Captain's Quarters -

How isn't this viewed as a chilling threat to the press? After all they are being charged with publishing material that is deemed in and of itself a felony.

So if gays don't like the next editorial at the WaPo should we expect the editorial board to be led out in hand cuffs?

Capt: this is a bullshit post; you're an idiot for writing such a piece of crap; you have no morals, values, or ethics, and by writing this you are probably advocatiing promoting homosexuality and want to see these poor, innocent, little girls, sent to prison!

Shame on YOU!

PS: I NEVER insult anyone, call them names, nor jump to unsubstantiated conclusions; I've never committed a hate crime, and I'm not a terrorist, despite that fact that EVERYONE who doesn't agree with me, should be sent to a "re-education" camp!

Okay....sarcasm OFF!

Actually Capt'n, the girls were foolish and juvenile to do what they did, and their parents should be dealing with them!

Me, I'd whip any one of my girls silly for doing such a thing.

That said, the Leftist thought police in this country are starting to make "1984" look like Sunday School! The authorities have tons of more important stuff to do, or should, than worrying about 2 juveniles posting some stupid fliers!

Perhaps the hate itself is the crime. Stop the hate! Or else!

Maybe they rolled the flyers up into a tube and beat a gay person soundly with them, or a baby seal. Ever have a paper cut? No laughing matter.

What is the carbon footprint of a hate crime and should we be considering ancilliary global warming charges? Is violence to the planet a hate crime? Should it be?

Thanks, capt. You just made my week.

(Course, I'll look past how that reflects on the quality of my life....)

P.S. I like the new comment system a lot.

Does this mean that 95% of all commedians should be behind bars?

Just a note that this appears to be not in Florida, but in my home town of Crystal Lake, IL, which is a Chicago 'burb. I graduated from Crystal Lake South in '89. It's kinda strange all the bad news coming out of our sleepy part of the suburbs. Just last month it was Allen Lee's essay at Cary Grove HS, and a week before that the bathroom grafitti threats that shut down Crystal Lake Central HS. It seems like these girls were just delinquints, though. I doubt they were a real threat to others. The term hate crime sounds alot like thought crime to me.

"Do we incarcerate Jack Chick for his hate-speech fliers about Catholics?"

Captain, you know as well as anyone else that Catholics are not a "protected class", thus "hate" speech against them is not a crime.

I wonder if we shouldn't be looking at this as an intervention in an attempt to get the girl out of a bad home situation. If the kid's already had multiple run-in's with the law, and her parental units have done nothing about it, shouldn't we start to think that the parents are part of the problem and not the solution?

As the song in "South Pacific" said 50 years ago, "you must be carefully taught" to grow up to learn to hate.

I also have no problem in suing the parents for their daughter's behavior, and holding them responsible for what they have spawned.

Arresting the two girls for exercising their First Amendment rights is outrageous enough but the denial of bail is an even more egregious violation of their 8th Amendment rights. Given that Bail is seldom denied even for violent criminals I would argue that their treatment also violates their 14th Amendment rights as well. I don’t see why their Attorney hasn’t gone straight to Federal Court seeking a dismissal of charges.

As the Captain has pointed out we are not charging speakers of anti-Christian or anti-Semitic anti-Asian or anti-White words with hate crimes. Hate crimes are defined by the socialist totalitarians who dominate the Democratic Party and elite society and by definition anybody who stands opposed to their ideas is a criminal. When we begin arresting silly teenage girls for not thinking the right thoughts we are not very far from the GULAG. I recommend a book by Abram Tertz (Andrei Sinyavsky) called “The Trial Begins”. This book by a Sinyavsky chronicles the arrest and imprisonment of a teenager in Stalinist Russia. Sinyavsky went to the GULAG for his efforts.

These charges will ultimately be dismissed/overturned when they get to Federal Court, if not before. One would hope that the civil damage awards will deter future use of thought crime laws but I have my doubts. I certainly would like to see all the officials involved in this travesty removed from their positions and the entire jurisdictions law enforcement and judicial personnel sent to a class on Constitutional rights. And finally, I would propose making the abuse of the Constitution to enforce thought crime laws in violation of the Constitution a Federal offense punishable by a minimum jail time of 5 years and a fine of $100,000 assessed for each violation. Let’s see how popular hate crime laws become when a misapplication leads to serious jail time and financial loss.

The flyer was meant to incite violence. There's your crime.

“were not written for informational purposes but rather were to incite a breach of peace or cause injury to the person or persons the message was directed against,”

http://americansfortruth.com/news/girls-face-felony-hate-crimes-charge-for-passing-out-anti-homosexuality-fliers.html

I'm starting to think that hate crimes and terrorism designators both take us down a dangerous road.

Of course they do. But that doesn't mean it's the wrong road. The danger, as always, lies in not knowing when to say "enough, we won't go any further."

My own feeling is fairly close to what you said in the last paragraph: let motivation be considered as a part of the crime, whether pro or con. We recognize a difference between a cold-blooded killing and a hot-blooded or accidental one -- most states call the one "murder" and the other "manslaughter," and give a much harsher penalty for murder. What's the difference between that and considering motive as part of the case for arson or assault, and giving a harsher sentence to someone who commits those crimes for terroritstic reasons?

The Captain said "Beating up a gay person should carry the same penalties whether hate motivated it or not." I submit that "Beating up a person should carry the same penalties whether hate motivated it or not."

Special laws for special classes of people is yet another bad road our society has taken.

Bravo Ed and everyone else.

WolfWalker: A valid point. I'll disagree because I'm disagreeable. But well a valid point well raised nonetheless.

They are forging a seamless conceptual alloy between protected group "interests" and the Democrat platform.

Could a future leftist supreme court uphold legislation that outlaws opposition to the democrat party (henceforth known as The Party), on hate crime precedents?

Let's not find out the hard way.

Oh, in the old days. You came to school wearing jeans. You went home. Boy's forgot their ties? They didn't get into classrooms. And, if your hair was "cut funny," in something called a duck's behind. You were sent home.

Better question to ask, here, how come teenagers know so much about adults and their sex lives? Where's the information coming from?

And, why not punish kids that pull a "Mark Foley" exposure on people? Just because the republicans in congress didn't have the moxey to call "an out and out?"

Well, at least you know what teens are talking about today. 100 years ago? They were talking about marriage. In 50 years ago; getting engaged was very important. And, you just couldn't toodle into the parish priest and ask for an appointment at the alter.

Sometimes, ya just need to grasp onto the idea that when kids go to school they're given sanctions for misbehaving.

Oh, in the old days. You came to school wearing jeans. You went home. Boy's forgot their ties? They didn't get into classrooms. And, if your hair was "cut funny," in something called a duck's behind. You were sent home.

Better question to ask, here, how come teenagers know so much about adults and their sex lives? Where's the information coming from?

And, why not punish kids that pull a "Mark Foley" exposure on people? Just because the republicans in congress didn't have the moxey to call "an out and out?"

Well, at least you know what teens are talking about today. 100 years ago? They were talking about marriage. In 50 years ago; getting engaged was very important. And, you just couldn't toodle into the parish priest and ask for an appointment at the alter.

Sometimes, ya just need to grasp onto the idea that when kids go to school they're given sanctions for misbehaving.

The fundamental assumption of a hate crime is that it is more wrong to harm someone because you hate them, than it is to harm them because you envy them, or are angry at them, or because you are greedy, selfish, and have no regard for the rights of others.

In essence, we are saying that hate is more wrong than greed, envy, anger, or selfishness. Carried to its limit, this would mean that we have to find the motivation for each crime, and rank them in order of repugnance in order to set correct penalties.

Of course there are differences between hate crimes and terrorism but there are similarities. There are few things in this context where there will be some overlapping characteristics. That doesn't mean we should treat them the same or that we are hypocritical if we don't.

Terrorist doesn't mean Islamofascists that blowup X number of people to cow the rest into submission. It more a genus than a species. The fact that pitbulls have been front page news since 9/11 doesn't mean a chihuahua isn't a canine.

And when I read the "classic case of terrorism" I took that to indicate the marks the genus -- manner, method, and purpose of his actions, etc -- not how good he was a making people afraid, change their actions or lethal he was at it. With his sister's approach and using her examples, no he isn't an OBL or Yusef. Few are, but that's on account of the inherent nature of leaders and followers. But, by the same token, Jonathon Paul is a much more accomplished and successful terrorist than than Richard Reid, The NJ 6(?), the Toronto 12(?) and Jose Padilla, who we also call, um, classical cases of terrorists (never mind the classical case terrorists that blow themselves up in the kitchen trying to make the bomb they want to place elsewhere, which I wish were a much more prevalent species.)

As for your exit question, I haven't fully fledged my opinions on the matter, but right now, I am against them for a few reasons. One is that it creates too much of an overlap of free speech and criminal conduct which I do not trust society to manage well and, to tell the truth, I see the news media not reporting on the actual crime perpetrated as a kind of proof that it can't be managed well.

Besides, it seems to me motivation has always been used as evidence in proving a criminal conduct and not a crime itself. Adding motivation to the crimes list, I think, will just open a Pandoras Box. (On this, I see many others have a similar point.)

Skipper, for what it's worth Volokh has a little more detail on the content of the flyer. Apparently it included the phrase "God hates fags."

It would seem the girl in question is a fan of Fred Phelps...

I agree with Volokh that this does not properly constitue hate speech. His analysis is worth reading.

Denied bail? Good bloody hell, WTF?

They let people out on bail for accused rape, don't they? How can you be denied bail for handing out a flyer?

Now, now, let's not get hysterical (is use of that word a hate crime?). Surely the ACLU will show up any minute now to defend these young ladies' rights to spew venom.

Ed, you need to start educating yourself on this issue before blogging about it. Look up the definitions so you understand what you are talking about before you try to say something is wrong. Hate crimes have more than one victim. READ the definition below as stated in a LAW dictionary!

"Most crimes involve a certain amount of hate and anger, but hate crimes are special. They cause two sorts of harm: they cause emotional damage to members of the target group. Secondly, they can create serious discord between various cultural groups in society. Thus, they attack the basic bonds that bind our culturally diverse society together. The Criminal Code specifically defines hate crimes. They involve hate against people because of their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. In these kinds of crimes, the act of spreading hate is against the law. (05.21.98)"

Hate crimes intimidate certain groups in society. Large masses of people, not just one person. The KKK used to burn crosses on front yards to intimate the black community. Community=more than one person.

Ed, I suggest you start learning about topics before you comment on them. Maybe read some history too while you are at it and see why they laws were created to begin with.

Here is some more info on Hate Crimes.

The number of hate crimes may seem small when compared with the incidence of other types of crimes. For example, during 1993 in the United States, 11 of the 24,526 murders reported in the United States were classified as hate crimes, as were 13 of the 104,806 reported rapes. However, hate crimes are considered to victimize not only the immediate target but every member of the group that the immediate target represents. A bias-motivated offense can cause a broad ripple of discomfiture among members of a targeted group, and a violent hate crime can act like a virus, quickly spreading feelings of terror and loathing across an entire community. Apart from their psychological impacts, violent hate crimes can create tides of retaliation and counterretaliation. Therefore, criminal acts motivated by bias may carry far more weight than other types of criminal acts.

Why is anything they did a crime? Does the Constitution really say that someone is protected from being offended? Is it now a crime to insult someone or to call them names? What a bunch of PC bullc**p.

Jim C

V,

Might I suggest that crime of any sort "cause emotional damage to members of the target group...". When was the last time that a victim of a crime wasn't emotionally damaged? When was the last time that a crome didn't involve some level of hate or anger?

"Secondly, they can create serious discord between various cultural groups in society....". This is also an interesting observation. i would submit that many crimes create discord between various cultural groups. Look at the discord caused in the "Duke rape case". Heck, even though the rape never even happened it caused discord between cultural groups. Look at some of the things that are said about different ethnic groups when one or the other is accused of committing a crime.

You might consider going a little easier on people. Sometimes their comments aren't based on ignorance, they just have a different opinion than you do.

Jim C

V,

Furthermore, the idea that a crime against me as a white heterosexual male effects everyother white heterosexual male in my community is pure bullsh*t. It effects me and my family and friends, but it sure as heck doesn't effect Joe Blow three miles away. When did we get to the point of creating mass victimization? How pitiful

You are taking the Name "Hate Crime" too literal.

"Hate Crime" does not mean a crime with hate.

"Hate Crime" is a title name given to crimes of bias. Crimes used to single out a group of people rather than an individual.

Read the definitions provided above. Most importantly understand this concept. "Hate crimes are considered to victimize not only the immediate target but every member of the group that the immediate target represents."

Hate Crime laws protect everyone. It protects you. For example if someone of your particular religion is singled out and murdered. Let's say you are Lutheran and you live somewhere in the US where Lutherans are often victimized because of their religion. Your church is vandalized with "Get out Lutheran Scum". Weeks later a woman leaving the church is beaten while the perpetrators yell "Lutheran Scum" These two crimes not only victimize the owner's of the building and the woman, but all in the community who are Lutheran. They all live in fear because they too are Lutheran. They think they could get attacked next because of their religion. This group victimization is what makes the crime more serious.

I hope that illustrates the point better.

V:

I would be interested in knowing whether you are just defending the definition of "hate crime" in general or declaring that the flyer distributed by the two young women constituted a crime. To charge someone with a hate crime requires that an actual crime be committed. Absent a real criminal offense a hate crime charge has no validity.

Furthermore, your citation of the definition of a hate crime is merely an assertion that such a thing exists and not a definitive statement. Just because you make up a definition doesn’t make your defined object real. Hate crimes laws are a product of totalitarian thinking and have basis in the rule of law.

Jerry,

I do not know enough about the situation with the young girls and the flyer. It was never stated exactly what was written on the flyer. I couldn't tell you if a crime was even commited there.

I am commenting more on Hate Crime Laws in general and why bias crimes are different.

Plus, those definitions I quoted came from various law dictionaries. I did not make them up. I was trying to clarify that bias crimes have MANY victims, not just one.

I simply don't understand why one would be against having Hate Crime legislation? Unless you are violent bigot, how does it hurt you?

V:

I know you were citing a law dictionary but the definition in the dictionary is nothing more then assertion of truth. There is no proof behind it. As I said the entire hate crime project is product of post-modern totalitarian thinking. It is designed to silence opponents and not to do anything about hate inspired crimes. It claims there are victim groups and victimizer groups. Therefore, a Palestinian who kills a Jew in New York City is not guilty of a hate crime while a Jew who kills a Palestinian under the same motives is guilty of a hate crime.

Your statement that "I simply don't understand why one would be against having Hate Crime legislation? Unless you are violent bigot, how does it hurt you?" shows that you think like a totaltiarian. The true purpose of hate crimes laws is to silence any opposition to the red-brown (leftist) agenda.

I will change my mind about the concept when I see someone like Rosie O'Donnell arrested for her virulently anti-Christian hate speech.

Jerry,

Did the Jew say while he killed the Palestinian, "And if I see any more of you smelly palestinians, they're gonna get it worse?"

If so...he targeted a group and yes that is a hate crime.

Remember...the amount of people charges with hate crimes are very low. They are there to bring justice to ALL of the victims.

v,

I'm against hate crimes because there are a myriad of reasons to hate, and yet some types of hate are criminal and some are not.

If any "enhancements" are in order, they should be based on the humanity of the humanity of the target, not on any subclass of humanity the target might belong to.

For example, assume I'm in the middle of a divorce and I hate my wife. I kill her and am caught. [BTW, my wife and I love each other and we are not about to get a divorce.] Now, my killing her affected a whole class of people (for example, her parents and siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends, workmates, etc.), but I will receive the same sentence for my crime no matter how many people she had in her network.

According to your position, every gay person (as an example of a protected class) is in every other gay person's network, and the size of that network determines the damage done. So, if I kill a gay with a motivation that he/she is gay, I have indirectly harmed all gays (even while only physically harming a single person), and the number of people I have indirectly harmed should increase my punishment.

Nope. Don't buy it. In each of my two examples, both targets were human beings, of the same worth regardless of how many others they knew. With a hate crime law, you value one human more than another, purely on the basis of motivation of the criminal and presence of the target in a protected class. It just ain't fair.

V:

I see you are engaging in the usual leftist tactic of focusing in on a tiny detail to divert attention from the main argument. This was obviously a hypothetical case to demostrate that only crimes against designated victim groups can qualify as a hate crime. If the victimizer suffers at the hand of the so-called victim then you call that justice. I call it a crime.

The true test of law under our system is reciprocity of implemtaion. The application of hate crimes laws is meant to be asymetirc. Asymetric laws are the tools of oppression used by Nazis, Communists and other totalitarians.

V, to turn the tables on your first comment to the Captain, you might want to actually read what the man has to say before you start lecturing him.

Captain Ed has more than once explained his position in clear, lucid prose. If you choose not to comprehend that prose, the fault is yours. Certainly you are free to disagree. But to proclaim that the man doesn't know what he's talking about, then condecendingly lecture him (without any links, I might add) is extraordinarily arrogant.

Now, if you took the time to follow the link I provided, you would have found a Real Live Lawyer citing actual case law. And he provides links to his cites as well. Imagine that.

You, on the other hand quote what you call "LAW dictionary," do not provid links to said dictionary (or any of your other cites) and act as if you are handing down the indisputable truth to the unwashed masses.

Sorry, bunky, but you have to convince us, first. That means cites with links, genuine data, and adult reasoning. Your unsourced cites contain argument by assertation: "...hate crimes are special. They cause two sorts of harm..." wherein the original writer provides no support for this claim. This pattern is repeated in every quote you provide. Another example of bad reasoning and poor argument involves the repeated invocation of general possibility: "A bias-motivated offense can cause a broad ripple of discomfiture ... a violent hate crime can act like a virus ... violent hate crimes can create tides of retaliation..." (my emphasis)

Heck, you can go all day long about things that might happen. I could win the lottery; nope, bad ticket. I could get a call from Mary Katherine Ham; nope, it's the landlady asking about the rent. I could get a high-paying new job tomorrow; nope, I just got fired. (just kidding about the last one)

You, V, have yet to provide even an iota of persuadable evidence that Ed is mistaken in his position. Quoting dictionaries doesn't cut it. I'll repeat what I said above: I did quote a real lawyer, providing a specific point of view, with genuine citations. Lawyers Volokh, Bainbridge, and Reynolds (wouldn't that be a great company to hire!?) have all weighed in on this, and I find their arguments cogent and persuasive.

I could provide my own opinion, but I think the Skipper's words are better than mine on this, and I can't think of where I would disagree with him.

What happens when a member of one protected class abuses a member of another protected class based on hate?

V:

My final thought for the night and maybe this topic is this:

If the girls passed out a flyer with a statement that said "God hates Muslims (assertion) because Muslims hate gays (fact) would that constitute a hate crime (God hates Muslims) or would the statement (because Muslims hate gays) negate the hate expressed against Muslims?

Please establish the proper pecking order of victim groups so we can properly apply the law.

V,

As I said before; the idea that a crime against me because I'm a white heterosexual male effects a complete stranger on the other side of town or in another part of the state becuase that complete stranger happens to be from the same "protected class" as I am is complete bunk.

Jim C

Jim C and the rest...you all are protected by Hate Crime Legislation...race, religion, sex etc...

white male=race
male=sex

These are not "special" laws for "special" groups. They affect everyone.

If a white guy happens to kill a gay guy in a burglary gone bad that is not a hate crime, but if a white guy kills a gay guy walking out of a gay night club and yells anti-gay slurs while he kills him...then that is a hate crime.

You as a white person are protected. If you walk into an angry black neighborhood and get beat up by angy black men that said "keep your white ass out of here" don't you think that would intimidate all white men from going into that neighbor hood? Don't you think this is different than some random beating that has nothing to do with color. By doing this crime over race you have emboldened both groups to fight each other...you have incited groups to act or be intimidated.

If you can't understand that these laws protect everyone then you just are listening.

Jim...if you get killed because of your whiteness or heteroness...it could and does affect people across the country.

As far a my definitions go...go ahead and google it...you can find them easily.

I'm done here and tried to help you see how and why these laws were enacted.

Jim C and the rest...you all are protected by Hate Crime Legislation...race, religion, sex etc...

white male=race
male=sex

These are not "special" laws for "special" groups. They affect everyone.

If a white guy happens to kill a gay guy in a burglary gone bad that is not a hate crime, but if a white guy kills a gay guy walking out of a gay night club and yells anti-gay slurs while he kills him...then that is a hate crime.

You as a white person are protected. If you walk into an angry black neighborhood and get beat up by angy black men that said "keep your white ass out of here" don't you think that would intimidate all white men from going into that neighbor hood? Don't you think this is different than some random beating that has nothing to do with color. By doing this crime over race you have emboldened both groups to fight each other...you have incited groups to act or be intimidated.

If you can't understand that these laws protect everyone then you just are not listening.

Jim...if you get killed because of your whiteness or heteroness...it could and does affect people across the country.

As far a my definitions go...go ahead and google it...you can find them easily.

I'm done here and tried to help you see how and why these laws were enacted.

Oh and one more thing.

This killing is killing argument is weak.

We have right now
1st degree murder
2nd degree murder
and manslaughter

if you want to use the argument killing is killing...then why should intent and all that play into the murder catergories above?

So I believe the reason for hate crime bills is that they are supposed to be an extra incentive to stamp out bigotry. Sort of like affirmative action in a way -

That said, I think its a noble cause, but separate is not equal. Same laws should apply to everyone.

V,

I was the white guy in the neighborhood just as you say. Gave the wrong hitcher a lift into Oakwood section of Venice, and got beat up. But you should have seen three of the other guys. Police who came to pick up the poor guys said I was lucky -- they had a history of doing this stuff to "rich white guys" and the last guy got a Van Gogh. As far as I was concerned, I just wanted them put away for the assault. I was not concerned about any motives other than intent. These guys had terrorized their whole neighborhood and the little girl who called the police has my eternal respect -- she told police not to identify her or these guys would come kill her after they got out. They rolled up the whole gang because the three guys who couldn't move any more squealed.

So, yea, I could have gotten killed for my whiteness; the little girl could have gotten killed for her bravery. And her life was easily worth the same as mine.

That said, let's take a close look at your scenario.

In both cases the guy walking out of the night club is dead. In both cases the guy who killed him is a murderer. The gay slur yelled in the second case would be used by the prosecution to prove intent and would probably raise the crime from a possible involuntary manslaughter or second degree murder charge to first degree murder. And then your vaunted hate crimes charge would kick in.

Note that a hate crime enhancement is a felony. Do you really think that two juvenile girls distributing pamphlets, no matter how disgusting, rate a felony charge?

V, if you do think this, say it now -- it will save a whole lot of debate.

"However, hate crimes are considered to victimize not only the immediate target but every member of the group that the immediate target represents. A bias-motivated offense can cause a broad ripple of discomfiture among members of a targeted group, and a violent hate crime can act like a virus, quickly spreading feelings of terror and loathing across an entire community. Apart from their psychological impacts, violent hate crimes can create tides of retaliation and counterretaliation. Therefore, criminal acts motivated by bias may carry far more weight than other types of criminal acts."

As Jim C points out, this is fundamentally at odds with our Anglo-Saxon traditions of law. Authority has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in fact a crime did occur. "Hue and cry" was never judicial evidence against the accused...in fact through change of venue, our judicial system tries to eliminate its influence from the jury system.

Saying that a community is outraged, and therefore a more serious offense is involved, is flirting with mob justice.

Great point about mob justice, the yell. Furthermore, I have yet to see the hate crime charge levied against the typical "protected classes". It's almost always used against white heterosexual males. I may be wrong, but I can't think of one single case where a hate crime charge was used in a case where a WHM was assualted or killed.

Regarding trhe case mentioned in the post; unless there are somed facts missing from the reporting in the press accounts, this strikes me that it's more hate speech than hate crime. It seems ridiculous to charge a couple of kids with a felony for saying something stupid. In fact, it seems to me that this whole thing fits more into the catagory of "picking on someone" (like teenagers are want to do ... I sure remember it happening in Sr. High) at that age. That's the last of what I have to say on this...

Jim C

V
Let me know the first time that a "hate crime" statute is used against someone who victimizes a white male. Then I might think that there was some chance that the laws weren't just typical leftist PC anti-white male tripe used to institutionalize a divisive factionalizing tribalism on the country.

v said:

"In these kinds of crimes, the act of spreading hate is against the law."

Can you define the act of spreading hate for us? Are you referring to the act of distributing flyers that happen to offend your sensibilities? Are you perhaps referring to the act of saying something that MIGHT cause someone else to MAYBE hurt someone (I mean real hurt, not just feelings) at some unspecified time in the future?

We as a society have never thrown people in jail for mere words unless there was some evidence that those words would immediately turn into harmful action. Your rabid desire to do it in this case is shortsighted at best and, as mentioned above, totalitarian at worst. Remember, once you put the mob in charge, whoever is in charge of the mob decides what speech is worthy of jail time (or worse). Today, it's anything said against gay people. Preachers are already being thrown in jail for citing the book of Romans. The Bible. Tomorrow, it could be anyone who agrees with the gay agenda. If I'm in charge of the mob, and I know the only way to keep the mob on my side is to appeal to their base instincts, I'll throw anyone who disagrees with them in jail just to maintain power. Know what we call this? Totalitarianism. Look it up.

It's interesting that so many righties want to get rid of laws that criminalize terrorism.