Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Burning a US Flag is not a hate crime, however now, being an LGBTQIA?:=  person means that burning the flag of those individuals in our society now IS a hate crime.  

That's what the cops there are considering it. 

You are simply wrong Richard.   Burning your own US flag, your own Bible, or your own LBGTQ pride flag in public as a political statement is never a crime.   the 1st Amendment protects this sort of political speech, provided you do not break other laws.

Burning someone else's US Flag, LBGTQ pride flag, or someone else's Bible, without permission is a crime.  In the case of your outrage story, the crime is misdemeanor vandalism.

The hate crime statute in California is here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=422.6.

This statute focuses (as suspected) upon the motive of the perpetrator.   The key provision for this flag case is, "No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55."

I understand from an article that the LBGTQ pride flag was owned by and placed in the flower pot by a transgender teacher.   It is very reasonable for the police to investigate whether the perpetrator's motivation in burning the flag was, "for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim."   

If the perpetrators were proved to have burned the transgender teacher's US Flag, Bible, Car, vegetable garden or so on,  "for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim."  then the perpetrator would be equally guilty of violating this misdemeanor hate crime statute.   

So, you are dead wrong, once again.  It makes no difference what was burned.   LBGTQ pride flags have no special status under CA law.   The only thing that matters is the motivation of the perpetrators.   Jim

p.s.  Here is a reasonable fact check for those who believe like Richard that pride flags have special protection over Bibles or US flags: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-burning-pride-flag/fact-check-burning-bible-or-pride-flag-is-protected-in-us-absent-other-crimes-idUSL1N37N1L5
 
Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, it is being investigated as a HATE crime.  Get it, a HATE crime, NOT a crime involving someone else's property.

If it was just about burning someone else's property it would simply be a crime of vandalism, so I'll ask you this.  Are You this unaware of the facts?

The cops confirmed it.  They are investigating it as a HATE crime.  Why do you think it made national news?  

Maybe You should be the one to get a clue.  

So then do you want to explain why it is being investigated as a HATE crime? Go ahead, I'll wait. 

They are appropriately investigating this as vandalism and a hate crime, both misdemeanors.  Read your own article.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Why do you think it made national news?  

In order to feed the outrage machine demanded by people like you who live in a fantastic world of perpetual outrage.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Because one act is motivated by prejudice based on gender identity, and the other is protected speech. Everyone else here, but you, understood this from the beginning, and for you to now pretend otherwise is incredibly disingenuous.

This isn't hard. As usual, you are being deliberately obtuse to be obstinate and argumentative. 

It is worse than that James.   Richard refuses to let go of his totally incorrect belief that burning a pride flag as a matter of political protest is just as Constitutionally protected as burning a US flag, provided no other laws are broken.   

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

We have laws against discrimination under the Constitution, however Your response then indicates that some individuals in society should enjoy elevated Status over others in society, so they are now a "special class".  

Who annointed these people to special class status over other Americans?

Can you point out the law that says they enjoy special class status?  

And IF that is the case that they do have special class status according to you, then is that not a violation of the equal protection clause under the 14th amendment?  

This is so stupid as to be hilarious.  I suppose you think it is OK to deny a job to a Black man because he is black?  I suppose you think it is OK to deny a job to a gay man because he is gay?

What law protects these black and gay men from discrimination (along with other protected classes or quasi-protected classes)?  There are lots of laws, start with the 14th Amendment itself.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

This is why I do not like "hate" identifiers. Not only is it difficult if not impossible to determine what is in someones mind, but it is nobody's business. Protected speech includes things that are vile or revolting.

Protected speech is protected.  No matter how vile.  Don't become distracted by Richard's false argument.  

I have mixed feelings about "hate" statutes too.   Even so, historically, the penalties levied against white men perpetrating crimes against blacks have been much more lenient than the other way around.   Also, it is in society's interest to discourage crimes perpetrated only because the victim is gay, black, Jewish and so on.   

So, in a historical context, and as a matter of public policy, I am OK with an enhanced penalty when a crime is committed, and the police/prosecutors prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the underlying crime was committed, and that it was motivated by a specific hate - as CA puts it, motivated, "in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55."

Section 422.55 has this definition:

(a) “Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=422.55.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

And I see that your "lawyer" friend is here.

He is learning from the left and adopting all the tricks of the left, such as mislabeling every posting I make about a subject as an outrage posting, but then I guess when one has nothing else to add this is the best they have got.  

Pretty weak IMO but fun to watch his frustration.  

Deflect to an observation that we are mocking you, if that is all you got.   Because we are mocking you my friend.  Savagely.

Someone ping me if Richard posts a cogent reply to Russ's original post, and my detailed discussion of the intersection of free speech and the CA hate crime statute!

Originally Posted by James Brown

Section 422.55 has this definition:

(a) “Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=422.55.

I want the rational participants in this thread to notice something.   Even in liberal California, the hate crime statute only engages if there is an underlying criminal act.   The underlying criminal act could range from misdemeanor vandalism all the way to premeditated murder.  There must be an underlying crime though.

So, even in liberal CA it is not against the law to hate, be a bigot, loudly publish your hateful and bigoted views and so on, so long as no laws are otherwise broken.  

That said, I see Russ's point.   The prosecution has a hard time proving what is in the perpetrator's head in almost every case.   But sometimes, the perpetrator makes a clear record of what was in his head, for example when he leaves a manifesto detailing that he is burning down a mosque because he hates Muslims, and then he burns down the mosque.   The penalties for arson are pretty stiff already.  Adding a bit more penalty because of a well proved hate motivation is (I believe) in society's interest as a matter of punishment and as a disincentive for hate motivated crimes.   Jim

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

Funny

Indeed, kudos Dave.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I agree with this entirely, but I don't think you need a formal enhancer for it, partially for the reason we see in Richards original post: It looks like a new type of crime to the public when it is only an enhancement to an existing crime. I also fear that some will try and make it law to "hate" itself, which is the opposite of the protections afforded by the 1st amendment. I hold beliefs, that I do not try and impose on society, that some would want to (falsely) classify as "hate".

Your post raises dozens of really meaty issues.  I think the blue part is a great counterpoint to the position I sketched out.  Separate hate crimes like the CA statute are a complex issue.     

The green sentence is where the real threats lie.   Some people would want to make it a crime to "hate" in the abstract and there are more people who think this way every day.   The 1st amendment prohibits this sort of law, it is not even close.  To my knowledge, all 9 of the Supreme Court justices have supported the 1st Amendment throughout their careers.   So I do not worry about a law making it illegal to simply "hate" surviving the Court.   To return to last Friday's metaphor though, if such a law is passed and some future Court permits is to stand, then the free nation we love has gone over the cliff entirely.   I think it is more likely that a dictator seize the government and unilaterally cancel the Constitution than it is likely that a future Court would support a law banning hate in the abstract.  Either way, we would be screwed.

The red part makes me sad.  There is presently a huge faction - maybe a majority, who already classify some of your Christian beliefs as "hate" in the political arena.   I have no idea how to overcome or moderate this sort of thinking.   Jim