I didn't see anyone advocate for letting him go or letting any law breaker go for that matter. Lock them all up, I'm all on board. Where you lose me is the designation of "hate speech" and "hate crime" being a multplier in sentencing. In some cases classed as a crime itself.
I can hate anyone I want and I can talk all the shit about them I want. These things are protected under the 1st Amendment. Its a very short road from there to thought crime.
In many places using the wrong pronoun to address someone is already a crime! How far do we want to let that go and shouldn't we address it in every case even if that person is otherwise a scumbag?
We rail about the incremental erosion of the 2nd Amendment (not enough IMHO) but overlook infringement of the first because "he is a scumbag, had it coming". I don't feel sympathy for him I just dont want anyone's 1st Amendment rights abridged, even scumbags.
I only brought up the flags to illustrate the point that we perceive similar crimes differently simply because of the group targeted. To me thats wrong, a crime is a crime and one is not worse because it targeted homosexuals and the other okay because it targeted old white guys.
Where this ends up is classing you a domestic terrorist because they don't like the way you think, taking your rights and your freedoms simply for not conforming to their view of the world. Its already going there, rights are not negotiatable even (especially) if you dont like how someone else exercises them.
"Hate speech" and "hate crimes" are artificial 'crimes' created to enforce control and promote a particular view of the world. Arson is a crime, arson against LGBQ is not a worse or different crime.
I'll leave it here, this horse is dead enough.
I can hate anyone I want and I can talk all the shit about them I want. These things are protected under the 1st Amendment. Its a very short road from there to thought crime.
In many places using the wrong pronoun to address someone is already a crime! How far do we want to let that go and shouldn't we address it in every case even if that person is otherwise a scumbag?
We rail about the incremental erosion of the 2nd Amendment (not enough IMHO) but overlook infringement of the first because "he is a scumbag, had it coming". I don't feel sympathy for him I just dont want anyone's 1st Amendment rights abridged, even scumbags.
I only brought up the flags to illustrate the point that we perceive similar crimes differently simply because of the group targeted. To me thats wrong, a crime is a crime and one is not worse because it targeted homosexuals and the other okay because it targeted old white guys.
Where this ends up is classing you a domestic terrorist because they don't like the way you think, taking your rights and your freedoms simply for not conforming to their view of the world. Its already going there, rights are not negotiatable even (especially) if you dont like how someone else exercises them.
"Hate speech" and "hate crimes" are artificial 'crimes' created to enforce control and promote a particular view of the world. Arson is a crime, arson against LGBQ is not a worse or different crime.
I'll leave it here, this horse is dead enough.
