Two Points Worth Considering

1.  Michael Silence points out that while the state legislature is busy supporting homeschoolers in Germany who they feel might have some vague kind of trouble that they haven’t bothered to learn too much about, more state employees are looking at losing their jobs.

2.  The Ghost of Midwesterners Past made such a good point about the cyber-bullying bill that I almost didn’t believe him.  Could Republicans really have put forward this thing?  But yes, apparently it was Black and Harwell who crafted and sponsored it.  Dang.

Oh, right, so what was Pete’s point?

Free speech advocates will rightly cry foul over the broad language. Much of web discourse would seem to fit this description. But think of it as a Republican version of a hate crime bill. Malicious intent is fairly difficult to prove.

I’m not sure I have to even think of it as such.  It pretty clearly is a Republican version of a hate crime bill.  All the stuff they grouch about when it comes to hate crime bills on the Left–that it’s impossible to discern “intent” because you can’t know what’s in a person’s heart, that it’s so vague and nebulous that even perfectly legal actions could be construed as being in violation of the law, that a person has a first-amendment right to be a hateful jerk, etc.–is a problem with this law, but they trotted it right out and passed it.

One wonders why this type of hate crime bill is okay but others not.

3 thoughts on “Two Points Worth Considering

  1. Pingback: A Republican Hate Crime Bill : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee

  2. Except that all hate-crime bills (so far as I know), and “modify” or “enhance” sentencing. You must be convicted of the underlying offense (assault, murder, rape, etc.), which must be an actual old-fashioned crime.

    There is no risk, “that even perfectly legal actions could be construed as being in violation of the law”; you must commit a real, traditionally-defined, non-hate, crime. Then the hate-crime “enhancement” just lengthens your sentence. It is paranoid right-wing BS that a preacher could be jailed for a hate-crime, for castigating gays.

    If anyone knows about a hate-crime law that impacts guilt/innocence, rather than being a sentencing “enhancement”, please correct me.

  3. Ooo. Yes, exactly. That’s a good point, Indifferent children and one I let slide by unrealized. This is more than what actual hate crime statutes do and is instead what the Repubs claim hate crime statutes do.

Comments are closed.