Defending the Truth

We are discussing this NOW because someone created a forum for discussion of the subject. If someone didn't want to hear dissenting opinions, maybe someone shouldn't have brought the subject up in the first place. Why would someone put a topic up on a debate web site and then whine like some friggin beyotch when "OH MY GOD???!!!" somebody actually has a dissenting opinion.
Dumas much?
Now??? How about 1999 then? This guy shares many of our opinions here.
Are Hate-Crime Laws Necessary? - New York Times
The attack on Matthew Shepard, a gay student, was senseless and appalling, but the usefulness of more hate-crime legislation is questionable (editorial, April 6).
Had the victim been an elderly heterosexual man, the crime would have been equally appalling but would not have qualified as a hate crime because the victim was not a member of one of the arbitrarily designated protected minority groups.
Hate-crime laws are problematic because they imply that the same attack on two different people can warrant different criteria for punishment. Hence, a value judgment is automatically rendered on the worth of the victim's life.
Mr. Shepard's killer has been sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, a punishment commensurate with the heinousness of the crime. This sentence came without the aid of hate-crime legislation, thus proving that such legislation, in addition to being discriminatory, is also unnecessary.

SCOTT SPRINGER
New York, April 6, 1999

The conditions that existed in the south in the 1960s are becoming increasingly rare, and will probably be gone in a few more years.

Prior the Internet and other forms of mass communication, yeah, it might have been possible for a judge in Possum's Bottom, Alabamy to let Billy Bob and Joe Mack off easy, "Cuz it was just one of them thar their neegars that done got beat up.. and a qweaar one to boot."

Nowadays, hmmm.. not so much. All it takes is one good Internet blog, and that judge will have his ass roasted quicker than you can say, "Ma, pass them grits and gravy."

It happened just a few years ago. Where have you been?

Tristan, no offense taken. But honestly, I think most people supporting this type of legislation have no clue what it was intended for in the first place.

Again, it was meant to address deliberate attempts to terrorize specific groups of people from engaging in activities such as voting or going to school.
And as I've said before, within those strict parameters, I support it. If somebody or some group is, for example, deliberately trying to keep gay people from voting through violence or threats of violence, then that is and should be a federal case.

Since then, it's been hoisted on the "feel good" bandwagon. And I think it interjects federal power where federal power should not be. Local prosecutors and judges should be the ones considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of each case. And, like I said in my reply to Knot-E, if they deliberatly are slack in their duties, then public outrage can probably do more than anything to correct those problems.

In this day and age, there's just no "sweeping things under the rug" like their was in the Deep South in the 1960s.

I didn't say it NEVER happens anymore. I'm saying it's much more RARE and getting MORE rare all the time.

And, um... well, you just also proved my point. The case in question is well known and pissed a lot of people off.

Corrupt judges who really will let people off "Jest becaus it wuz a queer" have and will continue to find out the hard way they can't get away with that crap anymore.... The Internet has a funny way of making it so such a judge will wake up in the morning and discover just about everybody in the country wants his head on a stick.

Public outrage is what is pushing this legislation in the first place.

What? You think people picketing outside a courthouse is going to do anything if there isn't any laws on the books?

Judges have peer organizations they have to answer to as well. Public outrage can very well grease those wheels.

Besides, do you honestly thing Matthew Sheppard's atttackers would have given a flying fuck whether such laws were on books?

Their little brains were too roasted on meth to give a fuck about much of anything.

And the fact of the matter is, if Matthew Shepherd had been an elderly, heterosexual male he wouldn't have been killed in the first place. They were targetting gays, get it?

Like Tristan said, this is only adding sexual orientation to a list that already exists. Why does that give you such problems?

It doesn't necessarily give me any problems, but I think the new law isn't really needed because existing laws are sufficient. That being said, it's certainly not going to ruin my day with such a law on the books.