John D.Wentzky wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1157475673.436067.229150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John D.Wentzky wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1157469300.836556.157810@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
John D.Wentzky wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:vfpof2l23ctcrj85b5d6scg5uvddqhc4tv@4ax.com...
Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
http://www.hutchnews.com/news/regional/stories/hate082806.shtml
"The anti-gay profanity written on the bricks demonstrates this is
clearly a hate crime and we insist that it be treated as such," Witt
said Sunday at a gathering here of the coalition, which fights
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I see no evidence of a hate crime in this story.
I do.
Because you are only concerned with making lies against people, huh?
No. I do not lie about people.
You side with lies in law though.
No, I do not. I side with the facts.
I leave that to people like you.
I do not lie when I say there was no hate crime committed in this case.
Yes, you do. There was clearly a hate crime committed in this case.
The evidence is rather clear in the story when taken as a whole.
The restaurant flew a rainbow flag, which is a symbol of Gay Pride.
Easy to understand.
But not why the crime occurred.
Which means there was no hate crime.
Actually, given all the other facts in the case, it does mean that it
was a hate crime.
It merely shows why that particular business was made a target for no
particular reason except to chill their right to free speech.
Which means that there was no hate crime.
That means that there was clearly a hate crime committed.
A brick was thrown through the window. (which itself is merely
vandalism.)
True.
Scrawled in the sidewalk in front of the broken window was "FAG" and
"GET THE ***** OUT OF TOWN".
Which would be defacement of public property, right?
The words and the obvious target of those words are what qualify it as
a hate crime.
A lie. There is no restriction on speech itself.
My statement is not a lie. The circumstances surrounding the words and
the violence associated with it are what makes the incidence a hate
crime.
And the broken window is not defacement of public
property, it is criminal vandalism.
I already agreed with that earlier.
Did you forget that part?
No. You are just not putting all the pieces together into a coherent
whole.
The last line is what makes it a hate crime,
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
It can not be termed a crime. The Speech is protected.
The manner of the speech is not, however.
In a Free Speech nation there is no way to judge this a hate crime.
Yes, there is.
There is no legal authority to call this a hate crime.
Yes, there is. The legislation that was passed by a duly elected
legislature.
Free Speech overrrides your erroneous idea.
This is not protected speech, however. This is what amounts to a
terrorist act.
The law as it is written.
Any law which violates the First Amendment is unconstutional.
This law does not violate the First Amendment.
The crime scene taken as a
whole. There are plenty of things that show this to be a hate crime.
There is no hate crime in evidence.
You need to open your eyes. The description of the scene in the paper
make it pretty clear that this was a hate crime.
it is merely defacement of public property.
Nope.
Wrong, liar.
Nope. I am not the liar. You are.
Christianphobe and lawphobe.
Both of which are lies. Unlike you, I understand the law.
It was much more than defacement of public property.
It wasn't.
Yes, it was.
Your emotions are not what the law is concerned about.
That is why my emotions are not being used in determining that this was
a hate crime.
It was a terroristic act that was meant to scare the owners' and chill
their right to freedom of speech.
All you paranoid liars
That would be you, not me. I am neither paranoid nor a liar.
want to do is try to bring false charges against
persons who never violated any law you manufactured for your own censorship
agenda.
There are no false charges in evidence, there were clearly laws
violated, and there is no censorship agenda in evidence on my side.
It was a violent act and there was a
rather blatant message attached to it. Breaking a window is NOT
defacement of public property, it is vandalism that will cost the
owners $500 to replace. The message on the sidewalk was simply giving
the reason why the window was broken, and an implied threat that things
like this or worse will continue to happen if they continue to visibly
and publicly support homosexual rights.
No hate crime in evidence.
Plenty of evidence of a hate crime committed.
since it becomes very likely that the vandalism happened solely because
the restaurant owners
publicly and visibly supported gay rights.
Your error in judgement and ignorance of the law are what is obvious
here.
I have made no error in judgement,
You erred enough for most people to recognize your error.
Actually, I am sure that most people recognize that you are the one
that is in error, and that you are the one that consistently errs.
Your paranoia is evident.
"[My] paranoia" is non-existent. Your delusions are not reality.
and it is your ignorance of the law
that is obvious here.
It is your refusal to apply the law equally amongst the populace without
regard to sexual orientation that is obvious.
And obviously missing. I WANT to apply the law equally regardless of
sexual orientation, but aspects of the law as written prevent this.
For example, homosexuals cannot get married in the same manner and for
the same reasons as heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can marry the person
that they love, provided that the person is unrelated and consenting.
Homosexuals cannot do so.
You cannot seem to understand that the crime
scene must be both taken as a set of parts AND as a whole.
Easy enough for me to do.
Then why do you seem to be unable to do so?
The statement itself is not a crime.
True.
The statement combined with the
location AND the broken window is because it is clearly meant to send a
message to the owners that their message of support for homosexual
rights is not appreciated and they are to be quiet about it.
That does nothing to valdate discrimination on the basis of seuxal
orientation in law.
Which has nothing to do with my statement.
There are no hate crimes since we are not supposed to discriminate on the
basis of sexual orientation.
There is no discrimination in evidence in the application of the law.
If the hate statement addressed religion or race, the hate crime law
would still apply.
Anti-discrimination statutes are only valid if they do not discriminate for
or against persons via any protected characteristic in law.
There is no discrimination in the application of the law in this case.
The message in the words AND actions was meant to scare someone else out
of speaking their minds and exercising their right to free speech.
Still I see no evidence of any hate crime.
Then you need to open your eyes. The crime was quite clearly a hate
crime.
The legal phrase is that the action was meant to have a chilling effect on
the owners' right to free speech.
The owner is still free to speak.
The purpose of the attack was to scare the person out of the area or to
scare the person into not speaking. That is what is meant by having a
chilling effect on the owners' rights to freedom of speech. It was
meant to prevent the owner from exercising that right.
That is what makes it a hate crime.
No hate crime in evidence.
That must be why everyone else that is involved with the case sees that
there is clearly a hate crime in evidence. As do I.
All you are doing is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation when
you call it a hate crime.
Nope. There is no discrimination in evidence in the application of the
charges.
This is enough to add the hate crime rider
You are in error.
No, I am not. As usual, I understand the law far better than you do.
Hate crime legislation discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in
this case.
No, it does not.
The speech is protected.
This was a clearly criminal act that was meant to induce terror because
of a personal preference, sexual orientation, and political
affiliation. Such speech is not protected.
All Speech is protected.
No, it is not. Speech to incite a riot is not protected, for example.
That is the intent of the First Amendment.
Not quite.
If your speech incites riots or brings harm to yourself or your property you
may want to adjust your speech patterns;
If your speech incites a riot, then you are breaking the law. That is
not protected speech. If it brings harm to you or your property, then
OTHERS are trying to take away your right to free speech. There is no
reason for you to adjust your speech patterns because others are
offended and want to silence you.
but, you are still free to speak as
you choose.
You are not free, however, to attack others and do them physical or
property harm because you do not like what they say. That is what the
perpetrators of this crime were trying to do, and that is why the hate
crime rider is being added to the charges.
You can not lay blame on people who were offended by your speech when they
did not err regarding their personal right to Free Speech.
However, the perpetrators did ere regarding their rights to free
speech. They overstepped what is allowed by law when they damaged the
store and wrote hateful things on the sidewalk.
Just as speech that is
meant to induce a riot is not protected.
So, why are gay Pride parades allowed since it has already been demonstrated
that such parades incite riiots?
The parades do not incite the riots. The parades are actually usually
peaceful. It is the narrow-minded jerks on the sidelines that do not
want homosexuals to have equal rights that start the riots.
Why is pro-gay speech allowed when it has already been shown to incite
riots?
Because the purpose of the speech is not to incite riots. The purpose
is to raise awareness of the second-class citizenship that homosexuals
are forced to endure to as to correct the inequity in our society. The
riots are caused by people that hate homosexuals and do not want them
to have the same rights as heterosexuals. The people that start the
riots want to chill the homosexuals' right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and freedom of speech and right to petition the government for
redress of grievances.
Why are pro-Islamic hate speech types allowed to proclaim their agenda for
violence when they call all non-Moslems infidels?
Because no riots directly result from their speeches, and the speeches
do not say that they should "do this" or "do that".
onto the charge of vandalism or criminal mischief or
whatever charge is actually used.
There is no hate crime with regard to speech in the USA.
There is hate crime with regard to actions AND speech, and it is used
as a rider to a particular crime to allow a more severe punishment.
Error in law.
No error in evidence.
Free Speech allows anti-homosexual speech.
It does not allow for trying to chill the free speech rights of others.
Free Speech allows anti-abortion speech.
It does not allow for trying to chill the free speech rights of others.
The hate crime is usually associated with crimes in which the target is
a target only because of whom the person is, what group he belongs to,
and what political organizations or movements they support. It is an
attempt to terrorize the person and/or others like him into not
supporting or exercising certain specific rights, such as freedom of
speech or freedom of religion. Violent acts against people or property
are not protected forms of speech.
Speech is not an act of violence.
This crime was an act of violence.
The words are protected speech in this case.
The actions associated with the words are not protected speech in this
case.
Your judging the words as a hate crime is an effort at censorship.
No, I am not.
Error.
There is no error on my part.
There is no censorship.
So, we must now allow all anti-homosexual speech and all anti-abortion
speech to be published without any hindrance whatsoever.
So long as the speech is not associated with violence or is a call to
violence, yes. But then, that is the way it has always been. Nobody
has actually tried to keep anti-choice and and homosexual rights
advocates from speaking.
If the people had been picketing outside their establishment, without
interfering with the
operation of it or blocking the entrance, I would support their actions
even if I disagree with their message vehemently.
Maybe they will if this hate crime rider isn't removed.
Why should the hate crime rider be removed? The law is being fairly
applied.
The actions in question, however, are not a form of protected speech.
The Speech is protected.
This speech is not because of the violence associated with it.
Thw words are totally in line with the First Amendment.
The ACTIONS associated with the words are outside what is protected by
the First Amendment.
They are a form of terrorism.
The words are protected Speech in the USA.
The actions associated with the words are not protected speech in the
USA. The actions associated with the words make it a form of
terrorism.
As a hint, protected speech does not result in property damage.
And, it didn't in this case.
Yes, it did. The speech was accompanied by a purposefully broken front
window. That is the property damage associated with the speech.
There is no speech that is disallowed in the USA.
Actually, several types of speech are disallowed.
The broken window is property damage, and left the store open to further
theft. If the criminals are not caught, the next shot could be a fire
bomb. Or worse.
Are you living in dread of such occurring?
No. However, the violence done to the owner and their establishment,
combined with the hateful message left behind include an implied threat
that they will be subject to more violence if they do not shut up or
leave town. The hateful perpetrators are trying to keep the owners
from exercising their First Amendment rights. That is why the hate
crime rider is being attached.
What if the insurer of this business decides to cancel the policy because of
the increased risk you are stipulating?
The insurer cannot do so. That is not a sufficient reason to cancel
the policy or raise the rates.
From what I have seen, however, you would never recognize any hate
crime against homosexuals.
I do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in law.
I have seen you advocate doing so.
When? How?
In your numerous posts in alt.abortion. You want to prevent
homosexuals from having the right to marry in the same manner as
heterosexuals.
I have also seen you refuse to
recognize what are clearly hate crimes against homosexuals as being
crimes.
There is no way to make hate crime legislation that protects gays more than
straights.
There is a way. And it how the law is currently written. It also
protects in the same way violence against others because of religion,
race, and other similar reason. And if a similar crime was committed
against a person in an attempt to silence their right to speak against
homosexual rights, the same provisions would apply.
Homosexuals are protected by the law because they need more protection.
If they did not need protection from hateful and violent bigots that
object to them exercising their rights and trying to get equal rights,
there would be no need for such a law.
This incident is a prime example.
Of how I support Free Speech and the law.
You also support discrimination and hateful speech and violence against
people that you disagree with. You also support attempts to chill the
free speech rights of others.
Given your bigoted attitude towards them,
it seem likely to me that the reason for this is that you want to see
them terrorized.
Huh? I didn't write those words on the sidewalk.
That does not mean that you do not support seeing homosexuals and those
who support their fight for equal rights terrorized, or having their
right to free speech chilled.
Really?
Yes.
Why is it I didn't write those words or break the window?
Because you live in the wrong area, most likely. And I said that you
support their actions. That is likely why you do not want their
sentence increased with the hate crime rider.
It isn't a hate crime.
It is when combined with the vandalism. And this was connected with
vandalism.
Error in judgement.
Only on your part.
There is no valid way to 'connect' defacement of public property and
vandalism with some sort of anti-gay crime as you are doing.
Yes, there is. Placement of the anti-homosexual words directly below a
smashed window of an establishment that makes a public statement that
they support homosexuals fight for equal rights.
And, there are laws already on the books that forbid discrimnating on the
basis of sexual orientation, so saying thaty a crime was committed only
because someone was gay is in error.
Not at all. There are also laws that allow greater sentences if it is
found that a crime was committed as a hate crime.
To charge someone with such a hate crime is to respect one sect of one
sexual orientation above another.
Not at all. It is to respect a person's right to peacefully support a
political position or agenda without fear of reprisals.
The hate crime can be used against homosexual speech if you think this
speech was hate speech,
This was hate speech, very clearly. However, the hate crime laws are
always rider laws. The accused must be convicted of the base crime
before the hate crime rider can make any sense. It can only increase a
sentence.
and since it incited this violence,
The speech of the owners did not incite any violence, nor was made with
the purpose of inciting violence.
now you see how
the homosexual speech is that type of speech that you say is not protected.
Nope. The speech in this case was hanging a rainbow flag outside their
establishment. There was nothing in anything that they said that was
meant to incite any violence. Also, they did not commit and crime that
the hate crime rider could be attached to. They were the victims that
were subject to a crime that was intended to chill their right to free
speech.
If you think that the owners said or did anything that was intended to
incite any violence against anyone, then it is up to you to support
your premise.
It is Free Speech, but it was done on other than their own property,
The broken window was done on their property,
The writing on the sidewalk was what I say was done on other than their
exclusive personal property.
However, it was obviously directed at them.
Members of the public have a right to use public property, but not in a
manner that is not in agreement with the entire populace.
This type of use, however, is proscribed to everyone. I gave an
example of permitted use for the same sort of message earlier in my
previous post.
and the message was scrawled right in front of the broken window. That
makes the association rather clear.
Free Speech is not concerned with your word association games.
It is concerned, however, with crimes against people that are trying to
exercise their right to free speech. Such crimes are not protected
speech.
And terrorism like this is not protected speech.
Terrorism? The homosexual speech incited this act of vandalism.
No, it did not. There was nothing that the owners said or did that was
meant to incite violence against anyone. Hanging a flag outside a door
that shows support for a political agenda is not an incitement to any
sort of violence.
According to you, it would be the homosexual speech that is not protected.
The speech in support of homosexual rights is protected because there
was nothing in it that contained any incitement to violence. The
violence came exclusively from others that wanted to chill the owners'
right to free speech. According to me and the law, the owners' speech
is protected because there is no message of violence in it. The
vandals' message is not protected because it seeks to infringe on the
owners' rights through violence and threats of violence.
so they
were out of bounds with regards to propoerty protection regulations.
No, they were not.
Hmm. Now you are saying the people who broke the window and wrote on the
sidewalk are innocent.
Nope.
The intent of the message was clear, as was whom
the message was directed to.
Speech is protected.
These actions and the speech associated with it are not protected
because it seeks to take away other people's rights and directly harm
the objects of the speech.
And in case you did not know, shop
keepers are usually responsible for the sidewalk directly in front of
their shops. Therefore, the owner is responsible for that stretch of
concrete.
Responsible, how?
Keeping it clean, clear of snow and leaves, open to regular foot
traffic. You need to check the specific city ordinances for specific
details, but that is a general synopsis of what such store owners are
generally responsible for.
There is no reason for anyone to live in paranoia as you gays and pro-gay
allies do.
The reason that homosexuals live in fear is because of people like you
and these hateful vandals that we are discussing.
I didn't break their window or write on the sidewalk.
You seem to support the actions and the agenda of the people that did
so, however.
Why do you think gays are afraid of me?
No. You are too ineffectual for anyone to be afraid of you. However,
packs of people like you can seriously harm or kill people for no good
reason.
Why are you so wrong about people?
I am not.
This crime was a purposeful attempt to terrorize these people into either
closing down
their business or to stop openly supporting homosexual rights. That is
why it is not protected speech, and that is why it is classed as a hate
crime.
Now you are acting as if homosexual speech must be protected above
anti-homosexual speech.
Nope. As usual, you are wrong about what I am saying. I was
explaining why this form of speech/violence is not protected.
The crime originated from the unreasonable hatred of the
victims, and that is the only reason for the crime.
Your judgment is in error.
Not according to the facts available about this case.
When homosexuals have equal rights, and they are no longer regularly
terrorized even in the small towns, then they will be able to live
without fear.
You mean they live in fear now?
Some do. That is why they remain in the closet, or afraid to admit to
themselves that they are homosexual.
Clue time for Sebree.
Unlikely. You need to have a clue before you can give one. And you
have shown that you are clueless.
Do you know how they can avoid living in fear?
Yes. By outliving the idiots like you that seek to keep them from
having equal rights, and getting the equal rights that they are
supposed to have. There is certainly no reason for them to keep quiet,
because that would result in them continuing to live in fear.
Therefore, they need to continue to show that they exist, that they
will not keep quite no matter how much idiots try to silence them, and
that they will continue to fight to obtain the same rights as
heterosexuals have.
If they live in fear, it is because of people like you
and the people that executed this terroristic act.
Is it?
Yes. Your next statement only supports mine.
They live in fear because they are hated, and because they know they are
hated.
And there is NO reason why they should be hated. The hatred is bred
from ignorance, and the cure for ignorance is education. However,
there are some people like you that will refuse to learn, and thus be
left behind.
It is the hatred of people like you and the people that committed this
terroristic act that result in them not having the same rights, and
causing them to live in fear. The younger generation has far less
irrational hatred of homosexuals than ours and the older generations.
As the older generations die out, the proportion of adults that support
homosexual rights will grow, and they will get the rights that they
deserve.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
.
