Gothamist: Hate Crime Against Gays Sparks Debate

NancyLad

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:20:43 -0500

I will grant you that, however, that right ends when it violates another person's Constition guaranteed rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Along with the right to freedom of speach comes the responsibility of using it wisely, and responsibly.

rcltrh

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:25:17 -0500

1st amendment protects your free speech against the government. Will you people ever learn this? Seems like every time something comes up about the use of words involved in something hateful people try to run to the 1st amendment. Where were you when they covered that in the 9th grade civics class?

NancyLad

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:32:01 -0500

If the perpetrators had stopped at simple name calling, yes, you could consider it harassment. However, since the "f" word was used, while the victims were being physically assaulted, I think it's safe to assume that we've gone beyond simple harassment. I find the NAACP's trying to make the incident of no real importance sends a message that these actions, now, or in the future, will be winked at. Any epithet used against another human being to denigrate them is hateful, but to follow that epithet with physical violence is a de facto crime of hate.

jenspellnogood

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:14:25 -0500

hate crime legislation is unconstitutional, and patently stupid.

NannyState

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:27:13 -0500

Usually, this stuff stays on the loading dock. Keepin' it classy in S.I.

values_hehe

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:16:08 -0500

Why on earth would the NAACP insert themselves into this matter, just to make themselves look like idiots? When is the last time a white group, or a group for people interested in wooden spoons from China for that matter, inserted themselves into a racially charged crime in an attempt to mitigate the use of the n-word? Ugh.

babyhitler

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:57:33 -0500

It's the ACLU versus the LBGA with Some NAACP thrown in.

Billiamsburg

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:34:12 -0500

Oh I see thanks NAACP. If he would have killed him for being gay is that a crime or are blacks exempt from every law?

FrankMartin

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:01:17 -0500

Don't hate crime laws violate my 1st amendment rights?

fastergrace

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:00:10 -0500

It was harassment, and it was wrong. Nobody likes being treated like shit or made to feel unwelcome but it seems to me they're taking this too far. If he had actually been threatened it would be totally different ballgame.

robingee

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:45:32 -0500

ooooh, edgy!

The Edge

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:27:38 -0500

Maybe because "niggers" would most likely kick your ass on the street whereas "faggots" would most likely lick your ass?

other_islander

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:24:18 -0500

"We don't like faggots on Barker Street." This wasn't a comment like, "I'll kick your ass, faggot," Champagne was clearly targeting the victim because he perceived the victim to be gay. The NAACP is being hypocritical, at best. Also, why is Gothamist willing to print the word faggot but adopts the twee use of "n-word" for nigger? Quoting someone or speaking about the word in a news story is not the same as using it as an epithet. You seem to be yielding to the NAACP's argument: nigger is somehow worse than faggot and, by extension, violence against people because they are black is somehow worse than anti-gay violence. Use both words, when appropriate (my preference), or use neither.

Future Taliban

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:12:50 -0500

Is voting for a black democrat a hate crime?.

Kojak

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:11:55 -0500

"We're not saying that word should be used, but in a fight, [saying it] doesn't necessarily make it a hate crime. That can be true, but not in this case. Throw him in solitary. thx the NAACP should pick their battles more carefully.