“They had the intent to alarm and disturb another, and they were successful in that,” Bianchi said. “In alarming and disturbing, they also committed a hate crime. Their words … were directed against a specific individual of a certain sexual orientation.”
I really hope he’s just saying this because he thinks he has to, and not because he actually believes it. I mean, if you really don’t think the freedom of speech includes saying things that are “alarming and disturbing” then what the hell do you imagine it means? And what could be more alarming or disturbing than a prosecutor who doesn’t believe in the first amendment?
There’s alarming and disturbing, and then there’s alarming and disturbing. If I say, for example, that the movie Soylent Green had the right idea, and we should start killing and eating people, that may alarm and disturb you, but it’s my right to say so. If, I say, on the other hand, that I’m planning to kill and eat you, that’s a whole different level of disturbing and alarming.
Saying that “God hates fags” is a political and moral opinion, albeit a reprehensible one. Making t-shirts of a particular person, a private figure, singling him out, in order to defame him, goes beyond that to harassment. If these girls had gone up to the kid every day and said, “You’re a faggot and God hates you”, that would be harassment. This is harassment too.
Would you say that the difference in your example is the “Let’s get…”? Without it, as I think is the case with the OP, isn’t just “Hey look, Johnny’s gay!”? Would that qualify as some type of crime?
Unless there was a threat made, I agree that this is how it should be handled.
It was incredibly malicious and perhaps cruel. If they did cross the boundary to harassment {it sure seems they did} then they should be taught that it’s a serious thing. These are young ladies close enough to adulthood that they need to realize actions have real consequences.
Still, I’m having a hard time with hate crime. It seems to minimize the term too much.
Can you tell me where you saw this? I don’t see anything in the Fox story or Herald article coming right out and saying that the boy they were “feuding” with was specifically identified, on flyers or shirts.
Until more information is made available, it sounds to me as if the school authorities were justified in suspending the two girls, but that the hate crime charges are questionable.
I don’t understand why there has to be all this controversy and complication. Can’t we just make coercion (initial force or fraud or threat of those) a crime? And can’t it be a crime whether it’s against one person or a whole group of people? I mean, if someone placed a scam ad that said: “Attention Elderly People: send us 5$ and we’ll send you back $10”, shouldn’t that be just as criminal as if it said: “Attention Old Widow Jones”? Shouldn’t people be free from the coercion of other people no matter whether it’s motivated by hate, greed, or just plain meanness? And no matter whether it’s because he’s one or one of many? If there’s a call to hurt Billy because he’s gay, or just to hurt all gays, the only difference is how many, isn’t it? Why shouldn’t both be crimes?
Let us assume that it does not explicitly target the gay guy but that he is one of only a few “out” in his school.
Does “God hates fags” still count as hate speech? Well, if there was one Jewish kid in the school and someone passed around flers that said “God hates kikes” with a picture of a hook-nosed guy I’d say it was hate speech. Same with Black or Arab vulgar insults. So yes it is hate speech.
Should hate speech be prohibited within a school? Yes. In society? Not without a direct physical threat. So from the original story (already linked)
Suspension without a doubt. The criminal charge depends on the ability of “the authorities” to make the case that “the fliers were directed specifically toward a male classmate — and neighbor of one of the girls — with whom they had been feuding”
In Europe, particularly in Germany, there are things you cannot say. Example, you cannot deny the holocaust, and that law extends internationally.
I also find hate-crime legislation disturbing. It get’s promoted in the news when a heinous crime is committed such as the James Byrd murder. We already have laws that allow for malicious intent during sentencing. Hate crime laws offer a foot in the door of free speech limitations. It’s politically correct nonsense legislation.
As usual, the news cited was anything but news. No real information was given in order to form an opinion. Locking her up without bail makes it sound like the girl intended to kill her neighbor.
Personally, I would expect her to be expelled from school in today’s climate of zero tolerance. Any kind of vitriol against another student constitutes a crime worthy of scholastic death.
