There are, I think, two coherent positions on hate crime laws. The first is opposition to the entire concept, its chilling effect on free speech, its undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on. That's my position. I oppose all hate crimes laws, regardless of the categories of individuals they purport to protect. The other coherent position is the view that hate crimes somehow impact the community more than just regular crimes and that the victims of such crimes therefore deserve some sort of extra protection under the law. -AS
This is untrue.
There is only one a priori clarity on hate-crimes: Hate crimes have a symbolic nature to them and to say otherwise is simply to ignore a distinction that can be made. "Chilling effects" and the like are consequentialist arguments, that may or may not have merit. Except at the extremes, we usually don't have a problem distinguishing between speech and assault, say, and we don't have a problem distinguishing between harassment and murder and destruction of property. Why we would suddenly lose our senses regarding all else after 'hate crimes' legislation were passed, doesn't seem to add up.
That jurisdictional limitation has kept federal involvement very limited in an area where state authority has traditionally reigned. -AS, quoting Dale Carpenter
*blink*
Let me get this right, this President is expected to veto an increase to His jurisdiction, and we aren't supposed to take that as evidence of anti-gay bias? Since when does Bush-Cheney reject increases to the Power of the Presidency via its Rove-widgets at the DOJ?
