Hate crimes

Facebook Live Torture Suspects Shouldn't Be Charged With Hate Crime

Hate crime is thought crime.

|

The Chicago Facebook torturers, the four black assailants who filmed themselves abusing a white teenager with special needs, have been charged with committing a hate crime. But they shouldn't have been. Yes, their actions were hateful, and appeared to have been motivated by anti-Trump and even anti-white sentiment, but so what? If we're serious about freedom of thought and belief, then we must insist they be charged only for what they allegedly did to their victim physically, not what they were allegedly thinking while they did it.

There has been a collective sigh of relief that the four face hate-crime charges. It was feared the cops would let them off for the prejudiced aspect of their crime. Chicago Police Commander Kevin Duffin sent much of the media and the entire right-leaning blogosphere into meltdown mode when he initially described the four as "kids" and said "kids make stupid mistakes." We can't be sure this was a hate crime, he said, because we don't know if the attackers' remarks—"Fuck white people," "Fuck Trump"—were "sincere or just stupid ranting and raving." Cue fury, Twitter-rage, and columns on how hate crimes against white people are taken less seriously than hate crimes against black people.

There was palpable agitation for the four to be had up for being hateful as well as violent; for verbally abusing white people as a group as well as physically abusing a white individual. On the alt-right in particular, or whatever we're calling it these days, there was concern that black racism against whites isn't taken seriously. Heat Street called out the "progressive pundits" who were "slow to call [this] torture a hate crime." It listed the Washington Post's Callum Borchers and the New York Daily News' Shaun King as people who are quick as lightning to denounce grim acts against blacks as hate crimes, and evidence of an entrenched racism, but who in this instance were "reluctant to call it a hate crime."

Many fumed over CNN's political commentator Symone Sanders, who said the torture was "sickening" before adding: "We cannot callously go about classifying things as a hate crime." Sanders took issue in particular with the idea that the torturers' cries of "Fuck Trump" were a case of hatefulness officialdom should concern itself with. "In connection with the president-elect Donald Trump, or even President Obama for that matter, because of their political leanings, that's slippery territory—that is not a hate crime." Tweeters and the white right went crazy.

But here's the thing: Sanders has a point. A very important point. If we allow the torturers' cries of "Fuck Trump"—or, more realistically, their cries of "Fuck white people"—to be factored into their charges or trial or punishment, then that is indeed slippery territory. Because we're inviting the state to chastise them for their beliefs. We're making thought crime an actual thing.

It is undoubtedly the case that those who normally see hate crime everywhere—who think misogyny is rampant, that criticising Black Lives Matter is a species of racism, and that inviting controversial speakers to campus is tantamount to violence—were cagey about calling this a hate crime. But our response shouldn't be to demand: "Admit this was a hate crime! Call for anti-white hatred to be punished too!" That plays their game of empowering officialdom to police and punish hatred. No, we should challenge their categorization of anything at all as a hate crime.

The problem with the whole idea of hate crime is captured in its name: what business is it of prosecutors and judges if we hate things? The four have been charged with kidnapping, aggravated unlawful restraint, aggravated batter with a deadly weapon, and hate crime. The first three are absolutely the business of officialdom: society ought to treat seriously any violent or criminal diminution of an individual's autonomy. But the last one, hate crime, takes us from the realm of the four's behaviour into the realm of their minds, their ideas, their convictions. As a BBC report put it, the hate-crime charge is based on the fact that they made "derogatory statements against white people" and their target was a "mentally disabled white man." It should not be a crime to hate white people, though, or even disabled people. Such hatred might be foul, but it's an emotion; an ideology.

In Illinois, where the four will go on trial, a hate crime is one motivated by "reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals." Such hate-crime law is now widespread in the US, and across the West. In some cases it can mean individuals being punished more harshly where hatred of a group was a driving force to their criminal behaviour.

This doesn't work. It is rightly against the law to punch a man in the face, but it should be no concern of the law that you punched that man in the face because you hate his religion, or national origin, or creed. Punching a Muslim is criminal; hating Islam shouldn't be. Stabbing an Italian is criminal; hating Italy shouldn't be. Yes, such hatred should be confronted when it rears its ugly head in the public sphere—but it should not be pathologised by governments or courts.

Thought policing is being reintroduced through the backdoor. When we allow the state to make a spectacle of someone because they dislike certain groups or religious beliefs or ideas, then we throw open the mind, emotion itself, to sanction and correction. Those four people should be tried for what they did to that young man, not for what they thought about him or his race or his ability.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

275 responses to “Facebook Live Torture Suspects Shouldn't Be Charged With Hate Crime

  1. Yes they fucking should. Hate crimes shouldn’t exist, but the only way for a bad law to get repealed is to enforce is every time. You can’t pick and choose who gets the bad law.

    1. And you should know that being a Libertarian magazine. Or have you gone full SJW yet?

      1. Reads an article with the message “This law shouldn’t exist!!”

        Interprets it as saying “This law should be selectively enforced!!”

        #ReasonCommentSectionLife

        1. Nailed it.

        2. Is it too much to ask that at least one of the authors at Reason note that, beyond the thoughtcrime aspect of hate crime law, this particular episode also calls attention to the the hypocrisy and government enforced bias inherent in the always very selective enforcement of such laws?

          Because people going out of their way to note that this is being treated as a hate crime over the victim’s disability sure seems like a double standard as regards the obvious racial aspect.

          1. What a silly article! Everyone knows that blacks can no more commit hate crimes than they can be racist. Besides, the white guy was clearly asking for it.

            1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

              go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,, http://www.foxnews20.com

        3. People read the articles? 🙂

          1. If you’ve got a better way of finding the one sentence that, when cast in a slightly different light, refutes the whole premise of the article, I’d like to hear it.

            I mean, yeah, there are a couple idiots like Richman who get clickbaity and put them full on in the headline or juxtapose Ann Frank and Hitler. Other than that, you have to really dig. Well, except Dahlmia and ENB who regularly chip in with whole articles chocked full of idiocy or based on the premise that we should sympathize with a mother who murdered her own children. Come to think of it, then there’s Shackford or Soave who practically tie a bow around them. And Gillespie routinely chips in with an article or two rather fundamentally undermining capitalism, conservativism, *and* libertarianism on the premise culture and Curistchunz exist. But most of the rest of the time, it’s a slog and you’ve really got to work to misinterpret what’s being written by the magazine.

        4. Why would anyone think it means “This law should be selectively enforced!!”?

          Because it’s only when black people commit obvious ‘hate’ crimes that there’s ever any serious talk about how ‘hate crimes’ laws are questionable.

          And, usually it’s always just enough talk to get that particular batch of criminals off the ‘hate crimes’ hook–just in time to hang the next white person with a hate crime for noticing that POC is basically ‘colored people’.

          1. If it weren’t for double standards, the virtuous left would have no standards at all. And they just loves them some thought crimes! Except when they don’t.

            1. So the right never practice double standards or are you only concerned with the left doing it?

              Maybe it’s sarcasm, not sure.

        5. Reads an article with the message “This law shouldn’t exist!!”

          Interprets it as saying “This law should be selectively enforced!!”

          I think you have a point about the way some over-react to this particular story

          but… i didn’t see a rush of “hate crimes!= BAD” articles while the Dylan Roof trial was going on. there have been plenty of opportunities.

          of course had they done that, someone elsewhere in the media would have called them “apologists for racist mass murderers” or something.

          So instead they save their convictions for ‘safe’ stories, like this one, where the objection to hate-crimes is more in tenor with the general view that “its different when black people do it

          The fact is that the magazine isn’t entirely consistent about this sort of stuff. That doesn’t mean they’re hypocrites, but rather that they simply choose their opportunities to make certain points.

          other people had some good examples in prior threads. My only observation was this one, about the contextual relativity of the editorial moral-compass

        6. EBS, this article doesn’t just say the law shouldn’t exist, it says the Chicago Four shouldn’t have been charged.

          The issue of whether bad laws should be selectively enforced against some people or consistently enforced against everyone is a legit libertarian issue. This case really puts the question of how we will enforce hate crimes laws, and by calling for non-enforcement against these (black) defendants, opens the door to the discussion.

          The attempted slide, which has no factual basis that I know of, to “well, its OK to charge this one because the victim was disabled”, only feeds the selective enforcement angle. Reason at least hasn’t done that.

          But this:

          Thought policing is being reintroduced through the backdoor.

          misses the point. Thought policing has been introduced, and through the front door. Applying hate crimes without racial bias doesn’t create the thought policing, the pre-existing hate crimes laws did that already.

        7. This is the same magazine that half-assed said marriage should not be the province of the government, then advocated for more licensing. So, most of the time the only assurance of what you are going to get is none.

  2. In a rational world not run by pos moronic assholes, there would be no such thing as hate crimes.

    But hey, too late. These savages get what they get.

    1. I consider myself a libertarian. I also consider all violent crimes to be “hate crimes”, but do not feel that we need additional laws to deal with the specifics of who hates what and why.

      1. We apparently need laws to re-more convict people.

        Pols do not have much faith in our bloated, over punitive legal system for some reason.

      2. Sure we do. Think about it logically. If you’re killed by someone who hates you you’re much deader than if say… someone accidentally dropped a grand piano on you. It only makes sense.

      3. Right? As opposed to all the crimes committed out of love?

  3. If we allow the torturers’ cries of “Fuck Trump”?or, more realistically, their cries of “Fuck white people”?to be factored into their charges or trial or punishment, then that is indeed slippery territory.

    Its a little late for that, isn’t it? I mean, at this point we have our choice of two slippery slopes – equal application of hate crimes laws criminalizing belief, or racially biased application of hate crimes laws criminalizing belief. Sorry, but the “no hate crimes laws” option isn’t on the menu, at least not yet.

    1. Very much this. Hate crime laws are awful. But, so are marijuana laws. While they are on the books, they need to be enforced equally or else the whole thing devolves into ‘rule of man’ where the judges, various attorneys and police get to decided arbitrarily where and when to apply laws. That is *not* a more libertarian solution than applying a bad law equally.

      1. The libertarian solution is jury nullification.

        1. 100% agree. The problems with jury nullification in this case are that 1) very few people have the balls to be “that guy” on the jury that won’t sentence the KKK dude because you don’t believe in hate crime laws and 2) if this did start happening, it would become common practice to start screening potential jurors for their stances on hate crimes.

          1. I always get out of jury duty in CT by telling the judge after the speech about how jury duty isn’t allowed in CT that I will take my chances with the SCOTUS..

            1. jury duty = jury nullification..

              damned multitasking

        2. Nullification is the solution once charges have been brought.

          If we are going to bring charges, I would prefer it not be done in a racially biased way.

    2. So you’re saying you’re now pro-Obergefell?

      1. Probably as much as you are now saying you’re opposed.

        1. Sorry, but the “no marriage laws” option isn’t on the menu, at least not yet.

          1. Didn’t they get rid of marriage laws in Alabama?

          2. You mean like the no hate crime laws as well?

            1. Are you normally this confused?

              1. You have a unique gift.

      2. So you’re saying you’re now pro-Obergefell?

        Nope, I’m not. I’m pro gay marriage, but that was a bad decision.

        Aside from that, adding new protected classes to our jurisprudence and laws is adding to the biased nature of our laws, just like selective enforcement of hate crimes laws.

    3. This case is actually a classic example of the intended purpose of a “hate” crime. It doesn’t matter that the roles of the races are reversed from what people expected when they created hate-crime laws.

      In this case, the villains should absolutely be charged with violating the hate-crime laws.

      And we should all be working to strip hate-crime laws from the books.

      We need to punish violence, not motivations.

      1. We need to punish violence, not motivations.

        Um… Are you sure you mean that?

        1. Unless you are arguing justification, does it matter why Person A beats Person B?

          1. Intent seems to be pretty well baked in the US legal system. It’s why murder and manslaughter are different. If punishment is made more severe based on intent, then you’re punishing motivations.

            1. Means, motive, opportunity. Hate is a motivation, nothing more.

            2. Intent is not the same a motivation.

              1: He shot the man he found fucking his wife.

              2: He hunted down and shot the man he knew had fucked his wife.

              1 and 2 are different.

              3: He hunted down and shot the man he knew had raped his wife.

              4: He hunted down and shot the black man he knew had fucked his wife.

              You want to prosecute 3 and 4 differently and throw in few extra crimes for number 4?

              1. I suppose we’re probably misunderstanding one another. My mistake.

                1. no problem

              2. Are you suggesting (3) and (4) aren’t dramatically different?

                1. Are you suggesting that one of these is justified?

                  1. Are you suggesting both are not?

                  2. Unless she consented to the rape, then… wait a minute… are you fucking with me? Well, are you?!

                2. Oops. Misread your comment–thought you said “raped” in both 3 and 4. So–3 is justified, and 4 isn’t, unless of course, by “fuck” you meant rape. Then we’re on again!

  4. No one should be charged with a hate crime as hate crime laws are bullshit. However, if any is to be charged as such, then this group should be.

    A better alternative exists though. The criminals acts are anti trump. This was political violence meant to send a message of fear to those who support a political candidate aka terrorism. I’m sure the United States penal code has any number of anti terrorism statutes that this group could be charged under.

    1. Yep, this ceased being a simple hate crime and became an act of terrorism the moment they started broadcasting it to the world using the internet.

  5. Should they be charged at all? They were punching up.

    1. Finally, someone with the courage to speak truth.

        1. You guys can be so funny.

    2. Substantive question: How short were these young skittle eaters? The only thing that can justifiably be called a hate crime is nut punching.

  6. HOW DARE YOU PUBLISH A STILL FROM THE VIDEO! IF I WAS YOUR BOSS I WOULD FIRE YOU AND THEN FIRE YOU AGAIN, AND THEN THROAT-PUNCH YOUR MOTHER!

    WHERE MY INTEGRITY GONE?

    1. I came here just to see the reaction to another still from the vid.

      At least this one doesn’t show the victim’s face.

      1. Does this guy get a pseudonym, or is that just for fake rape victims?

          1. I considered offering several other names, but decided against it.

            1. *avoids gaze*

              I chose wisely.

              1. The Swiss gaze turns you to Swiss cheese. Avert your eyes!

              2. That was for timbo. You are OK, Crusty!

        1. Jack?

          1. CRACKER ASS CRACKER?

        2. Ree Ree?

      2. Yeah, that’s the point.

        The point is to not further humiliate the victim, who really doesn’t need to be recognized by everyone on the street as the guy who . . .

        Also, notice, there’s no need to embed the actual video.

        P.S. If it were a child, that would be disgusting to show by any account, and, certainly, mentally handicapped crime victims are at least in that ballpark. Even if they had somehow consented to participate in the making or screening of such a video, their “consent” wouldn’t matter, right? It wouldn’t matter in law, and it shouldn’t matter on the questions of ethics or empathy or decency either.

    2. There’s a blurry black bar covering his face. What more do you want?

      1. Blurry AFRICAN-AMERICAN bar, shitlord.

        1. It is a “bar of color” now. Keep up.

        2. I know its pretty ’90s of me, but I don’t see bars in color.

    3. Crusty,

      You can fuck with Ken over this all you like, but there is no denying the man got results. Reason has never again posted that video after Ken bitched about it.

      1. Reason, as far as I know, have never used the word “cunt” in an article either.

        Ken Shultz controls the media.

        1. Ken Shultz is clearly Jewish then.

        2. Shultz sounds like a jew name to me

        3. Ken Shultz controls the media.

          Oh, I like this.

          1. Wha u say! He knows nothing! Nothing!

      2. Is there another H&R meme that’s totally passed me by? I’m still working out the details to lobster girl.

        1. Are you talking about Ken’s “no cussin‘” campaign?

          That’s no meme.

          That’s H&R history.

          1. We need that H&R Wiki to come back.

          2. We don’t want no cussin’, Lord
            I don’t want to see my comment die
            We don’t want no cussin’, Lord
            I don’t want to to see my Kenny cry

            1. Props to SF –

              Did that just roll off your keyboard or did you have to invest some real creative blood, sweat and tears?

                1. Big hands I know you’re the one!

                  1. Too bad Trump didn’t add that to his rotation of campaign music.

  7. Yes they fucking well should.

    Wake up, Reason. No, “hate crimes” shouldn’t exist- but they do. And every time the right gets bogged down in “well, it shouldn’t be a hate crime…” actual criminals that the left protect get off scot-free and laugh at us.

    Have you not noticed now how Trump won? It’s to stop apologizing when someone calls you racist- it’s to go for the throat every time.

    You know how to get rid of hate crimes? Fight back with prosecuting people for hate crimes. That is the only way to get the left to stop using that weapon against us.

    It’s already worked with “fake news”. They’re on the run, trying to wind that back, but it’s too late.

    Remember how successful that health shake company was in the UK for mocking the fat people that tried to get their advertising shut down?

    The landscape has changed. Your whining about how nothing is actually a hate crime is why the right has been beaten down for decades. Because while you sit back and impotently whine about how things should be, the left takes your rationality, your morals, and then beats the shit out of you with them.

    Stop it. We are losing western civilization- fucking fight.

    1. Wow. There was totally right shit in that mall tirade

    2. That is the only way to get the left to stop using that weapon against us.

      Who is “us?” I’m not planning on torturing a retarded black teenager. But I won’t speak for anyone else.

      1. I wouldn’t even know where to find one. Unless you call public high school students teenagers.

      2. Your reading comprehension is shit. I said: prosecute people for hate crimes, not: torture black people. Jesus.

        1. And you’re a deluded fuckbag with a persecution complex.

          1. Says the guys who doesn’t even really read the comment before firing off a reply.

            Mmmmm, good one. 😉

            1. That is the only way to get the left to stop using that weapon against us.

              Who is “us,” dipshit? What do you have to fear from hate crime enhancements to violent crime unless you are planning to commit a violent crime?

              1. Who is “us,” dipshit?

                I think he’s referring to “the right”, which you might have figured out from the fact that he explicitly referred to “the left”. But I’m sure you know that, you just like to argue in bad faith. Though I can see though why you take umbrage with his use of “us”, since you yourself are a leftist shill.

                1. So “the right” wants to commit violent crimes and are afraid of hate crime enhancements?

                  1. There’s the bad faith argumentation I was talking about. Thanks for providing that.

                    1. I know, it’s just so unfair how I notice things.

                    2. Why do retards love to confuse insults with arguments? Maybe it makes them feel important. Who knows.

                    3. Speaking of retards that mistake insults for arguments…

              2. What do you have to fear from hate crime enhancements to violent crime unless you are planning to commit a violent crime?

                Only the guilty need fear, right? You’re not a terrorist, right? No need to worry about the surveillance state. You’re not a drug dealer right? No need to worry about police militarization.

                Or maybe that argument just works perfectly except when it doesn’t.

          2. Is that the same as herpes simplex 10?

      3. Who is “us?”

        Not you, Sug, not you.

        1. Strange how no one seems to be interested in answering my simple question.

          It’s only three words. I’m not sure how much further I can dumb it down for you guys.

            1. You’ve already proven you don’t know (shocking) so maybe let someone else take a crack at my oh-so-difficult riddle.

              1. Free Society|1.11.17 @ 4:16PM
                I think he’s referring to “the right”, which you might have figured out from the fact that he explicitly referred to “the left”.

                SugarFree|1.11.17 @ 4:26PM

                Strange how no one seems to be interested in answering my simple question.

                Move those goal posts harder.

                1. I mean, we aren’t talking about “hate speech laws,” but hate crime enhancements to violent assaults. So only “the right” suffers from hate crime enhancements to violent assaults?

                  Wow. You really don’t think much of the political right in America, do you?

                  1. You asked “who is us” and I answered it. That doesn’t obligate me to defend or agree with the guy’s argument.

                    1. Yeah, you just felt to rush to his defense for no reason.

                    2. Very astute observation, I did have a reason. I just hate to let petty assholes make asshole arguments that go unchallenged. I rushed not to defend him, but to point out that you’re arguing in bad faith, as usual.

                    3. Yeah, you just felt to rush to his defense for no reason.

                      Considering that you and Warty (and Episiarch until he retired that sock) white knight each other in literally every thread where anyone disagrees with either of you – including this one…

                      Then again, you spend hours circle jerking each other about the ruinous wasteland that was once your sekret club while bitching about everyone else’s persecution complex, so it’s not as if self awareness is necessarily your strongest attribute.

                      Here’s the breakdown for you: OP was trying to say that right wing white guys are the only ones against whom hate crimes enhancements are actually used, and that hate crime laws more broadly are selectively enforced against political enemies of “the left”. You might think he’s wrong – and of course, you have nothing to fear from selective prosecution of overreaching laws because you aren’t all racisty like *those* people – but the argument isn’t especially difficult to comprehend.

          1. You might need to Cucksplain it.

          2. “us’ are the people who aren’t the left.

            does that help?

            1. I’m not sure how much more you can dumb it down for him, but damn it you need to try.

    3. Like a true Libertarian I shall take no sides in the coming war. I’ll just be doing coke bumps and polishing the shotgun; ready to open fire on the first teenager who steps on my lawn.

      1. No shit. We are talking some very realistic live theatre for the next 8 years to the rest of our lives. Gonna be awesome to watch, if I don’t get shot at the grocery store.

      2. It’s for this reason that I heard about a guy who has been stocking up on 80% uppers and is butt psyssed about the new Polymer 80 Glock 19 lower frames. Because the proper response when asked if you registered that gun is, “What gun?”

    4. We are losing western civilization

      I knew it!

      I knew “hate crime legislation” was a product of those inscrutable yellow-devil China-men!

      1. It’s the perfidious Turk! You people don’t understand, it’s ALWAYS The Turk!

          1. It’s always the same.

            First, they bring the marching bands.
            Then, they siege Vienna.
            Lastly, they leave Turkified locals in charge until the local populace wishes Turks were back.

            It’s too late for America.

      2. I think the enlightenment is a more apt tag phrase to be more afraid of losing.

        And the enlightenment ended some time ago. Right about the time that we started reveling in easily viewed gratuitous violence at our fingertips on youtube.

        The enlightenment started to end in the Clinton years as the American moral decay set into motion and we are in the throws of the end of the beginning now. Western civilization was doomed from the start.
        Churchill’s drunk ass had some very prescient words on this subject:

        “The biggest enemy of democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

        You could just as easily plug in “the enemy of freedom and prosperity is complacency that accompanies great wealth afforded to the masses.” JMR

      3. Is a civilization that can be toppled by gender studies majors really one worth preserving?

        1. China survived 1,000s of years being controlled by eunuchs.

          1. I’m not here to discuss your Citizen X slash fic.

        2. Sugar free wins.

        3. I keep asking myself that, Sug.

    5. I have never once apologized for my racism. White people should stay the fuck out of hip hop. I stand by that.

      1. People should stay out of hip hop. It is just so very stupid.

        Except for Jeezy. He seems really smart.

          1. Don’t get mad Twon

                1. Twerking With Obstreperous Nuns.

          1. Yep. He comes to mind when I try to envision genius.

        1. I’m not going to criticize personal taste, but more often than not, when I can get one-on-one with someone who says “hip hip” (often phrased as ‘rap’) sucks, I can always pull stuff out of the vault that will make them say, “Well, that’s pretty good… never heard that before.”

          As a service, I’ll bring you in easy… here’s a compilation of Dilla instrumentals– no vocals/rhymes.

          Dilla was considered one of the greatest hip-hop producers of all time. Many hip hop artists consider him the very essence of hip-hop.

          1. Not if you like blues, country and rock. I’ll give it a listen but tough sell.

            1. Like all of the above. And Jazz.

              And yeah, country, real country, not this modern soft rock shit they young people play today.

          2. I have been on the receiving end of the ‘you just haven’t heard any GOOD hip hop’ speech more times than I can count.

            And when whoever has given this speech provides audio examples of whatever they are trying to ‘turn me on to’, it is invariably every bit as musically boring as the last hip hop I had heard.

            If it just wasn’t so musically predictable I could at least try to like it. But it always IS predictable. It always has the same handful of rhythms at the same handful of tempi. It never experiments with different meters, or any but the most rudimentary harmonic progressions. Even the vocal rhythms are invariably simple in the extreme, like Konnakkol performed by a really poor novice.

    6. Guess what, Reason isn’t “the right”. If you want to find a tribe that will just mindlessly fight against the Left without even bothering to figure out what precisely they are fighting *for*, then go to Breitbart, et al.

      “You know how to get rid of hate crimes? Fight back with prosecuting people for hate crimes. That is the only way to get the left to stop using that weapon against us.”

      No they won’t. Tit for tat won’t stop one tribe from using the tactic. And by engaging in tit for tat, then all sides then have implicitly endorsed the tactic and then have lost credibility later on in saying “you know what, maybe hate crimes in general should be illegal”.

      Endorsing hate crime prosecution in this case will only embolden its expansion to further classes of thoughtcrime, not see it diminished.

      SOMEONE has to stand up and say “hey, this whole thing is BS”.

      1. er, that should be “you know what, maybe hate crime laws in general should be abolished”, instead.

      2. SOMEONE has to stand up and say “hey, this whole thing is BS”.

        And then they have to get support for repealing. If hate crimes laws stop being a weapon for race hustlers to use, then they at least might not oppose repeal.

      3. Hate crimes legislation SHOULD be abolished.

        But it won’t be because the left–democrats, liberals, socialists, SJWs, you name it, use it as a club against the ‘right’–anyone who isn’t ‘the left’–and yes, sweety, that includes libertarians. Don’t like it? I’m sure your gender studies buddies will welcome you with open arms.

        The ONLY way to get them to stop, and to get them to accept getting rid of hate crimes legislation, would be using it equally against them.

        When it stops being a cost free weapon and starts putting their violent asses in jail they’ll be more than happy to help abolish it.

        1. “The ONLY way to get them to stop, and to get them to accept getting rid of hate crimes legislation, would be using it equally against them.”

          That won’t happen. It would only result in re-defining what constitutes “hateful” so that they still remain exempt, under your scenario. And by engaging in tit-for-tat, we’ve conceded the principle of the argument.

          1. And by engaging in tit-for-tat, we’ve conceded the principle of the argument.

            And here I thought we were arguing for the principle of race-blind enforcement of laws.

            1. I’m arguing for the principle that hate crime laws are punishing thoughtcrime and should not even be on the books.

              1. I’m with you on that. But, since they are . . . .

  8. Thought policing is being reintroduced through the backdoor. When we allow the state to make a spectacle of someone because they dislike certain groups or religious beliefs or ideas, then we throw open the mind, emotion itself, to sanction and correction.

    And what happens if this is only applied to *certain types* people aggressing against *certain other types* of people? That isn’t better. The law still exists. There is still injustice. On top of that, there is openly biased enforcement of laws.

    These young adults should absolutely be tried for a hate crime. Without these somewhat controversial cases, nobody on the left will consider giving up hate crime laws. And anybody on the right that opposes them will be bludgeoned, because ‘racism.’ Sometimes strictly adhering to a rule is the best way to make a mockery of it and potentially get some change.

    1. This is a valid point. Notice how quickly the left began to question “zero-tolerance policies” once they were applied to the people of the left cares about. Sometimes the only way to convince people of a law’s injustice is to subject them to it.

      1. But that’s the game. Carefully crafting laws that only apply to other people.

  9. I agree with Reason here, but I’m trying to figure out why hate crimes is the hill they are willing to die on, but not anti-discrimination laws in the more general sense.

    1. What about dying on the hill of unfettered free market capitalism and defiant defense of private property rights, contract law, and the first and second amendment.

      The rest is social issue bullshit that politicians thrive upon.

    2. There is timing in all things. Hate crime is under the microscope, not anti-discrimination laws.

      1. Well…association laws have certainly come up a lot over the last year, if you ask me. And there’s been some inconsistencies in the editorial positions, to say the least.

    3. I think this is more disgust at who was so eager to see these little assholes charged with a hate crime and why they were so eager in the first place.

      Reason is arguing the principled side of this, but still catching shit.

      1. Reason is arguing the principled side of this, but still catching shit.

        If you post anything on the internet, you’re going to get shit one way or the other. I’m on record that I’m just going to oppose any application of hate crime laws. They are, by their nature, always going to be selectively enforced.

        1. I agreed, of course, it’s just that most of the people giving said shit have been screaming for them to take the principled stance on these social issues.

          1. I agree that you agree, but I disagree that our disagreement is something we can’t come to agree upon.

            1. Stop moving the goal posts!!!1!!

      2. The principled side is of course right. But there is validity in the notion that perhaps you only get rid of this stupidity by letting the shoe fit the other foot for a while.

        After all, that is the entire rational of moronic social justice movements. Somehow, causing people to perceivably suffer the same injustices that people suffered 60 years ago will right your angst.

        I know this will not work of course. But that is where it all ends up with ignorant, blood thirty herds of morons.

        1. Bad law is never rightly applied. And those fucks will never learn.

          I’m actually fine with them being charged under our fucked up system, but as usual we are arguing the rarified positions, when most people really only want them charged to score a crude collectivist point in some race war they are mostly fighting in their minds.

          1. Exactly! Would there be any racial tension at all if it weren’t for politicians?

            One particular puppet pimp comes to mind when I think of fomenting racial tensions and class warfare to distract from other more serious malfeasance.

            1. Would there be any racial tension at all if it weren’t for politicians?

              What do you think existed first, tribalism or the state?

      3. “I think this is more disgust at who was so eager to see these little assholes charged with a hate crime and why they were so eager in the first place.”

        If Reason thinks that laws should or should not be enforced based on like or dislike of who is or isn’t eager to see them enforced, then Reason should catch shit.

        1. Opposing racist collectivism is a principle.

          1. How is suggesting that black people be treated less stringently under the same laws (i.e. hate crime laws, bad as they are) than whites not racial collectivism?

      4. Reason is arguing the principled side of this, but still catching shit.

        Reason really is pretty principled on hate crimes laws; they’ve been consistent opponents of hate crime laws.

        They’re catching shit on this one because it looks like they are coming down for racially biased application of the laws (“don’t charge the black people!”). I don’t think that’s what they want, but they are certainly leaving themselves open to it.

        A strategic discussion, at least, of whether the road to repeal is paved with opposing each application as it comes along, or paved with applying the law to everyone who violates its terms, would be interesting.

    4. This guy is in the U.K. He wrote sensible stuff during the Dylan Roof stuff. He’s at least principled.

    5. I think it’s pretty hard to argue that this is *the* hill that Reason is willing to die on. Reason has been accused of dying on lots of other hills.

      I’m pretty sure that you can find Reason staff on either side of this issue and you can certainly find H&R comments on both sides. The answers are pretty clear for the left and the right. It’s easy enough to say that the libertarian position is that all of this is bullshit and the laws should go away. The tough part is figuring out the strategy to achieve that.

      I think the discussions generated by this case have been awesome. I’ve seen a few liberals who came dangerously close to admitting that the thought-crime nature of these charges is actually a result of their favored laws and not just the result of asshole conservative enforcement. The cognitive dissonance usually sets in and they drop that line of thought and start mumbling about “the disadvantaged” or focus on the victim’s disability. But you can tell how unsettled they are by the conflicting ideas.

  10. If we allow the torturers’ cries of “Fuck Trump”?or, more realistically, their cries of “Fuck white people”?to be factored into their charges or trial or punishment, then that is indeed slippery territory.

    Not really. It’s a slope we’ve already slipped down. If this were some sort of landmark case, or a first time “hate crimes were prosecuted, I’d agree. It’s not. These laws have been on the books for, at this point, decades in certain jurisdictions. The only question now is whether these people will be prosecuted for it when others have been prosecuted on less evidence of such crimes.

    Because we’re inviting the state to chastise them for their beliefs. We’re making thought crime an actual thing.

    We’re not making thought crime an actual thing. It’s already been made one. Again, decades ago. The only question now is whether the law will be applied in a race-blind manner.

    1. “The only question now is whether the law will be applied in a race-blind manner.”

      Yup.

  11. Um. no

    There shouldn’t be hate crime laws

    GIVEN hate crime laws, they should be evenly applied

    this article is like saying “John” shouldn’t get welfare because welfare is bad

    GIVEN a welfare system, John should be treated consistent with the rules within the system

    sorry, but logick fail

    if we are to have hate crime laws, and we do – they should be equally applied – even when the offenders are in the “victim” group according to the progressive narrative

    1. Shorter: human beings should be ground up in the system to suit my sensibilities.

      1. That’s idiotic. The general theme in these comments is: hate crime laws exist, so you should apply them fairly. When we are able to get hate crime laws thrown out- then laws should still be applied fairly.

        1. Hate crime laws exist. “Fair” ain’t got nothing to do with this situation, and applying it here broadens the scope of the unfairness without resolving the immorality of it one whit.

          1. Applying them in a one sided manner greatly broadens the quality of their unfairness and immorality. If there is one thing worse than a bad law, it is a bad law enforced unevenly for racist purposes.

            And repealing these laws is not an option, nor is ever convincing the government to stop applying them in cases of white on black crimes. So your choices are apply them evenly or apply them unevenly.

            Let me ask you this, since you object to drug laws, would you support the government no longer enforcing such laws on white people and only enforcing them on black and brown people? Wouldn’t that greatly reduce the scope of the unfairness of drug laws? By your logic it would. So if you support not enforcing hate laws on black defendants even though they are enforced on white ones, why shouldn’t you support no longer enforcing drug laws on white defendants?

            1. would you support the government no longer enforcing such laws on white people and only enforcing them on black and brown people?

              I would. A lower body count is a lower body count. It would also be easier to get the law repealed.

              1. Fair enough Florida, but I think that would make the laws even more awful.

                1. but I think that would make the laws even more awful.

                  I think it would be even more immoral, but it might bring enough attention to get it repealed.

                  1. Exactly the opposite. The smallet the population punished by a law the less likely it is to get repealed.

                    1. Exactly the opposite. The smallet the population punished by a law the less likely it is to get repealed.

                      I’m interested in a lower raw number of people being imprisoned for victimless crimes. That alone is an improvement. However, I think you’re wrong. Slavery was abolished and gay rights improved even though, maybe because, they were focused on a minority population.

                    2. Gey back to me when we eliminate the graduated income tax. You’ll have to provide some evidence to back up your claim.

                    3. I guess 2 examples aren’t enough…

            2. Let me ask you this, since you object to drug laws, would you support the government no longer enforcing such laws on white people and only enforcing them on black and brown people? Wouldn’t that greatly reduce the scope of the unfairness of drug laws? By your logic it would.

              That’s what you aren’t getting. Yes. It would. This is math.

              If marijuana is completely free and legal, and cocaine et al remain distinctly not, this is an improvement.

              If Fist of Etiquette gets a million dollars, and I get fifty thousand dollars, we are both better off.

              This is math, John. It runs counter to how people naturally think for some reason – I should know, I argued this point myself in re: female Selective Service, but I guess once you see it, it cannot be unseen. Fewer people subject to abuses and usurpations is a good thing. We should encourage it. Maybe me today – you tomorrow works both ways.

              1. But hamster the unfairness of applying a law to only one race is greater than the inherent unfairness of the law itself. The drug laws or horrible but not as horrible as applying laws to only one race.

                1. But hamster the unfairness of applying a law to only one race is greater than the inherent unfairness of the law itself.

                  That’s one of the sweetest things you’ve ever said, John. Serious. Awwww.

                  I argued in favor of female Selective Service, obvs on the equality under the law angle. I get this. When one’s confirmation bias filters everything through the knowledge that these horrible abusive laws aren’t going away, trying to maintain whatever morality the system allows is probably just the way humans tick. The ones who give a shit about morality, anyhow.

                  You want things to be fair. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s only that this isn’t fair. Two wrongs don’t make it right, we learned that a long time ago.

                  1. You want things to be fair. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s only that this isn’t fair. Two wrongs don’t make it right, we learned that a long time ago.

                    Not charging these people makes the charging of other people that much more unjust and wrong.

                    1. Not charging these people makes the charging of other people that much more unjust and wrong.

                      Does it make their sentences longer? Do they have to serve their time in solitary? Extra KP?

                      I’m not being shitty or cantankerous, John. I’d like you to see that this statement doesn’t have anything tangible behind it. It’s an argument from emotion. People currently suffering under the abuses of hate crime laws won’t be affected whether these four are charged or not, they just might feel worse.

                      That may make you a nicer person than me, John, and I’m okay with that. I’ve seen what running things based on our feelz gets us, and I’d like to try math now, even if that makes me a callous shitlord.

              2. But hamster the unfairness of applying a law to only one race is greater than the inherent unfairness of the law itself. The drug laws or horrible but not as horrible as applying laws to only one race.

              3. Then you should criticize rand paul and reason for even bringing the issue up. The fact that crack is treated more severely than cocaine implicitly (or explicitly) because of the race of the respective users is completele irrelevant. And yet much virtue is signalled by exposing the inconsistency of the treatment(punishment) of essentially the same drug.

                1. The fact that crack is treated more severely than cocaine implicitly (or explicitly) because of the race of the respective users is completele irrelevant.

                  Still. Crack is wack.

                2. Then you should criticize rand paul and reason for even bringing the issue up.

                  No I shouldn’t. the proper position is that the laws are wrong and should be repealed but as long as they are on the books should be applied evenly and not just to one race. That in no way makes objecting to the existence of the laws wrong.

                  And the crack cocaine laws were applied to white people too. They were wrong not because they disproportionately affected black people. They were wrong because they arbitrarily punished the possession of one substance more than another even though the two substances are essentially the same thing. People may have made their objections about race, but those were not the proper objections.

                  1. Unless yoir name is hamster that comment was not directed at you.

                    1. And threaded comments claim another victim…

                3. Crack is treated more severely than cocaine because the people who are now calling this racist are the ones who demanded it.

                  Stiffer penalties for crack were demanded by the black community because crack was all over the place. They lobbied for this and they got it.

                  Now, the SAME EXACT PEOPLE are screaming that doing this is racist–because getting the black crack dealers out of black neighborhoods means arresting black people.

                  Duh.

            3. “And repealing these laws is not an option,”

              But refusing to endorse or legitimize them IS an option.

              1. Sure it is. But that doesn’t change the harm done by not applying them equally.

                So is the consensus that chemjeff is Cytoxic skulking back on the board?

        2. My point is if a law is unjust, why would I cheerlead it being enforced? I know it’s easy to sacrifice people you don’t know for your sense of “fairness”, but I choose not to provide my support. Same with selective service. Conscription is immoral. Just because I’m vulnerable to it, doesn’t mean I want it expanded to women.

          1. My point is if a law is unjust, why would I cheerlead it being enforced?

            Because the alternative is that the law would be enforced only on a racially biased basis, and that’s worse?

            1. You see it as worse, I don’t.

              1. Well, that’s because you’re a bad person.

                Kidding! I think this actually an issue on which reasonable people can differ.

                1. Only if you think people are fungible and culture doesn’t matter.

          2. The argument is that people have argued that these laws shouldn’t exist on principle grounds for decades without much success.

            So if we can’t get rid of bad laws on principled grounds, then the next best option is to make sure that bad laws are enforced evenly so that more people are exposed to the ill-effects of the bad laws. If the ‘wrong’ people are being prosecuted, then it might lead some people to oppose such laws.

            1. The people effected by these laws for the most part aren’t on a political team. They’re individuals. I don’t want anyone being charged with unjust laws.

    2. Did you forget to switch off your joke handle?

      1. Maybe, maybe not. Dunphy claims to be all for marijuana legalization, but still delights in arresting weed smokers because the “law is the law.” He has no conscience or sense of shame or any sort of moral compass for liberty.

          1. The thing that people forget about Dunphy is that his handle is to honor the guy who wrote this:

            So, since the president is keen on offering instruction, here is what I would advise he teach his Ivy League pals, and anyone else who may find himself unexpectedly confronted by a police officer: You may be as pure as the driven snow itself, but you have no idea what horrible crime that police officer might suspect you of committing. You may be tooling along on a Sunday drive in your 1932 Hupmobile when, quite unknown to you, someone else in a 1932 Hupmobile knocks off the nearby Piggly Wiggly. A passing police officer sees you and, asking himself how many 1932 Hupmobiles can there be around here, pulls you over. At that moment I can assure you the officer is not all that concerned with trying not to offend you. He is instead concerned with protecting his mortal hide from having holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.

            Got that, civilian?

            1. Ah, so. I, being the noob on here, have learned a lot from you old fellers.

              1. We used to have a wiki for all this stuff, but someone got lazy.

            2. There’s also Dunphy’s classic statement that anyone who answers the door of their house at 2 am with a gun in their hand can and should be shot by the police.

                1. Thanks for enacting my labor, there, SugarFree.

                  1. R C, you posted quite a few times in that thread as well……… : )

                2. By the way, a factoid: Tulpa posts or is named in a reply 172 times in that comment thread, which means he ate up–at a bare minimum–28% of that thread.

                  1. Damn, I know that I have driven a thread or two (civil war or Lincoln), but nothing like that.

    3. “GIVEN hate crime laws, they should be evenly applied”

      This is an old argument that will never be solved.

      Given a law that violates people’s rights, should everyone’s rights be violated equally?

      I can see how a good cop would interpret it that way.

      In other societies, crooked cops can be a godsend because of this. Specifically because the government is unjust, I shouldn’t able to escape it’s clutches?

      Ayn Rand cashed her social security checks. Some say she was participating in a system that steals. She said she was getting back some of the money the government stole from her. I say they’re both right.

  12. Rule of Law not Rule of Man. Hate crime shouldn’t even be a law but if it is, use it equally. Everyone must suffer the consequences of it’s retardation.

  13. The problem with not charging them with a hate crime is that it does nothing but give actual racists a valid point. Hate crime laws are bad laws. But like them or not, they are on the books and have been vigorously and frequently applied to white on black crimes. To now not apply them to an obviously racially motivated black on white crime does nothing but let racists have a valid point to use in pushing their other invalid points.

    Charge these assholes with a hate crime and then repeal the damned things.

    1. Idk. There is an argument for letting the progs continue to dig deeper and deeper.

      1. I don’t want to see the re-emergence of no shit white identity politics. I want all identity politics to die. And if the left is allowed to keep digging, that is exactly what we are going to get.

  14. aggravated batter with a deadly weapon

    A whisk, since everyone’s probably wondering. There aren’t a lot of batters improved by whipping the hell out of it. Gently.

    1. These euphemisms…

  15. Hate crimes should not exist, but according to the law which exists, they absolutely should be charged with a hate crime.

  16. “We cannot callously go about classifying things as a hate crime.”

    I ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE.

    1. ^Hate crime. Reported as spam also.

    2. Always commenting first is certainly a hate crime.

  17. So the christian bakers DON’T have to bake gay cakes now?!?

    I can’t keep up with all this shit.

  18. Many fumed over CNN’s political commentator Symone Sanders, who said the torture was “sickening” before adding: “We cannot callously go about classifying things as a hate crime.”

    Not exactly. they were taking issue with the fact that Sanders would absolutely classify this as a hate crime were the races reversed. They fumed over Sanders’ racist double standard and rightly so. O’Neil makes it sound like Sanders is a principled critic of hate crime laws, rather than a racist who only wants to see them applied to whites. He is no such thing.

  19. We tortured the Black Community by voting for Trump.

  20. Note the headline carefully:

    “Facebook Live Torture Suspects Shouldn’t Be Charged With Hate Crime”

    Yes, I know ‘hate crime’ laws are on the books, but no, they should NEVER be used to charge anyone. Here included.

  21. Nobody should get charged with a ‘Hate Crime’. Furthermore, anyone blathering about how one thing or another isn’t protected by the First Amendment because it is Hate Speech should be (to lift a phrase from the late Sir. Terry) kicked in the fork so hard they suddenly go deaf.

    That said, these four (assuming we have the right four, and please CHECK) should be dropped from a great hight.

  22. I look forward to Reason coming to their defense the next time a white person is charged with a hate crime.

    Oh wait, that will never happen, because it isn’t social signaling in the right direction.

    1. Here is something from the same author, critical of leftist hypocrisy on collectivism.

      http://brendanoneill.co.uk/pos…..bigotry-of

  23. Guy crawling around on ground, looking for his teeth: “You just kicked the living shit out of me because you wanted to steal my wallet, and not because you have some sort of visceral reaction to my race, creed or color? That makes me feel so much better.”

    1. Nicely done

  24. A law is a law. If you charge people for bashing gays or lynching blacks as a hate crime, then when another situation as defined by law happens – it is a hate crime. There is no diminishing this or other crimes like this are so diminished. Does a person who does this type of crime deserve additional sentencing, probably not, if the sentence is firm enough. However, this law came about for situations just like this where there was no murder, and a simple assault charge does not provide strong enough sentencing guidelines for the type of assault. The hate crime law was to sufficiently penalize an individual so as to keep them out of circulation a significant period of time so as not to allow the same thing to happen again.

    1. a simple assault charge does not provide strong enough sentencing guidelines for the type of assault.

      Aggravated assault doesn’t exist where you come from?

  25. Thank God this jihadi-wannabe was a lousy shot.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/…..-Gunpowder

  26. I’m opposed to hate crime laws for the reasons listed here, but I can’t remember Reason writing a similar article about the far larger number of hate crime prosecutions against whites. The reason conservatives and libertarians want these people charged with a hate crime is not necessarily that they support hate crime legislation (that’s certainly not my reason); rather, conservatives and libertarians are demanding race blind application of the law. Nobody seriously believes that 4 whites torturing a disabled black person while yelling ‘F- Obama and F- black people’ would not be charged with a hate crime. The same should happen here.

  27. Let me put it this way.

    So, Dylann Roof guns down black parishioners deliberately trying to start a race war. That’s a “hate crime”, fine.

    Chicago thugs beat a disabled white teenager because he is white. Fine, that’s a “hate crime” too. We don’t like hate crimes, and think they should be stricken from the books, but – the law’s the law! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

    So along comes the next collectivist (could be either from the left or the right at this point) who says “hey, look, all sides agree – hate crimes are valid tools of law enforcement! So why not go further and try to create hate crime laws for, say, “hateful” political speech? Or “hateful” anti-gay speech? Or “hateful” anti-whatever speech?

    What grounds would we then have to object to this expansion? By implicitly endorsing the propriety of hate crime laws in the previous two cases, we’ve lost all credibility to say “no way, hate crime laws are BS”.

    At SOME point, someone has to stand up and say “I don’t care if it means uneven application of the law in this particular case, the law itself is wrong and should not be applied regardless of who the perpetrators or victims are”.

    1. “So why not go further and try to create hate crime laws for, say, “hateful” political speech? Or “hateful” anti-gay speech? Or “hateful” anti-whatever speech?”

      Well, that’s the plan. Hate crime is just the warm up. Europe is already headed down that path and American leftists think we should emulate everything that Europe does.

      1. Well I know that’s the plan. So who will have the moral standing to stand up and say “no” to all of the hate crime nonsense, if we adopt the plan advocated by some here that hate crime laws here should be applied to these Chicago thugs, *even though we all agree hate crime laws are unjust*, simply as an exercise in tit-for-tat?

    2. The grounds of a hate crime come when an individual motivates his hateful speech into actions. There is a difference between freedom of speech (the ability to speak freely without persecution) and causing someone physical harm because of their race. If these 4 black thugs were to simply say “fuck white people” without acting on it, that is fine and legal, however assaulting and torturing someone for being white and for maybe supporting a certain political party is a hate crime.

    3. The problem is that not applying it in this case will not make it any less likely to be applied in the next case. If anything, it will make it more likely. And those pushing for expanded law will be able to tell their supporters that they’ll be safe in pushing such laws.

    4. So along comes the next collectivist (could be either from the left or the right at this point) who says “hey, look, all sides agree – hate crimes are valid tools of law enforcement! So why not go further and try to create hate crime laws for, say, “hateful” political speech? Or “hateful” anti-gay speech? Or “hateful” anti-whatever speech?

      McCain Feingold was passed in 2002. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was passed in 2009. The winner of the popular vote for the presidency ran on a promise to overturn Citizens United. That boat left the harbor, reached its destination, and is coming back for a second trip already.

  28. They shouldn’t be and neither should anyone else. The things they did are already illegal. But sorry, SJWs, if anyone is going to be charged with hate crimes, then all your special snowflake groups get the same. Maybe you should have thought about that? Oh, that’s right, you’re not capable of thought, only emotion.

    1. Criticizing the very existence of “hate crime” statutes is a reasonable thing to do. Criticizing the legal system’s grossly uneven application of that terrible law is another reasonable thing to do. I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive, and I’m not saying that you do. But that seems to be the theme of debate for this entire page of commentary.

      1. Well, the hate crime stuff, that’s a perfect thing for the left. Anyone should have seen it coming. And of course, they get the Republicans to go along because tough on crime you know. So they’ve given the judicial system a brand new shiny weapon, and they’re damn sure going to use it. Then of course, the left are shocked that these Orwellian laws will actually be used against THEM as well when it was only intended to punish their enemies. When they all wind up in re-education camps along with the rest of we peasants for some perceived bad thought, it will be easy to tell the difference. They’ll be the ones who look completely surprised.

        1. Then of course, the left are shocked that these Orwellian laws will actually be used against THEM as well when it was only intended to punish their enemies.

          And that’s a very important point to make. Thankfully, I don’t need to rehash the arguments against hate crimes generally with you or almost anyone else commenting at Reason. But at the heart of the issue where it concerns the application of the law… when the legal system insists, as it generally does, that hate crime laws are a one way street, that amounts to institutional endorsement of the notion that “only white people can be racist” or “only whites are capable of this class of crime” and I think that’s a very dangerous notion to promote let alone for the legal system to promote.

  29. “Yes, their actions were hateful, and appeared to have been motivated by anti-Trump and even anti-white sentiment”. You have freedom of speech (which allows you to speak freely without fear of persecution). However, you don’t have the freedom to hold someone captive, while torturing them because of their race or political preference. It falls under the same category as any hate crime, there should not be an acception to the rule because it happened to be a black on white hate crime, rather than the other way around.

  30. The way I read it (and I didn’t read it) Reason is saying – yeah, “hate crimes” is a terrible idea, but if we can’t stop the use of hate crime laws when white people abuse black people because progressives really like the law used for this reason and we don’t want to get on their bad side, at least we can complain about “hate crimes” that involve black on white violence without getting too much flack for it. Never mind that it is patently unjust to treat white on black violence differently than black on white violence.

  31. Perhaps the four black assailants who filmed themselves abusing a white teenager with special needs, have been charged with committing a hate crime, can be properly charged as adults and show how they can be properly charged without applying it. Beating was premeditated, the defendants conspired to beat, torture and kidnap

  32. Well, lord knows I love beating a dead horse, so here we go.

    Of course the idea of a “hate crime” is abhorrent and irrational, not to mention rife for abuse as we see fairly often. But the proper recourse is to repeal the law, not just to fail to enforce it, or worse, enforce it selectively. And yes, if you decide on a case-by-case basis to not enforce the law, the net result will be that in cases where the defendant isn’t sympathetic or local opinion leans one way or the other the law will be enforced as written. The only just result is full repeal. Selective enforcement compounds the original moral error.

    And yes, on the basis of other standards for hate crime charges, this was a hate crime. If you find those standards to be too liberal or too broad, then you’re starting to see the problem with hate crime legislation.

  33. After looking at some of the more recent stories of police abuse, this snark occurs to me: Maybe the four should be punished for impersonating police officers.

    More seriously, the argument over charging them with “hate crimes” brings to mind this quote:

    “Every law that isn’t uniformly and promptly enforced, all the time, contributes to public corruption because selective enforcement means someone is using it for blackmail or extortion — and probably thinks ‘that’s what it’s for’ meaning blackmail and extortion have become the norm. So yes, the whole damn thing from prostitution to labor laws to export restrictions to monopoly busters. If you’re not going to enforce it for everybody, all the time, then get rid of it so you don’t have the temptation to become corrupt as you use it for blackmail, extortion, revenge, or for the harassment of dissenters.”

    1. start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this ? 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail?

      ??? http://www.JobMax6.com

  34. Ella . although Margaret `s article is super, on friday I got a new McLaren F1 after having earned $4887 this-past/four weeks and just over ten grand last-month . this is actually my favourite-work Ive had . I actually started six months/ago and right away began to earn minimum $82 p/h
    . Read more on this site…..

    ================= http://www.homejobs7.com

  35. If this is not a hate crime, then nothing can be.

    One people, one law, all equal under the law.

    While a given law exists, it should be enforced, equally.

  36. An excellent piece, a line of thinking that many will reject in their zeal to appear “on the right side” of such incidents. But inevitably, “Hate Crime” indictments are a violation of the First Amendment, in that they criminalize the speech, or even the THOUGHTS of those who perpetrate crimes.

  37. I couldn’t agree more. It always drives me nuts when the sheeple rush to do something that makes them feel good but serves no actual purpose. Crime is crime. Freedom of thought must always be protected.

  38. Yes! Because an inconsistently applied stupid law based on political patronage and preferences is obviously better than a consistently applied one! /sarc

    Throw the book at them.

  39. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr
    . Read more on this site…..
    ==================
    http://www.homejobs7.com

  40. The best part of work is from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week. Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more info Check the following link

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  41. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  42. My best friend’s wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Read more on this site
    ================== http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.