False analogy with the "Fire!" defense.  Apples/oranges.

Who decides what's 'proper'?  If the meaning is whatever multiply parsed segment of people some DA can identify or invent, it means nothing.  No one should encourage violence towards anyone, no matter their 'distinguishable characteristics', but that's a matter of morality and decorum, not a legal concept.  Actual perps are the responsible parties, not the dudes out in the street screaming 'Death to the Jews' because it's parade time.

The rub with 'hate speech' laws is the inherent subjectivity in determining what is 'encouragement' and who deserves 'special protection'.  The list of those with 'distinguishing characteristics' who demand insulation from being offended (which translates to the right to legally harm or stifle people they find offensive) will grow long.  Having such mechanisms which feed our inflated sense of separateness and entitlement only serves to divide us, pitting artificial group against artificial group.  We should truly all be equal before the law.

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.

He shoots, HE SCORES! 

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.

It is not the law's duty to determine the value of a victim and mete out punishment unequally. Hate crime laws could be considered a technical violation of the Fourteenth as they vary punishments (and thus protection) based upon the classes the victim and perpetrator belong to. And by placing higher value upon certain classes of victims, they implicitly devalue victims of crimes by perpetrators of the same race.

Equivocating hate crimes with existing criminal criteria is not valid. 'Did the perpetrator plan the crime in advance' is a criteria that applies to everyone; 'is the victim a member of class X' does not.

Unequal application of justice based upon race, class, etc. is not a new thing. We've just revived it from olden times and flipped the classes around. Such things have no place in a truly equal society.

Some guys once said that all are created equal, with the same rights and the same freedoms. Murder is murder; it is wholly unacceptable and worthy of the harshest punishment regardless of the involved parties' skin color. Rather than seeking to stiffen penalties on such a basis, one should seek to stiffen penalties for ALL murders, etc.

Hatred itself is a matter for society, culture, and upbringing to remedy. The law can't even deter the (most, by far) crimes that occur today between people of the same race or class; it is neither suitable nor appropriate for affecting change in thoughts and opinions on deeply held beliefs (no matter how wrong they may be).

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.

Interesting assertion, but not all crimes are created equal.

There are different punishments for different crimes even if in the end they involve say, taking a life. There are clear reasons for that.

Then, by that reasoning the crime of genocide doesn't exist. Not acceptable, and clearly flies in the face of reality. That is a hate motivated crime and even has its own sections in the Geneva Conventions. Not to forget, that started as hate speech as well and progressed from there.

The law is in fact a function of and an expression of society's norms. 

It can prevent unwanted and violent conduct (unfortunately not always), and although it would be better that such education occur in the home that is no guarantee of punishment should those norms be violated and members of society harmed as a result or their harm be advocated by such actions. Again, the difference in the laws reflect the nature of intent.

Not really because if x and y are found guilty under those categories without individual extenuating circumstances then x and y receive the same punishment. Again, not all crimes are equal. Motivation is certainly a factor in differentiating between types of homicide (manslaughter, Murder I and II, Felony Murder, etc.), so why not hate crime associated murder? It doesn't involve equal protection since certain groups were deemed needy of certain protections by legally elected and constituted lawmakers for good reason.

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.

just recently we had some rallies here in Germany where people were shouting "gas the Jews" and "Jews, cowardly pigs". nobody was arrested, nobody will face consequences.

but if you point out that there was hardly any ethnic German among those people, you will be labeled a racist and islamophobe.

that's how this hate speech thing works here. 

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...

It's quasi-political in topicality...so sooner or later Obama will be blamed and a picture of Hitler will be posted.

The unfortunate situation is it is sometimes difficult to foretell exactly which thread OP will segue into politicality [new word]...

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! 

No Jafo, the blame will go to Bush as it always does.

 How could you not see that coming ...

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

The hate crime discussion is distinct from the hate speech discussion, until offensive or 'disparaging' speech becomes a hate crime.

Here's where things go (and have been) down that road.

Now, what were we talking about?  Privacy?  Yeah, that's it.