Talk:Hate crime/Archive 2

Improvements?
I have done my best to add some depth to this article by adding more material about hate crimes. Previously, the bulk was arguments for and against hate crime legislation, with little to convey the concept and background. I adapted a lot of material from the US Department of Justice publication, "A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes" which is in the public domain. There is still a lot to be done. A history of hate crime legislation would be useful, along with more statistics about it. Some examples of cases cited by both those that favor and those that disfavor the concept of hate crimes would be enlightening. I'm not trying to assert an opinion about the topic. I'm not sure I have one. I came to this article to learn more about the topic, and it was one of the least useful Wikipedia articles I've seen. So I did something about it. I know the changes are not that good. But somebody had to do something. Please edit if you can improve on them. "Be Bold" --Everyguy 05:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Would everybody agree that this belongs in the external links file?
 * It’s Time to Investigate Fake "Hate Crimes" Reports by Matt Barber


 * How about "hell no"? If you want to add something in the criticism section about that ridiculously partisan BS and then source it, be my guest.  Of course, you'd hafta frame it something like "Hate crime legislation is being used by the homosexuals to force society to accept their abominable, deviant behavior," but then, that wouldn't sound palatable or even rational, now would it?  (Funny how so much of the right wing crapola never comes out and says what it really means.)


 * Reserve the "external links" section for FACTS or FACTUAL cases. This isn't FOX News.  Opinions are not, in fact, facts.


 * Commentaries about using fabricated examples to push legislation through say absolutely nothing for its philosophical or practical legitimacy or illegitimacy in any real sense because society is the victim of a hate crime. Vordabois 12:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hate crime?
So if a white guy hits another white guy, it's assault, but if a white guy hits a black guy, it's a hate crime? --124.181.241.101 13:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If a white guy hits a black guy because he's black, it's a hate crime. As is a black guy who hits a white guy because he's white.  Vordabois 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

But what if a white guy hits a black guy because he hates some (but not all) of black people's mannerisms but that same white guy would not hit a black guy if that black guy "acts white"?


 * That's irrelevent. You're just complicating matters.   To get your answer, just stick with switching from white to black... the equation stays the same.  Is the motivation based at least in part on the color of the person's skin?  If the answer is "Yes,"  = Hate crime.


 * It's really quite simple. Vordabois 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Would everybody agree that this belongs in the external links file? I hardly think it irrelevant (or non-factual) to mention the confession of the murderers, especially when it turns out that a number of sources (most notably LifeSiteNews) say something akin to the fact that "In perhaps the most famous 'hate crime' case of Matthew Shephard, his murderers said their crime had nothing to do with Shephard's homosexual orientation, but concerned money for drugs. ABC News' 20/20 admitted after an investigation that the attack had not been a 'hate crime,' but was, in fact, a bungled robbery. Nevertheless, the case generated over 13,500 'Matthew Shepard' news stories, massive TV coverage, two major Hollywood specials, three TV movies and a play."
 * "Gay" Goliath Lobs Dud at CWA; Aims for Clever, Lands on Silly by Matt Barber

If a reported crime, hate crime or another kind, turns out to be (partially or entirely) fake, that is neither "ridiculously partisan BS" nor "right wing crapola" (no matter who brings it up) but — according to Vordabois's own (and any rational person's) definition — is much closer to "FACTS or FACTUAL cases". Period.

I hardly think it irrelevant (or especially extremist or far-rightist) to note that ""hate crimes" legislation … would grant homosexuals and cross-dressers superior victim status over children and the elderly." More to the point is the simple fact (and what Matt Barber points out is "important to note") "that the two thugs who robbed and murdered Shephard are now serving life in prison apart from any "hate crimes" law, proving once again that such laws are entirely unnecessary if not completely unconstitutional. Equal justice under the law is guaranteed, and equal justice was received."


 * OK, considering that you are attempting to justify your edits on the grounds that they are truly objective and free of bias, I feel I must explain why I disagree. You are attempting to slant an article to the right, and that is unacceptable.


 * The key words in your post are "his murderers said." The thing you don't mention is that the murderers have given, so far, no less than THREE (3) different "official" statements about what happened.  And contrary to what the ridiculously conservatively slanted "townhall.com" (and other less obvious propaganda machines) assume is true, an investigation gave credence to the idea that it was hate-induced, and that raised the question for such legislation.  Just because the murderers decided to change their story after the fact, holding the murderers' fabrications as more believable than input from other sources that are infinitely more credible would attest more to a person's willingness to shill for a political agenda than to confront the truth as it was presented in the court room.  (Unless, of course, you're gonna claim that the courts have a liberal bias, which, incidently, wouldn't surprise me in the least.  After all, reality seems so strangely often to be accused of having a "liberal" bias.)


 * Where were you going to mention the Laramie, Wyoming police Chief Dave O'Malley? Were you planning on ignoring the fact that he came forward to the press and stated that "20/20" lied in their report?  He actually went on to say that he was "extremely angry" about what they did, in fact.  Read: ( http://www.laramieboomerang.com/news/more.asp?StoryID=102392 )  It's especially interesting that he said, of the "20/20" interviewers: “Their pre-conceived focus that this was not a hate crime. This was a drug crime. That’s what they went with.”


 * Tell me, is that not the very definition of media bias?


 * Beyond that, more telling is your language: "ABC News admitted..."


 * ABC news admitted what? That they were part of some leftist bias machine that got stumbled up by "the facts" and that they purposely decieved everyone?  That's absurd.


 * These "facts"... Well, you percieve them to be facts, when in reality, they are nothing of the sort. You see, the particular words that are used are very important.  You're seeming to purport that ABC was apologizing for their role in the creation of the media circus at the time.  But if you read the actual article here ( http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1 ) it's rather obvious that they include word combinations like "McKinney and Henderson SAY this..." and "McKinney and Henderson SAY that..."


 * Where is the admittance of wrongdoing you seem to be alluding to with those wonderful weasel words? Seriously... point it out to me, if you would, because I see nothing anywhere in there that even comes close to making that statement.


 * It seems as though you are trying to create facts using opinions, and real information sources don't work like that. Unless it's Conservapedia.  Or Townhall.com.  Or FOX News.  Or Drudge Report, Newsmax, etc.


 * PLEASE start questioning your sources. Examine journalistic merit.  Criticize them.  Hold them up to a microscope.  Test them.  And use many more than just one.


 * So, to get down to discussing why your edits were out of line... The question raised is whether the external links follow wikipedia's guidelines.  The guidelines state that external links are reserved for information that cannot be integrated into the article mainly because their inclusion would be impossible due to mass amounts of information and/or copyright violations, or are reserved for links to official documents (among other reasons).  The external links section is NOT to be used for posting the URLs of editorials that focus on things entirely superficial, especially when they can be integrated into the article with the practical use of the keyboard, the mouse, and the english language.  This language can be added to the "criticism" section, or even may comprise a new subheading with a title of the editor's choosing.


 * But my thoughts rest on the fact that you won't make those edits because you know that even if it were true, those allegations do not discredit hate crime legislation on any sort of philosophical or practical ground, and therefore add nothing to the article as is.


 * As I stated, modify it if you wish. And if you can come up with a solid base to the claims that really means something, I would encourage it!  But don't post merely the URLs to ridiculous hit-pieces chock full of opinion with no further elaboration and try and pass them off as external link-worthy.


 * Unless they are addressed in the article, they are patently irrelevent.Vordabois 19:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You state that I am "attempting to slant an article to the right, and that is unacceptable." Two remarks: First, I am not attempting to slant an article in any direction (it can be hardly considered a far-right mantra, especially for members of the equality-for-all crowd, that justice should be equal for all citizens, no matter their race or sexual orientation — see my last point in the second paragraph below); second, it would seem that you only think it unacceptable for anyone to "slant an article to the right", not to the left. I take it articles slanted towards the left are acceptable, even something to be welcomed and/or praised. An encyclopedia/dictionary is supposed to be objective, not slanted to the right or left; and if an article in such encyclopedia gives a slant towards either direction, either that part should be deleted (or reformulated) or (because it presents some type of informative purpose) it should be left as is, albeit balanced with a slant (at least one) from the other direction.

Having said that, I would like to point out that, deliberately or otherwise, you miss the main part of my comment (and indeed of Matt Barber's article): which was that hate crimes legislation would grant certain citizens superior victim status over others ("children and the elderly"). What Matt Barber points out is "important to note" is that (unless he is mistaken, deliberately or otherwise) "the two thugs who robbed and murdered Shephard are now serving life in prison apart from any "hate crimes" law, proving once again that such laws are entirely unnecessary if not completely unconstitutional. Equal justice under the law is guaranteed, and equal justice was received."

(Incidentally, I remember, as a big Al Gore supporter at the time, watching the 2000 debates and being certain that my guy could easily trash George W. Bush. I have to admit that I got some doubts that Dubya was such an oofus when Gore charged the governor of Texas with having gone against hate crime legislation in the state he governed while bringing up the murder of the black man tied alive behind a pick-up truck. Dubya's answer (as I remember it): "The man was sentenced to death! How much further can you go than that?" It wasn't easy going against that reasoning. I also remember that putting into doubt the Republicans' alleged indifference to minorities and to suffering in general.  Maybe what you mean by an article's (any article's) "unacceptable … slant … to the right" is anything showing Republicans or conservatives as other than heartless monsters.)


 * I think it's rather interesting that you'd take my comments and manufacture support for left-leaning articles. I will repeat what I stated before: "if you can come up with a solid base to the claims that really means something, I would encourage it!"  Go right ahead, I will not argue with factual, relevent material that is of encyclopedic quality and neutral in POV.


 * Now, on to the GWB comment: "The man was sentenced to death! How much further can you go than that?"


 * Funny. But it's so incredibly easy to go against that reasoning. I'll do it in one sentence, in fact: "Did you know that only 2-3% of hate crime cases involve murder?"  The vast majority of them involve assaults and lesser violent crimes, property crimes, threats and intimidation.


 * From one of the most impressive articles I've ever read on the subject:


 * Hate-crime laws are indeed relatively new insofar as they are now on the books. But attempts to pass laws like them date back to the anti-lynching laws of the 1920s and '30s.


 * And the reality is that they represent the kind of law that should have been on the books long ago, because they play a substantial role in protecting individual freedoms for all Americans. This isn't tinkering: It's righting an omission.


 * Keep in mind that hate crimes historically represent an unofficial attempt at oppressing minorities -- in the case of lynching, it in fact was a cornerstone of the Jim Crow system of racial oppression. They are clearly special "message" crimes whose primary intent is to deprive whole groups of Americans of their right to partake of democracy, and they clearly create substantially more harm across all sectors of society than ordinary crimes. As such, they deserve harsher punishment.


 * This myth [that current laws are adequate to punish them] arises from one of the realities about hate-crime laws: they only exist on the books as laws dealing with a special category of crimes with which we already are well familiar (murder, assault, threatening, intimidation, vandalism, etc.) -- that is, a hate crime always has a well-established "parallel" crime underlying it, upon which is added the layer of motivation by bias (racial, ethnic, etc.). Thus, opponents argue, the laws for those parallel crimes should be adequate for punishing perpetrators. (If this argument sounds familiar, it is; the identical points were raised in the 1920s and '30s by opponents of the anti-lynching legislation that was the NAACP's raison d'etre during its early years.)


 * Are hate crimes truly different from their parallel crimes? Quantifiably and qualitatively, the answer is yes.


 * The first and most clear aspect of this difference lies in the breadth of the crimes' effects. Hate crimes attack not only the immediate victim, but the target community -- Jews, blacks, gays—to which the victim belongs. Their purpose today, just as it was in the lynching era, is to terrorize and politically oppress the target community. Hate-crime laws resemble anti-terrorism laws in this respect as well—adding, in effect, punishment because more than just the immediate victim is targeted and affected, and thus greater harm is inflicted.


 * But this is only one aspect of the greater harm inflicted by hate crimes than their parallel crimes. There are several more, and they are substantial.


 * -- The violence quotient. Hate crimes are much likelier to be violent than other crimes, on two levels. First, bias crimes involve physical assaults at a significantly higher rate. A study based in Boston found that out of all hate crimes reported to police, fully half of them were assaults—well above the average of 7 percent of all crimes generally. Second, serious physical harm is far more likely to be inflicted on hate-crime victims; the same study found that while physical injury occurred in only about 30 percent of all assault cases nationally, they were present in almost three-quarters of bias-crime cases.


 * -- The personal trauma levels. There is also a singularly greater level of harm from bias crimes' impact on the emotional and psychological well-being of the victim. As Frederick Lawrence observes in his Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes and American Law:


 * "The victim of a bias crime is not attacked for a random reason—as the person injured during a shooting spree in a public place—nor is he attacked for an impersonal reason, as is the victim of a mugging for money. He is attacked for a specific, personal reason: his race [or religion, or sexual preference]. Moreover, the bias crime victim cannot reasonably minimize the risk of future attacks because he is unable to change the characteristics that made him a victim.


 * "A bias crime thus attacks the victim not only physically but at the very core of his identity. It is an attack from which there is no escape. It is one thing to avoid the park at night because it is not safe. It is quite another to avoid certain neighborhoods because of one's race. This heightened sense of vulnerability caused by bias crimes is beyond that normally found in crime victims. Bias-crime victims have been compared to rape victims in that the physical harm associated with the crime, however great, is less significant than the powerful accompanying sense of violation. The victims of bias crimes thus tend to experience psychological symptoms such as depression or withdrawal, as well as anxiety, feelings of helplessness, and a profound sense of isolation."


 * -- Harm to the community: All crimes, of course, harm the broader community in which they occur. They create fear and uncertainty about citizens' personal security, and add to a climate of civil distrust. However, bias crimes create, in addition to these harms, a further level of injury to a community in a democratic society: They violate the underlying egalitarian principles of equality for all citizens, and they profoundly disturb whatever harmony may exist in a modern, heterogeneous society. Hate crimes may not be as profound an offense in a non-democratic society, but they represent a gross violation of basic American legal and cultural institutions.


 * This harm is especially evident in small rural towns -- such as Ocean Shores, or Jasper, or Laramie, or Hayden Lake -- which are often dependent to some extent on tourist dollars, and whose names can be permanently blackened by a hate crime committed in the back yards. Not only can the economic effect be widespread, the community itself must grapple for years with questions about its basic integrity; the cloud may lighten, but it never completely goes away. Small towns are especially vulnerable because they rarely have a law-enforcement department capable of adequately handling such crimes, which can create conditions in which a series of incidents can escalate into full-blown violence, as they did in Ocean Shores.


 * ( http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/12/matthew-shepard-and-hate-crimes.html )


 * NOTE: Even though the article contains a huge amount of factual, relevent material that directly refutes almost the entire argument of those who oppose hate-crime legislation, I did not include it in the "External Links" section. Why?  Well, because the information can be integrated into the article!


 * Anyways... given all that, to oppose such laws is to deny the validity of the motive in the sentencing. But this is the basis of our criminal law.  What are the differences between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder and manslaughter?


 * And in saying that the law gives superior victim status to gays over children and the elderly, you are also ignoring the language of the bill (H.R. 1592). The language is as follows:

The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or        perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim...


 * Are you conveniently ignoring the term "disability" here? And, as for children, it goes without saying that children are protected by a slew of laws that hold extremely harsh penalties for various crimes against minors.


 * Oh, and this was good: "Maybe what you mean by an article's (any article's) 'unacceptable … slant … to the right' is anything showing Republicans or conservatives as other than heartless monsters."  Oh yes, that is so very clearly the case.  lol   No, I'm not too keen on you misrepresenting my point of view by drawing a false caricature of my intent to point at.  In fact, I should think the reader is rather insulted by your notion that my intent could be mischaracterized so glibly.


 * Vordabois 01:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's rather interesting that you'd take my comments and manufacture support for left-leaning articles. I will repeat what I stated before: "if you can come up with a solid base to the claims that really means something, I would encourage it!" Go right ahead, I will not argue with factual, relevent material that is of encyclopedic quality and neutral in POV.

You, not I, are the one who 1) mentioned "ridiculously partisan BS" and "right wing crapola" while 2) writing (angrily, I assume?) against people "attempting to slant an article to the right" adding that "that is unacceptable" — i.e., specifying the right at every opportunity without ever making the slightest comment (angry or otherwise) about any leftward slant, real or imagined. What is important in a man's (or a woman's) speech, opinions, and arguments is not only what he or she includes, but also what he or she leaves out.


 * on to the GWB comment [thanks for reminding us the name of the town (I had forgotten it), albeit the Jasper case also seems to prove Matt Barber's point in the paragraph below]: "The man was sentenced to death! How much further can you go than that?" Funny. But it's so incredibly easy to go against that reasoning. I'll do it in one sentence, in fact: "Did you know that only 2-3% of hate crime cases involve murder?" The vast majority of them involve assaults and lesser violent crimes, property crimes, threats and intimidation.'

No, Vordabois. The idea which we must debate is not whether Matt Barber's main conclusion ("the two thugs who robbed and murdered Shephard are now serving life in prison apart from any "hate crimes" law, proving once again that such laws are entirely unnecessary if not completely unconstitutional. Equal justice under the law is guaranteed, and equal justice was received") applies only to that worst of crimes (murder); but whether the reasoning behind it applies to all crimes.

In other words, the point is not the different types of crimes we are talking about; the point is whether the law (and if society) already has the necessary tools to fight — and to punish — any crime, and Matt Bauer seems to have reason to suggest it does. As a stickler for the constitution, I am apt to believe him — until proven otherwise.

In addition, unless I am mistaken, you have not addressed a secondary main point here; which is the propensity for "reporting" what are (allegedly) false hate crimes, whether they involve the Matthew Shephard case, the Duke Lacrosse Team, or Tawana Brawley.

Here is a tertiary point: I cannot see when putting the rights of the community (any community) over (or equal to) the rights of an individual has ever, in the final analysis, paid off. For the simple reason that the definition of communities changes all the time and with every individual. Offhand, the theory seems to make sense. But as soon as we go into details, we run into problems. Should someone commit a crime against an individual (whether murder, property crime, threat, intimidation, or other), should the punishment be stronger if that individual is gay or black? Doesn't that mean in turn that a society might decide instead to make the punishment lighter if that victim is white or straight? If a white steals another white man's property, his punishment should be less than if he stole that of a black man because that man is black? What if the victim is a handicapped gay black woman? Should punishment be increased four times because four minorities were, in some sense or another, involved? Unless you consider that handicapped gay black women, or handicapped gays, or black women, or some other combination constitute a minority apart from the basic ones?

No, being against "hate crime" legislation and against superior victim status for some does not necessarily have to be "ridiculously partisan BS" or "right wing crapola" from unfeeling, clueless conservatives nor does it have to be… lacking in common sense…

I have added the following to the list of reasons not to have hate crime legislation (# 4). I hope (that with the "allegedly"s) you will agree.


 * In a number of cases, there have allegedly been false reports of hate crimes. In others, the law as it exists (without the benefit of any "hate crimes" law) has punished the criminals to the fullest extent without the victims enjoying "superior victim status," allegedly proving that "such laws are entirely unnecessary if not completely unconstitutional. Equal justice under the law is guaranteed, and equal justice [is] received." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asteriks (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC).


 * This argument is going in circles.


 * I objected to the fact that you put up an external link that can be incorporated into the article, and you did that. That is acceptable.


 * However, the argument that your stance (and by extension, your edit) is non-slanted is ridiculous, and I have given ample reasoning why. You don't believe that a hate crime is worse than the physical crime committed, and in so doing, you're attempting to argue that motive is irrelevent.  This is, however, to deny the very basis of our criminal code.  What is the difference between 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder, and Manslaughter?  After all, a person dies in all three cases.


 * More to the point, you once again have echoed one of the primary myths of such legislation, attempting to pass it off as an argument. Get this through your head: It does not involve minorities...  It involves everyone.  When they say that someone is attacked because of their race, they mean any person with white, black, yellow, red, purple, pink and blue skin.  Therefore, the claim that this is unfair is outrightly invalid.


 * Now, you're confusing the issue. Your hypothetical in the case of the black, gay woman... "Should punishment be increased four times because four minorities were, in some sense or another, involved?"  First of all, I'd like to reiterate that this is a biased question because the person being a minority has no bearing.  People who are white Christian straight males can also be a victim of a hate crime.  Second, that example makes no sense because one motive is involved, making it a hate crime... The killing of a person due to something they represent and cannot change.  Note that I did not say "somethings" (plural).  The language of the bill is clear:

The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or        perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim...


 * That is, any incident (singular) of violence. Assault could be an incident of violence.  Murder as well.  Countless others.


 * The point I think you're getting stuck on is that a hate crime must be proven a hate crime. This is extremely difficult, as damning evidence must be presented, and that is hard to obtain.


 * Anyhoo, the notion that your position is the only one based on the Constitution is also rather comical. Point me to the part of the Constitution that defines the degrees of murder.


 * The fact is, the new laws will be passed now that Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert won't be able to kill it through despicable backdoor moves. Back in 2004, a bill sponsored by 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat was passed in the GOP-controlled Senate 65-33. The GOP-controlled House then voted 213-186 to instruct the House leaders (Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert) to pass the bill through the House Conference Committee because a majority wanted to pass it. Then, DeLay and Hastert cut the legislation out of the bill it was attached to, effectively killing it.  It had bipartisan support and was endorsed by more than 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, including: the National Sheriffs' Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and many others.  But the Democrats are now in control, and its imminent passage has upset the religious right.  They are attempting to make this an assault on their version of "morality" (as if there are no other versions), and that has no place in our criminal code.  So just like the laws barring gays from ever being able to join in a civil union, it is they that are on the offensive, here.  Therein lies the partisan nature, and the reason why external links to arguments against its passage (that don't, in fact, argue against the philosophy behind hate crimes) are slanted.


 * At this point, I believe it might be prudent to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Vordabois 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I added this reference too (to item # 6): What the Hate Crimes Law Would Do by Chuck Colson, May 1, 2007. I don't think some of the doubts mentioned and some of double standards described should be left out of the debate, do you? ("… in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States. … In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment. This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals. Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought.") Asteriks 09:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate your putting that in as a reference and not another link. Very good of you.
 * But just so we're clear on one thing, the bill already explicitly mentions the freedom of speech. See: H.R. 1592, Section 7(d)

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS. (d) Rule of Evidence.-- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.


 * As may be evident in reading the language of the bill, its nature -- at its very core -- is to break down the whole idea of physically and psychologically terrorizing groups in society by curbing the notion of groups altogether... it is made clear that the convicted are the only ones who fabricate special groups. After all, anyone can be a victim of a hate crime, whether they are members of the demographic minority or not.  Therefore, if we are going to include language that deliberately protects only certain specific circumstances regarding the First Amendment, it would violate the bill's universal nature.  It would also inherently set all of the other freedoms of speech in a place where they are considered less sacred.


 * These amendments, if included, would obviously be the REAL assaults on liberty and freedom, because -- just like the hate crime laws -- the First Amendment is meant to apply to all equally... without discrimination.Vordabois 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

40% of "Arguments Against Hate Crimes Legislation" Removed Without the Slightest Explanation
Somebody has just removed four of 10 "Arguments against hate crimes legislation" (not to mention a sentence I improved), leaving only six. That, without the least explanation. Apparently, conservative arguments (or thoughts labeled thereas) are so (infuriatingly) wrong-headed that they can be removed without explanation, without their being even quoted, without a request for different viewpoints, and without a trace. Asteriks 10:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They were unsourced and removed per WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and WP:ATT. Fireplace 14:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They were removed per WP:CROCK. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 04:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider the charge of being unsourced a serious charge that must be thoroughly discussed and thoroughly proven before action is taken, not something that a person acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury all in one can take upon himself without said discussion, and that, without presenting the slightest shred of evidence and, indeed, without the slightest note thereof. Since the "offending" material has disappeared, noone can discuss it and offer their viewpoints, conflicting or otherwise. I do know for a fact that item # 4 did not belong among the unsourced facts, real or alleged. What I can do, therefore (and what I have done), is restore the quote from Matt Barber's Fake Anti-“Gay” “Hate Crimes” Keep Piling Up article. That does not excuse you for making the godlike decisions you have made. I, for one, consider it a duty not to remove or to change anything in any Wikipedia article without duly making a note of it and, indeed, without making a quote of said removed material for the sake of documentation. Finally, I find it very strange that the only alleged lack of sources you could find happened to be among the paragraph documenting arguments opposed to anti-hate crimes legislation and not a word, nor a comma, in the rest of the article (those in favor of such legislation). Asteriks 12:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In what way is Matt Barber a reliable source? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In a number of cases, there have allegedly been false reports of hate crimes and even what some call 'a string of fraudulent high profile “hate crime” reports by homosexual activists.'

Offhand, Matt Barber is stating facts, J P Gordon. Is that quite clear? You may not like his conclusions, but if Barber is the only person stating a (verifiable) fact, then his testimony goes in. If it is a fact that there have been false and/or fraudulent hate crime reports (like there have been false and fraudulent rape charges), then those hyperlinks go in. If it is not a fact that judges and others have, at times, found such reports fraudulent, then and only then is your protest valid. Your duty here, JP Gordon, in my opinion (and the duty of any wikipedia contributor) is to find out if stated facts are true and not to delete material that offer facts you don't like while stating and hiding behind principled positions. (I am still astounded how many people manage to "out" sentences only in the parts of an article they don't like and never ever in the rest of an article.) So I am putting back the enclosed sentence (and while I'm at it, I am adding one from George Will's Hate Crime Laws). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asteriks (talk • contribs) 08:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Please familiarize yourself with the concept of reliable sources. It is important who says what, and it's the responsibility of the editor making the insertions to assure that Wikipedia's attribution policy is satisfied. Next time someone removes the material -- and they will -- you'll need find actual sources, not some essentially unknown opinionator such as Mr. Barber. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we (i.e., Wikipedia readers) are not allowed to read (and/or listen to) Harry R Jackson's Open Letter to the African-American Community either?
 * Hm? You can read whatever you please; why should we care one way or another? Obviously, you've already read it, since you linked to it. We're just not going to link to it in Wikipedia. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

lol @ "not allowed." Sounds like a persecution complex.

Why is this so hard to comprehend? Talking about the validity of hate crime laws belongs in the article, not simply some external link.

So go to the article, state a case, provide the sources (if it's an editorial, say that the person is an editorialist and then link to the article in question which should contain the facts necessary, or at least some sort of verifiability), and there you go. Included in the article.

Example: "Editorialist Matt Barber (of townhall.com) alleges that (yada yada yada).  As evidence of this, he recognizes a recent study done by (yada yada yada) that showed that (yada yada yada)."

Of course, one should expect peer review and challenges if the statements are questionable. But if it's relevent, verifiable material, it'd be a welcomed addition!

The concept of neutrality is a pretty simple thing. It's not rocket science. Vordabois 10:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Persecution complex"? I guess I should love the way that arguments with those oriented on a politically correct path always seem to revert to negative partisan descriptions (if it isn't fascists, money lovers, and warmongers, it's reactionary, clueless, and psychologically-challenged retards). FYI (in case you're interested), I have been known to write on Wikipedia in three or four different languages, and always it seems that those concerned with Wikipedia rules and guidelines only seem to get really riled up about them when what could be described as a conservative viewpoint is being presented (when it's a liberal viewpoint, it's at most more of a laid-back, ho-hum attitude). In the meantime, you may not like the author (more personal insults?), but — again — he makes a compelling point from what (offhand) is nothing other than an established fact, so I've added a link to Another Lesson In Selective Tolerance.


 * PS: Is it me (i.e., is it my persecution complex), or has some 90% of this topic's discussion page been deleted (deliberately or otherwise)?! Asteriks 08:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case, it's actually your ignorance, somewhat surprising for someone experienced enough to have contributed in multiple languages. The talk page was archived, as talk pages often are, lest they get unwieldy; a simple look at the talk page history, or even at the talk page itself (see the "archive box" near the top), would have told you this. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you know how t'is, dont'cha? Some of us think only of providin' hyperlinks for the ignoran' reader who — like ourselves! — wants t'explore and learn more (from either side of the opinion aisle) on any given subject. We set 'em up, and don't think of spendin' time learnin' every detail of Wikipedia's rules.  And we wouldn't think of deletin' (or even spendin' time readin' an' judgin') each hyperlink that adheres to the politically correct screed, for that matter. Jes' let us set up some alternative viewpoints. I guess some of us non-liberal folk are simply not as smart, as intelligent, as wise, as rule-abidin', as tolerant, as humanistic, as generous, as sensitive, etc, as some other folks on this site… Asteriks 08:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not beleive that lewrockwell.com and townhall.com (both self-published) are reliable sources for factual statements. Please attribute factual assertions to reliable sources, or I will remove them. --Dr.enh 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have changed the first two bullets in "opposition to hate crime laws", and pretty much expect them to be changed in some way. Asterisks, if you change it, take my lead and cite RELIABLE, and OBJECTIVE SOURCES!!  Vordabois 07:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to why you don't consider townhall.com to be a reliable source. It is not self-published, any more than the New York Times is self-published - it publishes columns (usually opinion or op-ed columns) which are often nationally or regionally syndicated.  Besides this, it is owned by the fourth-largest radio station owner (Salem Communications) in the United States and had previously been owned by a major think tank (The Heritage Foundation).  All-in-all, it's just as reliable of a source as any other news publisher.  Citing from WP:V, footnote 3 "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."  What Townhall.com publishes, as an media outlet owned by a major media corporation, with professional columnists, clearly meets the definition cited in the policy.   It is interesting to note that even the New York Times, which Townhall.com is often critical of, considers them to be a reliable source (further note that the context in which the citations are used in the NYT article is similar to the one in which the citations are used in this Wikipedia article) - No Koran in Congress, Fewer Muslims to America?.  Regards, --Tim4christ17 talk 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "further note that the context in which the citations are used in the NYT article is similar to the one in which the citations are used in this Wikipedia article"


 * This is not a NY Times editorial page. This is an encyclopedia.  What do you think that says to me about your conception of neutrality?


 * This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.


 * From WP:Reliable Sources/examples:


 * Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.


 * Did this person remove the material? He's merely asking for more verification.  This is clearly mandated by the guidelines, as they are obviously controversial/contested claims published by a right-wing think tank (Heritage Foundation) or the fourth-largest radio station owner in the USA (Salem).


 * As for me and my edit... Before, I just modified it and let it go, but this is what I removed from the section this time:


 * According to editorialist George Will, "Hate crimes are seven one-hundredths of 1 percent of all crimes, and 60.5 percent of them consist of vandalism (e.g., graffiti) or intimidation (e.g., verbal abuse)."


 * He's making the case that hate crimes aren't really all that serious beyond non-bias crimes. However, if he had cited the relevent statistics to prove his case, he would have proven himself wrong.  There's a huge difference between 12% and 31.4%.  I think his use of carefully selected numbers deems his mention unworthy.  What better example of unreliability is there?  (Call me crazy, but regardless of the source's integrity, I think the actual FBI statistics are just a little tiny bit more fair to use anyways.)


 * And this:


 * "He argues that the relative rarity of their occurrence deems hate crime legislation "[nothing but] indignation gestures. Legislators federalize the criminal law in order to use it as a moral pork barrel to express theatrical empathy."


 * Totally unencyclopedic. It cannot be included.  There's no way.


 * And this brings me to my problem with townhall.com overall. That George Will citation is a textbook example...


 * I'm not going to go out of my way to delete any particularly relevent and verifiable factoid coming from columns there... As you can see, I'm not deleting anything else. And I'm not going to say that there is absolutely no worth to some pieces there.  But it's an unfortunate reality that places like townhall.com -- which, one could plainly see, draw very little distinction between news articles and editorials -- attract people who obviously are rather prone to being somewhat lazy in the necessity of questioning/examining/testing sources.  Then these people go on to edit wikipedia (and pollute the media in general) with partisan nonsense and then claim they're some kind of tragic victims when people call them on it.  It's ridiculous.  Vordabois 07:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "It is costly and difficult to prove hatred as a motivation..." argument because I did not find support for it in the cited sources. I removed the "can only lead to more government intervention into the lives of citizens..." argument because a partisan think tank and an opinion blog are not reliable sources for a factual assertion. If someone wants to restate the argument as, "Some argue that....{opinion}," please go ahead. -- Dr.enh 05:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are truly interested in objectivity and spreading encyclopedic knowledge (particularly in the present Wikipedia entry), why didn't you (simply) "restate the argument" yourself (rather than leave it to somebody else)? You will forgive me for making assumptions, but it's like the grocer who keeps returning the wrong change and who says in his defense that making mistakes "is only human"; for some strange reason, however, his mistakes with the change always seem to be in his favor. In the same way, it seems strange that some people making edits on this page for supposedly no other reason than to make Wikipedia the objective encyclopedia it deserves to be, only — and consistently — remove information from "Opposition to hate crime laws" without ever touching any other part of the article (unless of course it is to add to the pro-legislation parts).


 * In fact, the title of this section should now be "60% of "Arguments Against Hate Crimes Legislation" Removed Without the Slightest Explanation" (or hardly much thereof). Indeed, the editing never ceases on this page, as the "Opposition to hate crime laws" has now been whittled down to four arguments (it was once a list of ten!) — again (and as usual) without the perpetrator even bothering to make a record of the elements he or she removed (not to use the word "censored"). Although the arguments can hardly be called that, as the quotes with facts, figures (controversial or otherwise), and relatively lengthy argumentation have been whittled down to unmemorable bland statements. Meanwhile, the "Justifications for hate crime laws" seems to keep growing and ballooning (if only because the other section gets smaller and smaller), with well-written sentences replete with examples forming interesting paragraphs (as contrasted with the "Opposition's" simplistic and bland one-line sentences with no quotes or "spice" in its content, reminiscent of everything Miss Wormwood told us to avoid in Junior High).


 * Whittle away, seems to be the line of reasoning here, and wear down your (alleged) opponents over time. Asteriks 18:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)