  or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is  correct;" This is an A misdemeanor.

Specific intent can be an aggravating factor. This isn't a First Amendment issue.

[Rebecca]

The Bill of Rights is an idea or a piece of paper.

So is every court ruling.

If not respected they have no value. Same idea as the Order of Protection that only works for those who screwed up but are normally law abiding.

A violation of an OOP is a crime. So yes, that "piece of paper" matters.

Do you really not see the erosion ? to the Bill of Rights which you sound like you support as i do.   The guy who did win but was arrested for joking about covid 19 .

We're not talking about being arrested for making jokes. We're talking about a person who committed a crime, and their underlying motive was hateful.

I am surprised you do not see the "slippery slope" . Taking this to a Bible lesson .... HOw many times did the Israelites mess up because they did not do ALL God told them to? They kept some spoils of war which caused huge problems.  Erosion hits like the frog in the pot.

[Fenris]

I am surprised you do not see the "slippery slope" .

I am surprised that you do see a "slippery slope". Nobody is criminalizing speech. What is being criminalized is stated intent prior to the commission of a crime. Why you're trying to run interference for this sort of riff raff is beyond me.

Taking this to a Bible lesson ....

No, let's not.

[RabbiKnife]

I understand mens rea from the standpoint of intent to do an act, not as intent to have a feeling

NYS penal law has 240.26 harassment 2 as "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person" (does annoying thing), which is a violation.

It also has 240.30, aggravated harassment 2 "With the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person,  he  or  she strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person   to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because  of   a  belief  or perception  regarding such person's race, color, national   origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age,  disability  or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is  correct;" This is an A misdemeanor.

Specific intent can be an aggravating factor. This isn't a First Amendment issue.

I understand the law

I also think the legal philosophy behind it is insane

[Fenris]

I also think the legal philosophy behind it is insane

An opinion that you are entitled to.

[RabbiKnife]

If I plan to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, but I never take any action to do so, why should this be a crime?

If I murder someone because they are a left-handed red headed Antarctican transvestite midget Republican, and I hate them because of it, are they any more dead because of my mental state before the deed?

[Rebecca]

I am surprised you do not see the "slippery slope" .

I am surprised that you do see a "slippery slope". Nobody is criminalizing speech. What is being criminalized is stated intent prior to the commission of a crime. Why you're trying to run interference for this sort of riff raff is beyond me.

Taking this to a Bible lesson ....

No, let's not.

Simply  i believe you are wrong on this subject.

[Fenris]

If I plan to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, but I never take any action to do so, why should this be a crime?

C'mon, you know better than this. We're talking about situations where a crime was committed.

If I murder someone because they are a left-handed red headed Antarctican transvestite midget Republican, and I hate them because of it, are they any more dead because of my mental state before the deed?

Again, we have instances in penal law codes where the specific intent of the criminal act is an aggravating factor in how it is charged.

[Fenris]

Simply  i believe you are wrong on this subject.

An opinion that you are entitled to.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I am surprised that you do see a "slippery slope". Nobody is criminalizing speech. What is being criminalized is stated intent prior to the commission of a crime. Why you're trying to run interference for this sort of riff raff is beyond me.

Yeah, I spend a lot of time wondering what factors are responsible for what seems to be the growing popularity of this position on hate crimes...I even wonder if the position is growing in popularity or if people just feel more comfortable expressing these opinions. I think it is rooted in bigotry, but of course I think so many things are rooted in bigotry...maybe i'm wrong and the reasons are actually mysterious, but I highly doubt it.

[Fenris]

Yeah, I spend a lot of time wondering what factors are responsible for what seems to be the growing popularity of this position on hate crimes...I even wonder if the position is growing in popularity or if people just feel more comfortable expressing these opinions.

I think some people who are free speech absolutists conflate this with an attack on free speech. Which I find baffling, because no one is talking about criminalizing speech. It the intent of an already criminal act that's the subject here.

I think it is rooted in bigotry, but of course I think so many things are rooted in bigotry...maybe i'm wrong and the reasons are actually mysterious, but I highly doubt it.

Yes, unfortunately many people do take advantage of free speech to express their bigotry. As a free speech absolutist myself, I grant that they certainly have that right.