I love the reverse symbolic euphemism- genius to whomever.

"Potsmoker" is a perfect username for someone who still can not understand the well explained concept of this. The American flag is legal to burn as a sign of freedom of expression and protest (of course within a secure place to do so), but annonimously burning the gay flag infront of the lgbt (LesbianGayBisexualTransgender) community center and left to be found is unexceptable and is seen as a threat. If you still don't understand this than you must have killed too many brain cells.

i love gay sex and flag burning,,,never tried both at the same time!

manlove, potsmoke and flagsmoke would be a trifecta!

burning the american flag is freedom of speech!

burning the gay rainbow flag is a hate crime???

ok, so leaving a burnt flag is int8imidation and a crime?but standingoutside and burning the gay flag is a protest protected by free speech...id love to test that out...wheres fred phelps when you need him

Hey, hate to inject some logic here, but burning YOUR OWN American Flag is not a crime. Burning someone else's IS. It's vandalism. Same holds true for a any other flag. If it's not yours and you burn it, that's a crime.

Probably self inflicted like the noose at Columbia University or the Burning Cross on Long Island. Great to get attention, make a point on behalf of your group.

I'm always skeptical of political groups claiming to have been victimized.

FBI's Definition of a hate crime:

"A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."

This is clearly a hate crime.

There has to be an underlying crime first. By your logic, if someone crosses the street or decides to stay in their house in order to avoid a certain minority group, they could be charged with a crime.

"By your logic, if someone crosses the street or decides to stay in their house in order to avoid a certain minority group, they could be charged with a crime."

No, that definition states that there has to be an underlying crime first: "a criminal offense... that is motivated... by the offender's bias..."

An act that is defined as a crime can be charged as a hate crime based on the motivation behind it.

So like thought crimes?

What are you talking about? Crimes consist of ACTS (except for crimes of the heart ;)). So, no, not like thought crimes.

I swear, it's like talking to a child.

I guess you haven't read 1984

How's that?

Still not getting the reference? Amazing.

Still not getting the question? Amazing. So let me try to spell it out for you: What in my initial comments would make you think that I have not read it? (You do realize that 1984 is a work of fiction, thought police and all, right?)

I don't think you should be engaging in a discussion on hate crime laws if you don't understand how the concept of thought crime is relevant. Many people have a philosophical issue with hate crime laws in that assume a crime consists of both an ACT and a THOUGHT. By your reply to matty I can tell you missed that point and his reference.

OK, let me be super plain then. A hate crime consists of two components: 1) the intention to harm someone because they belong to one of the aforementioned groups and 2) the attempt to harm (conspiracy included). Just thinking hateful things is not a hate crime (luckily for those Tea Partyers!). Acting hatefully BECAUSE of hateful thoughts is a hate crime. What role do you see "thought crime" playing in this discussion? Please explain. Or, if I'm missing something from my definition, let me know. We might agree, for example, that "intention" is an vague concept, but surely that's a different discussion.

Let me be super plain. 'The intent to harm' is the only part of #1 that should matter. Why you intend to harm someone should never matter. When the lawyers bring someone's thought process into the matter, that's when everything gets screwed up and a lot of violent criminals are acquitted or have their sentences reduced. "Oh, so you killed that guy because he was sleeping with your girlfriend? Instead of murder, we'll just call it manslaughter and let you go." If you can't control yourself enough to not kill (or harm) someone, you deserve punishment. Plain and simple.

"Many people have a philosophical issue with hate crime laws in that assume a crime consists of both an ACT and a THOUGHT."

Right, those would be people who don't understand how "normal" laws work either. Forethought and motivation matter, it makes the difference between manslaughter and murder. (Here's a fun hypothetical - you run somebody over in your car. Does it matter what you were thinking when you do it? Fuck yeah it does.)

But hey, you read 1984 in grade school, so keep repeating that reference as if it proves something.

Sigh...If you think the difference between an accident and a crime is an appropriate an analogy for hate crime legislation, I'm afraid this argument is a lost cause. The Supreme Court has addressed hate crime legislation and the relationship to first amendment rights several times, not always in favor of the legislation. I suggest you read their opinion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul