Federal Prosecutor Sets Up Hotline for Reporting, Among Other Things, People "Espousing … Hate-Filled Views"

"In Massachusetts, we have recently seen multiple incidents of groups espousing deeply offensive and hurtful ideologies displayed on our streets."

A press release Wednesday by the U.S. Attorney in charge of the federal prosecutor's office in Massachusetts, Rachael S. Rollins announced the rollout of an "End Hate Now" telephone hotline (emphasis added):

The "End Hate Now" hotline [1-83-END-H8-NOW] is dedicated for reporting hate-based incidents or potential criminal activity. Massachusetts residents and visitors are encouraged to call the hotline to report concerning or troubling incidents of hate, potential hate crimes, or concerns regarding individuals believed to be espousing the hate-filled views or actions we learn of far too often in the wake of mass shootings and/or acts of hate-based violent extremism. Callers are encouraged to leave their contact information but may remain anonymous….

Hate crimes are illegal acts committed based on a victim's perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Beliefs are not hate crimes. Distasteful ideologies, advocacy of political or social positions, use of discriminatory rhetoric, or the general philosophic embrace of biased or hate-filled beliefs are not crimes. Under federal law, investigations may not be based solely on an individual's beliefs or their protected First Amendment activity.

"With the uptick in horrific mass-shootings and unimaginable acts of racially motivated violent extremism we have seen across our country, people are scared. In Massachusetts, we have recently seen multiple incidents of groups espousing deeply offensive and hurtful ideologies displayed on our streets. A recent act of hateful vandalism at the future PRYDE senior housing facility in Hyde Park threatened burning and death against the LGBTQ+ community. Enough is enough. My office is offering our residents and visitors a new outlet for bringing these critical and concerning issues seeped in bigotry and hatred to the attention of law enforcement," said U.S. Attorney Rollins. "I am asking people – when you see hate, call this number and let us know. If you have serious concerns about a loved one, a friend, or even an acquaintance, call this number and let us know…." …

"Protecting Massachusetts residents from violence and hate is the top priority of my administration," stated U.S. Attorney Rollins. "In Massachusetts, we have a long history of standing up to hate and intolerance. Today, we continue that honored tradition. By establishing this 1-83-END-H8-NOW hotline and a Civil Rights and Human Trafficking Unit, my office is fully equipped and dedicated to fighting hate-fueled criminal activity across our Commonwealth."

A sound means for a prosecutor's office to investigate potential violent crimes or vandalism? (Though saying, for instance, "killing [police officers / Jews / my ex-wife] is completely morally justified" is constitutionally protected speech, if such a killing had actually happened nearby, prosecutors might reasonably want to look into whether the speaker actually acted on his beliefs and didn't just express them.) A tool that, if indeed effectively publicized, would chill public expression even of constitutionally protected speech by people who have no plans for crime? Both? Neither? I'd love to hear what people think about this.

Comments

[Michael P]

The basic framing, coming from a prosecutor office, sounds like it's intended as a tool for pretextual investigations and harassment. Calling it "End Hate Now" rather than focusing on the crime part is not appropriate for a criminal-Justice agency. This is echoed in the press release's de-emphasis of what constitutes a crime in this context.

A few examples of legal versus illegal conduct would have gone a long way, but the examples that EV emphasized show how the release was written to sweep broadly.

This kind of focus would be understandable, and allowable, from a private group. But the Biden administration should make it clear that this prosecutor went beyond what is allowed for law enforcement agencies in the US.

[DaivdBehar]

The legal system is just a political attack dog. This is an example of the rampant, out of control, Democrat lawfare. This is Mass 3.8 (a):

Rule 3.8
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a)
refrain from prosecuting where the prosecutor lacks a good faith belief that probable cause to support the charge exists, and refrain from threatening to prosecute a charge where the prosecutor lacks a good faith belief that probable cause to support the charge exists or can be developed through subsequent investigation;

I love the lawyer profession so much I want to correct it. The fastest way to do so is to round up its hierarchy, 25000 internal traitors to our our country, try it an hour for its insurrection against the constitution, convict, and summarily execute them. The law of insurrection should be amended to allow for summary executions. The current law allows for 10 years in federal prison at hard labor. This is love speech.

[DaivdBehar]

Does the AG own a home? If, yes, get the address. Have hundreds of people gather there, not to make noise and to disturb the neighbors, but to record zoning board infractions, including paint chips. Send to the Zoning Board for enforcement.

[DaivdBehar]

Speaking of men with guns as the sole validation of the actions of the scumbag legal profession:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/weaponize-irs-gaetz-raises-concerns-massive-irs-munitions-stockpile?ats_es=731571b3134386edfd354e86a103b590

[DaivdBehar]

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-cruz-on-biden-judicial-nominee-rachael-rollins-and-145anyone-who-reads-this-document-knows-exactly-what-kind-of-radical-this-prosecutor-is-and-146

Rachel Rollins is a diverse and a radical leftist.

[DaivdBehar]

DeSantis sends cops to kick out rogue, radical prosecutor. That is a good model.

https://www.westernjournal.com/desantis-didnt-just-suspend-soros-funded-prosecutor-sent-police-evict-office/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=CTBreaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=conservative-tribune&ats_es=731571b3134386edfd354e86a103b590

[DaivdBehar]

Instead of threatening the liberties of political opponents, this worthless diverse lawyer should be working to change the involuntary treatment laws of the US, to help mental patients before they hurt people or themselves.

[Social Justice is neither]

Would mean something of they weren't holding political prisoners for lengthy periods without charges or trial or if their party wasn't in the midst if a Stalinist show trial or going after ordinary Americans for holding opinions different from the regime

[hobie]

Michael P. I've been watching to see if you became so post-obsessive that you'd end up with the crazies monitoring for posts and trying to strike first. I bet myself you wouldn't get there. Looks like I owe myself some money

[Michael P]

A reminder: "Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas."

It is particularly telling when one cannot engage with the topic at hand, and so attempts to shift discussion from ideas to people.

[Sarcastr0]

Remind me of that the next time you bring up Hunter Biden out of nowhere.

[Mr. Bumble]

"But the Biden administration should make it clear that this prosecutor went beyond what is allowed for law enforcement agencies in the US."

As if this is something new by the Biden administration. It's a feature not a bug.

[Harvey Mosley]

As if this is something new by prosecutors.

FIFY

[bevis the lumberjack]

Just another example of the Biden Administration's strong commitment to free speech.

[Ed Grinberg]

And the rule of law! (see my comment below)

[bevis the lumberjack]

Shouldn’t one of us call the hotline to warn ‘em about Kirkland?

[Frank Drackman]

The "Reverends" safely tucked away at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
living "the Dream" or his dream anyway, of living with hundreds of men who practice anal sex (but aren't gay because what else is a guy supposed to do in prison(having never been in prison, I wouldn't know, "Jerk Off" maybe?

Frank

[Krayt]

I was unaware inmates had Internet privileges.

[Frank Drackman]

they prefer to be called "Prisoners" (Asylums have "Inmates", Prisons have "Prisoners") but you know, you do "Favors" for the Screws (they prefer "Correctional Officers") they do "Favors" for you.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I'm sure they will cancel the line when it gets flooded with BLM and other racist groups on the left. Looking forward to the follow up article pronouncing this a huge "failure" at least in the eyes of these wokesters.

[Sarcastr0]

Jimmy may be to cowardly/lazy to become the change he wants to see in this world, but his commitment to hating the left is so strong, he will preemptively blame them for being that change!

[Jimmy the Dane]

Only you would be cool with some sort of totalitarian-esque "report your neighbor" because of their political opinions being maintained by the federal government. Had Trump of GWB done something like this we would not hear the end of it from the left.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, as is clear from my other comments here I love this idea.

Try again, chief.

[Jimmy the Dane]

We all know the true Sarc. You are all too transparent.

[Ed Grinberg]

No, you see, blacks can't be racist!
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/merriam-webster-racism-definition-revise-kennedy-mitchum

[Frank Drackman]

Just tune into PMS-NBC for any of their usual bunch of Idiots "Morning Schmo and his Ditzy Blonde "trophy" (everyone gets one nowadays) wife, the "Reverend" Al Sharpton, Joy(less) Reed, it's a nonstop hate fest.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, but those are just talking heads. This is a prosecutor, who can ruin your life, even if you get acquitted.

[Sharper]

Has anyone called to report Harvard's admission policies yet?

[Ed Grinberg]

I'm calling in to report Bill Cliton:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/19/which-political-leader-expressed-concern-about-california-universities-filling-their-entire-freshman-classes-with-nothing-but-asian-americans/

[Frank Drackman]

this groups just as bad https://naacp.org/

[John F. Carr]

As a county prosecutor she got a lot of attention for protecting those who hate what she no doubt considers "hateful" people. Search keywords: Rollins straight pride.

[shawn_dude]

Thanks for the tip. I googled it up and read more about the Boston "Straight Pride" parade organized by people connected to white supremacist New Hampshire American Guard, the Massachusetts Patriot Front, and Proud Boys. Not that different from the "Unite the Right" event in South Carolina.

"Straight Pride" or "White Pride." Same difference. Good for her.

[Bob]

shawn why are you spreading such anti-white lies about patriotic pro-american groups?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sounds pretty bad, considering that sentiments that we should see everyone as individuals regardless of race, saying that men can't get pregnant, or saying that it's OK to be white are now hate speech.

Sounds basically like the equivalent of a hotline that you can call if you see a black guy walking down your street.

[John F. Carr]

My town has one of those, the non-emergency number of the police department. Remember to say "suspicious" instead of "black".

[DaivdBehar]

Laugh of the Day.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Stereotypes don’t come out of the blue.

[dwshelf]

I'd like to report this thing I heard Rachel Maddow say about Donald Trump...

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man, you can't just leave a Brutha' hangin, what did Rachel Mad-cow say?? (ever see some of her College Photos? she was a babe back before she went Lesbo)

[Frank Drackman]

Be hard to find a more Anti-Semitic Senator than Georgia's Rafael War-lock (you know he's gotta hate being "Junior" Senator to a Jew(I'm a Jew, and didn't vote for that Woke Ass-off) Have a feeling Merrick G isn't really gonna do anything.

Frank "wants one of those Hellfire missiles with the spinning Ginsu Knife Blades" https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2022/08/04/flying-ginsu-hellfire-missile-foreman-newday-vpx.cnn

[Krayt]

"I see fascists. They don't even know that they're fascists."

Except communsists do it, too. There was a bizarre period in the Soviet Union during Glasnost with Gorby, IIRC. There was a push for college students to report on their parents. When interviewing one such (female) student, it was the beautiful and natural thing to do with dangerous thinkers.

It's always been about the power abuse, not why it's abused. Few people have problems with 1984-level BS...when they fancy themselves the ones doing the checking up on their neighbors.

[Krayt]

"If you build it, they will come."

America constitutional design: "If you don't build it, Tools of Tyranny, it can't be abused."

Stop building and enabling tools of tyranny!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

More red meat is tossed;
the bigots-and-guns law prof,
lathering his rubes

[Frank Drackman]

Reverend's Salad Tosse'd
by large angry Gang Boss,
Gargling said's pubes

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You'll always have Frank Drackman, Prof. Volokh.

Which seems to be your choice.

Carry on, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

Ah c'mon Reverend (Man!)
Giving up on a Sonnet throwdown so easily???
All that time in https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx??
Know you got some mad Oxymandias rhymes!

Frank "Jesus Alou Wept"

[Randal]

His name means: man with
an unattractive penis.
Twelve inch dicks haunt him.

[Sarcastr0]

The solution is pretty easy - prank the phone line.

It's a tried and true tactic from when Trump had a dumbass voter fraud hotline.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not a bad idea, actually. But I'm not sure that's there's anyone I dislike enough to set these people on. Maybe I should call in Kendi. He certainly qualifies as a hate speaker, but I don't suppose that's what Rollins has in mind.

[Sarcastr0]

Stick with fictional characters. It's safer, and if you have the right mindset, can be funnier.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, that's what Zawahiri/Bin Laden thought too, it's all fun & games till the SEALs and the Ginzu Sword Hellfire show up.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Making a false report to federal law enforcement—great suggestion!

After all, the FBI is well known for having a good sense of humor and an easygoing, live-and-let-live attitude about these sorts of things.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm much more sanguine than you are on this one.

I don't see how you establish materiality,
It's been done before,
It's easy to keep it implausible,
It would be politically extremely unwise to take any action here

[Noscitur a sociis]

Materiality has all but been read out of § 1001, but under any standard I have trouble seeing how making a knowingly false statement that a crime has occurred to a line set up by a law enforcement agency for people to report criminal activity wouldn't qualify under any standard.

I agree with you that it is unlikely that people making false reports will be prosecuted. But I don't think it's so unlikely that I'd encourage people to do it—particularly since this U.S Attorney previously arranged to have a person arrested for criticizing her at a press conference.

[shawn_dude]

This isn't a crime hotline, is it? I read it as a tip line for ferreting out hate groups. Is there a law about a false tip? Or wasting police time?

[Life of Brian]

Well, hmmm. If the activities being reported and investigated by federal prosecutors need not actually be crimes, what sort of Minority Report grade dystopia are we setting up here?

[Noscitur a sociis]

There is a law (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) against "mak[ing] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" regarding "any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States".

Unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding what Sarcastr0 has in mind, this seems like a textbook example.

[Harvey Mosley]

As a California resident this is my plan the next time there is a straw purchaser involved with someone being shot. Especially since the state doesn't always punish the straw purchasers.

[Archibald Tuttle]

In most cases, I agree with Scalia that amending the US Constitution is too difficult. But in today's America, I fear that, in a popular vote, the 1st Amendment might be repealed. That's profoundly shocking to us older generations.

[shawn_dude]

I don't think that people would vote away the 1st Amendment for themselves, though to what I take is the gist of your point, they seem to be okay with limiting it for folks they disagree with.

[ReaderY]

The prosecutor had a duty to communicate to the public the distinction between legal and illegal conduct, and to search for information about illegal conduct. Otherwise the prosecutor is not enforcing the law, but instead using her official position to further a private hate-based vendetta against people and ideas she doesn’t like. She is engaging in hate speech.

[Alan Vanneman]

Massachusetts is trying to prove that they can be worse than California.

[bevis the lumberjack]

This ain't Massachusetts. It's the feds.

[Frank Drackman]

Did you hear Christ is running for Governor in Florida??...
man, they really are a "Red" State (although Surprised JC has
to go through the Indignity of a Primary)

[Ed Grinberg]

Boston Herald, 11/29/2018:

Newly elected Suffolk District Attorney Rachael Rollins created controversy during her campaign when she announced a list of crimes she wouldn’t prosecute in office, and now she’s ready to follow through on that plan... Rollins told the Herald she is standing firm with her 15-item “no prosecute” list she announced during the election [campaign]. The list includes crimes from shoplifting and trespassing to drug possession and resisting arrest — what she calls nonviolent and quality of life crimes.

Shoplifting -- what's the big deal? Resisting arrest -- so what? "Espousing hate-filled views" -- throw the book at them!!!
Sure sounds like anarcho-tyranny to me...

[bevis the lumberjack]

What a numbskull. Sure, go softer on small non-violent crimes. But to say she won't prosecute those at all but would instead prosecute somebody for speech is astounding.

And of course, the Woke Biden administration would appoint someone like this to be a US Attorney. Just like Almost Truth Minister Whackadoodle. Supposedly Biden was elected to provide a moderate hand after Trump, but his nomination criteria seems to be "the more extreme the better".

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/YALiberty/status/1555283717526110208?

This video needs to be shown to every Federal.

This is what they're going to get.

[M L]

Wow! Look what a crybaby this guy becomes the minute he gets a small taste of his own medicine.

[mydisplayname]

This prosecutor needs a televised interview in which he is asked "Can you enumerate the actions your office has undertaken to protect the hate speech which every American has the right to utter and to assure that such hate speech is not wrongfully used as a pretext for investigation and prosecution?"

If the answer is along the lines of "we do nothing to protect hate speech," we have a serious problem. If the office _is_ actively protecting hate speech, we may still have a problem...

[Frank Drackman]

Hard to beat Minn-a-Soda's AG Keith Alzwahiri Ellison on the Anti-Semite scale (I'll give Keith 4 Swastikas Gene!) although Congress-woman (Peace be upon Her) Mullah Omar is right up there (Does she ever take that Turban off?) and Rashit-a Twaib, can someone get her to wear a full face Veil? Jeez, she's so ugly, if Moe-hammad Ali was still around he'd convert back to Cassius Clay....

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If there is a more bigot-friendly blog than the Volokh Conspiracy, I expect the management to do something about that promptly.

[FivebySixThree]

I suspect they are going to get a majority of people they don't want to act upon.

[Longtobefree]

Dear Rachael S. Rollins,
Every word of the democrat party platform espouses a hate filled view.
Please take appropriate actions against every democrat in the state.
Thanks

[Bruce Hayden]

What is fairly obvious to most here is that the purpose of this is to chill free speech. No one wants to be investigated for potential crimes because they said something that offends leftists. It might have almost made sense when hate speech was limited to racial and ethnic slurs. Now, they attempt to criminalize misgendering someone, or even use the wrong pronouns. This should be universally ridiculed. It is ridiculous. But expressing that, at least in MA, is Hate Speech, which is considered harmful by leftists to the sensitive snowflakes who can’t figure out their sexuality, or what they demand everyone else call them. So, now, if you laugh at them in MA, expect to be investigated for whatever crimes, in this ham sandwich prosecution nation, they can dig up or contrive.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, it could be that's the plan. Or maybe it's Brett's 'scheme to engender more hatred'...or it could be just overzealousness and stupidity.

But I know which narrative the right prefers these days.

An endless diet of demonization with zero charitable interpretations will poison you.

[bevis the lumberjack]

So is US Attorney Rollins poisoned?

And what is the purpose of this, if not to chill speech? And what is the purpose of the administration’s pathetic misinformation efforts if not to chill speech?

There’s a clear pattern here that you seem to be either blind to or ignoring.

[Sarcastr0]

No, he's just stupid.

Which is bad news in a federal prosecutor, I agree. But there is that old saying about when you need to choose between stupid and evil...

what is the purpose of the administration’s pathetic misinformation efforts if not to chill speech?
To fight against the always unconstitutional hate speech, group libel and other such scourges of the offended mind, of course.

the administration’s pathetic misinformation efforts
Oh, so now Biden is behind this?

[bevis the lumberjack]

This? You mean the subject of this article?

Who appointed her? Who is her ultimate superior? Who is in a position to tell her “hey, no, that’s too close to the 1A?

So, you tell me, is Biden involved for this? Responsible for it?

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, this is attenuated causality. No, every crap decision a federal Prosecutor makes is not a sin of the President of the United States.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, Biden couldn’t have someone tell her that this isn’t an appropriate policy. Or send out a general memo throughout the justice department telling his US Attorneys that we scrupulously protect all civil rights.

He’s the Eunuch President. No power at all. Once people are in place he gets absolutely no influence over anything they do. Nothing is his fault!!!!

[Nige]

He probably doen't think having a dedicated line to law enforcement for tips about possible crimes is quite the ear-thshaking and entirely novel attack on freedom you guys are pretending it is.

[JSinAZ]

HUAC and Senator McCarthy would like to applaud this sentiment.

[Nige]

Why? Did they invent the police tip-line? Hope they patented it.

[JSinAZ]

Why? Likely because the list of communists in McCarthy’s pocket and the fun between HUAC and Hollywood was fueled with the information obtained by enthusiastic citizens assisting the authorities with their investigations through “tips”.

[Nige]

So every police and federal tip-line before and since was McCarthyism! Horrors!

[JSinAZ]

You’ve seen psas for Silent Witness that requests information on neighborhood non-crime? Citation please.

[Nige]

Mass shootings are non-crimes? Radical pro-gun stance, that.

[JSinAZ]

Surely you’ve forgotten the actual topic OTL, that being a new federally-supported reporting mechanism for non-crime expressions of “hate”. As of now, I’m fairly sure any law enforcement agency will take a report of “mass shootings”.

Are you saying this isn’t the case now?

[David Welker]

It could also go the other way, couldn't it?

It could be that you don't criticize laws that are a serious threat to freedom and liberty because you trust the motives of the people passing the law.

Which is the worse error to make?

[Sarcastr0]

?
It's not like stupid policies and the stupid people who put them in place are immune from criticism.

[David Welker]

My point is that our system is based on mistrusting people with power. To some degree, that means not being that quick to give them the benefit of the doubt. Or at least being highly suspicious and imagining all the ways that public powers can be abused.

If you truly do trust the person with that power now, imagine how it might be abused by the next elected official who might not be someone you trust.

[Sarcastr0]

Our system is built to deal with both stupid and evil people getting power (though it can be a bit shaky on that second one).

That has zero to do with whether you should live your life assuming evil motives of every public official who does something you think is bad.
That's pretty crappy civics, in fact - it leads to distrust of institutions (except the ones that match your priors of course), and generally a breakdown of civil society.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There is no way to hold stupid evil people accountable if they are a Federal.

[JSinAZ]

That has zero to do with whether you should live your life assuming evil motives of every public official who does something you think is bad.
That's pretty crappy civics, in fact - it leads to distrust of institutions (except the ones that match your priors of course), and generally a breakdown of civil society.

I agree. This is one of the lasting negative effects of certain Democrats’ political use of the George Floyd riots and supposed “reform” efforts (such as “defund the police”, ending cash bail) and why they will have such long-lasting negative effects. These politicians profited in the near term from a “breakdown of civil society” but have no actual comprehension of (or care about?) the long-term damage they’ve done.

Voting out these politicians only mitigates future damage; for now we’ll get to see the Laboratory of Democracy blow up a few densely-populated erlenmeyers as the experiment progresses.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say a scheme to engender more hatred. I said it was a scheme to effectuate hatred. To be specific, the hatred of those calling in the complaints. It gives them an opportunity to express their own hatred, to sic the government on people THEY hate.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you see all the speculation you just write as certainty here?

Don't do that. You don't need to do that to condemn this policy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Captain Tone Police!

[Brett Bellmore]

Riiight. Because people would report for 'hate speech' folks they like, on a routine basis.

You know as well as anyone that a significant subset of 'liberals' view a wide range of speech they disagree with to be 'hate speech'. Just noticing that Bruce Jenner is a guy could get somebody reported on this hotline.

Because we're talking about constitutionally protected speech here, I don't see any positive application of this hotline. It looks to me like an effort to take the cancel mobs on college campuses and roll them out in the larger world.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Here is a positive application: a bunch of neo-nazis show up and march down city streets, taking everyone by surprise. The neo-nazis are chanting hateful things about blacks and Jews. People are calling for law enforcement to put a stop to it. The feds understand they can't just round up the neo-nazis. They let them march.

Afterward, prosecutors, who are getting an earful, feel a bit defensive. They need to explain a distinction the callers obviously do not understand, without suggesting prosecutors will go soft on actual hate crimes.

One advantage of interpreting it that way is it conforms with the facts of an event which just happened in Boston.

[JSinAZ]

“ They need to explain a distinction the callers obviously do not understand, without suggesting prosecutors will go soft on actual hate crimes.”

Did they actually do this in Boston? Genuine question.

[Randal]

Read the OP and decide for yourself.

That's how it reads to me though, and I thought so before even connecting this to recent events in Boston.

[Yogis_dad]

"Hate crimes" are sui generis discriminatory, in that they carry enhanced penalties for a protected class based on imputed animus against the class by the offender. Their passage and enforcement are invidious to equal protection under the law as protected by the US Constitution. Even if we knew the heart of the offender, the selection of who is the victim of a hate crime is de jure an act of discrimination. And the effect of the crime on the victim is no more or less than if there were no "hate crime" statute.

It is one thing to protect a class based on physical condition, and quite another based on social standing. A republic true to our Constitution would not permit "hate crime" laws.

[David Nieporent]

Hate crime laws apply equally to all protected classes.

And the effect of the crime on the victim — and the community — is indeed more than an ordinary crime.

[David Welker]

Do you mind going into this more?

How is the effect on the victim and the community more than an "ordinary" crime?

This sounds like a massive overgeneralization. Like, what effect are we talking about, how is that effect measured, what are the specific circumstances?

I believe the impact of a crime is much more based on the specific circumstances and I do not believe that generalizations like the one you are trying to make are valid. I believe we can come up with many counter-examples where some "ordinary" crimes have a much bigger impact than some "hate" crimes.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't see how a crime that targets someone because of the group they are in may have an effect on others in that group more than just a randomly or personally targeted crime?

[David Welker]

May I will grant. Must I will not.

If we are concerned about particular harms, then enhance punishment based on specific proof of those specific harms rather than using someone’s offensive viewpoint to create what is in effect an irrebuttable presumption that the harms one may legitimately be concerned about occurred in a particular case.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Welker, you presume idiosyncratic hate crimes, which can happen. What can also happen is a crime pattern, founded on group hatreds. I suggest most of the apparently idiosyncratic crimes are probably linked culturally to the group hatreds. Not always, but very often.

Hate crimes laws are about attacking legally that kind of linkage, to establish a legal principle useful against the wildfire spread of crimes based on group hatreds. Even if that were less likely than merely idiosyncratic crimes, the consequences of crimes organized in accord with group hatreds are disproportionately bad, and justify the principle.

[Bruce Hayden]

We are getting well afield here. The hotline is not to report “hate” in connection to actual crimes, but rather to report “hate” speech to federal prosecutors, so that if the prosecutors agree with their definition of hate speech, those individuals identified with the “hate” speech can be identified, tracked, and investigated.

Why is that a problem? Because we live in a nation where a prosecutor could indict and prosecute a ham San witch, and there are enough crimes on the books, that most of us end up committing at least one crime most days, regardless of our intent. If people are identified as having voiced sentiments contrary to the beliefs of the prosecutors, then tracked and investigated, they can be prosecuted for, at a minimum, some of those crimes that we all commit every day. We all know that, which is why this is chilling of free speech - it suppresses, at some level, speech that the prosecutors, for whatever reason, but very often for political reasons, considers “hate speech”.

[wreckinball]

Like the Waukesha driver?

[wreckinball]

Hahahahahahahaha

Breath

Hahahahahahahaha

So race is a protected class. Lets look at stats of Black on white crime versus the reverse. Then lets look at hate crime prosecution for those crimes.

[Sarcastr0]

Tell us more about what you think regarding black people, and what the statistics tell us.

[Noscitur a sociis]

"Hate crimes" are sui generis discriminatory, in that they carry enhanced penalties for a protected class based on imputed animus against the class by the offender

You're getting dunked on pretty hard so I apologize if I missed it, but there's no "imputation" involved: the discriminatory motive is an element that has to be proven like anything else.

[David Welker]

If we can have enhancements for so-called "hate" why not enhancement for people with "Robinhood" motives.

So, for example, if the reason you are stealing is to redistribute wealth to the poor, we can make that misdemeanor into a felony.

What about "hate-speeding"? If you speed for a "hateful" motive, that infraction becomes a felony? Like, if you are going to some Proud Boys meeting and you are speeding.

This idea that we can discriminate against people based on their beliefs, just so long as they have committed a crime, is kind of a giant First Amendment loophole, isn't it?

[David Nieporent]

No.

[David Welker]

Why not?

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, didn't you go to law school? Did you skip the day they talked about what hate crimes are?

[David Welker]

When you went to law school, I suppose you lacked all skepticism. Ready to feast on the pure knowledge you were given.

Well, that just didn't happen to me. But please, do carry on about how you should be able to think whatever you want, but as soon as you commit a crime, we should be able to inquire into your beliefs and punish you differently based on them.

[Sarcastr0]

Skepticism doesn't mean you get to make shit up.

Intent is a pretty common element of a crime - you should know better than to go on about how hate crimes are thoughtcrimes; they have the same elements as just about any other violent crime - act, intent, and effect.

There is a rationale to hate crime legislation, and restrictions on it's use to ensure it only aligns with said rationale. That doesn't mean they are good policy, but at least talk about what it really is!

[David Welker]

How is a hate crime proven?

First we inquire into the viewpoint of the person who committed the crime. Second, we then assume that this viewpoint was part of the motive for committing the crime.

This is very different than inquiring into whether an act was intentional or accidental.

Ultimately, we also see how these crimes are being used by prosecutors. In order to try to forcibly eliminate higher level thinking that is constitutionally protected but disfavored. That is why I would say it is a First Amendment loophole.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, so I guess you didn't cover this in law school (did you go to law school?)

You don't inquire into the viewpoint. You look at whether the intent is to target a group with violence. And then whether said violent intent was was acted on, and whether it actually occurred.

It is no more a viewpoint than 'I want that guy dead' is a viewpoint.

[Bob from Ohio]

Welker is 5 times as successful of a lawyer as you were.

Harvard Law, where did you get your degree from?

[Sarcastr0]

He's wrong here, Bob. And continuing to dig deeper.

[Bob from Ohio]

So? You are saying he's stupid, not just wrong.

[David Welker]

Sarcastro, I think talking about whether I went to law school or what law school I went to if I did go is a complete waste of time.

This is just an unsound argument from authority and a waste of time. No one os going to learn anything from such an inquiry.

Obviously, you think I am wrong here. And I think you are wrong here.

The reason I think you are wrong is simple. In practice (and that is what I care about), the evidence of the forbidden action is exactly the same as evidence of a disfavored viewpoint.

So, in practice, we are really punishing people for having the “wrong” constitutionally protected viewpoint. It is just a giant loophole around the First Amendment.

That you now have a prosecutor creating a database of people with “wrong” viewpoints proves the point.

This really turns democracy upside down on its head too. It is supposed to be the people making up their minds, not being told what they can think.

And worse, culturally and socially these concepts keep on expanding. The list of forbidden viewpoints keeps on expanding. It is not staying the same.

[David Welker]

Sorry, above I said forbidden action, I should have said forbidden motive.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nope. Without action, consideration of motive is irrelevant—nonsense, actually. Motive does not get looked into without existing evidence of forbidden action. Which sort of summarizes the legal point folks are trying to explain.

When you originally wrote, "the evidence of the forbidden action is exactly the same as evidence of a disfavored viewpoint," that was you stumbling over your own misconception others have been trying to explain to you. When you change it to, "I should have said forbidden motive," you avoid the stumbling block by reliance on a circular construction. A forbidden motive and a disfavored viewpoint are indistinguishable in practice.

Your problem in this debate is that you have not realized that everyone else conditions hate crime prosecution on forbidden action first, followed by exploration of motive. That alarms you, because you suppose it implies threat to criminalize viewpoints without action, but nobody here has been advocating that, and the example in the OP does not do that either.

[Bruce Hayden]

“ Nope. Without action, consideration of motive is irrelevant—nonsense, actually. Motive does not get looked into without existing evidence of forbidden action. Which sort of summarizes the legal point folks are trying to explain.”

Except here, “motive” is first, investigation for crimes is second, is the result, not the cause. That’s why this tipline chills free speech - because it is designed to initiate criminal investigations based on speech and viewpoint, and, really, only so if they disagree with those of the prosecutor.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Show it in action Hayden. Show the prosecutor, who the OP quoted, prosecuting or investigating someone based on nothing more than a tip alleging hate speech, without seriously implied criminal intent. If you can't do that, then stop insisting otherwise until you can.

[David Welker]

Lathrop:

You clearly did not read my correction which occurred before your comment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

When you went to law school, I suppose you lacked all skepticism. Ready to feast on the pure knowledge you were given.

The issue isn't that you're skeptical about whether hate crime statutes are a good idea. The issue is that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how hate crime statutes work.

[David Welker]

If you think I misunderstood how the statutes work, it would take less effort to say specifically why you think that than to waste time saying that you think I don’t understand them.

You people are wasting time with insults that have no logical connection with the underlying subject matter.

[Bruce Hayden]

“The issue isn't that you're skeptical about whether hate crime statutes are a good idea. The issue is that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how hate crime statutes work.”

No - you fundamentally don’t understand how a hate speech tip line works.

[wreckinball]

It works like this. White racist, hate crime. Black racist , not a hate crime.

Its not complicated

[Sarcastr0]

This thread is a discussion about hate crimes, not hate speech.

[wreckinball]

I would guess the vast majority of violent crimes are hate crimes. Crimes motivated by hate.

But I'm sure being the loyal little libby you are you an extra special definition.

[Darth Buckeye]

"When you see hate, call this number..." For some progressives, a message encouraging people to vote for any Republican constitutes "hate speech" so they could be getting a lot of calls in.

[shawn_dude]

It's a stupid program. That phone line is going to be overwhelmed with trolls. It will die a quick and deserved death.

And I say that as a member of a group routinely targeted by hate groups and your run-of-the-mill Republican politician looking to rile up the base.

[mulch]

So you're a gay teacher grooming elementary students. Good to know.

[Nige]

And that, my friends, is how you do hate speech.

[wreckinball]

But is he right? Because many consider the truth hateful these days.

[Nige]

You don't look at an exchange like that and seriously ponder - but is he right? He's just spewing out hate.

[Yogis_dad]

How does exposing a sexual pervert that acts in a way harmful to minors under his supervision constitute "hate speech?"

[Nige]

When did you do that? Was it in the papers? Are you a hero for saving the day? What does it have to do with this comment? Or did you just throw out some boilerplate conservative hate du jour?

[Yogis_dad]

I would call the number to report the attorney for "hating" freedom.

[Eric Owens]

Is there a link? I’d like to report the entire United States Federal Government for enforcing this guy’s policies while perjuring their oath to the 18A/5A right to property.

"Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankindMost marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers." ~ Harry J. Anslinger

Has anyone checked to see if Justice Alito is in the same investment club as Pelosi?

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

[Eric Owens]

If we get serious about the evidence presented in 13TH I think there is a fantastic case for

1. 9 justices
2. POTUS +cabinet
3. Majority/Minority chairs of both chambers of Congress

Receiving their own set of Nuremberg Trials…

#AlcoholProhibition101
#AmericanCitiesOnFire

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here is a report concerning viewpoint discrimination by government that likely won't bother the right-wingers who operate and follow this blog.

Carry on, clingers. So far as . . . well, your betters will let you know how far.

[David Welker]

I believe this is intended to be a way around the First Amendment.

First, note the language here: "the top priority of my administration." This sounds like something a President it would say. Coming from a prosecutor, it shows a political motive. It sounds like this prosecutor is trying to use their office as a stepping stone to higher office. Their goal is not so much as to fight crime, but to be seen as fighting "hate" on the side of their fellow progressives.

Second, the issue for prosecutors should be stopping crime, regardless of motive. But this suggests that some crime is MUCH more important than other crime, based on the motive of the perpetrator and the identity of the victim. If you are murdered by someone who wants to rob you, that just isn't a very bad murder compared to someone who murders you based on your identity?

Third, by prioritizing targeting "hate" rather than "crime" generally, we are targeting people based on their constitutionally protected speech and viewpoints. Two people commit the same crime for the same motive. But one faces stricter penalties based on their constitutionally-protected viewpoint because it will be argued that the viewpoint was an input into their motive, whether it actually was or not.

Fourth, I think this shows why the "hate crimes" category should be suspect as a constitutional matter. It is clear that the cart is now leading the horse. These laws are not primarily being used to fight crime, they are primarily being used to fight constitutionally protected viewpoints. And the definition of what is considered "hate" as a social and cultural matter keeps on expanding. What if we had a "sentencing enhancement" that punished speeding if the goal was to attend a KKK meeting? That speeding isn't just an infraction, it is a hate-infraction. And why not upgrade it to a misdemeanor or felony? The idea that if a person commits a crime we can now punish them for constitutionally protect viewpoints is a giant loophole and we can see here how it is being abused.

Ultimately, I believe the goal here is to get around the First Amendment and try to eradicate certain views from society using force rather than persuasion. If someone commits a crime, I believe they should be punished the same regardless of whether they have offensive views or not.

[M L]

Very well said.

[shawn_dude]

"Ultimately, I believe the goal here is to get around the First Amendment and try to eradicate certain views from society using force rather than persuasion." I don't think it's quite this dramatic, but I generally agree this program is short-sighted, counter productive, and a waste of time.

Given your very strong opinions on government attempts at censorship, what do you think about the recent spat of government-sponsored book banning in libraries and schools? Attempts to limit giving information to women seeking abortions? Discussion of certain topics like racial discrimination and homosexuality in schools? Do you see these as part of the same trend as the hate crime hotline in the OP?

[David Welker]

I believe the best way to handle the school censorship issue is with school choice, so that government officials aren’t making these decisions for parents and children who have no choice in the matter.

[Bill Falcon]

what does one's sexual preference have to do with govt schools?

[Bruce Hayden]

Ok, groomer.

[wreckinball]

Not being allowed in the school library does not mean banned. Porn magazines are not allowed in the school library. But they are not banned.

[Nige]

It means banned from the school library, and any other libraries in the vicinity. Banned is banned, banners are banners, as it were.

[Yogis_dad]

I am reporting the entire Biden regime for hating freedom. Prove me wrong.

[Jerry B.]

"Federal Prosecutor Sets Up Hotline for Reporting, Among Other Things, People "Espousing … Hate-Filled Views""

Can I report the Liberal commentariat at the Washington Post? I doubt that there is a more hate-filled group in the country, or possibly the world.

[Bruce Hayden]

Of course you can. But your report will be ignored. Why? Because what is hate speech is completely subjective, and this prosecutor, no doubt, completely agrees with the points of view expressed by that newspaper.

[M L]

This is great. There are a lot of people expressing hate-filled views like communism and totalitarianism, supporting vaccine mandates, hoping for and celebrating the death of unvaccinated people and political opponents generally, imprisonment and torture for political reasons, the commentary on CNN et al.

I'm sure the good US attorney will be all over it. Right?

[Sarcastr0]

Communism sucks, but hate-filled is not quite how I'd put it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Kulaks would disagree, the ones not killed I mean.

Commies are all about class hatred. Kill landlords, punish wreckers and hoarders.

[Sarcastr0]

Not shocked you have a cartoonish view of Communists.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not shocked you defend communists.

Its what you do, pro forma "commies suck" than defend, deflect.

No enemies to the left.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, childlike. A bad thing doesn't need to be bad in every single possible way. Noting that is not defending the bad thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you're right, they piled up skulls and shipped people off to the gulag out of love.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you see the quote above about how dangerous an idealist can be?

Bad things don't need to be bad in every single way possible.

What a childlike worldview.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, one thing ideologies teach is who you should hate.

[Sarcastr0]

Sometimes.

But it's pretty silly to insist class war is what Communism is. It's a economic system, though. At it's core it's about the optimal distribution of resources.

I mean, have you ever heard interviews with Communists in the 1950s? They're some of the most optimistic people imaginable.

[wreckinball]

Give me an example of a communist society that hasn't ended in tyranny.

Maybe we just haven't done it right?

[wreckinball]

Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Lil Kim, Putin, Castro

I'm at a lost. Name a good communist

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, I think communism sucks, and always ends in tyranny.

That's not the article of debate here though.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the issue here is you claiming that people continuing to try something that sucks, and always ends in tyranny, is founded in good will and optimism.

[Sarcastr0]

I said 1950s, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

I will concede that a lot of work was put in by people of good will and optimism to conceal just how horrible communism really was. (The NYT still hasn't given back Duranty's Pulitzer.) But it wasn't all that effective, and even in the 50's you had to have some degree of willful blindness in operation to not know you were pushing something awful, because there wasn't even one instance where they'd gotten power and not been awful. So even a little due diligence would have informed you.

But let us be clear about your '1950's' crap: You were moving the goal post, because up until you brought up the 1950's, we were discussing today. Not the 1950's.

So you've tacitly conceded that it's been 60-70 years since anybody could promote communism ignorant of what a monstrous doctrine they were promoting. And, yes, people are still promoting communism to this day.

So, are they not, legitimately, promoting a hateful ideology? If not, what ideology could be "hateful"?

[mulch]

They were just "sincere but wrongheaded."

[Sarcastr0]

A switch from the ideology to people. Wonder why you needed to do that?

[Michael P]

"hate-filled is not quite how I'd put it."

That's because you are a cartoonishly avid apologist for them.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, because I insist on being clear-eyed on how you criticize it, I must be a big fan.

You're the cartoon if you think I gotta love communism because I take issue with unthinking redbaiting.

[wreckinball]

Haha keep posting cartoonishly. It's funny.

[Voize of Reazon]

Under federal law, investigations may not be based solely on an individual's beliefs or their protected First Amendment activity.

There is DOJ policy to this effect, but is there precedent too?
Laird v. Tatum 408 U.S. 1 (1972) held that information gathering by Army Intelligence did not create a per se chilling effect sufficient to grant standing to pursue injunctive relief, echoing Davis v. Ichord (DC Circuit 1970) which reached the same conclusion about a House committee investigation. Are there cases where relief was granted, e.g. dismissal of downstream charges?

[Bob from Ohio]

"about a loved one, a friend"

The regime encouraging snitching on family and friends used to be considered something Commies or Nazis did. Un-American.

Haters now, then hoarders and wreckers I guess.

[CraigL]

Hate crimes should not exist. The rationale was when the Klan burned crosses on people's lawns or fire-bombed churches. The danger now is that anything the Left does not like is a hate crime--see England as where this is headed. Don't think women should be in combat? hate crime. Think abortion is murder? hate crime. Don't think trans should be in women's shelters or showers? hate crime. The BLM is corrupt and promotes cop killing? hate crime. See how dangerous this is?

[shawn_dude]

Which is why I propose a ban on strawmen! Strawmen are dangerous!

[wreckinball]

Waukesha killer , not hate crime.

Pretty soon Merriam will redefine the term "hate crime" to only apply if the perp is white. Just like they did with racism

[AtR]

Who do I call if I feel that the hotline supports hatred?

[Bill Falcon]

Hate is pushed daily by Corporate HR departments and federal agencies through govt schools. I'm sure hate will be anyone who disagrees with Minor attractive persons (NAMBLA) later this year..groomers are now a protected class I suppose.

[Frank Drackman]

I've got one, White Male Federal Officer shoots unarmed Black Female Veteran in the process of exercising her Constitutional Rights!!!! Alert the SWAT Team!!!!
Oh wait, it was that coward Michael Bird (Black) murdering a (White) Female Veteran in the process of exercising her Constitutional Rights
"Never Mind (HT E. Litella) "

Frank

[wreckinball]

See you're not getting the two tiers of justice.

Breanna is black and was shot by a white officer exercising a legal search warrant
Problem!

Ashley is white and was shot by a black officer while protesting in the wrong place.
Mess around find out!

They are completely immune to being shamed by hypocrisy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How did the Volokh Conspiracy attract such a concentrate collection of delusional racists, disaffected misfits, superstitious gay-bashers, downscale immigrant-haters, backwater gun nuts, and obsolete right-wing malcontents to this white, male, old-timey blog?

By design.

Through careful cultivation.

With repeated use of vile racial slurs.

and by finding Josh Blackman, which seems to have chased away most of the sensible Conspirators.

The Volokh Conspiracy -- where UCLA and South Texas College Of Law Houston meet the crowd from FreeRepublic, Stormfront, Instapundit, RedState, and Gateway Pundit.

[wreckinball]

It attracted you which is not a good look.

[F.D. Wolf]

"I think my neighbors are selling heroin."

"Not interested."

"They're lacing it with fentanyl."

"I said, 'not interested.'"

"One of them said that Caitlyn Jenner was a man and that Trump won in 2020."

"A SWAT team will be there in three minutes."

[wreckinball]

A really bad idea. "Hate Speech" is free speech.

If someone is actual;;y threatening to kill you or commit a crime then that's different.

But claiming that trans women with penises are actually men is, for example, free speech even if some find hateful.

[wreckinball]

The Orwellians are at it again:

1) Hate speech is not free speech, yes it is
2) Trans-woman are woman, no they are not
3) Systematic racism is an emergency, it is but not in the way you say it is.

[J555]

I think that Reasons tacit support of Joe Biden and open hostility towards Donald Trump looks dumber and dumber with each passing day.

"Dumber" is being kind ... the truth seems to be that this site is a just a false flag operation run by the fascist left.

[Nige]

This is presumably going to get trolled to death by feeze peach warriors, but how is it any different from just contacting the authorities some other way because you're aware of an individual flying red flags and you're genuinely concerned that something very bad is about to happen? It isn't as if there haven't been plenty of examples of authorities ignoring or dismissing such reports. Do we say, well done authorities for protecting the free speech of that guy who went on to shoot up that school? Or do we say they should have listened? It's a grave step, not one to be taken lightly, to make such a report, but generally the problem hasn't necessarily been people's reulctance to make such reports but authorities' lack of response.

[wreckinball]

So why do we need a "hate" line? Maybe a potential bad guy line.

The authorities have proven they will go the ends of the earth to hunt Grandma who walked through the Capitol on J6

But not so much the Waukesha guy and the NYC subway shooter or the Parkland shooter.

I think there is a common theme here.

[Nige]

In fairness Grandma uploaded a million videos that show her stomping on a Capitol guard or whatever. You can't hotline perps who record their own crimes for posterity and then make them publicly available.

[Randal]

Isn't this basically the same as "If you see something (i.e. a Muslim) say something?" All these info-gathering mechanisms are creepy IMO. Are they worse than creepy? As long as they don't lead to improper investigations, probably not. This reads almost like a virtue-signalling push poll. "How much do you hate hate speech? A) a lot B) a ton C) I really hate it!" The government is supposed to denounce speech it doesn't like... so, creepy but whatever.

[jdgalt1]

It would be a shame if this hotline got flooded with crank calls.

[Mostly Peaceful Scott]

“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’” Matel v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1764 (2017).

[DaivdBehar]

Rhoid. Great comment, bruh. Adds substantial insight into the discussion.

[DaivdBehar]

Queenie. Not reporting your remarks mocking my disability. I love them,

[Michael P]

More actions are problematic than just prosecutions, as even the press release mentions. The IRS has recently illustrated how government can unconstitutionally retaliate against protected speech and association through investigations and improper requests for information like donor lists or what people pray over.

[Bruce Hayden]

Maybe in absolute terms, but not in relative terms. Over my lifetime, I have heard sexual, racial, or ethnic slurs etc maybe a million times. Or at least in the hundreds of thousands, and have yet to see either in person.

Yes, those who engage in racial, ethnic, etc violence almost always engaged in that sort of rhetoric first. But the opposite is just the opposite - it is very rare anymore that people engage in hate crimes after having engaged in hate speech. Just doesn’t happen, no matter how badly you want it to, in order to police speech you don’t want to hear.

[Michael P]

Fostering hate is why BLMers and other commies do it, too. Remember who said that the only cure for discrimination in the past is discrimination now, and the only cure for discrimination now is discrimination in the future. (Kendi's intellectual predecessor George Wallace had a zippier expression of the same idea.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, right, the left are engaging in surveillance to combat hate. Not to effectuate it.

I suppose on a good day you might even believe that.

[Ed Grinberg]

step 1: Label your opponents "haters."
step 2: Do whatever you like to them. (It's OK, they're haters!!!)

[Bruce Hayden]

Again, no. May be very often in absolute terms in this country of 330+ million people, but very rarely relative to the amount of “hate speech” spoken. Almost negligible. Your suggestion that there is almost a cause and effect between hate speech and hate crimes is ludicrous.

[Michael P]

But hey, this prosecutor set up a tip line and a task force. Maybe this one will do something, unlike the law enforcement agencies that got reports of, or repeated call-outs to, so many mass shooters.

[Frank Drackman]

"a million times"??
considering an average life span of 75, assume one can recognize a Racial Slur at age 5 (I didn't realize what a "Kike" was till I was 15 or 16, and the Slur-er had to add "Jew" at the end) so some 70 years, 365 days a year, throw in leap days, homminahomminahommina,
25567.5 days, 1, 000, 000 slurs/25567.5 averages out to 39.1 slurs/day
OK, my Intergrated Pubic Junior High Screwel in No-Fuck Vagina probably met that, fortunately when I finished Pubic Screwel's I could choose where to work,
Now in a nice Upper Class Suburban Hospital,
probably down to 37/day

Frank "That's "Doctor" Hook Nose to you!"

[Stephen Lathrop]

But engaging in racism after hate speech? Commonplace.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus Christ, Brett.

This is bad, and I might even allow authoritarian.

but if you can't see a way this is coming from a sincere but wrongheaded desire to combat hate, you're really brain poisoned.

There is no conspiracy on the left to intentionally make more hate, what even would that be for?

[DaivdBehar]

Rhoid. Cool comment, bruh.

[DaivdBehar]

Queenie. I pray you do not get the monkey. Be careful when you go out there. It is very painful in the wrong places of the body.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Exactly. Thousands upon thousands of hate speech incidents per year (particularly as broadly as hate speech is currently defined), a few incidents of mass shootings per year. There's no definable relationship.

[Michael P]

We get it, you cannot defend what these people are actually saying, so you rant about some imagined moral panic.

Just like yesterday. Sad!

[Life of Brian]

Should we somehow feel better about "sincere but wrongheaded" authoritarianism than other flavors?

There is no conspiracy on the left to intentionally make more hate

Such careful wording. Perpetually ratcheting down the threshold for "hate" and thus defining reams more into existence has the same net effect.

[Absaroka]

"but if you can't see a way this is coming from a sincere but wrongheaded desire to combat hate, you're really brain poisoned."

I guess I'm brain poisoned, then. I'm not sensing a careful, even handed attempt to tone down the rhetoric on both fringes. I will be very happy to be proved wrong.

I am also reminded of the old quote: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”

Her conscience perhaps being clear is cold comfort.

[Michael P]

Control. Keep people scared, keep them divided, keep them voting for Democrats.

Or just think: Why did Democrats historically stoke hatred?

[Brett Bellmore]

"but if you can't see a way this is coming from a sincere but wrongheaded desire to combat hate, you're really brain poisoned."

Is there some reason that I should CARE if somebody sincerely believes they're combating hate, without regard to how they define "hate"?

[ragebot]

Gotta say many MSM sources claim Trump lied over 40 times a day while prez so a million slurs over a life time is in line with the MSM's claims about Trump's lies.

Of course one of the more famous Trump lies was when he said one third of peeps though something and the MSM was quick to point out the real number was 30%; not the required 33 1/3% to be one third.

Of course if one listens to black rappers I could easily see the Nword being used 40 times a day, probably sometimes 40 times in one song.

[Frank Drackman]

"My Bad" ( Jive for ""My mistake" another Afro-Amurican contribution to Society right up there with the Jherri Kurl and Peanut Butter (HT GW Carver) I wasn't considering the "N-word" a Slur, probably uttered a million times a day in that Pubic Screw-el...

[Sarcastr0]

Absaroka, there are tons of middle ground between 'a careful, even handed attempt to tone down the rhetoric on both fringes' and a policy intentionally designed to effectuate hate against the right.

I think it's clear from my comments I condemn this policy. But surely you see why coming in hot claiming it's a liberal plot is detrimental to actually stopping the policy? Great to keep those right-wing fires burning, but other than that partisanizing the issue will only preserve it.

Similarly the 'it's a plan to chill speech' though that's less clearly detrimental, I just don't care for assuming evil where stupid will do.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It seems to infuriate Republicans and conservatives when people decline to enable bigots to hide behind euphemisms ("traditional values," "conservative values," "family values," "colorblind," "heartland values," "religious values") and instead just call a bigot a bigot.

Carry on, racists, misogynists, gay-bashers, immigrant-haters, Islamophobes, white nationalists, Federalist Society members . . .

[shawn_dude]

Bigots don't like being called bigots but they'll happily trot along in support of white power, homophobia, and christofascism.

[David Welker]

I do not believe that there should be enhancements based on whether someone is a public official either. We are sure getting into "titles of nobility" territory with that, where "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" if you ask me.

Kidnapping for ransom doesn't get very far into the mind. We don't ask whether the ransom is going to be used to pay for cancer treatment or to fund terrorism.

I understand that society has a long history of using crime as an opportunity to pry into people's minds. For example, maybe you are more likely to get better treatment or a pardon if you convert to Christianity and do good deeds. I think that was improper then and I think it is improper now.

[ReaderY]

Well, not all automobile purchases lead to road rage, but road rage is usually proceeded by an automobile purchase. Should automobile purchases be investigated for actual road rage?

The Hoover FBI used a similar line of reasoning. Since dissatisfied black people have a higher tendency to commit crime than the general population, this warrants investigating Martin Luther King, whose speech is tending to stir up dissatisfaction among black people.

Legitimate line of reasoning? Of course, you might not think Martin Luther King’s viewpoint to be morally wrong. But suppose you did, and were sitting on the other side at the time. Or you simply took the view that anybody whose speech tends to stir up trouble and it’s not uour job to make moral judgments. Would it change the probable cause/First Amendment analysis?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The second part is true, but the first part call into question the utility of detecting hate speech in suppressing hate crimes.

[David Welker]

Yeah, and do you generally agree with Rehnquist? Because otherwise, this quote, without more, lacks substance.

Example:

(1) a mentally ill homeless woman utters racial slurs while trespassing

(2) a known child molester is caught trespassing

In many circumstances (2) might cause more retaliation, more emotional harm, and more community unrest than (1).

And if we care about (a) retaliation, (b) emotional harm, and (c) community unrest WHY NOT consider the impact of EVERY CRIME on those factors rather than making big fat giant assumptions that may be wrong in many individual cases?

[David Welker]

To simplify, mens rea is typically about whether the act was intentional versus accidental. Not higher level thought processes.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett used the word 'effectuate' which describes what I said, but not what you did.

Split hairs better.

[David Welker]

I happen to believe that having a special crime for picketing a judge's house is unconstitutional. Which is why I agree with the Biden administrations choice NOT attempt to arrest protestors outside the homes of Supreme Court justices. It is not viewpoint neutral to allow protests at the homes of every other citizen, except for judges (and related persons). If you had a viewpoint neutral law that outlawed protests at ALL residences, that might be different.

Your general approach so far has been to (1) classify me as conservative and (2) assume what my views must be based on that classification.

Which is amusing to me. No one would have thought someone would make such an assumption about me when I regularly commented here in the past.

[Yogis_dad]

A. One fact question is whether the house being picketed was actually a judge's house.
B. Another fact question is whether the expressed purpose of the picketing was to influence a pending decision in a case before the judge.

Neither question requires a "probe" into the mind of the accused. If the house was not a judge's, the statute does not apply. If the picketing does not convey specific intent with respect to the pending decision, the statute does not apply.

Neither fact question would deter police from properly arresting the picketers for disturbing the peace, obstructing the public right of way, or numerous other violations.

[David Welker]

What does me being a lawyer or not have to do with anything???

A lawyer can either defend their views, using logic and reason, or they can't. That is just another argument from authority.

"intent to commit a felony" -- we aren't asking which felony, any felony will do

"intent to solicit prostitution" -- prostitution is not a constitutionally protected viewpoint; you are talking about intent to ACT. In particular, intent to commit a particular crime.

"depraved heart murder" -- is just whether someone was "indifferent." It refers to where someone falls on the line from "intentionally did it" to "accidentally did it." Indifferent is an accident, but it is worse than being ordinary carelessness, because someone who is careless would (ironically, given the name) care about whether they killed someone or not.

None of this intent stuff really inquires into and condemns specific viewpoints.

[David Welker]

Yes. When they are targeting offenses based on a constitutionally protected characteristic, namely, the viewpoint of the person committing the offense.

If they were targeting based on the harm done (and not by assuming that crimes committed based on certain disfavored viewpoints are by definition more harmful regardless of their objective impacts in the world), that would not be only reasonable, but praiseworthy.

[Life of Brian]

Brett used the word 'effectuate' which describes what I said, but not what you did.

Ah, so you agree with me that the left is perpetually ratcheting down the threshold for "hate" and thus defining reams more into existence. Progress!

[David Welker]

That the viewpoint can be considered evidence is the entire point.

It will be considered evidence and the inference that targeting occurred based on that factor will follow even if, in a particular instance, it did not.

Basically, we have a law that allows us to punish people based on their viewpoint, just so long as they committed a crime. It is a huge First Amendment loophole.

[David Welker]

By the way, you can consider me a non-lawyer for any conversations we have. I am cool with that.

[M L]

If you get murdered and you're dead, that's bad.

But if your murder also had "hate" it's so much worse!

I like my murderers loving, or at least cold and indifferent. Murdering someone is not by definition hating them if it's done out of love.

Man, I really hate hate. And anyone disagreeing with me is "hate" by the way.

[David Welker]

Rehnquist was wrong. And that he was wrong is shown by how this prosecutor is focused on hate, but not so much on crime.

In general, conservatives like Rehnquist have often lacked skepticism of the government when it comes to criminal defendants. And that is a big part of why we have this problem now.

I appreciate the slightly longer quote. But it is simply wrong. The only thing that can be outlawed is the crime, not the disliked higher-level viewpoint that motivates the crime. These hate crime laws are trying to get around that. Prosecutors are trying to use the law to eradicate the viewpoint through force rather than using persuasion.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What does me being a lawyer or not have to do with anything???

Because (and I don't mean this disrespectfully) you seem to be wholly unaware of some pretty basic things that I would expect a lawyer to know.

[Noscitur a sociis]

We don't ask whether the ransom is going to be used to pay for cancer treatment or to fund terrorism.

A person who used kidnapping to fund terrorism could absolutely expect to receive a harsher sentence than someone who committed kidnapping because they generally wanted money, who could in turn expect to receive harsher sentence than someone who needed money to pay for lifesaving medical treatment (although of course that person would still likely receive a pretty punitive sentence).

[Noscitur a sociis]

The crime isn't just picketing outside a house that a judge happens to own: the crime (18 U.S.C. § 1507) is "picket[ing] or parad[ing]" outside the house of a judge (or juror, witness, or court officer) with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing [the person] in the discharge of his duty". That seems like an entirely legitimate governmental objective, but one that can only really apply to the listed people.

[shawn_dude]

If this is what you're worried about, you must be ignoring the new laws (like Texas, California, and Florida have enacted) that let private citizens sue for bounties. Forget about just turning in a tip for someone that might get violent--you can make real CASH in those states with zero risk just by turning in a person who helped a pregnant woman get an abortion, sold an illegal weapon, or mentioned the existence of homosexuals to someone in middle school. And even you're wrong, your victim pays all your court costs! Sweet deal.

[shawn_dude]

See: Northern Ireland "troubles" as evidence.

[Harvey Mosley]

"Yesterday you had one from a biased advocacy group..."

Aren't advocacy groups biased by definition?

[Frank Drackman]

and that I'm against killing them, and you're for it, Good Times!
Speaking of "Good Times" how sad Jimmie "JJ" Walker is reduced to doing rip of "Medicare Information" Commercials,

"Good times, any time you meet a payment
Good times, any time you need a friend
Good times, any time you're out from under
Not getting hassled, not getting hustled
Keepin' your head above water
Making a wave when you can
Temporary layoffs, good times
Easy credit rip-offs, good times
Scratchin' and survivin', good times
Hangin' in a chow line, good times
Ain't we lucky we got 'em,
Good times.."

[David Welker]

Let’s talk about those “basic” things.

I am not interested in the lawyer question. It has nothing to do with the argument and takes more time to discuss than the “basic” things one is apparently supposed to agree with.

[Bruce Hayden]

Plenty of lawyers agree with him - he is just asking you (plural) to argue logically, and not from authority.

[David Welker]

I don’t care if it was a unanimous decision or not.

They probably did not realize how this loophole would be used by prosecutors go on ideological crusades in pursuit of “thought crime.”

We now know better than they did.

[David Welker]

I will blame conservatives especially, because I think based on their principles, their answer should be different, but because it is a criminal justice context, they are going along with the liberals.

[Frank Drackman]

Run out of Sonnets at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
"Reverend"???
and Sleepy/Somnolent/Incoherent Joe was against School Bussing before he was for it, ditto with SSM, not coming around until 2012 (and bringing that Bitter/Klinger Barry Hussein O along with him) , and who was the POTUS threatening Gang Bangers (still can't get over "Corn Pop?"??) with a Bicycle (shouldn't it be at least a Motorcycle Chain?) Chain?? not Donald J. T. .....

Frank

[David Welker]

I believe that higher punishments for assault on a police officer isn’t equal protection of the law, but that the Supreme Court would shrug and use rational basis review to uphold it anyway.

That isn’t a move I approve of. Nor do I think creating this special class of people who get special protection is consistent with the idea that we don’t create a noble class through titles of nobility.

[Sarcastr0]

Where do you think I said or even implied that?

[Sarcastr0]

Because these type of Democrats are all in your head.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Like bounties in Florida for people who say things you don't like? Or for having a miscarriage, as in Texas? (Yeah, technically abortions, but even before this law people have been prosecuted for abortions where, in fact, it was a miscarriage. Moreover, if you think maybe it was an abortion, bring the lawsuit, and lose, you don't suffer any consequences and may even get your attorney's fees to boot.)

While I think what the prosecutor said was certainly poorly worded and, such a thing coming from a federal prosecutor shouldn't be poorly worded, I doubt the intention was to have the hotline flooded with people reporting on their neighbors who used the wrong pronoun. The intent was clearly: People like the Buffalo, Charleston, Uvalde, etc., shooters all said things before their murder sprees that indicated they were planning bad things. Hence, the hateful speech I presume they are looking for is speech indicative of a plan to commit a crime, not just "hate speech" as someone may define it.

But charitable interpretation of an opposing parties' statement is not what we do here in America.

Having said that, I'll reiterate that the way the prosecutor announced the hotline was contrary to First Amendment principles and, presuming she is aware of the controversy, it would say something about her if she didn't immediately issue a clarification.

But all the going on about some vast conspiracy by "the libruls" to keep people scared is a stupid explanation for her statement. Even if we were so paranoid that we assumed that was her intent (given she expressly disavowed in the statement the generalized "hate speech" you seem to think she was encouraging people to report), it would still just be one prosecutor, not a vast conspiracy.

Meanwhile, Republicans are busy in Florida expressly punishing corporations for their speech (chilling effect?) and putting bounties on teachers who say the wrong thing in class (huge chilling effect). And CPAC giving Viktor Orban the red carpet treatment (a man who actively suppresses speech in his own country, along with a host of other authoritarian and kleptocratic policies and action).

Which is not to say there is a vast right wing conspiracy to keep people scared, just that maybe I'd believe all your concern about authoritarianism and violating the principles of free speech if I saw you concerned when it was on your side.

Given the prosecutor said this:

Distasteful ideologies, advocacy of political or social positions, use of discriminatory rhetoric, or the general philosophic embrace of biased or hate-filled beliefs are not crimes. Under federal law, investigations may not be based solely on an individual's beliefs or their protected First Amendment activity.

Eugene even highlighted it for you.

He didn't highlight this quote within the press release:

If you have serious concerns about a loved one, a friend, or even an acquaintance, call this number and let us know….

The obvious implication, if you have concerns that they might be planning to commit a crime, then report. Again, she should have made explicit that this is not to report speech, it is to report suspicions someone is planning to commit or has committed a hate crime. She should clarify that. But it's, frankly, stupid, to think she wants people to report when their neighbors use the wrong pronoun.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes - the way you deal with a bad policy changes depending on why it was passed.

Or you can go in calling everyone evil and see how far that gets you.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is coming from a sincere but poorly worded effort to stop future violent or destruction crimes. She mentioned the sorts of things she wanted to stop (mass shootings and bigoted graffiti) which did not include someone using the wrong pronoun. In fact, you might be surprised since you skipped the bolded parts, the press release expressly indicates that having a distasteful ideology does not form the proper basis for an investigation or prosecution. She expressly stated "Beliefs are not hate crimes."

Only a moron would interpret this press release as encouraging people to report family or neighbors who used a racial or ethnic slur. Because, as these comment threads demonstrate, there are lots of morons in the world, she included a lot of very poor wording which relied on people thinking of reporting a potential hate crime on understanding the premise: beliefs and ideologies and speech are not hate crimes.

She absolutely should clarify this aspect. She should emphasize the principles of free speech, again. She should make clear that what the hotline is for is, if you have reason to believe your son or cousin or neighbor is the next mass shooter, then call. But it can't just be they have hateful beliefs.

She was wrong to leave any ambiguity. But I don't see this as sinister, given the multiple times she emphasized free speech and what sorts of things wouldn't and couldn't lead to any investigation.

[David Welker]

I think we can and should look at the harm on a case by case basis rather than doing some sort of analysis based on our prejudices regarding which viewpoints are most harmful to the community.

Ultimately, these statutes are nothing more than an attempt to get around the First Amendment.

[Bruce Hayden]

“ They think hate motivated criminal acts generally have an increased risk of harm on society, just like criminal acts motivated by, say, a motive to obstruct a governmental proceeding may have an increased risk of harm on society.”

Well, guess what? Many of us think that hate crime prosecutions have an increased risk of harm on society, because it is the prosecutors and their political bosses who get to determine what is considered “hate” here.

[David Welker]

I disagree. Protesting cannot be forbidden because it is intended to influence official decision-making.

That makes it even more viewpoint specific. So, if someone was protesting for a reason not intending to influence the official, that would be OK?

I agree with the decision of the Biden administration to not enforce this unconstitutional statute.

[David Welker]

Because it creates a special class of people who get special protection from the law, AS IF they are better and more important than ordinary people.

[You're not smart]

You're the radicalized.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For context, Boston just got a nasty surprise, when an organized group of neo-nazis showed up unexpectedly and marched, with the usual verbal aggression and vituperations, including some from opponents.

[David Welker]

With these other laws, there is no constitutional right being implicated. Especially not one has important and fundamental as the First Amendment.

[Michael P]

QA didn't trust a database of attacks on churches because it was compiled by a Catholic group. Even though the database included details and at least one media link for each attack.

And then refused to admit that dismissing the database on those ground was an invalid ad hominem argument.

[Michael P]

We get it, you can't defend what these people actually say, so you rant about an imagined argument about a hypothetical situation.

You are really stuck in a rut there.

[Life of Brian]

You of course can't bring yourself to do that. But you most conspicuously tiptoed around the point instead of rebutting it. Feel free to clearly do so if I missed something.

[David Welker]

I think saying that there should be a higher level of punishment for assaulting some people than other people is a rather fundamental inequality.

That really goes to our conception of someone’s worth, which implicates their dignity in a manner that a law distinguishing common carriers and bakers simply does not.

Further, the distinction between common carriers and bakers can be further justified by the function they uphold. There are MANY bakers but fewer common carriers (traditionally). So, a refusal to deal has a much more severe consequence with common carriers than with bakers. If anything, common carriers are burdened between they have more power, not because bakers are nobility. Of the the two, common carriers have traditionally been more like nobility than bakers. (To the extent that there is more competition among common carriers than there used to be, this distinction becomes less persuasive.)

[David Welker]

Queen: Is there a point to this conversation???

Now I must be against domestic violence laws if I think that police officers should enjoy the same protection and not greater or less protection from assault???

What???

Here is the issue. You think any distinction, no matter how flimsy, is fine. If I said that laws providing more harsh punishment for assault on billionaires was a problem, you would say, “then you must be against laws against domestic violence that are tailored to the problems that arise in that particular context.”

And at some point, the difference between us is that you are just against individual rights in general. Any excuse, no matter how flimsy, is enough for you to abrogate and deny them. That is just who you are. And that is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion (even though I suspect you would support me if I passed a law punishing your opinion... you are pretty consistent here, if I think it is a sort of consistent insanity ) But it is such a radically different point of view that I feel we are both wasting our time.

We are nearly complete opposites.

[David Welker]

“How do you figure? In both situations classes of people are treated differently.”

It is not just being treated differently. It is being treated differently with respect to how a crime against your body is punished. Which goes to your entire worth as a person.

I know THAT will definitely fly over your head.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Further, the distinction between common carriers and bakers can be further justified by the function they uphold. There are MANY bakers but fewer common carriers (traditionally). So, a refusal to deal has a much more severe consequence with common carriers than with bakers. If anything, common carriers are burdened between they have more power, not because bakers are nobility. Of the the two, common carriers have traditionally been more like nobility than bakers. (To the extent that there is more competition among common carriers than there used to be, this distinction becomes less persuasive.)"

Traditionally, haven't common carriers been in a sort of pseudo-governmental position? Allowed to exercise eminent domain, for instance, on the basis that their facilities will be used by the general public? That justified limiting their rights.

The extension of 'common carrier' status to companies that didn't choose to be common carriers, and weren't given such governmental powers to exercise, strikes me as dubious.

[David Welker]

Excellent point Brett.

[David Welker]

The harm from picketing A is always different than the harm to picketing B. You literally could say that any law. In general, that you can make a rational distinction between almost anything is why rational basis review usually has no bite.

This is definitely viewpoint specific. It targets the expression of views intended to influence a judge. But trying to influence judges through speech is constitutionally protected. If a NY Times columnist hopes a judge reads their article and is influenced by it, that is protected. The same with protesters at homes.

Also, the assumption that the duties of a judge are more important and should not be subject to influence but the duties of other people are less important and thus subject to influence is also a problem. Restricting the First Amendment based on such a flimsy distinction as whose duties are important and whose are not is not acceptable.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. In general, I notice that we don’t agree on anything at all. I think maybe you are just skeptical of the idea of individual rights so you are always going to look for an excuse to justify the government. That may just be your general orientation.

If that is right, it is inevitable we will disagree most of the time.

[mulch]

Bigots will happily label their opponents white nationalists, homophobes and christofascists. It makes them feel better when they're reporting them to the hotline.

[David Welker]

I do not think making these distinctions is appropriate.

Because these sorts of distinctions, while all traditional and long-established, are still all about controlling peoples’ viewpoints.

The terrorism example is interesting. Under some definitions, wouldn’t George Washington be a terrorist?

I think we should move to a more objective system that focuses more on the crime (including mens rhea in the sense of whether then crime was intentional) and the objective harm of the crime. But, I also think the hate crime distinction is especially problematic as this is explicitly targeting a subset of ideological points of view.

If we look at our common law tradition, I think it is undeniable that we inherited a system that was in fact focused on regulating people’s minds and not just their actions. And this system did not change with the adoption of our Constitution and the First Amendment, even though under enlightenment principles, especially freedom of religion, it probably ought to have changed. (Of course, the first amendment was interpreted as only applying to the federal government and most crimes have always been prosecuted by counties, so this isn’t that surprising.)

Overall, I feel we should recognize that we do not really apply First Amendment principles after someone has committed a crime. Instead, punishment is more or less depending on their viewpoint. And I think that is a problem more generally, but even more so in the context of so-called “hate crimes.”

[David Welker]

I think your murder versus manslaughter point is way off the reservation.

We are talking about a much smaller distinction here, namely picketing at the homes of judges versus non-judges in the very same neighborhood.

And I don’t think you like individual rights. That not me on a high horse, that is me pointing out that you have consistently been against individual rights in all of my conversations with you. In situations where liberals would favor individual rights but conservatives would be more skeptical (picketing at judge’s houses) you are against individual rights. And in cases where conservatives would be in favor of individual rights and liberals skeptical, you are once again, against individual rights.

I would not classify you are as liberal or conservative. I would classify you as consistently opposed to individual rights whether more supported by liberals or conservatives.

To you, the smallest distinction is enough to justify curtailment of a right.

[David Welker]

I am saying that this is a much better approach than assuming that certain viewpoints lead to more severe harm. If the crime in fact leads to more harm, prove it. In the cases where you say that isn’t the approach we use, I say those cases do not implicate the First Amendment. Breaking and entering a dwelling at night does not implicate any right at all, much less a constitutional right, much less the First Amendment.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Context matters. Trump supporters will scour the earth for context or interpretations that make it okay to say there are good people on both sides of a pro-racism rally, but let a Democratic prosecutor say "Beliefs aren't a hate crime....We have this hotline to report potential mass shooters" and suddenly Boston is North Korea.

[NOVA Lawyer]

When you invite Viktor Orban to the party, you might be a white nationalist, homophobic, christofascist.

But the prosecutor still didn't ask people to report every bigot who said bigoted things, she asked, in the context of mass shootings motivated by bigoted beliefs, to report family or acquaintances you are concerned about [committing a mass murder or other violent crimes]. Should she have explicitly stated that bracketed part? Absolutely. Does the context make it almost certain that is the correct interpretation? Absolutely.

[David Welker]

Who said I was worried.

I think it is useful to skip the ritualistic insults where you demonstrate your apparent superiority and get right to the substance.

If you think I am wrong, say why specifically. I will say this. To your credit, you have been very specific about why you think I am wrong. That sure beats some other comments.

[David Welker]

I am definitely not a fan of loitering statutes, which I believe are typically written too vaguely to be legitimate as law.

But I digress.

Intent to commit a specific crime or statements indicating a possible motive are perfectly legitimate as evidence. The problem I have with these hate crimes is that they are really just criminalizing particular viewpoints. (In the sense of enhancing the penalty, not in creating a crime where there would be none.) The viewpoint is not merely used to establish a motive, it essentially and practically conclusively proves an element of the crime that may greatly increase the sentence.

[Brett Bellmore]

Then she should have said something like, "If you have reason to believe somebody is likely to commit a crime."; That is in fact a reasonable basis for a hotline, though the response to such a tip has to be limited given that we're not supposed to do 'pre-crime' in this country.

"Incidents of hate", apart from violations of law, are no business of the police.

"Espousing hate filled views", apart from violations of law, are no business of the police.

Sure, the second paragraph rolls that back a bit. Then the third paragraph is back to incidents of espousing. "When you see hate", not "When you see a crime".

Then in the last paragraph, "“Protecting Massachusetts residents from violence and hate is the top priority of my administration,”"

Except that protecting people from "hate" shouldn't be any priority of her administration. "Hate" isn't a crime. Her job is limited to crimes.

You think she's unaware of the equivocation here, of how she keeps walking back and forth across that important boundary?

[John C. Randolph]

effort to stop future violent or destruction crimes

BULLSHIT. It's an effort to harass anyone she doesn't like on the "thoughtcrime" pretext. If she gave a shit about violence or destruction, she'd have prosecuted the BLM vandals.

-jcr

[Bruce Hayden]

Indeed - radicalism is in the eye of the beholder. From the point of view of your average white supremest, the differently gendered, those with non standard pronouns, black supremests, CRC proponents, adherents to BLM, AntiFA, etc are the radicals, and they themselves are the traditionalists. The corollary here is that what “hate speech” is actionable, or even suggestive of future potential possible maybe violence, is fully dependent upon the sensibilities and political leanings of the prosecutors and their bosses. Which means that TDS and anti-MAGA speech is considered benign, while speech, for example, criticizing CRT or transitioning minors is considered hateful by many federal prosecutors, because, in part, their political bosses find those views advantageous.

[Sarcastr0]

You think she's unaware of the equivocation here, of how she keeps walking back and forth across that important boundary?

Holy shit yes, that seems quite clear, Brett. There is zero evidence she is lying about her motives, only that you don't like her.

[wreckinball]

Ah but pretty soon certain hate certainly not all hate will be a crime.

Racial discrimination is a crime in certain instances but is applauded as diversity in others

It will work just like that.

[NOVA Lawyer]

we're not supposed to do 'pre-crime' in this country.

What an odd strawman. If you strictly mean before any crime has happened, then of course not. Nor, by its express terms, does this press release purport to step in that direction. But we do intervene to prevent the completion of criminal conspiracies to commit crimes or attempts to commit crimes. You don't have to wait for the assassin to kill the target before arresting him. Likewise, if a mass shooter has told someone he plans to shoot up a place with a bunch of people he doesn't like, the police can investigate that and, with evidence that he did have such a plan, arrest him.

"Incidents of hate", apart from violations of law, are no business of the police.

Which, given the meaning you are implying, she expressly stated. So a reasonable person would understand that, when she urged people to report hate-based incidents or potential criminal activity, the most natural reading is that she meant hate-crimes or potential criminal activity. This is especially so given the press release follows that statement by defining what a hate crime (hate incident) is and expressly notes that beliefs are not crimes, etc. Should she have said crime instead of "incident". Absolutely. Are you a jackass if you, Brett, are sure that the press release uses "incident" in order to scare the populace into thinking their neighbor may report them to the FBI if they use the wrong pronoun? Absolutely.

Then in the last paragraph, "“Protecting Massachusetts residents from violence and hate is the top priority of my administration,”"

Quite a smoking gun you have there. Only it proves the opposite of what you seem to think. You are aware that one of the examples she raised included hate-based threats of violence and destruction. Notwithstanding your concerns about pre-crimes, it is, or at least often is, a crime to threaten violence. So, again, the use of hate is in the context of examples of crimes based on hate.

To reiterate, should the press release be worded better? Absolutely. Is half the reason for that to prevent it from being given the most uncharitable interpretation possible by people who are accustomed to doing that for one side of the political spectrum but not the other? Absolutely.

[Nige]

I think you're genuinely worried that the language and behaviour of mass shooters preceeding their crimes might be so completely indistinguishable from the language and behaviour of so many right-wingers it'll lead to... what? Everybody suddenly noticing something they already noticed long ago?

That's what this squealing is about, right? Is the anti-lawyer guy on here who keeps threatening lawyers suddenly going to snap? Are the great replacement guys on here going to emulate the great replacement shooters? Are ALL the 2nd amendment types on here constantly bristling with implicit to explicit threats of violence at the slightest hint of a threat, and at many a completely non-existent threat, to their expensive middle-class hobby going to pursue their 2nd amendment solutions?

No, probably not, and there's too much online right-wing hate of that sort out there, such that the chance of direct official scrutiny is pretty low, but it must be pretty worrying that your online statements might be easily mistaken for the statements of a potential mass shooter. Ouch.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, lets go full postmodern on radicalization. And then we can say that nothing is radical, or that your side is definitionally incapable of being radical.

Radical can be about both means and ends. With the ends it's usually about general acceptance and deviation from the mainstream of accepted goals/visions for the future. That can get tricky.

More clearly objective is the portion that is about means not ends, and it is telling how little you work with that. One could argue that hate speech laws would be radical, but you seem more to be arguing it's too subjective. Did you forget your initial thesis because you found one you liked more?

[wreckinball]

See criticizing anything BLM is by definition hate speech.

Soon they'll redefine the word "hate" as something exclusive to white folks like the laughable twists of the definition of the word racism.

[Nige]

Most hate speech probably won't lead to mass shootings, but most mass shootings will have hate speech attached. Not sure this will thread that needle.

[Bwaaah]

Washington DC legalized that racket in their consumer laws. Law firms team up with shill consumers to allege "false advertising" under arcane, no-longer-applicable aspect of FTC law that the FTC hasn't invoked in over 50 years. Insurance companies exclude false advertising claims from their liability policies, so the victim company has to eat all costs of defense. The attacking lawyers go after small out-of-state internet sellers because no elected official in DC cares about out-of-state victims. The little company I worked for settled for a $15,000 nuisance payment to avoid the greater cost of going to trial, which the predators were intent upon doing to make sure the other dozen or so victim companies they were simultaneously working understood that there was no cheap way out of their state-created scam. The DC attorney general called off his own people when they stumbled upon the racket and wanted to come to our defense. If we had been selling abortion services, I'm sure they would have come to our defense. But we were just selling consumer goods, so no social justice to be found there. The whole situation was so discouraging that it was the final straw that caused the owner to shut down the business after 25 years of operation, sending 15 people looking for new jobs.

[Sarcastr0]

It seems like you spend most of your time dwelling on your speculative future oppression.

[Sarcastr0]

See, no one said that. Are you just pure strawman and speculation?

[Sarcastr0]

This is not opinion, Bruce, it's fact.

Sure, there are plenty of lawyers who don't know what they're talking about in some aspect of the law or another. But it's been explained how he was wrong a number of times by a number of commenters.

It's a long comment thread, but I recommend you dig into it a bit before you accuse Noscitur of arguing from authority.

[David Welker]

Sarcastro:

Nobody has said anything I haven't understood.

Your assumption that I am an ignorant idiot is just you being an ignorant idiot.

This is kind of typical of liberals (including myself, in the past). Just this obnoxious arrogance and an assumption that anyone who disagrees must be ignorant.

[David Welker]

Bruce:

Correct.

These guys are totally avoiding the argument by making an argument for authority. And I think it is dumb and obnoxious.

The assumption is that I don't understand X when maybe I don't agree with X.

I think these liberals/progressives are afraid to have a real argument.

[JSinAZ]

I’m sure the racial discrimination referenced by ball includes that of Harvard regarding the racial group they call “Asians”. It’s todays Gentleman’s Agreement with non-Asian “diversity” being the “moral good” being exercised.

I’m not “Asian”, so feel free to lecture about my non-existent oppression.

[John C. Randolph]

a pro-racism rally

Fuck you for repeating that smear, you lefturd cunt.

-jcr

[Randal]

That also happens regularly in criminal law. Did you premeditate about killing your wife? Murder one, left sentence. Or was it a crime of passion? Murder two, 20 years.

[David Welker]

Randal:

We don't inquire into the SUBSTANCE of your belief system. Murder 1 on down the line to manslaughter is about intentionality, not an ideological examination.

[Randal]

The same is true with hate crimes, as everyone else here has explained. You're trying to draw a line where there is none.

I think you just have a problem with the name. If they called murder 1 "hate murder" and murder 2 "passion murder" would you be making the same case against those?

[Randal]

Looking at intent in determining criminality isn't going away any time soon.

The way to think about hate crimes is that they punish an intent to intimidate a group. What's wrong with that?

I do think that hate crime laws could be better written to focus on this foundation. But the foundation is solid.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Nailed it, Nige.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So, you're a liar. She did prosecute vandals and other criminals who did their deeds during otherwise peaceful protests:

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/06/01/rachael-rollins-boston-protests-george-floyd/

"Rollins said her team was actively prosecuting those who “disgraced” Floyd’s memory by looting stores, throwing objects, and burning a police cruiser. She was told that some officers were shot at “in a drive-by situation,” she added.

“That is unacceptable,” Rollins said."

[NOVA Lawyer]

I pointed out elsewhere what a liar you are, with a Boston Herald article to prove it. Go get a life and stop trolling.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Boston.com, I meant.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And chants of "Jews will not replace us." Um, it's definitely racist.

[Heedless]

So when she said to report your friends and family for saying hateful things, that’s not actually what she meant.

What she actually meant was something that she never said once in the pages long announcement. Got it.

You must be one of those people with the miraculous ability to see a hate speech exception in the first amendment, a handgun exception in the second, and the power to regulate private, stationary behavior under interstate commerce.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I am saying that this is a much better approach than assuming that certain viewpoints lead to more severe harm. If the crime in fact leads to more harm, prove it.

Not the right argument when the harm ought to be presumed instead of proved. Someone charged with treason quite likely will have been stopped short of overthrowing the nation. But the diligence of the prosecution, and the severity of the sentence if the crime is proved, absolutely ought to take into account the existential risk implied by the crime.