MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Cops Arrested a Black Man. He Called Them Nazis, So He Was Charged With a Hate Crime.

"This is not what the hate crime statute was for. This is criminalizing pure speech, and that violates the First Amendment."

ArrestRightFramePhotoVideoPolice officers in Crafton, Pennsylvania, arrested a 52-year-old black man, Robbie Sanderson, for shoplifting at a CVS in September of 2016. He called them Nazis, skinheads, and Gestapo as they cuffed him.

Because of those epithets, Sanderson was charged with "ethnic intimidation." Insulting the officers in such terms was an anti-white hate crime, from the perspective of the authorities. Sanderson had made bias-motivated "terroristic threats," they claimed. The alleged motivation increased the seriousness of Sanderson's crime from a first-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony.

That's according to The Appeal's Joshua Vaughn, who reports that Pennsylvania residents were charged with hate crimes for making offensive statements to police at least three other times. In each of these cases, including Sanderson's, the hate crime charges were eventually dropped. But the threat of a hate crime conviction can still hurt. Defendants might plead guilty to other offenses, for instance, if prosecutors agree to drop a hate crime charge.

In any case, it's absurd to think that the crime of "ethnic intimidation" was meant to include citizens who angrily rant at cops who are arresting them. "This is not what the hate crime statute was for," says the ACLU's Mary Catherine Roper. "This is criminalizing pure speech and that violates the First Amendment."

Making racially biased remarks isn't against the law. Rather, hate crime provisions enhance the penalties for offenses such as vandalism, assault, and, yes, terroristic threats. A man who beats up his neighbor might be guilty of assault, but a man who beats up his neighbor because the neighbor is black could be guilty of ethnic intimidation. Merely shouting at the cops during the course of an arrest shouldn't count.

The cases highlighted by The Appeal present good evidence that we ought to be skeptical of hate crime laws. Although intended to protect the underprivileged from bigotry and racism, they often permit the government to quell speech that is critical of authority. In my recent testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, I noted examples from outside the U.S. where stricter prohibitions of hate crime and hate speech empowered the government to arrest people for telling harmless jokes or sharing inappropriate lyrics.

Yet one Pennsylvania news source, Pennlive.com, is concerned that Pennsylvania is too quick to drop hate crime charges:

Police logs across the state are filled with scores of similar incidents—ones in which a bias against someone's race, ethnicity or religion are noted in the crime report. But whether it's a failure of police to file hate-crime charges or the chargers become the go-to bargaining chip in a plea deal, these so-called hate crimes seldom make it into state crime statistics.

As a result, Pennsylvania, a state of 12.7 million, continues to have a chronically low annual reporting rate of hate crimes to the FBI.

As an example of the kind of thing that should be prosecuted as a hate crime, Pennlive.com's editorial board recalled a 2016 incident involving a white teenager who made cruel, racist remarks about a black kid and "shared the result of his disgusting handiwork to Snapchat." The teenager was charged with cyber-bullying and harassment, but the authorities didn't immediately think to add a hate crime charge.

Should hate crime enhancements apply in a case where the underlying crime was itself a matter of speech? Prosecuting more hate crimes in Pennsylvania would indeed generate more reports of such offenses. But that wouldn't tell us whether hate crimes were actually increasing or decreasing, especially if the numbers merely reflect harsher treatment of teenagers who make mean videos and people who shout epithets at cops.

The best point against hate crime laws is the one raised by Commissioner Peter Kirsanow during the hearing I attended:

He directed his questions to all of us, and invited anyone who possessed the information to answer.

"Are you aware of any data, studies, or other evidence, that shows designating a crime a hate crime deters, prevents, or reduces that crime, and second, whether designating a crime a federal hate crime reduces, deters, or prevents incidents of that crime?" he asked.

Neither I nor any of the other panelists were aware of such information, and so the panel fell silent.

Kirsanow continued. "Then, one other question: are you aware of any databases, study, or other evidence that shows designating a crime a hate crime, whether a municipal, federal, or state crime, assists in the resolution of that crime or the apprehension of the perpetrator?" he asked.

Again, silence.

"Thank you, Madame Chair," he said, yielding the floor.

Photo Credit: RightFramePhotoVideo

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.

  • perlchpr||

    Because of those epithets, Sanderson was charged with "ethnic intimidation."

    Were the police officers German?

  • sarcasmic||

    The joke used to be "in Heaven the cooks are French, the police English, and the cars German. In Hell the cooks are English, the police German, and the cars French."

    It cops in Hell need to be changed to American.

  • Just Say'n||

    Hell sounds awful.

    "No, I do not want to eat haggis and black pudding!"

  • sarcasmic||

    Or drive a Renault.

  • Rhywun||

    Or show my Papiere.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Show me your license. No license? Where's your green card? No papers? You're coming with me. Where did we take your children? Fuck you, that's where."

  • rocks||

    So you guys at reason are proposing that only white people are charged with hate crimes when they say race based insults to non-whites, but non-whites can say any racial insult to whites? Because that is what you are doing. If so you are arguing for certain races to be privileged above other races, which is the least libertarian position you could take.

    The new rules the left created to attack white males, are now being turned back on them. That is fair play, the new rules should apply to the left as much as they do to the right.

    If you grew up as a white millennial all you have seen in your entire life is authorities coming after you if you said anything "wrong", but other people get to be as horrible as they want to you and be celebrated for it. F*ck that illiberal crap.

  • Presskh||

    Agree, rocks. As a baby boomer who has witnessed society's change in depiction of white males from smart, strong heroes to stupid, cowering wimps, I'm glad to see there are at least some millennials who can see through the leftist propaganda. Keep up the good fight!

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    society's change in depiction of white males from smart, strong heroes to stupid, cowering wimps,

    Are you sure you're living in the USA? On planet Earth?

    Oh, it's that not *every* white male is depicted as a hero.

    Being inclusive about who gets to be the hero in no way diminishes anyone else.

  • Presskh||

    Ever notice in modern commercials how whites, particularly white males, are portrayed as either buffoons or criminals? If you don't believe it, then name me the last commercial that depicted, say, a black male as a burglar or other criminal. I can't think of one, personally.

  • jcbinok||

    I said the same on a comment section years ago: Look at TV commercials, the only acceptable butt of jokes anymore are White males. I was told to check my privilege and boohoo.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    So you guys at reason are proposing that only white people are charged with hate crimes when they say race based insults to non-whites, but non-whites can say any racial insult to whites?

    Thing is, these weren't race based insults. They weren't insulting them based on race, they were insulting them based on their actions. Nazi isn't an ethnicity, it's a political party or worldview, which people have a choice about. People don't choose to be black or brown, but they choose to behave like Nazis, gestapo, etc.

  • Flinch||

    People need to wake up: the purpose of so called 'hate crimes' is to muzzle free speech. Look at Canada, where some bureaucrat can haul a citizen in without an actual complainant [or shield some political agitator from anything resembling facing an accuser] - the government may imagineer offended people [feeling their way around some public statement of a poor sap in a spectacle of "J'accuse!"], which is the next step for the left here in the US when they get back in power. Or... look at the UK, where a recent hate speech case had everything slated to be sealed from public discovery until after the sucker went to jail - secret tribunal stuff that would have tickled Stalin's fancy.
    Sometimes the ACLU falls into the truth backwards, but this story is too fresh to see how they will behave via the media etc. Until then, I don't trust motives, and expect they are looking for a vehicle to boost BLM commie street rabble somehow [whether this event has any members involved or not].

  • hello.||

    Nazi isn't an ethnicity

    Neither is Muslim. And yet...

  • Pat_||

    You can be charged with a hate crime in France if you use a antisemitic epithet against a person who is not Jewish
    Furthermore a huge proportion of the Pennsylvania population is German descent.

    In this case looking at the charging documents he looks to have used a racial epithet against caucasians.

    Why would a slur against caucasion Americans be any different than one against African Americans???

  • jcbinok||

    Is "illegal immigrant" a race? It's depicted as such everyday in the MSM.

  • MiaP||

    Amen to that

  • BambiB||

    I see this as a logical and appropriate application of "hate crime" laws analogous to "Domestic Violence" laws that swept the Nation mandating that whenever there's a domestic violence call, whoever hit first goes to jail. Women applauded this approach to domestic violence - until they learned 50% of the time, women hit first. With nearly half of all arrests for domestic violence being these first-strike women, suddenly feminazis were not so pleased with the new laws.

    We've had a long stretch where blacks have enjoyed the protection of "hate crime" laws, while not being subject to them. The Wichita Massacre , where two blacks repeatedly raped, robbed, beat and eventually killed a group of whites didn't include charges for "hate crimes" despite the fact that the animals committing the violence were denigrating whites throughout the attack.

    The case of two young white lovers brutally savaged by a group of black animals before being beaten, raped, shot and burned to death (the male), and beaten, raped, forced to drink bleach, then thrown into a trash can where she slowly suffocated in a plastic bag (the female) wasn't considered a "hate crime".

    "Hate crime" laws are pointless stupidity which should be abolished. Until then - apply the law evenly.

  • Presskh||

    Only white Christians can commit hate crimes - didn't you get the memo? Other groups are only expressing _____ rage (fill in the blank) because of the millenia of abuse they have endured at the hands of white Christians.

  • Chili Dogg||

    Now for the rest of the joke: In heaven, the Italians are the lovers, and the Swiss run the place. In Hell, their roles are reversed.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Seriously? We have problems with our cops here, but if you think most other countries have higher standards for police brutality, you're nuts. In most countries, the police can outright beat the shit out of you with minimal provocation and they are in the clear. Period.

  • I can't even||

    Maybe idiots who passed this law will see how stupid it is and revoke it. More likely they'll re-write it in a way to make sure only the right people who say mean things get charged.

  • Just Say'n||

    Pretty much this. The idea that you can convince progressives that hate speech laws are bad by turning their logic against them is only going to convince them that hate speech laws should not be applied in a neutral fashion. The end result is just going to be the inclusion of racial and ethnic standards in hate speech laws.

  • Griffin3||

    Like ridiculous sex offender laws, the only way to get lawmakers to "see how stupid it is and revoke it" is to have these laws target their children. Until then, they'll keep doubling down on the stupid.

  • wreckinball||

    Correct. One of the biggest advocates of the stupid Title IX University kangaroo court did a 180 when her son was railroaded by the kangaroos.

  • retiredfire||

    Did she really do a 180° or did she, as the elites so frequently do, say "In this case it shouldn't be punished like the rest because we are the good people, and we only want to get to the bad people?
    "Now, on to the next case in the pouch."

  • jcbinok||

    Is that like when Canadian politicians who vote for National Healthcare there come to the States for emergency operations?

  • sarcasmic||

    Principals, not principles.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The idea that you can, at this point in the evolution of progressivism, convince Progressives of ANYTHING using logic betrays a lack of understanding of how movements develop over time.

    Like many moments/belief systems, Progressivism began as an at least partially reasonable reaction to existing ills. But movements develop a momentum that will carry them well beyond their original causes. Eventually, they simply exist to exist. To question their action is to threaten the self-esteem of their members, and they react emotionally rather than reasonably.

    Still, about the only real chance we have of killing 'Hate Crimes' laws dead, Dead, DEAD is to enforce them broadly enough that everybody who ISN'T emotionally committed to them gets disgusted with the whole idea.

  • Don't look at me.||

    The punishments will intensify until morale improves.

  • Midnightrider||

    Mission creep

  • ThomasD||

    The same people who adamantly insists socialism has never been tried are exactly the sort who think that these sorts of negative outcomes can be eliminated by more laws.

    The unfalsifiability of their beliefs indeed renders them a faith.

  • MoreFreedom||

    "More likely they'll re-write it in a way to make sure only the right people who say mean things get charged."

    "As an example of the kind of thing that should be prosecuted as a hate crime, Pennlive.com's editorial board recalled a 2016 incident involving a white teenager who made cruel, racist remarks about a black kid and "shared the result of his disgusting handiwork to Snapchat."

    I can't agree with Soave. This is merely speech, and IMHO the white teenager shows himself to be a bigot, and the black kid was merely insulted. If I were the black kid, I'd be reposting the white kids comments and calling him out as a racist bigot. Similar to how crazy Maxine Waters is making a big deal of alleged death threats she's received (if they weren't made by her staff at her request for political purposes given the way so many of these are hoaxes).

    Whatever happened to the kindergarten lesson of "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me"? Criminalizing speech and thoughts restricts freedom and makes people subject to double jeopardy (prosecuting people twice for the same act, in some cases by the state then the feds). Thus, hate crimes are doubly unconstitutional, first violating the freedom of speech in the first amendment, and second violating the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment in the Bill of Rights.

  • Mickey Rat||

    " "This is not what the hate crime statute was for," says the ACLU's Mary Catherine Roper. "This is criminalizing pure speech and that violates the First Amendment."

    What monster has your movement birthed? Once you deny free speech as an absolute value, it is difficult to put that genie back in its bottle, but I doubt this will change the ACLU's lurching towards embracing identity rights over Liberty.

  • Just Say'n||

    .....or many people who self-identify as ostensibly libertarian, apparently

  • ||

    But criminalizing unpure speech is OK, right ACLU? Whatever the fuck that is.

    Fuck those nitwits.

  • wreckinball||

    Used to be the ACLU's saving grace. They defended absolute free speech despite being otherwise a libtard organization. I mean it takes balls to represent the Nazi's.

    Now they just suck, as they evolving towards being another SPLC

  • FlameCCT||

    S outhern
    P rogressive
    L aw
    C enter

  • AZ Gunowner||

    southern Preposterous Lie Center.

  • Number 2||

    Sure it wasn't. Just like child pornography laws were not for children taking selfies in various stages of undress. And like sex trafficking laws were not for those adult women who freely and willingly work as sex workers. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    PS - what if a white skinhead had lobbed the dreaded N-word at black cops who were arresting him? Should I surmise that such a case would be different? Because Social Justice, oppression, invalidating them as people, and such?

  • Flinch||

    I recommend opposing anybody trying to place an adjective in front of justice, whatever they call themselves. That's our clue that nefarious things are afoot, like a fat thumb on the scales and ripping the blindfold off lady justice.

  • retiredfire||

    Qualifiers in front of words that have a clear meaning, generally detract from that meaning.
    Politically correct.
    Social justice.
    Substantive due process.
    Any other submissions?

  • Longtobefree||

    Senate intelligence committee?

  • hello.||

    "This is criminalizing pure speech and that violates the First Amendment."

    Yes. That is the nature and purpose of all hate crimes laws.

  • MiaP||

    Hate speech is not protected free speech.When you say something to envoke a violent reaction it is no longer protected. Had they said man I hate cops they act like Nazis...thats protected speech but when you face a cope and call him or her an effin Nazi nope. Had those cops called either one of them the N word you bet they wouldve been charged with a hate crime

  • sarcasmic||

    they often permit the government to quell speech that is critical of authority

    Power and authority are not synonyms. When a cop abuses power they are no longer acting from a position of authority.

  • khm001||

    There is no power without authority and there is not authority without power.

  • Ariki||

    It's an interesting topic. But i would side with sarcasmic. I would define them as follows:

    Power requires submission.
    Authority requires perceived competence AND submission.

    A guy putting a gun to your head and removing your kidney is power.
    A doctor convincing you your kidney needs to be removed is authority.

    Authority requires power.
    Power does not require authority.

  • Ariki||

    Or maybe that's wrong?

    In the first do you perceive the competence of the guy to use the gun? Or do you perceive the competence of the gun manufacturer?

    Interesting.

  • MoreFreedom||

    The semantics of how one defines authority and power matters here. My IT support guy is an authority on IT topics, but he can't take over my PC without me giving him that power. And from a libertarian perspective, Bill Gates has no power over me because he can't force me to do anything I don't want to do, but his money sure gives him a lot of power to convince me to do something he wants me to do.

    We give the government authority and power to write laws and enforce them, but subject to the limitations of the Constitution thankfully (even while they continue to violate it such as the NSA collection of data on law abiding citizens, or presidents starting wars without Congress' approval).

  • MiaP||

    This is true however calling someone a discriminatory name based on their race to provoke a negative or violent reaction is not freedom of speech. Cops were doing their job period. You dont get a free pass onbtheft because your black just because our government oversteps its boundaries

  • Ron||

    When a cop abuses power they are no longer acting from a position of authority."

    Try telling them that while they throw you to the ground, speaking as a person who has been thrown to the ground by a bunch of undercover cops just for looking like another long haired white dude back in the late 70's

  • Mickey Rat||

    Dangerous Hate Criminal arrested in Canada.

    "Whatcott says he was also denied medical treatment during his stay. "I had a leg infection, and it was bad enough that I was brought to the hospital, but they simply refused to fill the prescriptions. So for four days I had no medications," Whatcott stated Tuesday morning. "The infection was actually going up my leg. I was a little concerned it was gonna go systemic."

    Whatcott's suspicions that he was singled out for rough treatment may have been unduly stoked by a Calgary police officer who Whatcott says took pains to inform his nurses that Whatcott was a dangerous "hate criminal" and that they ought to "be careful around [him]."
    "

  • Brian||

    Someone needs to break it to him: that's not hate crimes run amok, that's government medicine.

  • Don't look at me.||

    And it would be septic, not systemic.

  • Mickey Rat||

    You are being pedantic about medical terms of art on a quote from a bus driver?

  • ||

    And it would be septic, not systemic.

    He means sepsis or septicemia. He already knew the wound was infected/septic.

  • Flinch||

    Defamation time, and since the guy almost suffered septicemia, maybe take a look at attempted murder?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "As an example of the kind of thing that should be prosecuted as a hate crime, Pennlive.com's editorial board recalled a 2016 incident involving a white teenager who made cruel, racist remarks about a black kid and "shared the result of his disgusting handiwork to Snapchat."

    Libertarians find it infuriating, Robby, when you write pieces, supposedly in defense of free speech, and they contain statements that can so easily be interpreted so as to suggest that you don't really believe in free speech at all.

    People should be criminally prosecuted for violating other people's rights--not for hurting someone's feelings. Examples of violating someone's rights with speech might include telling a cashier you will shoot him in the face if he doesn't empty the register, fraud, perjury in court, etc.

    If you can't tell the difference between hurting someone's feelings and violating someone's rights, libertarians will come after you when you write about free speech in their name. The example you cited doesn't even seem to be about enhancing the penalty for assault and battery--all this kid did was hurt somebody's feelings with his speech?

  • sarcasmic||

    Words are violence, dood. "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words are even more violent." Duh.

  • Chili Dogg||

    Or as I heard it put recently: "Your speech is violence. My violence is speech."

  • MoreFreedom||

    Great comment Chili Dog!!! You appear to be channeling Orwell's newspeak.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I can honestly say that at the border, when asked if you have any weapons, it is a bad idea to say "Well, words can cut like a knife".

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    While I often agree with the criticism of Robbie's writing, but in this case you are failing in reading comprehension. Robby is obviously relaying the opinion of the Pennlive editorial board in the quoted excerpt. It's also obvious the he is not in agreement with it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's one interpretation.

    Your preferred interpretation, however, isn't consistent with the rest of the piece as I outlined below. And this is hardly the first Robby piece that leaves libertarians wondering how Robby's ideas on free speech are libertarian.

    As far as me misreading something, did you understand what I wrote?

    "contain statements that can so easily be interpreted so as to suggest"

    ---Ken Shultz

    That's what I actually wrote.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    "The night sky is black' can so easily be interpreted such that I'm a racist.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    Dependent clauses that precede the subject can be confusing to some people, apparently.

  • Pat_||

    Well robbie does make several errors.

  • ThomasD||

    " It's also obvious the he is not in agreement with it."

    That is not remotely clear from what follows the excerpt.

  • MoreFreedom||

    "As an example of the kind of thing that should be prosecuted as a hate crime ..." are Soave's words. They are not quoted from another source, and then he refers to a link showing what the editorial board wrote. If he was neutral on the topic, he'd write something like:

    "As a case in which an editorial board argues what should be a hate crime ..."

    Or, as I'd also like to believe Soave disagrees with the board (but in which case Soave fails to write clearly), he'd write something like:

    "In a case which an editorial board shows their disdain for free speech and for hate crimes ...."

  • MasterThief||

    Principals, not principles. It wouldn't have taken much for him to give their take and mention why it was wrong.
    A question that has been left out of this. Was the guy fighting against the police (including resisting arrest) when he said those political/racially biased epithets? Can (and should) police officers be identified as a group for the purpose of hate crimes? If he was at all violent, this actually would fit the definition of a hate crime if we're being even-handed enough to admit that minorities can be racist and are equally responsible for their actions.
    Is it really so hard to actually be in favor of free speech and oppose the whole concept of hate crimes?

  • MoreFreedom||

    "If he was at all violent [fighting against the police], this actually would fit the definition of a hate crime ..."

    If he was violent with the police, that would be the crime of resisting arrest and/or assault of an officer. Those are already crimes, and there's no need to criminalize the motivation or thoughts of the alleged shoplifter.

    The way I see it, his actions after being caught suggests he is guilty of shoplifting, and he's just making it worse for himself. If he was innocent, he'd be saying things like "I didn't steal anything", "Look at my receipt", or "The clerk got me mixed up with another guy in the store - look at their surveillance video." He's acting like a lot of people who refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions by blaming others, showing his own immaturity.

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't know, I think most people consider Reason to be "libertarian leaning", but most assuredly not "libertarian"

  • sarcasmic||

    I think most libertarians would agree, but non-libertarians who don't understand what libertarian actually means, people like John and Tony, consider Reason to be where libertarians get their marching orders.

  • Just Say'n||

    Tony thinks that Reason is radically fringe and John thinks that Reason is the ultimate sellout of principles. Tony would crap his pants if he ever read FEE or Mises and John would blow a gasket if he ever read the stuff that the Niskanen Institute writes

  • sarcasmic||

    They both think they know more about libertarians than libertarians, and they're both wrong.

  • Rufus T. Firefly.||

    Tony thinks we are right-wing conservatives. Sure, if you're politically to the left of Lenin everything looks right-wing to you.

  • sarcasmic||

    And John thinks anyone to criticizes Trump is a raging progressive.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No he doesn't. He thinks people who make raging progressive statements are raging progressives. So don't be doing that .

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    At the risk of belaboring the point, Reason is a libertarian-leaning publication and the writers have libertarianish ideals. There are neither any libertarian writers nor libertarian readers/commenters that use this site.

  • Just Say'n||

    Not sure about that. Stossel and Tuccilli do write here

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    2Chilly leans anarchist. I'd bet he wouldn't consider himself a libertarian, but I could be wrong.

    Stossel is certainly more libertarian leaning than many of the writers here.

  • sarcasmic||

    There are no true Scotsmen either.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    And that's the thing, isn't it? If the hated progressives have some libertarian ideals does that make them libertarians? If no, why not? What percentage of your ideals have to be libertarian before you get to call yourself a libertarian?

    It's clear that many people here who call themselves libertarians believe there is some kind of purity test required. And only people who pass the test can be libertarians. And you have shriek and lovecons both claiming they've passed that test.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're the one claiming that there are no true libertarians. I guess that makes you the bonerfied expert.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    I guess that makes you the bonerfied expert.

    I don't consider anyone with some libertarian views a libertarian any more than I would consider someone with some utilitarian views a utilitarian. That's all. Seems to me that if you want to be about individualism you'd acknowledge that all people are different in what they believe and why.

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh, and Ke$ha is a talentless hag.

  • Just Say'n||

    Watch your filthy mouth, sarc

    #ke$ha

  • sarcasmic||

    #ke$ha

    Jesus, you guys 12 or something?

  • Just Say'n||

    Supporting natural rights and not seeking solutions from government are a pretty good purity test

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    That

  • sarcasmic||

    What percentage of your ideals have to be libertarian before you get to call yourself a libertarian?

    110 apparently.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    110 apparently.

    If someone calls themself a libertarian do you just take them at their word? It seems fair to me to do so. After all, we're not all mind readers like John so who are we to judge?

  • sarcasmic||

    After all, we're not all mind readers like John so who are we to judge?

    How do you square that with your claim that nobody on Reason, employees and commentors alike, is a true libertarian?

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    How do you square that with your claim that nobody on Reason, employees and commentors alike, is a true libertarian?

    I don't, this seems to be the impasse we've reached. Who gets to decide who really is a libertarian? Commenters are regularly accusing the writers and each other of not being real libertarians. Who do you believe and why? Should everyone just shut up about and accept that anyone who claims to be a libertarian is a libertarian?

    I don't think that anyone should be called a libertarian because that's not all any one person is.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

    ― Robert A. Heinlein

    If you don't want government to control people then you are probably a libertarian. That's my two cents.

  • Fuckadoodledoo||

    What's control? It's almost a certainty your idea of control won't match others, and if you're honest with yourself, you'll realize that you wouldn't want to live in a world where there isn't some form of control by a 3rd party such as the government.

  • MarcusMaximus||

    As a libertarian, you expect government to exhibit control over those who engage in violence against you, do you not?

    There's a VERY wide range of purity in many dimensions.

    Take gun/arms control:
    You could ban absolutely everything that can be used as a weapon, even pencils
    You could ban only knives, guns, bombs
    You could ban only guns and bombs
    You could ban only bombs
    You could ban only private ownership of nuclear weapons
    You could shrug and let the world burn

    I have to wonder what percentage of self-declared libertarians would support private ownership of nuclear weapons. Willing to bet it's pretty low, despite a ban of such being a pretty clear violation of the NAP.

  • damikesc||

    I'd support it.

    I also recognize that the cost involved with garnering them is massive and the required coverage for whatever your nuclear device does would be ruinous to hold.

  • wreckinball||

    Excluding Stossel

  • Flinch||

    Marching orders... libertarians? Not likely - that's for people into group think or insist everything must have a vertical structure [which by the way is why republicans suck at beating democrats: by the time they see movement, the consensus was already developed in horizontal fashion, and they find themselves like a chump at a gunfight with a knife].

  • Ken Shultz||

    Robby is supposedly advocating free speech from a libertarian perspective.

    We're supposed to support this effort because we like the way they preach the libertarian gospel to the heathen.

    Not sure this preacher really "gets" the gospel, and as someone who cares passionately about our rights and liberties, I'm not likely to shut up about it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The real infuriating part is that Robbie is bullsthitting us with Narrative first journalism.

    Robbie:
    Because of those epithets, Sanderson was charged with "ethnic intimidation." Insulting the officers in such terms was an anti-white hate crime, from the perspective of the authorities. Sanderson had made bias-motivated "terroristic threats," they claimed.

    My spidey sense was tingling, as Robbie quotes no actual threat, but the paragraph is constructed in a weirdly ambiguous lawyerly fashion to *imply* that simply calling someone a Nazi is being taken as a threat.

    It's not just that he left the actual threat out, he *knew* he was leaving it out and wrote lawyerly deniability into his distortion of the facts.

    From an actual story you can get the following:
    After Sanderson called the police derogatory names, the affidavit states, he also told them "that's why motherfuckers are killing y'all out here" and "all you cops just shoot people for no reason."

    There's *arguably* a threat there. That's obviously the "terroristic threat" they were referring to, but Robbie writes this to push The Narrative that simply calling the cops Nazis was being called a terroristic threat.

    My spidey sense tingles more and more often at Reason these days. And it's never been wrong yet.

  • MasterThief||

    The cops slapping that charge on him is actually kinda funny to me. Live by the sword, die by the sword. He had the right to remain silent and didn't take it. If "hate crimes" are going to be a thing, then let's agree that they can't only be applied to white people.
    That being said, "hate crimes" are bullshit laws pushed by the left to shut down speech and give an advantage to minorities. I agree that the guy shouldn't be charged for a hate crime and further that they shouldn't exist. I'll also reiterate that he had the right to remain silent and chose instead to aggravate the cops, nearly insuring harsher treatment. Free speech must remain completely free.
    Now, did I read this wrong or has Robby effectively taken a stance in support of hate crime legislation? How can he believe himself to be a free speech advocate if this is the case?

  • Griffin3||

    I think he is attributing the stance to "Pennlive.com's editorial board recalled" ... but I missed it the first time reading through. Could have led with that, you know, active voice and all.

  • MasterThief||

    He is. This isn't a pure news article, it's an editorial. He already injects his opinion and he writes for a "libertarian" publication. Why is there an absence of his usual "to be sure" equivocation or a denunciation of their position?
    I don't see the quote in the article's subhead being attributed to anyone else, so I'm lead to believe his position is "This is not what the hate crime statute was for. This is criminalizing pure speech, and that violates the First Amendment." That would suggest he sees this instance as a case of free speech yet supports the concept of hate crimes which is an affront to free speech

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    yet supports the concept of hate crimes which is an affront to free speech

    So what you're saying is that you don't like Robby and intentionally misread everything he puts out to show why you don't like him.

  • MasterThief||

    I don't like his reasoning and equivocation. Frequently what I find in his writing is agreement with left wing principles with some pushback on extreme actions. Please do show where he disagrees with hate crimes.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    If you read through this article or any other that he's written on the subject and think he supports hate crime charges then nothing I can provide will convince you otherwise.

  • Rufus T. Firefly.||

    Or maybe Robby just sucks at writing?

  • Social Justice is neither||

    He starts with the charges for nazi name calling of cops is wrong, goes into the quote from the ACLU that "this is not what the hate crime statute was for" then moves into a purported example of what the statute is for.

    To his credit he ends with someone else arguing against hate crime laws as non-deterrents but that sort of stands at odds with about 2/3s of the rest of the piece which seems to try and sort out what hate crime statutes are for and comes down with - prosecuting white people.

  • MasterThief||

    Correction. I did miss the attribution of the quote. Still, including it in his tagline doesn't suggest any disagreement.

  • turco||

    There are quotation marks around the sub heading. To me it was obvious it was not his opinion and the subheading was a dig at those supporting hate crimes.

    I can see however how it can be misinterpreted as Robby saying that.

  • turco||

    There are quotation marks around the sub heading. To me it was obvious it was not his opinion and the subheading was a dig at those supporting hate crimes.

    I can see however how it can be misinterpreted as Robby saying that.

  • turco||

    There are quotation marks around the sub heading. To me it was obvious it was not his opinion and the subheading was a dig at those supporting hate crimes.

    I can see however how it can be misinterpreted as Robby saying that.

  • turco||

    There are quotation marks around the sub heading. To me it was obvious it was not his opinion and the subheading was a dig at those supporting hate crimes.

    I can see however how it can be misinterpreted as Robby saying that.

  • turco||

    There are quotation marks around the sub heading. To me it was obvious it was not his opinion and the subheading was a dig at those supporting hate crimes.

    I can see however how it can be misinterpreted as Robby saying that.

  • turco||

    There are quotation marks around the sub heading. To me it was obvious it was not his opinion and the subheading was a dig at those supporting hate crimes.

    I can see however how it can be misinterpreted as Robby saying that.

  • turco||

    There are quotation marks around the sub heading. To me it was obvious it was not his opinion and the subheading was a dig at those supporting hate crimes.

    I can see however how it can be misinterpreted as Robby saying that.

  • turco||

    There are quotation marks around the sub heading. To me it was obvious it was not his opinion and the subheading was a dig at those supporting hate crimes.

    I can see however how it can be misinterpreted as Robby saying that.

  • turco||

    There are quotation marks around the sub heading. To me it was obvious it was not his opinion and the subheading was a dig at those supporting hate crimes.

    I can see however how it can be misinterpreted as Robby saying that.

  • wreckinball||

    "If "hate crimes" are going to be a thing, then let's agree that they can't only be applied to white people."

    Yep same with CRA and other BS unconstitutional laws that make special classes of people.

  • lap83||

    Agreed. Hate crimes shouldn't exist but if they do, they aren't going to be used only in the ways of your choosing. To think otherwise is just laughably naive

  • Jerryskids||

    As a result, Pennsylvania, a state of 12.7 million, continues to have a chronically low annual reporting rate of hate crimes to the FBI. He said wistfully.

    Almost sounds like they have a conclusion and can't understand where the statistics are to back it up. They know there's a shitload of haters out there - Trump got elected, didn't he? - but they just can't seem to find them.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Don't you just hate that?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The best point against hate crime laws is the one raised by Commissioner Peter Kirsanow during the hearing I attended:

    He directed his questions to all of us, and invited anyone who possessed the information to answer.

    "Are you aware of any data, studies, or other evidence, that shows designating a crime a hate crime deters, prevents, or reduces that crime, and second, whether designating a crime a federal hate crime reduces, deters, or prevents incidents of that crime?" he asked."

    This is incorrect.

    The best argument against the government policing the content of our speech (rather than the violation of our rights) is not that perpetrating such injustice is ineffective in changing the content of our speech, and that is because even if policing our speech were entirely effective in changing its content, policing the content of our speech (rather than the violation of our rights) is fundamentally incompatible with a free and just society.

  • sarcasmic||

    The best argument against policing speech is that it criminalizes thought. Hate crimes are thought crimes.

  • ||

    Best or most effective?

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    The best argument against censorship is that those that have the power to enforce it are going to use that power in their own self interest. The useful idiots that call for the government to have these powers will eventually find themselves victims of their own anti-hate crime policies. The example of it's use given in this story should show them that. But instead of realizing that this is how those in power will use hate-crime laws, they only complain that it is a misapplication.

    Be careful what you wish for, bitches.

  • H. Farnham||

    "aware of any data, studies, or other evidence"

    Sounds like Congress needs to do something. Forty or fifty million dollars should be adequate to fund some university studies into the matter. Good thing we have all those diversity and inclusion departments.

    (just to avoid any confusion, this is sarcasm)

  • Longtobefree||

    Time to expand the immortal phrase "Never apologize, Mister, it's a sign of weakness" to include "never identify sarcasm, mister, if they don't know, they deserve their ignorance".
    Or something; I am not a witty as the screenwriters.

  • H. Farnham||

    Probably a good maxim. The Reason commentariat seems to be a sea of cynicism spackled with random earnestness. So sarcasm can sometimes be hard to identify.

  • wreckinball||

    Policing of speech is unlawful. The very FIRST AMENDMENT

  • sarcasmic||

    They aren't policing speech. They're policing thought. It's not the speech that is criminal. It's the thoughts behind it. You're not allowed to hate someone for their skin color or sexual orientation. That's criminal. You are allowed to hate someone for their politics or wealth or things like that.

  • wreckinball||

    What? I guess if we are not full Minority Report yet we only know what people are thinking by what they say. So it is policing speech based on thoughts we don't like. Hating by itself is not against the law.

  • sarcasmic||

    Hating by itself is not against the law.

    Yeah I guess that is correct. But once you write it down or tell someone, you are setting yourself up for prosecution.

  • wreckinball||

    Well as far as I know we are not there yet. You can write and say hateful things even hateful racist things, e.g. Farrakhan, and not be arrested.

    But if you do commit a crime and it harms a specially protected identity person then we become mind readers and pile on if you are the wrong kind of person, that is not part of a special identity group.

    Is complicated, dumb and unconstitutional.

  • Longtobefree||

    Specifically, you are not allowed to be thought by others to hate someone for their skin color etc

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Are you aware of any data, studies, or other evidence, that shows designating a crime a hate crime deters, prevents, or reduces that crime, and second, whether designating a crime a federal hate crime reduces, deters, or prevents incidents of that crime?" he asked."

    It's not just incorrect, it's stupid.

    People respond to incentives. Designating something as a hate crime is not simply an exercise in linguistic labeling; it increases the penalties.

    The whole "where's your double blinded placebo controlled trial?" is an annoying rhetorical tack increasingly employed on the Left which treats inference from causal modeling as an illegitimate form of reasoning.

  • Brian||

    I wish they would just be honest:

    "We define 'hate speech' as saying something so awful that we want to kick your ass for it, but legally."

    Gee, what could go wrong?

  • sarcasmic||

    They're cops. They're going to do both.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Police who arrest criminals for shoplifting are Nazis now. No wonder the left thinks the right are fascists, they have no idea what the words they use mean.

  • Just Say'n||

    Your takeaway from this article was that the Left is mindlessly hyperbolic? You can just read today's top news to reach that conclusion

  • wreckinball||

    "This is not what the hate crime statute was for"

    I agree its BS. But Robby what is the hate crime statute for? Thought police. The hate crime statute is BS

    When are you guys going to be actual libertarians?

    Reason is a strange slightly less wackjob liberal version of Huff Po

  • Longtobefree||

    In any case, it's absurd to think that the crime of "ethnic intimidation" was meant to include citizens who angrily rant at cops who are arresting them. "This is not what the hate crime statute was for," says the ACLU's Mary Catherine Roper. "This is criminalizing pure speech and that violates the First Amendment."

    Robby, did Mary go on to identify what the hate crime statute was actually for?
    I didn't think so. What is her distinction between "I hate cops" and "I hate (insert any racial or sexual group)".

    The current concept of 'hate crime' by its nature assumes that prosecutors and juries are capable of knowing what a defendant was thinking at the time of the crime. An impossibility. The use of hate crime charges is always a political decision, and violates the entire concept of the US Constitution.

    What will Mary do when the racist Trump regime completes its takeover of the supreme court, and her anti-white prejudice becomes the hate crime? What will she say when BLM membership becomes proof of hate crime add on for robbery of a white home? How many tears will be shed when '#resist' becomes hate speech?

    In a just society, crimes must be based on what you do, not who you are, or what others think that you think.

  • sarcasmic||

    What is her distinction between "I hate cops" and "I hate (insert any racial or sexual group)".

    An occupation is a choice, where race and sexual orientation are not. You're not allowed to hate someone for something that isn't a choice. It's not fair.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So, is "culture" a choice?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    And how about acting politically confrontational about your race or sexual orientation?

  • Longtobefree||

    Tell that to the "T" in LGBT.

  • Don't look at me.||

    It's always worked out well for everyone when government is given unlimited powers to control it's citizens.

  • lulz farmer||

    All very fine principles, but no praxis. In a "diverse" society, this is what you get. Don't want it? Don't have racial "diversity." None of these problems existed in a white supermajoritarian society.

  • No Longer Amused||

    This the expected, and most likely desired, outcome for creating thought crimes.

  • wreckinball||

    This whole "hate crime" thing has to stop. The latest white cop shooting a black person incident is brewing right near where I live.

    Immediately of course it was a racial issue and of course a hate crime and of course zero evidence of any of that other than the skin color of the folks which is not evidence. I think the shooting was unjustified but I see no evidence that it was racial.

    More hate crime BS is the recent charge of the Feds into the trial of the Nazi guy who ran over the woman with the car. He was already charged with 30 crimes one of which was murder (so who gives a crap about the others). But of course we have to run in virtue signalling with additional "hate crime" charges

    Of course that guy hated the counter-protesters. The Antifa crowd , you know the other side of "both sides" (shh that was a racist Trump thing apparently) that was beating on the Nazi's all day. A lot of violent crimes are due to hate, go figure. That's why we have laws against violent crime.

    Hate crimes are BS.

  • sarcasmic||

    But of course we have to run in virtue signalling with additional "hate crime" charges

    It's more than virtue signaling. Beside being a way to ignore protection of free speech, it also allows the person to be tried twice. Double jeopardy isn't just for Alex Trebek anymore.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The joy of identity politics is that every interracial interaction that leaves one dissatisfied can be attributed to ethnic hatred.

    When you love swinging your hammer, every problem is a nail.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    I think that some of us are slowly understanding that its not about speech. To the bleeding hearts and social idealists, the crime is the hate. At they will not rest until hate is eliminated (with the initial step of fully criminalizing hate).

    Of course this requires a clear definition of "hate", which codifies everyone's political biases and justifications.

  • sarcasmic||

    At they will not rest until hate is eliminated (with the initial step of fully criminalizing hate).

    That's not true at all. Hate is like tolerance. Tolerant people don't tolerate intolerance. Tolerance means being intolerant of intolerance.

    Hate is perfectly acceptable, if not mandatory, when it is directed at the correct targets. Like capitalists, or conservatives, or Christians.

    They don't want to eliminate hate. They want define hate-crimes, and decide who is allowed to hate. Fighting hatred means hating the haters.

  • Jack in Georgia||

    Hate is perfectly acceptable, if not mandatory, when it is directed at the correct targets. Like capitalists, or conservatives, or Christians.

    What a disgusting attitude. Definitely no reason in your comment.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Double standard much?

  • sarcasmic||

    Dudes, time to recalibrate your sarcasm detectors.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    I think this is incorrect. Just like it's not intolerant to not tolerate the intolerant, it's not hate to hate the haters (once you've applied the correct grievance & political correctness filters of course).

  • Jack in Georgia||

    It's perfectly ok for leftists to use the terms Nazi, racist, sexist, bigot, homophone whenever and wherever they want. Why is it ok to call Cops these names? I see the leftists get all upset when you lump all leftists in with Flag burning and detail the history of how the Democrat party founded the worst of the worst supremacist groups the KKK.

    It was a Democrat the founded the KKK, let that sink in.

    The site is called Reason, maybe some should try and reason what is civil and what isn't.

  • wreckinball||

    It all falls apart when you decide that free speech is not absolute. So if the guy getting arrested is not allowed to call the cop a Nazi folks get all up in arms. Because he is black and of course one of the special protected identities. We should only apply that hate speech code to Nazi's and maybe Ben Shapiro or Ann Coulter and maybe a few other folks we disagree with. It's hate I tell you!

    Now on to public accommodation. You see the CO baker he was hateful and Christian which really makes him hateful so he must provide the cake whether he likes it or not.

    You see Sarah Sanders works for Trump who we hate and therefore its obvious that we don't have to serve her because she's hateful. I mean she works for Trump who is a Nazi and Nazi's have no rights at all.

    See how it works

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Honestly, the most revealing part of this whole incident is that someone actually thinks getting arrested for stealing is an authoritarian act and the equivalent of getting thrown in a gas chamber. If the guy was white, it would be Michael Hihn screeching about how getting called mean names on the internet is just like the Holocaust.

    These retards have no idea what living in such a society is actually like, and I suspect they'd be a lot less mouthy or have already fucked off to Canada if that was actually the case.

  • lap83||

    "This is not what the hate crime statute was for," says the ACLU's Mary Catherine Roper.

    When I let that charging bull out of its pen it was only supposed to run over people I don't like!

  • Archibald Baal||

    "I didn't the the leopards were going to eat MY face," said the supporter of the Leopards Eating People's Faces Act.

  • Archibald Baal||

    *think the leopards. Edit function, where are you?

  • Longtobefree||

    Maybe in the paid subscription?

  • Gasman||

    Showing that cops and prosecutors are thin skinned power hungry tools who will abuse the law to use as a cudgel to silence their critics.
    If truth is a defense, then this case is settled in favor of the defendant, as the alleged victims have through their actions proven the comparison with nazi policing is indeed apt.

  • wreckinball||

    Yes I know the hate speech law is only supposed to applied to certain people.

    Gee, we never thought the wrong people would get charged.

    Maybe its a dumb law that needs repealed. I mean calling someone a Nazi is indeed hateful. So what?

  • wreckinball||

    Yes I know the hate speech law is only supposed to applied to certain people.

    Gee, we never thought the wrong people would get charged.

    Maybe its a dumb law that needs repealed. I mean calling someone a Nazi is indeed hateful. So what?

  • khm001||

    "In any case, it's absurd to think that the crime of "ethnic intimidation" was meant to include citizens who angrily rant at cops who are arresting them."

    What kind of idiot actually believes that was NOT the intent? Further, the letter of the law is being applied. It doesn't matter what you wished the intent of the law was. You were told hate crimes were a bad idea, but you weren't interested. Now choke on them.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "...are you aware of any databases, study, or other evidence that shows designating a crime a hate crime, whether a municipal, federal, or state crime, assists in the resolution of that crime or the apprehension of the perpetrator?"

    THAT'S NOT THE GOAL OF HATE CRIMES ENHANCEMENTS.

  • Cabbage Herder||

    Asinine results from an asinine law.

  • BYODB||

    What worse thing can you call a white person than 'Nazi'? Using the logic of hate speech, well, the guy had it coming. That doesn't mean I agree with that at all, but 'equal protection under the law' sort of demands this kind of thing.


    That said, as I'm sure many others have noted here there's virtually no chance it will be applied equally since the definition of racism is essentially that only white people can be racist since you have to have power to be racist and it's assumed that the white race is superior and has all the power.


    I suppose we're just supposed to ignore how racist those assumptions are, but whatever.

  • Longtobefree||

    What worse thing can you call a white person than 'Nazi'?

    Democrat?

  • Baelzar||

    Red Tribe: These are the New Rules?
    (crack knuckles)
    okay then

  • Baelzar||

    "Professor demands Title IX investigation after Northeastern prof calls for hatred of men."

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/300697/

  • buybuydandavis||

    Clearly justified under Title IX.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Making racially biased remarks isn't against the law. Rather, hate crime provisions enhance the penalties for offenses such as vandalism, assault, and, yes, terroristic threats. "

    God I'm really getting to hate the writers at Reason. The dishonesty to push The Narrative is getting sickening.

    The obvious question is "did he make terroristic threats?"

    Robbie:
    Because of those epithets, Sanderson was charged with "ethnic intimidation." Insulting the officers in such terms was an anti-white hate crime, from the perspective of the authorities. Sanderson had made bias-motivated "terroristic threats," they claimed.

    My spidey sense was tingling, as Robbie quotes no actual threat, but the paragraph is constructed in weirdly ambiguous lawyerly fashion to *imply* that simply calling someone a Nazi is being taken as a threat.

    From an actual story you can get the following:
    After Sanderson called the police derogatory names, the affidavit states, he also told them "that's why motherfuckers are killing y'all out here" and "all you cops just shoot people for no reason."

    When someone talks about "killing y'all", there's some arguable threat involved. It's kind of weak, but it's *not* simply taking "Nazi" as a threat in and of itself.

    Now the cops are right that Nazi is a racial slur. It's the n-word for whites.

    The underlying crime of a threat is in question, but there isn't much question about the ethnic animus involved.

  • ||

    I would call this karma. Not for this. But not for hate crimes either. The law should not really determine your life to be worth of less or the crime inflicted upon you to be more or less based on the reason why you commited it. And international standars be damned that is not right.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    "Tell it to the Judge."

  • MikeAT||

    "This is not what the hate crime statute was for," says the ACLU's Mary Catherine Roper. "This is criminalizing pure speech and that violates the First Amendment."

    That is exactly what these thought crime statues were intended to do,penalize thought. The ACLU is just upset they are being used fairly.

  • Malvolio||

    It's EXACTLY what the law was for!

  • SukieTawdry||

    Live by thought crime, die by thought crime. Don't expect any sympathy from me when such laws backfire.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Blowback.

  • Whorton||

    It apparently never occured to the left, despite the warnings at the time, that such crimes could come back to bite them.

    Criminalizing speech based on it's content violates the first amendment on its face, worse, the definitions are mercurial. If we are going to go this route, People who level a charge of fascism or nazism without verifiable proof should be liable for civil and criminal penalties.

    Declare ANTIFA a hate and terrorist group. . . Two can play this game.

  • damikesc||

    I'm a little disappointed the FBI has yet to do so.

  • damikesc||

    I'm a little disappointed the FBI has yet to do so.

  • Flinch||

    Dumb, but... I hate 'hate crimes'. There is something wholly unamerican about these statutes that risks turning the nation into a bunch of professional asshats by Oprahfying every nuance of life. Having sat on a few juries, I really don't care about "why" - that's a sentencing consideration for real crimes committed, after a verdict gets rendered.

  • Cory Crockett||

    Great; Next thing you know #COPS are the faces of disenfranchisement.

  • Duelles||

    The Hate crime designation is stupid. People who are in favor of it are stupid -not ignorant, but stupid. A crime is a crime! Shoplifting at CVS is has little to do with hate. Idiocy!

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    How often do authority figures get called Nazis? You'd think they'd be used to it by now.

  • Cloudbuster||

    "This is not what the hate crime statute was for. "

    Right! Everyone knows it's only supposed to be used against Whites! This can't be allowed to happen!

  • Incredulous||

    yes, lol, it was only supposed to punish "certain people" for "bad thoughts!"

  • Widhalm19||

    Another Leftist screed on Rreason.com. Disgusting .....

  • Darwin's Flinch||

    Overcharging to get a plea deal that gives another tic-mark in the prosecutors win column.

  • ipsum||

    People may break the law out of hate, but I for one do not distinguish a HATE crime form a regular crime. Some crimes may be more heinous, but in the past they were able to hand out appropriate penalties without this silly law.

  • damikesc||

    You know, a lot of us oppose hate speech laws because of, well, THIS.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Exactly. Regardless of whether or not this man committed the alleged crime, he is well within his rights to call cops whatever he likes. It might not be the smart thing to do, given that those comments will be entered into evidence by the prosecution, but he has every right to say it without facing prosecution for speaking.

    Either the arresting officers' feelz were hurt, or they are trying to make some political point. What does the prosecutor have to say about this? Arthur Branch would never let this fly. If the prosecution goes ahead and attempts a hate crime conviction then I believe there are grounds for dismissal as malicious prosecution.

  • Rock Lobster||

    "This is not what the hate crime statute was for," says the ACLU's Mary Catherine Roper. "This is criminalizing pure speech and that violates the First Amendment."

    Well, who could possibly have foreseen that such an act of well-intentioned wokeness might have a chilling effect on the free speech of the righteous oppressed? What goes around comes around, you nitwits.

    Priceless.

  • Bob2||

    So easy to charge him with definition of character.

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    God, this is brilliant and I'm stealing it. MWAH!

  • Wanderer||

    Using a N-word against someone from a different ethnicity is now a hate crime ? Sounds consistent.

    Hate crime laws that apply to everyone are not libertarian, but they are a huge improvement upon racist laws that only condemned White people.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Same set of rules for everyone

  • Incredulous||

    Criminalizing thought leads to unconstitutional abuses?

    haha, who would have predicted that?

  • ||

    "This is not what the hate crime statute was for," says the ACLU's Mary Catherine Roper. "This is criminalizing pure speech and that violates the First Amendment."

    Dear ACLU,

    We told you about the slipper slope of hate crime laws. Please come out against them.

    Thank you,

    Libertarians

  • jcbinok||

    I've always had a problem with the concept of "hate crimes." Like, if I stab you b/c I'm a sociopath, that's one level of illegal, but if I stab you b/c I hate your ethnic group, that's a higher level of illegal. It's hard enough to punish the act, let alone its motivation.

    Now, to think that hate crime charges are being added on by cops as an extra bargaining chip to get their perp convicted seems really sketchy.

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    Reason's saddest point:

    A man who beats up his neighbor might be guilty of assault, but a man who beats up his neighbor because the neighbor is black could be guilty of ethnic intimidation. Merely shouting at the cops during the course of an arrest shouldn't count.

    Or maybe we should be trying to police what's in people's hearts using the blunt instrument of the law and the cops....

  • twood||

    "This is not what the hate crime statute was for."

    Yeah, it's only supposed to be used against whitey!

    Also, all hate crime legislation violates freedom of speech.

  • John Jacob Jingle Rhymer||

    This shows the stupidity of hate-crime laws. Such laws are simply a cover for fascism, totalitarianism, etc., pretty much all of the things that describe Dems/libs and the Democrat Party.

  • vek||

    This is EXACTLY what needs to happen, and in a HUGE way. I am a firm believer that in some instances absolute enforcement of a bad law is the best way to get it repealed. I think that would be very effective with hate crimes.

    If ones gets real here, the truth is more black people attack white people because they're racially biased and hateful of whites than whites do blacks anymore. White people have been so brow beaten about being racist that I think most whites if they were given the choice of having a false rumor spread about them that they were a pedophile or a racist, most would pick pedo.

    Don't believe me? Look up the stats on black on white violence vs white on black violence. Blacks are exponentially more likely to attack whites. In MANY instances they throw racist remarks at the whites they were victimizing. I've had this happen to me multiple times in my life, and I've never done this to a black person. The only difference is in reverse discrimination in terms of charges for it.

    So if we EVENLY APPLIED the law the number of black/other minority hate crime perps would go through the roof. Then people would bitch, and we may actually be able to get rid of these horrible laws. I'm all for this shit until the madness ends.

  • gphx||

    So Bernie Sanders isn't allowed to shop at CVS anymore?

  • rabidpogoista||

    "it's absurd to think that the crime of "ethnic intimidation" was meant to include citizens who angrily rant at cops who are arresting them."
    Really? Do you think that if a black officer were to arrest a white man and the white man shouted racist slurs at the black officer then the white man wouldn't be charged with a hate crime? I kind of think you're the one being absurd.

    Face it. When you say that "This is not what the hate crime statute was for," what you mean is that you think it's not meant to protect white people. The reality is that it has to protect black people and white people equally, so now, what you're seeing are the unintended consequences of an unjust statute.

    Nonetheless, the laws are what they are, and you can't cry about it when the shoe is on the other foot. If you feel that what's happening to this man is wrong (and it is), then the hate crime statute is your villain here.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online