Joshua, I see where you're coming from regarding the "expense" of maintaining our rights and our freedoms; it just doesn't feel acceptable to me that things like this are an issue. We keep claiming to be this enlightened society, but how enlightened are we that we even have to have hate crimes designations or that differences are used as a means of attacking and harming each other?
Its disappointing that people are managing to use the same stupid reasoning that Lawrence King was "different" and therefore more of a target, even though other "different" groups are accepted somewhat more than homosexual persons are now.

So this is probably the point where I pass on ever being Mr. Joshua the popular ;-)

The idea of laws that regulate people’s thoughts, words, or what they say during violent actions they take scares the hell out of me. I just cannot support that kind of thinking.

I do not spend my nights or days in fear of being attacked for being gay, or for holding my husband’s hand as I walk down some alley. I fear the actions & things done in my name by my government- not only in other nations but against our own people.

As a US citizen my trust of my government is gone. I have none. I have been lied to, cheated and trampled on too many times to trust them with more power. Where will they stop? Will they say I cannot speak out against others? What are bounds? My greatest fear is that they will start small and grow the laws so much they will be hurting our own group! Rarely do governments stop where they start- they always increase their power over the people. I think of the Nazi era poem about how the man did not worry for they came for others, but when they came for him no-one was left to speak for him.

As crazy as it may sound I want people to have the right to call me a “faggot” or any other heinous and hateful word they can think of to use- so long as I can say what needs/ I want to say about them! I want that free will to hear both sides, to choose. If I am attacked and my husband is killed by someone screaming anti-gay things I want that person put away for murder. But if my friend’s husband was killed and my husband’s killer got 100 years because he said “faggot” but hers got 50 years because he did not how would I look her in the eyes? Is her husband’s killer somehow a better person? Is her husband’s life somehow not worth as much? Once you have crossed the line to violence, no matter your cause or reason, you have crossed a line that has consequences- and they should be harsh. If we setup to give people harsher punishments for the words they use while killing will we give others less punishment for saying words we like? It just sounds dangerous.

I am not willing to trust such things to government. As an American I am especially not willing to trust it to lawmakers who sign off on laws that allow them to take people away in the dark of night and deny they ever took them. Or of law makers who pass pay raises for themselves during a down economy. Or, and this one really gets me, pass laws letting companies that spied on our citizens to get away with it without recourse!

All of that said I would rather walk the streets getting cursed out loud than walk them in fear of the words I use!

Also, on the idea of living in a world where people do not lash out against others… I personally doubt that world will ever exist. People will always seek separation as long as we have limited resources- be it money, food, air, land, or something we perceive as precious. As long as things are in contention people will form us vs. them in their mind, and will form groups based on real or perceived differences. Once we define ourselves by our differences there will always be those who carry it “too far”. For me it is not an issue of enlightenment, it is an issue of finite resources… That said, I am not so sure we are in an age of enlightenment! I think human kind will forever be growing and learning and thus be always in the act of becoming enlightened- but I do not think it is a goal one ever “gets”.

That’s my rant… for what its worth!

Popularity is subjective Joshua, don't let my opposing view speak for the so far silent masses; I'm the outlier by fiat of the fact that I'm in a different country with a mildly different society.
My concern extends to more than just the queer community in terms of hate crimes legislation; there is still overt racism/ageism/sexism/<insert ism> in the world, and whether we want to believe it or not, that negative bias is used as justification by some members of society to inflict pain and suffering on people they otherwise would not harm.

To that end, I would like to cite the case currently proceeding in Florida, in which four teenage boys sexually assaulted another boy on the mere assumption that the victim was gay. I shall of course provide source material of the case at the bottom of the post. The victim was not known to the offenders, nor was he actually homosexual. But the belief that the victim was gay was the sole reason for assaulting him.

I question to you, in light of that information and how the victim was not a target until it was believed he was gay, that the defendants should not have their thoughts and motivations taken in as aggrivating factors in sentencing. The victim was wrongfully assumed to be part of a societal minority with historical disadvantages, and the offenders freely admitted their guilt in the proceedings.

There was no other purpose by the attack except to punish the victim for being gay, in spite of the fact that he is not gay. That is why I support hate crime legislation, because calling crimes like this nothing but assault, without addressing the root social cause of the attack, is cruel towards the victim and the community from which he was to believed to be part of.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/04/florida.sexual.assault/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/08/florida.school.assault/index.html

As an aside, I apologize for my political stances; I recognize that they may irk some among us for their...rarity within the American mainstream. I make no bones about that though, extreme progressivism is my birthright and my culture, sorry if that comes on as culture shock.

Your views and thoughts are far from irksome! They are invigorating and the thought and moral exorcise of working them out only makes me a better & more thought out person. I can only hope that our discourse makes others think and decide for them selves- no matter which conclusion they make! As for popularity, I say that only because I know in my circle of friends my view is seen as discordant with others.

As it is I am actually familiar with the case you cite. I do agree with you, the alleged (and I say that only because they are still on trial from what I recall) assailants should be held accountable. I also agree with you that their state of mind and motivation should take a part in their sentencing. However, the hows and whys are where I must differ. I think that their motivation and state of mind prove they had criminal intent in their hearts and that it was premeditated .This was not a crime of passion or an instinctual reaction. This was a well thought out, carefully planned series of extremely violent attacks. They chose a victim they thought "deserved" the violence they wanted to commit and they struck out. I would wager that had he not been the one another would have. They would have searched out someone to mete out punishment and evil to. They had the violence in their heart/minds and sought out a victim to their crimes. So, I think they should go away for a very long time, longer than someone who snaps or takes an impulsive action. Not because of the victim they chose, but because of the intent they had had to do harm before they had their victim.

The question I have to ask is: Is justice about the criminal and the crime or the victim and vengeance? I submit that in a progressive society it is about the criminal and the crime, for all victims are equal, but not all crimes and criminals are equal. If we start to put forth the notion that both the victim, their associations, and their beliefs are a part of the trial and the justice we seek we open ourselves to a whole new world of inequality and imbalance.

I would be hard pressed to find a single person who thinks the "enlightened" method of justice we have is good or perfect. I think we can all agree, as most do, that the system we have is imperfect and often wrong. That said, it is so only because we as humans are imperfect and often wrong! The system we have is arguably the best we as humans in our current state can accomplish. So, if what we have is imperfect, why would we want to double down on that and put both the victim and the assailant on trial? That may seem a bit out there but it is how I feel.

To put it in perspective, I too seek what you seek in justice- that it bring about change. That it alter the behavior of those who are guilty and those who have evil in their hearts and minds. The difference as I see it is that you wish to change their motivations, and I wish to change their actions. I hold no grudge on their beliefs, but only on their actions. I judge a man not by what is in his mind, but by what he does with his hands, because that is the only thing I can see & prove. The rest... well those are things that are between him & his chosen deity or oblivion- what ever be his choice.

Finally, I warmly reject your apology. Your political stances are your right to hold, no matter their displeasure to others. It is your very right to hold them and share them that I believe needs so much protection here and around the world. It is not a culture shock at all but a welcome opportunity to grow as a person.

Let me challenge you:

In France and Germany it is illegal to display the swastika. In fact it is illegal to discuss some things, even without the context of violence, about the Nazi's and the history. So strict are these laws that memorabilia and items from that time period that bear the marks of that time- the swastika, the German army banner, etc - can not even be traded or sold. Those laws started as laws meant to stop people from committing violence against those perceived to be of the Jewish faith, or others previously attacked by the Nazis as undesirables. Now, the very display of anything that bears the marks are illegal. Every year the French government has added new items to the list of forbidden words, pictures, and ideograms. Where does it end? Do you feel that forbidding these items prevents people from having the evil and hatred in their hearts and minds? Or, do you feel as I do that it only hides it and prevents us from learning from the ugly truth? Or perhaps you have another thought on it entirely? I would be interested to know.

A basic write up the swastika and a bit on the laws around it in Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Germany

I accept your challenge!

I believe that these cases actually have very little in common with each other.

In the European case, there is outright prohibition of ideas, as opposed to the hate crime statutes that are specifically against underlying motivation. Furthermore, in order to be used, an actual crime must be committed. In the case of the France/Germany statutes, no crime is being committed except that which is created by the new statute. So I find them to be similar, but completely unrelated entities to each other.
On a point of order, I would not infact support these measures on the grounds that they're clearly violating a person's freedom of expression and thought, freedoms which END when they cause harm to another.

whats sex got to do with the family?

Lol, yeah we have seemed to have departed the OP a bit

ne1 hav ne last, closing comments 4 this topic?

I didn't want to post anything here but couldn't resist kell's offer. Mike, I watched the video, and I think that the parents suing the school and whatever other organizations, is wrong. What has sex got to do with my family? Nothing. I don't plan to have sex with any of my family members or tell them about my conquests in the past ir future

The discussion has expanded but not gone off topic. We're no longer talking about this specific case but the broader question of human rights and how to protect them.

So far as I understand it, in this specific case, the parents are suing multiple parties for not having protected their son by discouraging and suppressing his provocative behavior. From that stand point, the question of why such behavior is perceived as "provocative" is irrelevant. The fact is it is perceived that way by some and was perceived that way sufficiently to lead to his murder. I wasn't there and didn't know either the victim or the assailant but from what I can glean from reading the reports there was something very intense going on there and, apparently, whatever mediation needed to occur to defuse that situation didn't happen. It's a tragedy all around. Who is responsible?

Long ago I was confronted by a lesbian about the necessity not only for "free speech" but "responsible speech." I suspect we all agree that people should be free to think, feel and express themselves however they want and that this is a human right that needs to be protected. But as someone who has thoughts and feelings and the right to express them, do I also have a responsibility regarding these thoughts and feelings and how they are expressed? Joshua has placed the limits on this in the arena of "action" -- one can think and feel and express one's thoughts and feelings except when this expression comes in the form of physical violence.

My problem with that is that physical violence is only one form of violence. Perhaps that is the only place the 'line' can be legally drawn but there are many different forms of violence which can be equally destructive. I grew up gay in a rural mid-west culture that was extremely homophobic. Sex between same-gender partners did occur but it was repressed and this repression had a very negative impact on my sexual and emotional development. So far as I'm concerned, this was a form of violence which left me with psychological wounds and emotional scars -- they just aren't visible to the superficial eye. It never manifested itself physically in my case because I learned to be discrete -- but had I not learned this lesson it probably would have manifested itself violently (in order to 'teach me the lesson' that same-gender sex is 'acceptable' so long as its expression is not overt). << This is the very definition of hypocrisy.

In the case under discussion it looks to me like the victim did not learn this lesson and the violence escalated to the point of his murder. The position being taken by the victim's family is that it was the responsibility of the school and others to "protect" him by teaching him this lesson -- to the point, apparently, of enforcing control of his "provocative" behavior.

In other words there is no question here about why the victim chose to express himself so provocatively or why the assailant found this behavior so provocative -- and, for me, this is a very interesting question. Why is it that we sometimes choose to express ourselves in ways that provoke negative responses from others? I learned this lesson at age 12 when hanging out with three other boys, two of them twin brothers. I had a small tree branch and was annoying one of the twins with it, poking him with it. He told me repeatedly to stop it but for whatever reason I didn't, I thought the elicited negative responses were 'funny'. I wasn't hurting him, just 'needling' him. It was a mild form of aggression on my part. However, after a few minutes of this my 'victim' quickly grabbed the stick from me and proceeded to slap me with it right in the face. It stung enough to cause me to tear up and it shocked me enough to lean a lesson -- if you provoke others enough you're going to get a reaction. The question I was left with was why did I feel the need to provoke that reaction in the first place? I don't feel I ever quite got to the 'bottom' of that question but, clearly, I wanted his attention and I got it, only in a negative rather than a positive way.

I do not know but I suspect that what happened in the instance under discussion is an extreme version of my little story.

I would think that this is related to the instinctive need of man to excel, whether against his own limitations or against others even if he doesn't intentionally want to. Like the barbarian behavior of fighting for hierarchy precipitated by time and man's evolution to something as simple as prodding your buddy with a stick.

I guess.

As for its application to this case, it could be inferred that the victim's behavior was his way of attaining a higher lever in the hierarchy and the assailant's behavior was the retaliation to maintain status quo.

Maybe...

Nonetheless, this is a sad story. It is not the victim's fault. It is the assailant's decision to take a life. He decided, he has to pay the price. No one else.

I don't accept the idea that individuals should censor themselves in order to escape harm from others. This is absolutely anathema to my beliefs, and it runs contrary to the idea of actual freedom. The idea that we should avoid acting in certain ways, simply because others MAY perceive it as irritating and worthy of violent response is unacceptable, and its the assailant that has the problem by fiat of impugning the rights of the victim.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are givens, it does not matter what is being expressed, one does not have the right to harm another for the way they express themselves. However, when someone is attacked and bias is confirmed as a motivating factor, that needs to be taken to account. One's freedom of speech and freedom of expression does not extend so far as to allow gay-bashing or any other kind of discrimination or minority-hating violence. Your rights in this case and as with any other case, end at the end of your skin; you don't get to impose your rights on others at the expense of their own rights.