In the USA you can be convicted of hate crimes.

[Blaggard]

I can call a homosexual a faggot **** with a lifestyle Jesus would kill him for because he is inherently evil, in a bar in the US and get arrested. I am pretty much sure that is true in any state but your ass.

Let's face it Bob does not live on Earth. Where he lives though is a matter of some debate...

Bob the US has never had freedom of speech, in fact there is only one "country" on Earth I can think of that did, and it was a pirate republic formed in what is now Port au Prince IIRC. I would stop talking shit if I were you.

Incidentally that Pirate Republic was formed by 4 pirates, one was Bill Teach aka Blackbeard, but meh I forget all the names. Suffice to say it was conquered and reconquered by the French, Spanish and English, until the end of slavery and the slave revolts in the Caribbean, in what is now known as Haiti, bolstered its numbers to such an extent it could not longer be a whim of imperialism, or the slave trade. Guess which country then helped keep it free? I'll give you a clue it begins with T or maybe U.

"With freedom of speech comes much responsibility, which is why most men fear it."

Some guy.

I can call a homosexual a faggot **** with a lifestyle Jesus would kill him for because he is inherently evil, in a bar in the US and get arrested. I am pretty much sure that is true in any state but your ass.

No, it's not. Bob is correct (egads!). Hate speech is punished as a sentence enhancement - as in - you punch someone, you get a month in jail; you punch someone while screaming 'I hate f**gots' and you get two months. But your broader point is well taken. I believe there was free speech in the Wild West as well; but as with any state of anarchy, there was also free justice (lots of guns), which balanced it out.

I kinda mis quothed. I meant if/and I get arrested rather than I would get arrested.

But yes you are right.

[Ginkgo]

Don't come up with that Supreme Court bullshit. I'm talking about what's proper and improper, not what some body of busybodies decrees at any point in time. It was the Supreme Court that said the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting alcoholic beverages in the U.S. was OK. And, yes, the AEP will definitely change this kind of government tyranny!

The 18th became law though legislative processes. The legislative bodies and the judicial bodies do not work together in this respect because it is a fundamental tenet when it comes to the separation of powers.

SCOTUS can only act on legislation if it is challenged as being unconstitutional. Once legislation is passed SCOTUS doesn't offer an opinion on legislation one way or the other.

Interestingly enough I could only find one challenge to the 18th Amendment itself, and that was Dillon v Gloss. Apparently the challenge was over the time frame for implementation of the the legislation.

[bobevenson]

Don't come up with that Supreme Court bullshit. I'm talking about what's proper and improper, not what some body of busybodies decrees at any point in time. It was the Supreme Court that said the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting alcoholic beverages in the U.S. was OK. And, yes, the AEP will definitely change this kind of government tyranny!

The 18th became law though legislative processes. The legislative bodies and the judicial bodies do not work together in this respect because it is a fundamental tenet when it comes to the separation of powers.

SCOTUS can only act on legislation if it is challenged as being unconstitutional. Once legislation is passed SCOTUS doesn't offer an opinion on legislation one way or the other.

Interestingly enough I could only find one challenge to the 18th Amendment itself, and that was Dillon v Gloss. Apparently the challenge was over the time frame for implementation of the the legislation.

Actually, the Supreme Court didn't say the 18th Amendment was OK. I mean, it's part of the Constitution, so it's outside of their jurisdiction.

[Blaggard]

The 18th amendment is outside of the legislatures and governments jurisdiction and outside the supreme courts jurisdiction. Whose jurisdiction is it in then Dave, Gods? Man America is more fucked up than even I imagined!? Is America even allowed to pass laws, legislation, change laws or rights, or does it even have the power to tie its own shoe laces? And how?

Do you think Bob ever scans what he says before he posts it?

The 18th ammendment we must presume was made by some sort of legsilature, if no one is ever allowed to touch it though, how on Earth will you ever command a Sovereign nation?

I am genuinely confused now: you can make laws, but you can never change them ever, even when your most powerful or should I say most puissant bodies are involved? That's no way to run a nation with any sort of Sovereign power is it? Or is it?

[bobevenson]

Do you think Bob ever scans what he says before he posts it?

As a divinely inspired prophet of all things spiritual, political and economic, my posts are automatically scanned by God.

[Blaggard]

And presumably your mum, whose basement you live in?

[bobevenson]

And presumably your mum, whose basement you live in?

At least Americans don't spell mom "mum" like a stupid Englishman.

[Ginkgo]

Don't come up with that Supreme Court bullshit. I'm talking about what's proper and improper, not what some body of busybodies decrees at any point in time. It was the Supreme Court that said the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting alcoholic beverages in the U.S. was OK. And, yes, the AEP will definitely change this kind of government tyranny!

The 18th became law though legislative processes. The legislative bodies and the judicial bodies do not work together in this respect because it is a fundamental tenet when it comes to the separation of powers.

SCOTUS can only act on legislation if it is challenged as being unconstitutional. Once legislation is passed SCOTUS doesn't offer an opinion on legislation one way or the other.

Interestingly enough I could only find one challenge to the 18th Amendment itself, and that was Dillon v Gloss. Apparently the challenge was over the time frame for implementation of the the legislation.

Actually, the Supreme Court didn't say the 18th Amendment was OK. I mean, it's part of the Constitution, so it's outside of their jurisdiction.

The separation of powers calls for the Constitution to be within the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. As the empowered body it can, and does hand down decisions on any legislation in respect to any amendment. As we know the 18th was repealed in the same way it was implemented.

[bobevenson]

Actually, the Supreme Court didn't say the 18th Amendment was OK. I mean, it's part of the Constitution, so it's outside of their jurisdiction.

The separation of powers calls for the Constitution to be within the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.

What I meant is that it is not within the province of the Supreme Court to comment on any part of the Constitution, only whether the Constitution is being followed correctly by the Federal, State, County and Local governments.

[Ginkgo]

Actually, the Supreme Court didn't say the 18th Amendment was OK. I mean, it's part of the Constitution, so it's outside of their jurisdiction.

The separation of powers calls for the Constitution to be within the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.

What I meant is that it is not within the province of the Supreme Court to comment on any part of the Constitution, only whether the Constitution is being followed correctly by the Federal, State, County and Local governments.

Interestingly enough when SCOTUS does comment on parts of legislation you get legislation from the bench. The Affordable Health Care Act being a recent example. By ruling the Act was a tax and not a mandate provided an opportunity for states to opt out of expanding Medicaid. What you end up with is modified legislation rather than the intend legislation.

[Lawrence Crocker]

Some comments on hate crimes and US law:

Not every violent crime motivating by and manifesting even racial hatred is covered by a hate crime enhancement. The federal Civil Rights Act covers only certain categories of protected activity, and, although it has been broadly interpreted at points, it will not cover e.g. an assault committed at a private party in a private location, absent predicates for other federal criminal laws (e.g. drugs). State hate crime statutes will cover such cases, but not all states have hate crime enhancements.

Speech is not necessary for hate crime enhancement, even under statutes written in terms of evidencing or manifesting bias. If someone picks out from a mixed crowd only persons of once race, and shoots ten of them, the enhancement is possible without any additional evidence.

Yet it is also possible that speech of the otherwise most rigorously protected sort may lead to an enhancement. If the defendant on any occasion has given an address at Speakers’ Corner setting out racist theories, that could be used as evidence that an assault at a later time and in a different place was “motivated by” or “because of” race. So hate crime statutes can have a content non-neutral effect upon speech. One never has to fear that giving a speech condemning union bosses, plutocrats, socialists, or Masons can later be used as evidence for a hate crime enhancement if the speaker gets into a fight. It may, however, if the rhetoric at Speakers’ Corner touches any of the categories of persons enumerated in the hate crime statutes.

The hate crime statutes give prosecutors a good deal of discretion, and probably have to for them to correspond to the concerns that led to their enactment in the first place. An attack by a biker yelling “Muslim bastard” be charged with the enhancement, as will an attack on a Hasid by a Reform Jew yelling “damn Black Hat.” If a professor at a theological seminary slugs his colleague over an issue of Christology, it will not, even though the attack was “because of” the victim’s “religion.”

Hate crime enhancements are written with the purpose of deterring bias attacks and the larger purpose of diminishing the existence of bias. It is an empirical question whether they succeed in doing so. It is possible that by emphasizing race, religion, or orientation, they have the wrong long run effect on bias.

[bobevenson]

A crime is a crime is a crime. It doesn't matter why a person committed a crime; it is improper for somebody convicted of a crime to receive a harsher punishment because of why he committed it.

[Lawrence Crocker]

Several traditional crimes are made more severe by the "why". In many states the difference between first and second degree murder turns on this . The only crime defined in the Constitution is a particularly clear example. If you blow up a bridge for the joy of destruction, it is an arson. If you blow it up for the purpose of giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy, it is treason.

That one has a particularly bad purpose in doing something does seem to make the offender morally worse. Why should the law not recognize a difference in those cases where that would make the society safer in the long run? This may not be true for hate crimes, but that is a question for empirical consideration.

[surreptitious57]

I have no children so putting a bullet in me because of something I said does not bother me. So I can wax lyrical about freedom
of speech all day long because I am on principle prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. Now the fact that it is never going to
happen is beside the point because I stand by it anyway regardless of anything else. But if it makes you feel any better bob you
can be convicted of hate crimes over here also. And in a lot of other countries too. For it is not something exclusive to America

[bobevenson]

Obviously, my proposed American Energy Party (AEP) is destined to be the salvation of the entire world.