I have to disagree, Seth.  Legislators thought civil forfeiture without due process was a good idea, too.

I consider those legislators and their legislation wrong.  "...or other improper classification"? WTH does that mean?  'Hate', or race/ethnicity/gender/etc-based motive can be an element of malice in adjudicating a crime, but we don't need laws criminalizing any speech based on offense perceived by the subject of said speech.  It's all or nothing here.  Canada was smart enough to repeal their hate speech laws a couple of years ago after they were simply used as a weapon to silence speech certain groups/individuals didn't like.  And Canada has no equivalent to 1st Amendment protections.

Crimes are crimes.  Inciting to or committing violence, whatever the motive, is a crime.  Speech is not a crime.

You'll note in the quote of my previous post below there is nothing in support of 'PC bullshit' as you call it...

....in fact I suggested 'hate speech legislation' is akin to a Band-Aid 'solution' and reading between the lines the implication was there that I feel it doesn't achieve much other than maybe making society 'more PC'.  After all being 'PC' as you put it, is just finding a way to be 'destructive' in speech and / or behavior but doing so in such a manner as to not 'offend' the legalistic sensibilities of society at large.  Would it not be preferable to refrain from destructive speech/actions as much as possible from a 'humanitarian' perspective anyway?  That way you don't have to feel you're doing it to be 'PC'.

I mean isn't it destructive speech and actions in the first place that serve to 'radicalize' any/all individuals of any/all persuasion(s)?  Focusing on reducing the amount of destructive speech/action by anyone can only be seen as a positive.

Actually it's the one who presents derogatory comments (out of the blue) and hatred toward the groups previously delineated who is displaying 'fascistic' or better defined, intolerant or hateful conduct.

I could have edited your comments but chose not to do so. That shouldn't be misconstrued as agreement. They are in fact, repulsive. 

That has nothing to do with PC. That has everything to do with the selective invective which was exercised with discrimination towards a specific group of people because of their belief and dress. It should be specifically eschewed.

@Daiwa:

That means any other criteria devised to disenfranchise or set that group apart for hatred and encourage violence towards them...such as 'poor people', blondes, redheads, people with green eyes, people from Italy or wherever...I think that's the obvious meaning.

We don't because they are in place. HEY! We don't need anyone criminalizing yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, either, right?

The ability and intent to do harm is the criterion and it's a good one. The Constitution was NEVER meant to be a suicide or murder pact...

Doing criminal harm to others is already illegal. True threats are already illegal. Speech with the intent and expectation of inducing others to immediate criminal activity is at best unprotected by the First (details of legality vary by state).

We do not need statutes whose sole purpose is to make things which are already illegal "more" illegal, particularly when they are so subjective as hate crime laws. For example, the existing distinctions among first and second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter are more than sufficient. Hatred is rather implied in the mere fact that someone commits murder, and the fact of their actions alone is more than enough to merit the harshest punishment without the need for "thought crimes".

Criminal law should be based upon objective fact. Morality and civility are matters for religion and society, not the courts.

In fact, laws are designed for multiple purposes: Among them the prevention of crime. Since it's hard to repair the results of violence, it's better to prevent it.

That is in fact the assurance they will...by discouraging the opposite. Nothing here inflates any sense of separateness. It assures groups experiencing discrimination and hate that they will be treated as all other 'groups'. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The analogy is not a false one. It serves to show that there are boundaries...and that one crosses those boundaries at one's peril.

Also, there are rules of conduct in the Forums (just to bring us back to reality), and those original remarks went well past them.

Can't agree because once again, we're dealing with motivation and intent. Murder, etc. are generally caused by the 3 traditional motives. Also, the division of the crimes reflect that. There is an additional dimension to any crime: The degree of heinousness. Murdering a person you don't know and have had no interaction with in the past solely because of skin color, mode of dress or religion are deemed to have their own heinousness probably because this society is built up of many different such groups...and its success is based on how well they work together.

Therefore, in fact such laws are imperative to accentuate the values we have as a society.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of US hate crime laws, but it's my understanding that they don't only apply only to specific groups.  Killing a white person because they're white, a man because he's a man, a heterosexual person because they're heterosexual, all also constitute hate crimes, I believe.  There is no inequality inherent in what the laws say (there may be inequality in their application, of course).

At least that's my naive understanding of how they're written.

Mass murder is a heinous crime regardless of the reason; it is not somehow less bad to mass murder for reasons other than race or class. Murder is unacceptable, period. And I'll thank you to not make such ungrounded misrepresentations again.

It doesn't involve equal protection because someone decided unequal protection was needed?

Sorry, but just passing a law doesn't make something constitutional, nor does it make it just. I have a hard time understanding how you apparently feel it should given your opinions on other topics of government behavior.

I would think equality under the law is a fairly strightforward and logical point, but ultimately, it seems we're not going to agree on this. So you can have your thread back.

If you didn't mean it that way, then fine. I do and still maintain that the extension of individual hate speech and hate crimes is to apply them in the plural. Not always, but again, that depends on intent or mens rea.

In the general, no it certainly doesn't. In this specific, I believe there's nothing unconstitutional nor unjust. If it isn't, then SCOTUS will strike it down. So far, it hasn't, and SCOTUS shows no signs of doing so in the near future no cases involving that to the best of my knowledge).

One topic has nothing to do with another...I relate to different topics differently. I don't understand what objecting to privacy invasion (the OT) or other topics has to do with protecting especially vulnerable groups or violations of the TOS...

You had to open that can of worms, didn't you?

Actually, "I blame Skinhit!" and to paraphrase Po': Go ahead. Do it! Blame him! You'll feel better! 

 How could you not see that coming ...

Mass U.S. Surveillance Targeting Journalists and Lawyers Seen As Threat to American Democracy

Sadly, without morality there is no law unless it is economic law.

Moreover, without morality, civilisation ceases to exist.

And without morality, humankind becomes just another beast.

So to exclude morality from the courts we revert back to a system of injustice.

In other words, mob rule... and a government prepared to engage in wholesale executions to maintain power and its position at the pinnacle of the food chain.

While many equate morality to religion, and yes, they can go hand in hand as religion attempts to create order within, religion and morality are not mutually exclusive.

Religion would struggle to exist in the absence of mrality, but that is not so in reverse.

Morality can and does exist in the absence of religion.

HUman decency is the prime core of morality, and without it criminal law becomes a farcical misnomer where the eveil and morally bankrupt pay for their innocence and continue to spread corruption like it were butter.

Unfortunately, that still happens in an imperfect world where many bandy the word morality as being a lifestyle yet fail to live it it any respect.

It is therefore a fool's folly to suggest that morality be banished to religion and allow the worst of human dregs to rise to the top and run society in a manner that is devoid of that which separates us from the savages who ruled through abject cruelty and having the biggest club.

Morality is the fabric of society and what holds us together.  Without it we may as well return to the caves and drag our women around by their hair.

I couldn't disagree more strongly.  Sure 'morality' maybe should be "the fabric of society and what holds us together.." (if each 'society' lived in a vacuum) but I would argue that that is most certainly not the case in the world we live in.  Morality may (and likely does as it is evident) come into play on an individual case-by-case basis in the lives of many, but I would be surprised at any real evidence of it's existence as "the fabric of society" in today's global world.

Since 'ethics' finds its root in the Greek word 'ethos' (moral character, habit, nature, custom) is there really a need to differentiate?  Besides it's not like religion owns morality.  Hell if that were the case the world truly would be in a sad, sad much worse state.......hehe    

EDIT:

Edited for Daiwa!