Slashdot Mirror


Dharun Ravi Trial: Hate Crime Or Stupidity?

theodp writes "After a 17-month wait, 20-year-old Dharun Ravi went on trial Friday for using a remote webcam to spy on an encounter between his roommate and another man in their Rutgers dorm room. The roommate, Tyler Clementi, killed himself days later, jumping off the George Washington Bridge and igniting a national conversation on cyberbullying and gay teen suicide. Ravi is charged with multiple counts of bias intimidation as a hate crime, invasion of privacy and hindering apprehension; he faces up to 10 years in prison and deportation. Defense lawyers on Friday argued that Ravi's actions were the mark of an ignorant teenager, not a hateful homophobe. 'He may be stupid at times,' said Ravi's lawyer. 'He's an 18-year-old boy, but he's certainly not a criminal.' The New Yorker recently offered an in-depth look at the case and the questions it raises. BTW, this might be a good time for Microsoft to retire that Hallway commercial ('Jason gets stranded in the hallway when his roommate is 'tutoring' lady friends in their dorm room. Luckily, with Windows 7, his laptop can now work like an HD DVR. So Jason can entertain himself while waiting. And waiting. Aaand waiting some more.')."

671 comments

  1. Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No question that commercial is moronic, but it doesn't have any relevance to the spying via webcam thing. Timothy's trying a bit too hard to find something to bash Microsoft about this time.

    1. Re:Commercial by the+simurgh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      he admits he set up the webcam to record his roommates sexual encounters to prove he was gay and then set out to tell everyone. he's a guilty of a hate crime as if i were him I'd be glad they didn't put a felony charge on there so they could get try and get him on the victim's suicide.

    2. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      he admits he set up the webcam to record his roommates sexual encounters to prove he was gay and then set out to tell everyone. he's a guilty of a hate crime

      Only if you consider being gay a hate crime.
      It's no different than spying on someone who is hetero, and then producing proof of the actions to the public. Now, if they can show he made certain types of slanderous comments, or can prove he had the intent to do harm because the guy is gay, then you probably have a case for a "hate crime".
      But aside from that one consideration it's no different than a hetero couple being revealed in a 'romantic engagement' and one of them committing suicide because of the revelation.

      Just because a crime involves gay or 'minority' people, doesn't make it a 'hate crime'.

    3. Re:Commercial by the+simurgh · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      he had no business asking in the first place. someone Else's business is someone Else's business NOT YOURS.

    4. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      he admits he set up the webcam to record his roommates sexual encounters to prove he was gay and then set out to tell everyone.

      There are gay groups that do that everyday - they "out" closeted gays because they think it's the right thing to do.

    5. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the guy had already announced he was gay, including to his parents. And there is no subterfuge about kicking your roommate out so you can be alone with another guy. So being discovered as gay can't be the reason for the suicide.

    6. Re:Commercial by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not that "being gay" is a hate crime, but otherwise I'd agree. What if it was a married woman being filmed having sex with her illicit lover who killed herself afterwards? It would be exactly the same thing, yet wouldn't be a hate crime.

      Outing someone is a hate crime? That makes no sense to me. However, the invasion of privacy is horrible in any case.

    7. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not guilty yet. The prosecutors are just trying to pin that on him.

      The reason is the laws and policies are biased, but that's because the real world is not pie-in-the-sky perfect. Thus a bunch of people have decided to make biased pro-gay/etc laws to try to balance out the biased anti-gay/etc society.

      In the real world, some truths get people killed.
      It the real world in many places including the USA you have a higher chance of being bashed up because you are gay, than because you're hetero.
      In the real world, you have a higher chance of losing your job just because you are gay, than just because you're hetero.

      No surprise a fair number of gay people feel oppressed, and perhaps this incident was just the straw that broke the camels back.

      If you don't like the biased laws and policies, and for some strange reason that's your main priority, vote accordingly and make your views known to your congresscritters.

      FWIW I'm a hetero, but since I'm one of those virgin slashdotters it's only relevant to the sort of porn I like...

    8. Re:Commercial by the+simurgh · · Score: 1

      this is different the scenario you outlined 1: it does not have the person killing themselves because they release of the footage. 2: this crime implies that the footage is being sought\recorded\or released for hate or blackmail.

    9. Re:Commercial by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      Last time I checked the definition of hate crime had a lot to do with a minority being involved... just saying...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if it was a married woman being filmed having sex with her illicit lover who killed herself afterwards?

      You misogynist!!

      Look, tacking the word hate before crime follows no rhyme or reason. It is by definition a detailed determination of intent of perpetrator. It doesn't matter if you had no such intent.

    11. Re:Commercial by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't agree.

      If I try to catch a girlfriend cheating on me and post the video all over the place to show what a slut she is, it's stupid, it's childish, and it's selfish.

      But it's not a hate crime.

      There is no evidence that he had a general hatred of gays or was persecuting the gay community as a whole. Only that he wanted to "out" his roommate. And as despicable as that may be and as terrible as the end result was, that is NOT a hate crime.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    12. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not the same thing at all as a married woman having an affair. It is so much more than invasion of privacy, which is just some voyeuristic fetish. It's more than blackmail or extortion, which build in a monetary or power-based motive to the invasion. The married woman might be distraught about the impact on her marriage or on her reputation, but unless the motive behind that filming was someone who wanted to expose adulterers, and not simply a grudge against the woman specifically, they're not even close.

      Invading someone's privacy specifically to cause injury and humiliation because he was gay is what makes it a hate crime. If he had recorded his roommate because he just didn't like him, and either didn't know or didn't care that he was gay, then it would be the same as the married woman.

    13. Re:Commercial by countvlad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does this have to be a hate crime?

      Isn't the whole point of "equal protection under the law" to give us all the same protections of the justice system? Why should it matter who's privacy was invaded, who was beaten, or who was killed? Shouldn't all of these acts of evil be abhorrent in our society regardless of why they were committed? Isn't it hypocritical to cry for "equal rights" and then write laws which are, by definition, unequal? It's a sad, narrow minded overreaction to the injustices of the past.

      Hate crime law, like the Jim Crow laws of the last century, are a backward and draconian implementation of justice and social regulation that are a slap in the face to equality. The sooner we stop drawing distinctions like these, the sooner we'll progress to a society that is open and accepting of so called "alternative lifestyles."

      Incidentally, what this man did was a horrendous invasion of privacy and fully deserves to be considered a felony. He should be tried in a court of law and regardless of the outcome should be exported (obviously at the end of his sentence if found guilty).

    14. Re:Commercial by luckymutt · · Score: 2

      If I try to catch a girlfriend cheating on me and post the video all over the place to show what a slut she is, it's stupid, it's childish, and it's selfish.

      But it's not a hate crime.

      You are correct, it is not a hate crime.
      However, the difference is that in your example you are trying to expose someone's wrong-doing.
      In the present case, it was more about trying to humiliate someone for no reason, at best, and as a hateful intolerant act at worst.

    15. Re:Commercial by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      FFS, every time a queer sumbitch dies,

      Runaway1956 is an example of what happens when societal pressures force someone into the closet. They end up filled with hatred and bitterness because of their inability to act on their strongest desires. They end up despising what they cannot have.

      Remember, Runaway1956: It gets better.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:Commercial by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, Ratzo - I guess that your bullshit accusation makes you feel better. I don't like gays, so I must be a closet gay. Like the person I responded to above, that's just fucking retarded. Can't you come up with ANYTHING more original? More intelligent? How about simply entertaining? Noooo - just the same old idiotic homophobe bullshit. Get a life, get a mind, and stop parroting the liberal party line, alright?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    17. Re:Commercial by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Funny

      The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    18. Re:Commercial by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Isn't the whole point of "equal protection under the law" to give us all the same protections of the justice system? Why should it matter who's privacy was invaded, who was beaten, or who was killed? Shouldn't all of these acts of evil be abhorrent in our society regardless of why they were committed? Isn't it hypocritical to cry for "equal rights" and then write laws which are, by definition, unequal? It's a sad, narrow minded overreaction to the injustices of the past.

      The laws, as executed today, are still inequal. Until that's fixed, "hate crime" legislation is not any worse.

      As for " regardless of why they were committed", why is it nobody complains about the distinction when some old man plows into a building killing 10 and gets charged with "reckless driving" and not any form of homicide. If he were drunk and 18, he'd be charged with 10 counts of murder. Sure, some may complain that the old man got to murder for "free", but nobody complains that the law allows such distinction based solely on "why". Until some gay dies, then they got what they deserved, and we shouldn't give them any special treatment under the law, even if, as indicated in this case, he was targeted for ridicule and harassment solely because he was gay.

    19. Re:Commercial by icebraining · · Score: 1

      injustices of the past

      I agree with you with the rest, but I'd like to point out that the injustices are hardly "of the past".

    20. Re:Commercial by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 2

      It would be exactly the same thing.

      No, the only reason it happened was that the victim was suspected of being a homosexual. So your hypothetical quandary simply isn't possible without that suspicion. That was the motivation, and that is both necessary and sufficient to constitute a hate crime considering the motivation was acted upon.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    21. Re:Commercial by fast+turtle · · Score: 0

      Hate Crime Laws are the new Political Correctness and that's absolutely abhorent under the Constituitional Guaranty of Equal Protection under the Law. The entire purpose of Political Correctness Laws such as these are to destroy the Constitution

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    22. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. appears to allow spycams, but in the civilized world, you are not allowed to spy on people. If you set up a nannycam in your home, you must tell said nanny about it up front or face prison time. No keyloggers, no recordings, no peepholes, even in public places without clear warning signs.

    23. Re:Commercial by yali · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you kill a man, you have committed a murder.

      If you kill a man while announcing to a bunch of people, "This could be any one of you, and unless you start acting like I want you to act (or disappear entirely), next time it will be," you have committed a murder. But you have done other things too. You have also threatened a bunch of people with violence.

      The legal theory behind hate crimes is that they are like the second case. When you target somebody partially or wholly because of their membership in a group (not just them as a unique individual), you are making an implicit threat against that entire group. When it is a group that has a long history of being targeted with similar violence, your implicit threat carries an especially large capability to intimidate. Hence the need to give special status to hate crimes.

    24. Re:Commercial by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      I must be a closet gay

      Honey, I understand. ; )

      You do whatcha gotta do...

      But it does get better.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    25. Re:Commercial by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't agree.

      If I try to catch a girlfriend cheating on me and post the video all over the place to show what a slut she is, it's stupid, it's childish, and it's selfish.

      But it's not a hate crime.

      There is no evidence that he had a general hatred of gays or was persecuting the gay community as a whole. Only that he wanted to "out" his roommate. And as despicable as that may be and as terrible as the end result was, that is NOT a hate crime.

      The very fact that he wanted to out the guy shows the intent. Would he had do the same thing had the roommate being dating, say, the head cheerleader? I do not think so. I don't think he would have posted the news in twitter, either. He wanted his roommate marked as gay in front of the community, assuming that the community would shun him. That alone makes it a hate crime.

      The difference between hate speech and being just an asshole is when being an asshole is so common place that it becomes a social problem. Lets say that this Dharun guy was not worried about his roommate being gay, but by him wearing Star Trek costumes. So he spies on him and "outs" him as a Star Trek fan. Ok, a little weird but there is no really social opinion against trekkies. Nobody would care / gossip / harass about that.

      The trouble is that outing him as a gay, in an ambient where homophobic bullying is allowed(*) can really cause a problem. Think that he was not filming a 30 something adult who might give a shit about what his coleagues might think, but another teenager who probably wanted to blend in the crowd. It is really a very different thing.

      * Note that I don't say that bullying from a majority or else, but even a very small vocal minority can cause really problems if the rest of the population does not stop them(think of the Scottsboro nutcracks). And we know that bulliers are rarely opposed by those who do not want to become targets.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    26. Re:Commercial by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      It's a sad, narrow minded overreaction to the injustices of the past.

      This is a common misconception. A hate crime is not a crime against an oppressed minority, it's a crime against both an individual, and a community. While the individual is harmed exactly the same as if it had been levelled at anyone else, it is also designed as a general threat to every other member of the victim's race/sexuality/whatever else the perpetrator took offence to. The crime has more negative consequences than merely the effects to the individual victim alone. To ignore this would be an injustice.

      Also, it doesn't even have to be against a minority. For example, we might one day find a white person dead and scalped, with a message "We should have scalped you a long time ago", or something like that. This would be a hate crime.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    27. Re:Commercial by russotto · · Score: 2

      He wanted his roommate marked as gay in front of the community, assuming that the community would shun him. That alone makes it a hate crime.

      He could have outed his roommate as gay and openly advocated that he be shunned and he'd have been perfectly within his rights to do so. That's not a hate crime because it's not even a crime.

      The crimes he's alleged to have committed are invasion of privacy, bias intimidation (related to the invasion of privacy), and evidence tampering. Bias intimidation requires that he have intimidated the victim; not offended him, not shunned him, not outed him, not even angered him or made him unhappy, but intimidated him.

    28. Re:Commercial by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Outing someone is a hate crime? That makes no sense to me. However, the invasion of privacy is horrible in any case.

      ... So you're argument is that this was clearly an invasion of privacy to prove that the guy was gay, and that if the guy were not suspected of being homosexual, that Ravi would not have had any motivation to film him.

      So, it's a crime that is based on a perceived sexual orientation of the victim.

      And you don't understand how this is a hate crime?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    29. Re:Commercial by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      As for " regardless of why they were committed", why is it nobody complains about the distinction when some old man plows into a building killing 10 and gets charged with "reckless driving" and not any form of homicide. If he were drunk and 18, he'd be charged with 10 counts of murder. Sure, some may complain that the old man got to murder for "free"

      When has this ever happened?

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    30. Re:Commercial by snowgirl · · Score: 2

      Why should it matter who's privacy was invaded, who was beaten, or who was killed?

      Hate crimes are not about WHO, they're about WHY.

      If you're a white man, and you kill a black guy because he was cheating with your wife, then it's not a hate crime.

      If you're a black man, and you kill your white wife for insurance money, then that's not a hate crime.

      If you record your wife because you suspect she's hiding money from you, then that's not a hate crime.

      If you're a white man and you kill a black guy, BECAUSE THEY'RE BLACK, that is a hate crime.

      If you're a black man, and you kill your white wife BECAUSE SHE'S WHITE, then that is a hate crime.

      If you record your wife because you suspect that she's secretly practicing Jewish traditions, then that is a hate crime.

      Do you get how this works? It's not "minority victims are better", it's that committing crimes against people solely due to a trait that you couldn't discriminate against them in a job, then not only have you committed your primary criminal action, you've also committed an act of discrimination.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    31. Re:Commercial by skine · · Score: 2

      The reason that they are prosecuted differently is because the motive is important.

      It's one thing for me to burn down someone's house. It's another for me to burn down their house because they're gay.

      While I'm not sure this is actually an example of a hate crime, it is something worth looking into.

    32. Re:Commercial by Dr+Fro · · Score: 1

      Either way, the house is still burned down.

      --
      ********************
      I object to Intellect without Discipline.
    33. Re:Commercial by siddesu · · Score: 1

      This is only true if you equal "invasion of privacy" with "assault", and if you can show clearly that the intent of the spying was to effect violence, or fear of violence on the gay person. From the article in New Yorker I can't see either. All I see is a bigot taping a gay guy for the lulz. It is irresponsible, bigoted and stupid, but it is very far from a hate crime.

    34. Re:Commercial by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      it does not have the person killing themselves because they release of the footage

      I don't see why we should treat invasion of privacy and/or bullying any differently when victim commits suicide. It invites future victims to also do the same, in hope that buys heftier penalty for their bully. I don't think that's a good idea.

    35. Re:Commercial by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Not just any minority, a "recognized minority". That's what makes it such a bad idea.

    36. Re:Commercial by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The very fact that he wanted to out the guy shows the intent. Would he had do the same thing had the roommate being dating, say, the head cheerleader? I do not think so. I don't think he would have posted the news in twitter, either. He wanted his roommate marked as gay in front of the community, assuming that the community would shun him. That alone makes it a hate crime.

      So, hate crime is thoughtcrime?

    37. Re:Commercial by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      6th Street, Austin, Texas.

    38. Re:Commercial by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      When you target somebody partially or wholly because of their membership in a group

      The trick would be to actually prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless you know some professional telepaths to serve as experts.

    39. Re:Commercial by grumble_grumble · · Score: 0

      I don't know, maybe sluts will be the next protected class. There's enough of them out there (M and F) that they could form a powerful lobby/PAC, that is if they weren't too busy boinking everything that moves....

    40. Re:Commercial by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      That may be, however what the "victim" decides to do should not be on the "perpetrator." The fact is that he taped him and outed him, and he violated his privacy, but he did not kill him. This is no hate crime.

    41. Re:Commercial by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When said invasion of privacy is done with the explicit purpose of humiliating the target, and leads to their suicide days later, then yes, it is an assault (psychological), and should be considered a hate crime. He's lucky he didn't get charged with negligent homicide: he should have known that his actions had consequences, and "not thinking" about those consequences is not an excuse. He's above the age of majority, and can be held legally responsible for his actions, regardless of whether he considered their effect.

      Consider: this kid was away from his family, and his parents for the first time. He was just beginning to understand himself as gay, and quite likely had a very conservative family (most gay kids with liberally-minded parents come out long before they go off to University, at least in my experience). His roommate decided to film him having a homosexual encounter for the purpose of outing him, at a time when he was very likely only beginning to understand it himself. Coming out is not a question of waking up one day and saying "dad, I'm gay". First you need to come out to yourself, which can itself be very traumatic, and very difficult, especially if you've lived your whole life being taught that homosexuality is wrong. He was not ready for that kind of realization, and to have it happen in a public forum, on film and quite possibly his first ever, pushed him too far. Left to his own devices, he probably could have come to grips with his homosexuality or discovered a way to deal with it, but he was denied that chance by an act of bigotry. As a reasonable adult, particularly one who is aware of the situation with gay rights in the US, can you possibly tell me straight-faced that this couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the suicide?

      Psychological abuse is still abuse, and this was motivated by the fact that he was gay. Whether it was done "for the lulz" or to humiliate him or to cause him actual harm is irrelevant, as the main reason behind it was the fact that he was gay, and that is somehow wrong.

    42. Re:Commercial by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps next time you should actually read the definition given in the article you link to:

      hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.

      "Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

      The crime alleged to have occurred is the very definition of "hate crime".

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    43. Re:Commercial by siddesu · · Score: 1

      You should have read the second paragraph: A hate crime is a legal category used to described bias-motivated violence: "assault, injury, and murder". The "crimes" that are alleged to have occured are not violent. The person who jumped from the bridge did so by himself and, apparently, voluntarily, hence his death is classified as "suicide". There was no violence or threat of violence involved, hence no hate crime.

    44. Re:Commercial by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      I see you still haven't learned reading comprehension. Let's try again:

      "Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    45. Re:Commercial by pseudofrog · · Score: 1

      So, hate crime is thoughtcrime?

      Erm...no.

      The filming was a crime. He's being charged with a hate-crime because of the motivation of the filming. It's not at all uncommon for laws to consider the perpetrator's motivation.

    46. Re:Commercial by pseudofrog · · Score: 1

      Sure, but other members of the victim's minority don't feel that they're potential future targets. All "hate crime" means is that the motivation was one of, well, hate. And yes, motivation is often taken into consideration in legal matters.

      It's really not that difficult a concept.

    47. Re:Commercial by siddesu · · Score: 1

      then yes, it is an assault (psychological)

      In, like, your opinion. Assault is a crime in which a victim is at least threatened with violence, and this is clearly not the case. I know it is fashionable to brand anything "psychological abuse", but I've had a lot worse in school than this guy, and I somehow managed to survive. I know many people like myself. Calling the experience in the article an "assault" is ridiculous.

      As a reasonable adult, particularly one who is aware of the situation with gay rights in the US, can you possibly tell me straight-faced that this couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the suicide?

      As a reasonable adult, I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that it is premature to conclude that the person who jumped off the bridge did so solely because of the webcam incident. In my experience, it takes a lot more for a reasoning individual to jump off a bridge. There seems to be a lot of background missing about the person who killed himself to say anything with any degree of certainty.

      Also, there is a lot of background to consider when you judge the charges. I think, for example, that it is quite possible that most of the outrage of the gay communities in New Jersey is not related to the case itself, but to the recent veto on a certain bill by a certain Republican governor.

      Alas, I am not really that much interested in this case, except to point out the obvious -- that the usage of the "hate crime" laws is very obviously not appropriate here. That's why I'll stop here.

    48. Re:Commercial by siddesu · · Score: 1

      ORLY? Please, one gifted with reading comprehension, read the charges and tell me, which crime in the list is assault, battery or murder.

    49. Re:Commercial by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      We generally consider intent when determining punishment, not motivation. The difference between those is that determining intent does not require mind-reading - so long as it can be demonstrated that the perpetrator knew of the outcome, that outcome was intentional. Determining motivation, though, always has to be done on much flimsier grounds - a typical example being "if victim belongs to a recognized minority X, assume that crime was a hate crime by default".

    50. Re:Commercial by jbolden · · Score: 1

      A hate crime is a crime designed to be against the group rather than the individual.

      So taping a woman for some reason specific to her is not a hate crime.
      Taping a woman because of a generalized hatred of women is a hate crime.

    51. Re:Commercial by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's a defense. If he can prove that his actions were specific to his roommate and not a generalized attack on gays then it isn't a hate crime. I assume the prosecution is alleging that this was a generalized hatred for gays and the roommate was just the essentially random target of it.

    52. Re:Commercial by jbolden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perfectly legal acts combined with illegal acts can be consider actions in furtherance of a crime. For example driving the car with the money away from the bank is still a crime even though taking that exact same route for another purpose isn't.

      The prosecution is going to have to prove a lot here. I'd rather they stop playing games and charge people engaged in bullying that leads to a death with involuntary manslaughter.

    53. Re:Commercial by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The purpose of hate crime legislation is because as a society we have seen that systematic terrorism against groups is more damaging than (from a macro perspective) random violence. We lose more people on any given month in highway accidents than we lost on 9/11. 9/11 did far more damage to the country. By the 20th century most years the klan lynched under 100 people, which as a matter of population had little impact on the African American population.

    54. Re:Commercial by jbolden · · Score: 1

      It gets proved all the time. People often discuss their motivations for crimes with others. Even when they don't hate crimes in particular generally require lots of actions to make the motive clear.

    55. Re:Commercial by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      What if it was a married woman being filmed having sex with her illicit lover who killed herself afterwards?

      1: it does not have the person killing themselves because they release of the footage.

      Uh, yes, his scenario seems to imply that.

      But let's take it a bit further. There's this total bitch who completely pisses me off. I discover she's having an affair and I surreptitiously film her having sex. I figure I'll send it to the husband just to fuck up her life. She discovers this and commits suicide.

      Is that there then a hate crime?

      Random aside: While writing this, I was suddenly struck by an old George Carlin bit:

      [...] you'd take a very simple sin and surround it with the most bizarre circumstances you could imagine...to try to, y'know, relieve the guilt in the sin. We'd usually end up with the, uh, statement, "Would that then be a sin then, Father?"

      Like, here, this is an example. There was one sin- not receiving communion during Easter time. You had to perform your "Easter duty". You had to receive once between Ash Wednesday and Pentecost Sunday and if you didn't do it, it was a mortal sin. [...] "Oh, sorry Father. Anyways, Father. Suppose that you didn't make your Easter duty...and it's Pentecost Sunday...the last day...and you're on a ship at sea...and the chaplain goes into a coma...but you wanted to receive. And then it's Monday, too late...but then you cross the International Date Line!"

      "Yes, I'm sure God will take that into account. Sit down, Woozie."

      I mean, I can come up with a bunch of scenarios--and they don't have to be as odd as George Carlin's--and ask "Would that then be a hate crime then?" So the system is working--we're going to let a jury decide the parameters of a hate crime because a law cannot account for all possible occurrences.

      To me, though, there's a difference between "I hate someone because they're gay" and "I hate someone who happens to be gay." One is a hate crime and one is not.

    56. Re:Commercial by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      So the ELF people, when blowing up cars and spiking trees and so on are committing hate crimes?

      Or the people in the ghettos and barrios when the yell at white people and flash gang signs are committing hate crimes and polling places?

      Or one of the many other situations exactly like what you describe, but aren't against "protected class" groups that get ignored by everyone else because it is completely unremarkable?

      My point? People say they want what you said, except that it hardly ever gets equal treatment under the law. Either we're for equal protection or we are not. And clearly many people are not for equal protection of the law, and have their biases they want to protect, and ignore those that they don't.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    57. Re:Commercial by _xen · · Score: 1

      So, hate crime is thoughtcrime?

      Well ALL crime has (or ought to have) some thoughtcrime component (i.e. mens rea). Strict liability offences are a bitch!

    58. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire purpose of [Hate Crime] Laws such as these are [sic] to destroy the Constitution.

      Nonsense! The purpose of these laws is to address a perceived problem with racially (and other anti-minority) motivated violence. The destruction of the Constitution is merely a bi-product.

    59. Re:Commercial by msobkow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, if you read the article, he did not "tape them" and post the video as some are assuming.

      He twittered that his roommate was gay.

      The problem I have with the gay community lately is that they want special protections and special priveleges and special treatment. They're no longer content to be merely accepted by society, they want to be special.

      And that can NOT be allowed in a society that values equality.

      If you told people your roommate was a drug dealer, a drug addict, an alcoholic, a slut, a whore, a thief, or any number of things, you would not be charged as this fellow is being charged. He's being charged solely because he flagged the fact that his roommate was gay.

      This is not evidence of hatred at all. It's evidence of an intent to publicly humiliate him. And the only reason he would have felt humiliated is if he was ashamed of being gay, and the onus for his resulting suicide is on him and his choices.

      The molly-coddling theory that people should be immune from harassment, embarrassment, humiliation, and generally being picked on by individuals just because they happen to be gay is insane, and that's what I see being done with this case. Someone is being prosecuted because he didn't like his roommate.

      Not because he hated gays -- because he didn't like his roommate!!!

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    60. Re:Commercial by readin · · Score: 1

      What if it was a married woman being filmed having sex with her illicit lover who killed herself afterwards?

      1: it does not have the person killing themselves because they release of the footage.

      Uh, yes, his scenario seems to imply that.

      But let's take it a bit further. There's this total bitch who completely pisses me off. I discover she's having an affair and I surreptitiously film her having sex. I figure I'll send it to the husband just to fuck up her life. She discovers this and commits suicide.

      Is that there then a hate crime?

      Random aside: While writing this, I was suddenly struck by an old George Carlin bit:

      [...] you'd take a very simple sin and surround it with the most bizarre circumstances you could imagine...to try to, y'know, relieve the guilt in the sin. We'd usually end up with the, uh, statement, "Would that then be a sin then, Father?"

      Like, here, this is an example. There was one sin- not receiving communion during Easter time. You had to perform your "Easter duty". You had to receive once between Ash Wednesday and Pentecost Sunday and if you didn't do it, it was a mortal sin. [...] "Oh, sorry Father. Anyways, Father. Suppose that you didn't make your Easter duty...and it's Pentecost Sunday...the last day...and you're on a ship at sea...and the chaplain goes into a coma...but you wanted to receive. And then it's Monday, too late...but then you cross the International Date Line!"

      "Yes, I'm sure God will take that into account. Sit down, Woozie."

      I mean, I can come up with a bunch of scenarios--and they don't have to be as odd as George Carlin's--and ask "Would that then be a hate crime then?" So the system is working--we're going to let a jury decide the parameters of a hate crime because a law cannot account for all possible occurrences.

      To me, though, there's a difference between "I hate someone because they're gay" and "I hate someone who happens to be gay." One is a hate crime and one is not.

      Actually, both are thought crimes.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    61. Re:Commercial by readin · · Score: 1

      Not really. A hate crime isn't determined by race, it's determined by what you're thinking. It's easier to remember if you if you say use the more general term "thought crime".

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    62. Re:Commercial by readin · · Score: 1

      Right. Motivation can have an emotion component beyond thinking. So it wasn't purely a thought crime nor purely an emotion crime, but a combination of both. Does that make you feel better?

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    63. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would be a hate crime if it was a crime to begin with. People are disputing whether it should be a crime.

    64. Re:Commercial by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Good point. I suppose I should put it this way:

      To me, though, there's a difference because "I hate someone because they're gay, so I killed them." and "I hate someone because they're a jerk who happens to be gay, so I killed them."

    65. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, Ratzo - I guess that your bullshit accusation makes you feel better. I don't like gays, so I must be a closet gay. Like the person I responded to above, that's just fucking retarded. Can't you come up with ANYTHING more original? More intelligent? How about simply entertaining? Noooo - just the same old idiotic homophobe bullshit. Get a life, get a mind, and stop parroting the liberal party line, alright?

      Either you just blatantly admitted to being a homophobe or you need a dictionary.

      I really just don't get people like you. I'm not gay but that doesn't mean I can't hang out and have a beer with friends who are. Seriously, what is your problem?

    66. Re:Commercial by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, to be fair, intent plays a big role in many crimes involving people. Wanting to kill someone changes manslaughter to murder. One could argue that the distinction also serves as adding a "thought crime" element to the fact that a person died.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    67. Re:Commercial by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I'm too lazy to RTFA, but I wonder: was he targeting the kid because he was gay, or because he didn't like him?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    68. Re:Commercial by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Yes. For good or bad, the whole point of hate crime laws are enforcing thoughtcrime.

    69. Re:Commercial by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      The crime is listed before that sentence. You would know that if you could be bothered to actually read before forming an opinion(or linking), but it seems knowledge isn't necessary for you to hold a strong opinion.

      Since you seem somewhat ignorant on the area, let me provide another protip. "Violent crime" doesn't necessarily involve physical violence. I'd tell you to read up on it, but ...

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    70. Re:Commercial by Cant+use+a+slash+wtf · · Score: 1

      I would say that wouldn't be labelled as a hate crime mostly because you are outing someone for their immoral behaviour as opposed to their sexual orientation.

      If you were to release a video of your wife cheating on you, it would be illegal, but not a hate crime.

      If you were to release a video of your wife cheating on you with a black man and remark on the fact that she is a dirty nigger-lover, that would be a hate crime.

    71. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should be tried and publicly humiliated the same way in which his roommate was. Do I think he should receive prison or jail time for this no. This also is a attempt to set an example to others out there if they do this, they very well could be facing charges, but we know this is bullshit, this is being done because various activist groups and the shit stain news media brought heat onto the prosecutors.

      I would like to believe is was being done to set an example for others who have thought about doing this or those in the process of doing this but the court system does not work that way by itself, it takes activists groups or the shit stain news media push before anything is done. (I should add the death of someone or several people are also a must have for anything to be done)

    72. Re:Commercial by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      This is only true if you equal "invasion of privacy" with "assault", and if you can show clearly that the intent of the spying was to effect violence, or fear of violence on the gay person. From the article in New Yorker I can't see either. All I see is a bigot taping a gay guy for the lulz. It is irresponsible, bigoted and stupid, but it is very far from a hate crime.

      I'm only working with New Mexico law, because that's the only one I'm familiar with, and I don't know the specific jurisdiction under which this case is being tried.

      However, that being said, in New Mexico "hate crime" does not have to be a violent crime, it just has to be a crime.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    73. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally agree for the most part however, it is not a hate crime unless he hated gays.. If he does then yes, but if he did it as a prank because he thought it would be funny to out his roommate NO. I do not know if the victim was gay or just a romantic and did not talk about pu**y the way a lot of other guys do, the suicide itself could be because of the humiliation and knowing no matter what he says he will never be able to shake off those who have ostracized him. Then the other half of this is, yes was gay and did not want it to be public, the shame of his private life being brought out without him being sure of himself was the reason for suicide.

      You and everyone already know the bases of a hate crime, the person or persons involved have targeted a certain group or groups of people based on color, religion, or sexual preference. You have to prove that those charged with the crime have blatant views or opinions of targeting a group, or groups of people with the intent on harming or intimidating them to get rid of them, that can be vocal threats, physical violence, or murder. But you have to prove there opinions or beliefs are hateful, before there actions. You can argue this the other way around also, I am aware of that but this rarely leads to a guilty outcome. It seems these laws are targeted for hate groups, and not individuals.

      I see comments on both sides of this, some say it should be a hate crime, and the hate crime laws should be rewritten from the example I used above.

      Some believe this should not be treated as a hate crime, and that anyone caught doing this regardless of the victim being gay or straight should be charged. Then those feel this is (and should be) more about privacy then hate, and Ravi should be charged with (i cannot name the exact charge) illegal surveillance.
      I see other comments over other video taping but involving girlfriends cheating with other men or other women, these to should be illegal surveillance, unless you have the persons written consent to tape them in a setting in which they feel or believe is private, these to should also be tried in court. It does not matter if you own, or your name is on the rent sheet, of a house or apt., there is a level of personal privacy expected. But going out and deceiving someone to get payback by publicly humiliating them is reckless.

      Ravi's had to know his roommate believed he was in a private setting or expected privacy. This idiot should be charged, but it depends on if he hated gays, or is just an idiot, if he is an idiot what does this say about colleges, and the people they accept.

      Question I have would the college dorm be considered "private property" to the person residing there? Or is it considered public property? Or does a person have expectations that there private personal matters, can be expected to stay private, in a college dorm, or campus room.

    74. Re:Commercial by siddesu · · Score: 1

      You'd tell me which "crime" it is, unfortunately it isn't there.

    75. Re:Commercial by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If being gay were not perceived by many right wing religious types as being wrong, you might have a point. But being exposed as gay is not at the moment the same as being exposed as preferring apples to oranges, or something equally trivial.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    76. Re:Commercial by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      In, like, your opinion. Assault is a crime in which a victim is at least threatened with violence, and this is clearly not the case. I know it is fashionable to brand anything "psychological abuse", but I've had a lot worse in school than this guy, and I somehow managed to survive. I know many people like myself. Calling the experience in the article an "assault" is ridiculous.

      You're either not gay, or not from the US. In some parts of the US, the knowledge that somebody is gay is tantamount to threats of physical violence. It doesn't matter who does the actual violence, there are parts of the US where it is not safe to be out, because of the degree of bigotry and stupidity that surrounds. In 2012, people still get lynched for being gay in the US. Outing him *is* a threat of violence, and it was motivated by his being gay. I'm not entirely sure how you're missing the connection.

    77. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like daddy bummed you too hard as a child, is it the memories that upset you?

      Or are you one of those people with a childlike mind who actually believes in god like a toddler believes in Santa?

    78. Re:Commercial by pugugly · · Score: 1

      "it was more about trying to humiliate someone for no reason, at best"

      And that's the point - hate crimes imply a reason. Stupidity is often for no reason.

      I don't particularly agree with hate crime legislation -- I can think of nothing which can be prosecuted as a hate crime that should not be prosecuted with equal vigor if no emotional context is available at all. I don't see that a racist is somehow more vicious than a sociopath with no conscience at all if they are performing the same actions.

      The flip side of which is -- if he had filmed his roommate doing something kinky, or having sex with someone homely, or masturbating . . . would we be having this conversation?

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    79. Re:Commercial by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He could have outed his roommate as gay and openly advocated that he be shunned and he'd have been perfectly within his rights to do so.

      Don't you have laws against mental abuse? Does someone actually have to be physically beaten for it to count as a crime?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    80. Re:Commercial by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that black and gay people where treated so badly in the past (and still are, gays can't even marry FFS) that there needs to be a big push in the other direction. And for the record these laws are equal, a gay person could just as easily commit a hate crime against a straight person as the other way around.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    81. Re:Commercial by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      It's not that "being gay" is a hate crime, but otherwise I'd agree. What if it was a married woman being filmed having sex with her illicit lover who killed herself afterwards? It would be exactly the same thing, yet wouldn't be a hate crime.

      Does everyone in this society see man-to-man sex as the same as man-to-woman sex? If yes, then there is not a problem here; otherwise, I disagree what you said that it is the same thing because you are comparing apple with orange.

    82. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making too many gray area distinctions. Why is the cheating girlfriend "wrong-doing" and sleeping with the same sex not? That's purely morally subjective and hence not a valid distinction.

      On the one hand, many people claim there is absolutely nothing shameful or wrong with homosexual activity and on the other hand they want to claim that being exposed for indulging in said activity is humiliating. Well, which is it? I think there is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships and I think that exposing said relationship should have no other legal repercussions than exposing a heterosexual one would have.

      I like these issues because it exposes people's own biases in the face of them vehemently deny such. (I'm not talking about you...I mean many other posters or people who comment on these types of stories).

    83. Re:Commercial by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Every murder has implicit in it the threat that anyone could be next. Oversensitivity and fear are not legitimate grounds for punishment, and actually increase prejudice by unjustly privileging minorities.

    84. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Runaway1956 is an example of what happens when societal pressures force someone into the closet. They end up filled with hatred and bitterness because of their inability to act on their strongest desires. They end up despising what they cannot have.

      By engaging in the cliche of equating homophobia with closeted homosexuality, I think you're ultimately doing a disservice to the issue of gay rights. It allows homophobia to be written off as an internal affair of the gay community, and then society at large feels it can ignore it.

    85. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very fact that he wanted to out the guy shows the intent. Would he had do the same thing had the roommate being dating, say, the head cheerleader? I do not think so. I don't think he would have posted the news in twitter, either. He wanted his roommate marked as gay in front of the community, assuming that the community would shun him. That alone makes it a hate crime.

      So when I went to school and I was bullied for being different reasons, me being overweight and socially awkward, its perfectly fine? You really do not understand the problems with being bullied. Thankfully I didnt think my life was ruined and jumped off a bridge. A person who feels compelled to jump off a bridge because they have been outed is a person with other problems. This younger generation finds it acceptable to be bullied and committing suicide. The person affected by this bullying is no different than hearing about some teenager doing the same thing because of cyber bullying. When I was being bullied, no one protected me except myself. I learned to deal with being different and while I still have some social anxiety because of it, I think my experiences made me stronger and more accepting of other people with differences. To call this a hate crime because of generalize bullying, in one situation, feels like a slap in the face to someone who was bullied for years.

    86. Re:Commercial by eam · · Score: 1

      What if you record your wife because you suspect that she's secretly practicing Jewish traditions, but the reason you want the recording is because you're turned on by women secretly practicing Jewish traditions?

    87. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I agree in theory with your post I don't think comparing a gay roommate with a drug dealer etc. is particularly non-biased. Most of the things you listed are socially / legally unacceptable, whereas being homosexual is not..

    88. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Boy, well, that's something for the judge to find out. I'd say, I'd do the same if I had a noisy roommate during it's "encounters". And I had.. and he was straight... and it was annoying as hell! Good for him for his sexual encounters, but I'd have anything to embarrass him independently of being gay or straight, because it's damn annoying to have to deal with those noisy sexual encounters.

      So let's see what the evidence shows and what the judge finds, because as subjective as my comment, many others may think this is matter of annoyance, or homophobics, or invading privacy. But without knowing the facts, for now it's just a teenager doing what it does best... being stupid.

    89. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the internet.

      You are allowed to write 'pussy', 'asshole', 'fuck' and 'shit' here. Just not 'faggot', 'turd bugler' or 'dyke'

    90. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously the people who scream for equality believe that they are MORE equal than others. Equality for thee, but not for me. I want special treatment because * I * am better.

    91. Re:Commercial by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Hatred is learned at home, and in some cases, in the church and the mosque. Many religions now recognize gays as humans (the ones I met were more human than some non-gays that I knew). More human means, understanding and caring about others and the world around.

      I think he learned this at home.

      Shades of Archie Bunker.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    92. Re:Commercial by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      As a bi sexual male i agree.i feel this young man is getting railroaded

    93. Re:Commercial by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      Coming out wasnt dramatic to my friends and I. My dad even told me it would make my life harder. It didnt cause me pain at the time, i was 19 and away at school. I don't think society should make this case any different. Sure he did something incredible irresponsible, however it makes me feel sick to think he could get that kinda of jail time.

    94. Re:Commercial by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      When you target somebody partially or wholly because of their membership in a group (not just them as a unique individual), you are making an implicit threat against that entire group. When it is a group that has a long history of being targeted with similar violence, your implicit threat carries an especially large capability to intimidate. Hence the need to give special status to hate crimes.

      I have never heard that description before. Seriously until now I was a very strong opponent of hate-crime legislation. I still oppose it as I haven't taken the time to fully consider what you're saying, but it makes sense and will make me think about it.

    95. Re:Commercial by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Then you're visiting the wrong websites.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    96. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, killing a bunch of white people because they're white is a hate crime. Killing a bunch of Christians because they're Christian is a hate crime.

      The law protects everyone, it's simply typically applied to a minority group.

    97. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say that wouldn't be labelled as a hate crime mostly because you are outing someone for their immoral behaviour as opposed to their sexual orientation.

      So it's OK as long as you feel being gay is immoral, right?

    98. Re:Commercial by jheath314 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and both first degree murder and manslaughter result in a corpse, but our justice system distinguishes between the two because motives matter.

      --
      Procrastination Man strikes again!
    99. Re:Commercial by lessthan · · Score: 1

      I see where you are coming from. I would like to point out that us gays may have reason for overreacting. Consider that, to this day, there are communities in the First World where the gay panic defense is still valid. Maybe a little special protection is in order. I'm curious as to what special privileges we are asking for though.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    100. Re:Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

  2. New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need a new legal category, Asshole. Beyond Guilty or Not Guilty the Asshole standard would be added after guilt or innocence so we could find someone was Not Guilty but still an Asshole.

    1. Re:New classification needed by bhagwad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should the law or the government get to mandate good manners? Either something is legal or not. The law has to be blind to everything else. The contract I have with society is that I get my rights in return for my taxes and my compliance with the law. There's no mention of "good manners" anywhere.

      It's as if two companies have a contract between them and one of them says "Well, in addition to our agreed clauses, it'll also be 'good manners' if you were to do this, this and this. Otherwise you're an asshole" :D

      Doesn't make sense.

    2. Re:New classification needed by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      That already exists, its called civil court after the fact. Remember what happened to OJ?

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should the law or the government get to mandate good manners? Either something is legal or not. The law has to be blind to everything else. The contract I have with society is that I get my rights in return for my taxes and my compliance with the law. There's no mention of "good manners" anywhere.

      It's as if two companies have a contract between them and one of them says "Well, in addition to our agreed clauses, it'll also be 'good manners' if you were to do this, this and this. Otherwise you're an asshole" :D

      Doesn't make sense.

      Because this is specific to a criminal case. Thus acknowledging that some things may not be crimes but this provides a jury of your peers, or people who couldn't get out of jury duty, to make a finding of assholeness.

    4. Re:New classification needed by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm fairly certain taking naked video of people in sexual encounters where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy isn't just bad manners, but probably illegal. Especially if you then go and publish said video to the world. I think the only reason this case might be murky is since they were roommates, Ravi had the right to be in the room and didn't have to break and enter to install a camera.

      Still, just because you live in a house doesn't, say, give you the right to record people naked in the bathrooms or having sex in bedrooms and pubish that on the internet without their consent. This is illegal by itself. However, I suspect the penalties aren't particularly harsh.

      This doesn't address the hate crime angle of things here. Any time you take naked pictures or sexual pictures of people without permission and post them on the internet to mock them, it's awful. If the video showed a naked guy with a small penis, or a girl fucking a horrendously ugly guy, that could be every bit as embarrassing for the small-dicked man or the woman in question as this was for the homosexual man. What makes the crime awful is that the man in question was obviously depressed and emotionally disturbed to begin with, and these actions resulted in so much embarrassment that they led to suicide. So really it's bullying an emotionally fragile person that's awful, not anything specific about the sexual orientations that makes it a "hate crime".

    5. Re:New classification needed by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In Scotland we have three possible judgements - Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven.

      The latter can basically be interpreted as "Not guilty - and don't let us catch you at it again!"

    6. Re:New classification needed by Myopic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Why should the law or the government get to mandate good manners?"

      Because that's what the law does, of course. What else do you think it does? On the sliding scale of human behavior, from benevolent to benign to malicious, we have a sliding scale of laws from incentives (for benevolent behavior), to no law (for most behavior), to civil fines (for mildly bad behavior), to misdemeanors, to felonies, to capital crimes.

      If you aren't an anarchist, then this should be obvious to you.

    7. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Filming someone having sex without their consent goes far beyond "bad manners." Bad manners would have been to knock on the door when you knew what was going on, just to interrupt them. Voyeurism, even without filming, is a type of sex crime. Filming makes it worse. Posting the thing on the internet raises it to a whole extra level of violation of privacy and invasiveness.

      The amazing thing is that such simple stuff would need to be explained to anyone.

      And, "Oh, gee, sorry Officer. I was just being stupid" isn't a defense. It's not a defense when you claim you didn't see the speed limit sign, and it's not a defense when you trample someone's very reasonable expectation of privacy in their own room.

      Get a grip, people.

    8. Re:New classification needed by bhagwad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a particular action has no penalty or consequence, then it's meaningless for the government to mention them. And it's arrogance if they do.

    9. Re:New classification needed by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Being an asshole should be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine.

    10. Re:New classification needed by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In America, we granted the government some rights a couple hundred years ago. Today, government has forgotten who grants rights to whom. The day of reckoning is coming.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All actions have consequences. Otherwise they aren't actions.

      Said consequences may not be what your fellow human beings feel are appropriate. Since we are conscious human beings, we can make decisions that the universe does not, for reasons the universe does not, as far as we can tell, care about.

      Arrogance? Perhaps, but it's a false pride to assume you can't decide what you want...the trick is, so can others, and they do outnumber you.

    12. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's precisely what the (controversial) UK "ASBO"s are - uk-urban-explorers-face-orders-not-to-talk-with-each-other-for-10-years

    13. Re:New classification needed by Myopic · · Score: 1

      That is interesting. For me to understand what you mean, could you please name some actions which have no consequences? I can't think of any.

      Theoretically, all actions have consequences, which is why we use the words "action" and "reaction" in physics. Every action has a reaction, and all of that.

      But of course you didn't mean that literally or scientifically -- you meant 'action' and 'consequence' in the human-social sense. Nevertheless, the only "action" I can think of which doesn't have a consequence even in the social, colloquial sense of the words, is perhaps pure thought. Surely you couldn't possibly assert that making an unauthorized sex video of a roommate and posting it on the internet has no consequences, so help me understand what you really do mean.

    14. Re:New classification needed by garaged · · Score: 1

      Actually good maners are included in laws too, you are evaluated by a company before you get hired, they have the right to profile you maners and rule you out just because of your maners, and there is nothing you can do legally to force them to hire you.

      And that is just an example, many more can be found, even some with cars included on the topic

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    15. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The contract I have with society is that I get my rights in return for my taxes and my compliance with the law. There's no mention of "good manners" anywhere.

      I get it, you're running for the Asshole of the Month poster child.

      Being a human involves more than compliance with the law. In fact, good manners is a much bigger part of being human. If all you do is comply with the law, either you're a robot or an asshole.

    16. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's cyberbullying, which has been cited in the suicides of Megan Meier and Phoebe Prince.

      It's true that psychological bullying has been around forever. What makes it different these days is that the Internet publicizes the victim's shame 1) worldwide 2) permanently (well as far as we can tell) and 3) in full motion video, searchable and downloadable instantly anywhere in the world. This is terrifying. Thirty years ago, a kid might get whacked in the high school slam book, but at least s/he knew that only a few dozen people would ever see it, and most of those lived in a single town. Not so today. Now grownups and kids alike have to wonder if any such exposure will affect their ability to land a job, get married, or even get a mortgage on a house, for as long as they live.

      It's also worth pointing out that attitudes towards gays seems to have become remarkably more liberal over the past decade or so, even since Tyler's suicide - this is probably fortunate for the defendent, as his lawyers can make the case that the victim's outing was no big deal. In 2006, there were a succession of scandals in which conservative Republican politicians were outed (Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard) - I remember how shocking the news seemed back then. Contrast this with a recent controversy involving Arizona sheriff Paul Babeu (also Republican conservative), where the attention seems to be focused on his apparently hypocritical stance on immigration and whether he abused his power, rather than his sexual orientation.

    17. Re:New classification needed by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2

      We need a new legal category, Asshole. Beyond Guilty or Not Guilty the Asshole standard would be added after guilt or innocence so we could find someone was Not Guilty but still an Asshole.

      But then, all of Congress would be in prison. Somehow, I don't think they'll pass something like that.

    18. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So really it's bullying an emotionally fragile person that's awful, not anything specific about the sexual orientations that makes it a "hate crime".

      That's not a Hate Crime, that's just being a fucking asshole and a generally mean person all around. A Hate Crime is a specific motivation for such cruelty, not just the cruelty in general. If he bullied the guy only because he was gay and hates gays, that's a hate crime. If he bullied him because he just plain disliked the guy or for whatever other reason, then no it's not a hate crime.

      If you're just going to start lumping any act of cruelty which happens to include 'gay' or 'minority' people even when that isn't the motivation, then you've just removed the entire reason for making a distinction in the first place.

    19. Re:New classification needed by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      And who decides what an asshole is? A muslim cleric would say that insulting allah makes you an asshole and you should be fined (or worse).

    20. Re:New classification needed by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      I should have clarified. Consequences imposed by the state. I thought I would be understood.

    21. Re:New classification needed by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      I meant consequences imposed by law by the state.

    22. Re:New classification needed by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      This is not about me. Personally I try not to be an asshole, but I should have the right to be one if I want to without consequences imposed by the state.

    23. Re:New classification needed by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Who decides what an asshole is? Religious people will claim that all atheists are assholes by their very existence. How will the law adjudge such claims?

    24. Re:New classification needed by NEW22 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you read the New Yorker story you will see that there was no recording. Also, the 1 viewing through a camera was of 2 guys making out, not sex. There was never a recording posted on the internet. There was a plan to have some people spy on this guy through a web cam, but they didn't work out because the guy turned off the computer. So, yeah, not that the guy being charged didn't do something wrong, but your version of the scenario is adding more and more outrageous details to the event that don't seem to be true.

    25. Re:New classification needed by tnk1 · · Score: 3

      It should be illegal to spy on someone. I agree with this. But it should be a misdemeanor and he should get slapped with probation and a fine, as well as a public apology. WTF is this shit with 10 years and felony hate crime statute usage? It's like this is the same as stringing up someone black in a lynching or beating the shit out of someone who is gay? It's no wonder people oppose hate crimes legislation it's clear this shit can be used for *anything*.

      Look, this guy is a grade A douchebag, and should probably have some real penalty for invasion of privacy, but really? What they're trying to do is turn this suicide into a murder case.

    26. Re:New classification needed by the_bard17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That'd be an improvement. Being fined sure beats being hung/stoned/beheaded because you said something bad about Mohammed.

    27. Re:New classification needed by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Someone who makes fun of Allah out of earshot with his buddies is a guy who doesn't like Islam. Someone who gets in the face of a Muslim cleric and says it is an asshole.

      That said, yeah, we should not be legislating manners. There is a fuzzy area where you're going to think someone is an asshole who is merely telling you an uncomfortable truth. That's one reason the first amendment protects free speech. Occasionally, the truth is going to make you sound like an asshole.

    28. Re:New classification needed by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I'm not following your whole reasoning here, but the initial post to which you replied was proffering a new legal category, which is to say a legal category for consequences imposed by law by the state. It would thus be meaningless for you to say that government shouldn't mention behaviors that don't have consequences -- because they would have consequences.

      I'm not sure you have a point at all (which is fine), but if you do you haven't made it clearly. I'm sort of dumb though so things have to be clear before I can understand them.

    29. Re:New classification needed by DesScorp · · Score: 0

      "Why should the law or the government get to mandate good manners?"

      Because that's what the law does, of course. What else do you think it does? On the sliding scale of human behavior, from benevolent to benign to malicious, we have a sliding scale of laws from incentives (for benevolent behavior), to no law (for most behavior), to civil fines (for mildly bad behavior), to misdemeanors, to felonies, to capital crimes.

      If you aren't an anarchist, then this should be obvious to you.

      I'm heartened to see your defense of things like laws against cursing in public, laws against public nudity, and laws against obscenity.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    30. Re:New classification needed by 517714 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole concept of hate crime is ludicrous. Hate is motive, separate from the crime. If the prosecution can show that the accused hated the person they allege he/she acted against, they have a motive to show the jury which makes their allegation more credible. Making such hatred a separate crime violates equal protection and the basic freedom to think as one pleases regardless of how warped those thoughts may be. Laws are designed to punish actions, not thoughts. Thought crime should be reserved for dystopian fiction. Hate crime laws have been passed to pander to special interest groups and do not serve the public in general.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    31. Re:New classification needed by TFAFalcon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So would a company be liable if a person they fire commits suicide? What if the fireing was illegal? Does every crime that ends up 'causing' a person to commit suicide count as a hate crime?

    32. Re:New classification needed by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      But the entire term is subjective.

    33. Re:New classification needed by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Why should the law or the government get to mandate good manners?

      If enough voters want it then the government should. Voters want a lot of stupid things and have screwed up priorities but then again so do Dictators.

      I suspect many companies do treat assholes differently. My guess poor assholes get crappy treatment, while filthy rich assholes get good treatment.

      --
    34. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US government does not have rights, it has powers; the citizens delegate these powers in order for the government to administer the country, nothing more. For example, the police do not have the right to arrest, they have the power delegated to them to arrest.

    35. Re:New classification needed by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I would object to those laws, but I would never object to them based on some bullshit nonsense like "government isn't allowed to regulate manners". Regulating manners, which is tantamount to regulating human behavior, is what the law does.

      I would object otherwise: I would object based on the laws not making the world a better place; I would object because I prefer not to have those laws. (Except public nudity, I don't necessarily object to that law, depending on the specifics.)

    36. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no, I'd rather live in a society where I have my rights regardless of whether I pay taxes or comply with the law.

    37. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he understood. He was only trying to be a smart ass.

      Assume good faith, use the context. How hard can it be...

    38. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially if you then go and publish said video to the world. I think the only reason this case might be murky is since they were roommates, Ravi had the right to be in the room and didn't have to break and enter to install a camera.

      No videos were published on the internet. That's why it's murky.

    39. Re:New classification needed by metlin · · Score: 1

      Being an asshole should be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine.

      I'd be out of a job. :-/

    40. Re:New classification needed by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, and that's the goal. This whole "cyberbullying" / "hate crime" meme is all about an attempt to off-limit certain types of speech. The fact that the subject killed himself makes this the perfect storm of a way to promote this idea. And the idea is: "You're not allowed to criticize certain people." Sexual orientation minorities are one of those protected classes that are to get this kind of special dispensation. Heterosexuals and fat people are fair game (as Michelle Obama's campaign has made clear), as are pretty much all white people, and old people, too (ageism is never criticized as hateful or bullying, for instance).

      So in spite of the portrayal of anti-bullying (and especially "cyber bullying") campaigns as an effort to end reduce suffering of the young and adolescent, the rather obvious true goal is only to protect certain groups against criticism. Note that criticism of Christian beliefs, and those of Mormons, Catholics, and often even Jews is defended as legitimate and never considered "bullying", no matter how inflammatory and hurtful the rhetoric used against them.

      Even politicians and law enforcement have started using the terms, claiming that they are being "bullied" by citizens simply for criticizing their public policy actions and decision, and initiating law suits to stop them. This latest movement, to conflate any criticism of government overreach with "anti-government" anarchists or even "paper terrorists".

      This is a truly frightening development, that will lead inevitably to the erosion of free speech to such a degree that the only thing recognized as "free speech" will be a narrowly-defined set of "approved speech".

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    41. Re:New classification needed by dadorg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hate crimes are a specific class of criminal action. It deals with the motivation for the act as well as the act. You are not prosecuted for the act of hating but rather for the criminal acts that result from that hate. This is not pandering to special interests. It protects everyone from being targeted based on religion, politics, race, sexual orientation, etc.

      We punish accidental death differently from premeditated murder. Biblical law would require the death penalty regardless of the circumstances, so we've refined it a bit in the past 2000 years. This is just another level of differentiation in the criminal code.

      If this tragedy was the result of accidentally outing a friend it would be different. Before the hate crime statute was applied, he was trying to pass the whole thing off as a "prank" that got out of hand. There are e-mails and text messages that show that Dharun Ravi was actively trying to force his roommate to move out because he didn't want a gay roommate (why didn't he leave instead is another question). His hatred pushed him to act beyond the limits of reason. That makes it a hate crime.

      --
      Morality is herd instinct in the individual. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 116
    42. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Make up your mind, are you talking about your relationship with the state or society?

      2. You're the one who's advocating that good manners is not required in society, that makes it about you.

      3. You should definitely NOT have the right to be an asshole. That's the problem with today's society, 50 years ago everybody was responsible enough to have good manners, but today people think "well it's not against the law, so why should I bother?" That's the kind of attitude that pushes the society and the state to pass laws against bad manners, to pass laws for every little detail of human existence for that matter. Because people have stopped using proper judgement on their own initiative, they only do what they're forced to by law.

      Sad, really sad.

    43. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by that logic posting a video stream on you tube isn't copyright infringement

    44. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law has to be blind to everything else

      Justice is blind. Believe me, a cop won't be blind to you farting in his general direction. Even if it is legal.

    45. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No...no they haven't. In fact the reason why you hear such absurd campaign platform speeches is because they haven't forgotten. The problem isn't that the government just goes off and does whatever it wants. The problem is they hide what they truly want to do behind bill names like the patriot act. The problem is the average voter has no clue about what their representative actually voted for before or what money they take in from what organizations. They don't realize who is writing the laws.

      I'd say 95% of the voters get all their information from TV ads or news outlets that seriously dumb down the facts so the population can understand what's even being said.

      I personally think the real positives in electronic voting were ignored...want to know more about who you're voting for...click here to see their income...click here to see who they accepted money from....click here to see what they voted for in the past...click here to see what they claim they'll do when they are elected.

      The problem with people believing there is a "day of reckoning coming" is those same people don't consider what the actual problems are or how to solve them...instead they just vote for the other guy and hope that means things will be different. Or far worse the statement to some implies violence as the answer.

    46. Re:New classification needed by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      If they fired someone because they were gay, yes.

    47. Re:New classification needed by luckymutt · · Score: 1

      Close... What we did was limited the rights of the government.

    48. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you miss the rest of the comment:

      Said consequences may not be what your fellow human beings feel are appropriate. Since we are conscious human beings, we can make decisions that the universe does not, for reasons the universe does not, as far as we can tell, care about.

      Arrogance? Perhaps, but it's a false pride to assume you can't decide you want...the trick is, so can others, and they do outnumber you.

    49. Re:New classification needed by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      That is interesting. For me to understand what you mean, could you please name some actions which have no consequences? I can't think of any.

      Arguing on the Internet and voting both come to mind.

    50. Re:New classification needed by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You may be right - or not. What you say about no day of reckoning has been true for a long time. But, witness what happened recently with SOPA. PIPA was taken off the table at the same time as SOPA. ACTA has met no real opposition here in the states, but our more ballsy European cousins are raising holy hell over it. TPP is still a secretive bullshit session among the evil actors, but it is getting some attention.

      Not to mention, the various activists associated with OWS.

      Yes, I think that a day of reckoning is coming. If I'm right, then it can't happen soon enough. If I'm wrong - well - my kids and your kids will inherit one shitty world from us. And, the shittier it gets, the more likely that the day of reckoning will come. Unless everyone just rolls over and supplies their own vaseline so that government and it's corporate sponsors don't get chapped dicks.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    51. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said hatred is a separate crime. It's a question of intent.

      And intent is a component to any crime. Society has decided that if hate is the intent, then that's a different crime than, say, a crime committed in a fit of passion (e.g., manslaughter) or a crime committed after much planning (e.g., first degree murder).

    52. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just embrass the parent poster, which is bad manner, and should answer your crime in front of the law.

    53. Re:New classification needed by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      If people choose to get hurt because of other people's bad manners that's their choice. Only physical harm is counted as something which the state needs to address. If you commit suicide because I pissed on an image of your god, it's your fault not mine.

    54. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullying is typically a larger or stronger party attacking a smaller or weaker party. Bullying is different from criticism because it is personal. It is equally reprehensible to hide behind free speech while taunting a gay kid on Facebook or a white Christian kid at the county fair. But the fact is the former is bullied far more than the latter. So do we all just sit around saying "free speech" and ignore it? No. That would be reprehensible as well. Instead we try to be better people and we enact laws to protect the weak and the few.

    55. Re:New classification needed by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Why do we need it? We can still find him an ass hole without the court getting involved. What's the benefit of getting a legal stamp of approval on calling someone an ass hole? I mean we already know that he is an ass hole. What's the additional benefit?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    56. Re:New classification needed by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Because that's what the law does, of course. What else do you think it does?

      It states ahead of time which actions are punishable and which are not. It removes the uncertainty about which behavior might bring about the punishment of "the strong arm of the law?" If it doesn't remove such an uncertainty, by the way, than it fails in its primary goal -- clarifying the boundaries. I am not sure I agree that the boundaries of good behavior should be established through such a rigorous procedure. This is how you end up with the laws which make it punishable to swear in front of women and children.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    57. Re:New classification needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The whole concept of hate crime is ludicrous. Hate is motive, separate from the crime.

      I see this complaint every time there's a hate crime brought up, but never when people talk about homicide vs murder charges. Why?

    58. Re:New classification needed by superwiz · · Score: 1

      You are trying to portray what isn't forbidden by law as something which is explicitly endorsed by the law. It isn't so.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    59. Re:New classification needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We have the same in the US. Guilty, not guilty, and not guilty in criminal court and "liable" in civil court (see OJ).

    60. Re:New classification needed by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      Maybe you are missing the point that someone is (or is not) gay, it is not as if someone acts (or does not act) gay.

      I am lazy at work, I steal or something else and you fire me? At the next job, I might think twice about doing the same thing.

      Do you fire me because I am gay. At the next job I would still be gay. Will they me fire again when they find out? Should I ask at the interview if they allow gays.

      Of course, there are lots of morons who would be happy to fire you because the least of the prejudices (maybe they do not like that I play videogames at home, or that I am not interested in sports/don't support his team), but that is a more individual thing, and I may reallistically hope that at the next job I will not find the same asshole (or at least the asshole prejudices won't work against me). But with homophoby still very extended, many people may think (rightfully or not) that being fired for being gay is something that will be repeated over and over.

      That's why there is a difference between hate speech and being an asshole. Basically, hate speech is when enough people of the population is an asshole that it becomes a social problem.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    61. Re:New classification needed by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      It should be illegal to spy on someone. I agree with this. But it should be a misdemeanor and he should get slapped with probation and a fine, as well as a public apology. WTF is this shit with 10 years and felony hate crime statute usage? It's like this is the same as stringing up someone black in a lynching or beating the shit out of someone who is gay? It's no wonder people oppose hate crimes legislation it's clear this shit can be used for *anything*.

      Look, this guy is a grade A douchebag, and should probably have some real penalty for invasion of privacy, but really? What they're trying to do is turn this suicide into a murder case.

      In the state of New Mexico, the Hate Crimes Act is a sentencing act, and does not actually construct a criminal statute that is violated separately. That means, that you have to convict the person of the crime first, and then prove after the conviction that it was a hate crime, which will then carry a steeper penalty.

      This person is clearly NOT being tried for "hate crimes", he's being charged for specific non-hate-crime acts, which have the extenuating circumstances of being motivated by hate. He's being tried for already existing crimes, that are carrying extra penalties because you and everyone else will readily admit, those crimes were only committed because the victim was suspected of being gay. This is the exact criteria needed to prove a Hate Crime.

      So, to be clear that you and others get this through your thick skull: the guy is being charged with FELONIES TO BEGIN WITH, that is, even without it being a "hate crime" moniker, he is already being charged with felonies.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    62. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should the law or the government get to mandate good manners? Either something is legal or not. The law has to be blind to everything else. The contract I have with society is that I get my rights in return for my taxes and my compliance with the law.

      The Constitution of the United States of America, in the case at hand, explicitly states that The People have certain inalienable rights. Therefore, the social contract between The People and The Government includes certain non-revocable rights regardless whether you pay taxes much less your compliance with any and all laws. Most other countries give their citizens absolutely no rights except those decided by the legislative process, but the USofA at least deemed basic rights as inalienable.

    63. Re:New classification needed by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      "hate crime" meme is all about an attempt to off-limit certain types of speech

      IN THE UNITED STATES HATE SPEECH CANNOT BE MADE ILLEGAL. Hate crime legislation requires specific acts to be performed, that are ALREADY CRIMINAL ACTS IN AND OF THEMSELVES.

      This whole anti-"hate crime" meme is an attempt to treat crimes committed with a discriminatory intent the same as all regular crimes.

      Be very clear here: Ravi would be facing these charges even without hate crime legislation, because what he did was a crime completely apart from the discriminatory intent behind it. Giving a higher sentence to crimes due to various circumstances of the crime was already very common prior to Hate Crime laws.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    64. Re:New classification needed by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      How about a guy who hangs around the local school, masturbating on to a sandwich that he then eats? Seems like an offensive act that's best prohibited by the law. I've no problem with public nudity, and swearing is fine. Aggressive behaviour though is not necessarily okay, and Mr "I make my own mayo" certainly seems to be crossing a line in terms of obscenity.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    65. Re:New classification needed by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Bullying is typically a larger or stronger party attacking a smaller or weaker party.

      What's the justification for jailing someone for spying on an intimate encounter, then? He's not "smaller or weaker", and the spy had no significant power over him. Why is the perpetrator facing 10 years in jail for this offense? It seems far out of proportion, and the only mitigating circumstance seems to be that the victim committed suicide. Somehow the spying incident is being linked to the motivation for suicide. Would that have happened if he was heterosexual and was caught in an encounter with a girl? Somehow I doubt it. So being gay seems to have afforded him some special standing.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    66. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But intent is often used as the basis of a crime, look at first and second degree homicide. The motive for committing a crime is a massive indicator as to likelihood of re-offending. A person who kills a man purely on the basis of his politics, race or religion is someone who can keep killing indefinitely. It's probably never safe to release such a person.

      A person who takes justice into their own hands or kills out of justifiable anger will likely never find themselves in such a situation again, and it might be safe to release them, their sentence being mostly a deterrent.

    67. Re:New classification needed by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Ravi would be facing these charges even without hate crime legislation

      He would be facing some pretty minor charges, not a 10 year jail sentence. There was no evidence of any violence or fraud or harrassment by Ravi.

      Giving a higher sentence to crimes due to various circumstances of the crime was already very common prior to Hate Crime laws.

      There are no "special circumstances" - there is only "special groups", "protected groups", and "groups that are better" or something. That's not a circumstance. It's special privileges based on discrimination, and it violates equal protection under the law.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    68. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heterosexuals and fat people are fair game

      Heterosexuals are never bullied, denied employment, shunned by peers, or beaten to death based on their sexual orientation. As heterosexuals make up the overwhelming majority, they are automatically protected based on their sexual orientation.

    69. Re:New classification needed by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clueless.

      The reason we have hate crimes is because a hate-crime isn't a crime against an individual it's a threat against an entire community to restrict their freedom.

      If you murder an African American *because of their race* then you are threatening a group with the same. By the way, Christians are protected too. If someone roughed up a Christian for being Christian then they would be subject to a Hate Crime.

      Hate crimes are to *PROTECT* freedom of speech. If someone was attacking people of a specific political position because of their political position then you are stifling an entire organization's ability to spread their message.

      Standing on the street corner saying God Hates Fags is not a hate-crime. But if they started slashing tires of open gay's cars then they would be intimidating and threatening a community because of their sexual orientation.

      In this instance a crime was committed and it was committed for the sole reason that his roommate was gay. And obviously the invasion of privacy was sufficiently damaging that his roommate committed suicide. The fact that you seem to think that what was done is similar to Jesus being compared to a sky fairy shows just how little understanding you have of the persecution many minorities face. I've never heard of a Christian committing suicide because of inflammatory rhetoric against Christianity. It's not because Christians have thicker skin, it's because as a minority group people are far more *vulnerable* to attack. And the effects are far more dangerous as a result. If you threaten someone like me, a straight white upper middle class man because I'm white I can easily find justice and I'm unlikely to let it intimidate me... after all, just about everyone else I come in contact with is a lot like me. If however though you're a minority then the intimidation is very real since you're far more likely to be discriminated against and you have far less support--people like you to help defend your rights. Now it would be great if we lived in a society where none of that mattered and people defended minorities regardless of their own race but by and large that's not how the real world works outside of a libertarian fantasy land. In the real world people tend to look after people like themselves and aren't concerned with the problems of the "others". So if you're a harassed gay citizen then the number of people who are likely to stand up for you is a small minority. And if people threaten your peers with violations of your privacy and expose you to harassment and intimidation by others--you're going to get even more isolated and distrustful.

      By the way:

      Of the 6,934 identified hate crime offenders, the majority were white (4,317, or 62.3%); 1,286 (18.5%) were black, 61 (0.9%) were American Indian or Alaskan Native, 93 (1.3%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 741 (10.7%) were of unknown race, and the remaining 436 (6.3%) were of other races or multiple races.

      Note that this isn't "minorities vs whites".
      http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/about_hate_crimes/faq-html.html

    70. Re:New classification needed by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What if they fired someone because they were homophobic?

    71. Re:New classification needed by garaged · · Score: 1

      ok, peeing on street :D

      There are countless examples for this, endorsed explicitly or not, but law do take them into account in some way or another.

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    72. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [sarcasm] Yes, because people in the US who insult Allah are beheaded by Muslims in the US everyday. [/sarcasm]

      There are doctors who have been blown up by right wing anti-abortion Christians. There were 4 entire Crusades for the might of the Christian/Catholic empire, oh, and to spread the word of Jesus that 'Thou shalt not kill'. There were random people recently shot by a deranged right wing anti-Muslim idiot in the Netherlands. There have been hundreds if not thousands of Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli (and hence Jewish) forces over the past decades.

      You can either make broad sweeping generalizations about any large religious group to demonize the whole group and fall on your own sword (you belong to some sort of group that people can demonize, even if you specifically haven't done anything wrong), or you can take a more nuanced approach and say that there are extremem elements of every social or religious group and those extreme elements are not representative of the group as a whole.

      I suggest you take the second route and stop spouting generalized hatred towards a quarter of the world population, of which an incredibly low percentage has actually perpetrated acts of terrorism or genocide.

    73. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who decides what an asshole is?

      I'm fairly sure gay people have a good idea what an asshole is.

    74. Re:New classification needed by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      Because intent to commit a crime matters, but not the motivation behind it. For example, if I murder a man because I want to fuck his wife, or because I want to know what it feels like, it is still murder. My intent, was to murder. However, if I kill a man for being gay, versus if I kill him for fun, then why tack on because of my motivation? It simply does not make sense to do this, as crime in this case was the intent, but why does his motivation matter? Why not just prosecute the crime?

    75. Re:New classification needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      but why does his motivation matter?

      Motivation matters in the distinction between manslaughter and murder as well. If the motivation was to rob the person, the crime is different than if the motivation was to kill because they slept with your wife.

    76. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try going to art school some time. Gays are just as good at discrimination as anyone else when they are in the majority or very significant minority.

    77. Re:New classification needed by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Note that this isn't "minorities vs whites".

      Nope, it's collectivist tyrants against everyone that values individual freedom and equal rights. You obviously don't see that, and have totally bought into the "protect the downtrodden" bullshit excuse that this crap is being sold under. And you perpetuate it yourself, pretending it's okay to be hurtful to anyone that's not a member of some group you view as protected. "Identified hate crime offenders" is a self-fulfilling definition.

      I've never heard of a Christian committing suicide because of inflammatory rhetoric against Christianity.

      Why do you think that is? Do you think it never happens? Or is it possible that it's not news to the people that report news?

      In the real world people tend to look after people like themselves and aren't concerned with the problems of the "others".

      Sort of. People tend to look after people generally, and vulnerable people more, and, yes, people close to them more than strangers and people less like their peers. Otherwise this movement would not be working, and Jim Crow laws would still be in place and women would still not be allowed to vote. But this whole movement paints groups of people as victims, and others (as you have clearly demonstrated) as perpetrators. And what that does is cause more division and hatred and when the victim groups get together and a non-protected finds himself in the minority the HE becomes the victim. And now the perpetrators aren't punished similarly, because the other guy isn't a protected group.

      This is demonstrated in many places of the world many times - when peace between antagonistic groups is maintained, they tolerate each other. But when the rule of law breaks down, suddenly a group finds itself in power and begins to systematically kill or oppress the other group. It happened in Iraq when the Hussein regime was first brought down. It happened in Egypt. It has happened in many African countries.

      And codifying "hate crime" will cause that same kind of dynamic in the US. It defines not "criminals" and "citizens", but whole groups as "victims" and "oppressors". In this way, it subverts the rule of law. It justifies violence against the oppressor group, since the victims are able to harass and bully and intimidate them with impunity. Or at least without the massively expanded punishment that would be imposed on the defined "oppressor" group. This is exactly that case, where a crime that would typically impose a misdemeanor fine ends up a threat of 10 years of jail. Without even a shred of evidence that what Ravi did had anything to do with the suicide.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    78. Re:New classification needed by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      But that's intent, because the thief inadvertently killed while thieving; he did not intend to kill, while his motivation was monetary and so is not murder. If I kill an asshole, my intent was to kill him and it doesn't matter why I felt like this asshole needed to die. Murder is murder and is derived from intent, not motivation. You should go back and re-read that post.

    79. Re:New classification needed by pseudofrog · · Score: 1

      No, because firing someone generally isn't illegal. Even if the firing was illegal, it's not the type of crime that falls under the potential-hate-crime umbrella.

      This stuff isn't all that complicated, folks.

    80. Re:New classification needed by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, Invasion of Privacy in NJ comes in two possible degrees:

      Third degree criminal offenses:

      If found guilty of possession of cocaine, ecstasy, or heroin, possession of a handgun, certain thefts, aggravated assault, or another third-degree crime you may be sentenced to serve up to 5 years in prison.

      Fourth degree criminal offenses:

      Unauthorized use of a vehicle, some charges involving assault and threat crimes or possession of marijuana, criminal sexual contact, or another 4th-degree crime you may be sentenced to serve up to 18 months in prison.

      Basically, 4th degree is actually observing and 3rd degree is actually distributing. My guess is this guy is getting 3rd degree charges. In light of the possible maximum, I sure hope it's 3rd at least.

      Even assuming that he's charged with the third degree offense, it's the Hate Crime legislation that turns the sentence up to Eleven. It literally doubles the sentence so it goes with things like robbery (without a weapon), and things just shy of actual hardcore shit. If he actually got ten years, that is actually first degree territory.

      I don't care if the law is one that simply increases the sentence. You're literally taking an isolated case of what is at worst a low level crime and turning it into a major felony. That has always been complete bull. It isn't like another 90 days or a year or something, it is *doubling the sentence*. If anything, you're taking someone who is probably a very good candidate for rehabilitation and putting him in with people doing hard time. Hell, with a 10 year sentence, he probably won't even be eligible for a minimum security prison.

      Now will he get the max? I doubt it. But even the possibility of it is ridiculous. He's being made an example out of for political points and this legislation is making that possible.

      Look, I don't like people who do these sorts of things, but when hate crimes legislation can do this sort of thing, I also dislike the legislation.

    81. Re:New classification needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But that's intent, because the thief inadvertently killed while thieving; he did not intend to kill, while his motivation was monetary and so is not murder.

      Yet the law considers that more murderous than someone who intended to kill and did so under other circumstances. I think you are so committed to hating hate crime laws that you refuse to actually think about them. Because thinking wouldn't result in the basic mistakes in logic you are making.

    82. Re:New classification needed by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      It, again, all depends. Though, I don't know of an intentional murder that isn't just murder in the first degree. I may be mistaken, if so, please feel free to explain to me how. From my perspective, the thief will get charged with many charges, but that of murder will be applied just as it would in any other such familiar case. So I don't know where you get that the law considers that more murderous, though it is still murder.

    83. Re:New classification needed by tyrus568 · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of a recent case here in Texas. A 12 (?) year old girl shot her father in the back of his head while he was asleep and killed him. It was ruled self-defense, but if you intentionally shoot someone while they are asleep... sounds kinda like murder. Of course, if they had been molesting you for years, then it's not murder. Even if they're asleep. It's self-defense. I wonder if she'll collect on his life insurance?

    84. Re:New classification needed by _xen · · Score: 1

      Hate is motive, separate from the crime.

      A crime is a combination of act and motive (intent). Far from being "separate from the crime," hate is the motive essential to a hate crime.

      If the prosecution can show that the accused hated the person they allege he/she acted against, they have a motive to show the jury which makes their allegation more credible.

      You don't understand how this game works. In order to make out a crime, the prosecution must establish a number of elements which constitute the crime. Where a hate crime is alleged, the prosecution doesn't "show that the accused hated the person ... [to make] their allegation more credible." Instead the prosecution must convince the jury that the accused does in fact hate the minority of which the victim is a member. It is the hate itself which is the allegation.

      Making such hatred a separate crime violates equal protection ...

      Arguably so.

      ... and the basic freedom to think as one pleases regardless of how warped those thoughts may be.

      Not so. Crime is a combination of thought AND action. You can have thoughts as warped as you like. We'll only start listening when you act on those thoughts.

      Laws are designed to punish actions, not thoughts.

      Criminal laws are designed to punish an action (actus reus) only when motivated by particular thoughts (mens rea). As I wrote above, strict liability offences are a bitch. You really don't want a criminal justice system which disregards intent. Laws designed to punish actions (and actions alone) should, as you put it, "should be reserved for dystopian fiction."

    85. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So would a company be liable if a person they fire commits suicide? What if the fireing was illegal? Does every crime that ends up 'causing' a person to commit suicide count as a hate crime?

      No. The fact that the victim of this crime killed himself does not make the perp's actions more or less of a crime. I don't think anyone is arguing that it does.

      Firing someone ends their job. I have lived in places where outing a gay male has a good chance of ending their life, and not by their own hand. To compare the loss of employment to the possibility of being murdered is not reasonable.

    86. Re:New classification needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole concept of hate crime is ludicrous. Hate is motive, separate from the crime.

      Hatred may be a motive, but it also changes the set of victims. Another comment on this thread explained it well:

      >If you kill a man, you have committed a murder.
      >
      > If you kill a man while announcing to a bunch of people, "This could be any one of you, and unless you start
      > acting like I want you to act (or disappear entirely), next time it will be," you have committed a murder. But
      > you have done other things too. You have also threatened a bunch of people with violence.

      Freedom of speech does not mean you can express yourself through actions that impede the freedom of others. "Speaking" by committing crimes is not a form of speech that deserves protection.

      Do you really want to defend behavior that is criminal (even if there were no hate crime laws), and makes a threat to others that a crime will be committed against them, on the grounds that the criminal's right to speek his mind is limited?

    87. Re:New classification needed by Omestes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This whole "cyberbullying" / "hate crime" meme is all about an attempt to off-limit certain types of speech

      I doubt there is a conspiracy lurking here. Don't get me wrong, I'm generally against hate crime laws, or special protections for minorities, but I can see where the advocates for such things come from. We Americans have a very bad track record (and still generally do) at treating anyone but white, male, straight, Christians as equals. We have a strong history of being assholes to anyone not like us. We have a very strong trend of not recognizing the rights people slightly different than us (and the 51% of the population who aren't men). This is coupled with out history of being, and glorifying, idiotic, bigoted, rednecks, and endorsing old-boy networks and turning our backs on some truly heinous things. So we DO need to be vigilant, and we should be very careful to NEVER tolerate bigots, racists, homophobes (which is a bit silly of a term, since it isn't fear that's the problem, its violence and hate), and we, as a society should go out of our way to make these people feel unwelcome.

      This, again, doesn't mean I agree with these laws, or especially their applicability here.

      Also our society has pretty much proven that we can no longer be expected to be civilized to one another, which does make some people desperate for any solution, including legal ones. I don't agree with them, at least on the solution, but again I can see why they want it. I think society, not the government, should make these people's lives a living hell.

      Heterosexuals and fat people are fair game (as Michelle Obama's campaign has made clear [beliefnet.com]), as are pretty much all white people, and old people, too (ageism is never criticized as hateful or bullying, for instance).

      Oh yes, my life as a hetero white male is SO TOUGH, especially compared to those privileged gay people. Just the other day I had a bunch of nice Christian fundies scream at me that I'm going to hell because I live with a woman. I hear that the gays, the blacks, the Mexicans, and a coalition of skinny Muslim women are about to throw all the straight white Christian men into camps!

      Xenophobia is stupid. No one is out to get you. As a straight white guy, I can't even recall the last time I was discriminated against. I'm not aware of any time in my life, actually. Sure, I've had issues with people (socially, not legally), but that was 100% because of choices I made (which is why I don't feel too bad about obese people, though I'm not aware of any actual discrimination there either), so I'm at fault.

      Note that criticism of Christian beliefs, and those of Mormons, Catholics, and often even Jews is defended as legitimate and never considered "bullying", no matter how inflammatory and hurtful the rhetoric used against them.

      Actually I can criticize anyone's faith I damn well want to, it isn't' a crime, and no one has ever been prosecuted for it. Sure, it might not be socially acceptable, but that is different. As an atheist, I've gotten plenty of flack for criticizing Christians. Hell, there is around 100 fundamentalist churches within a mile of my house (no exaggeration), and my girl friend has been threatened with physical assault for having a bumper sticker saying "honk if you think I'm Jesus". Poor Christians.

      This is a truly frightening development, that will lead inevitably to the erosion of free speech to such a degree that the only thing recognized as "free speech" will be a narrowly-defined set of "approved speech".

      How many people have been arrested for stating "I don't like Gays/Women/Blacks/Mexicans/Hindus/Muslims"? You can be a bigot and a xenophobe vocally all day long, and no one will knock down your door. Our society, to its credit, will look down on you, and people will ostracize you... but to me that is called progress. It makes hopeful, actually.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    88. Re:New classification needed by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      I don't care if the law is one that simply increases the sentence. You're literally taking an isolated case of what is at worst a low level crime and turning it into a major felony. That has always been complete bull. It isn't like another 90 days or a year or something, it is *doubling the sentence*. If anything, you're taking someone who is probably a very good candidate for rehabilitation and putting him in with people doing hard time. Hell, with a 10 year sentence, he probably won't even be eligible for a minimum security prison.

      In most states a misdemeanor cannot exceed one year, prior to any sentencing extensions. The possible 10 year sentence is a compounding from additional charges.

      Think about it: even if we take you at your word that his is a doubling of the sentence, then the guy is already facing 5 years even if this were not a hate crime. 5 years? Hell, I've heard of plea agreements for manslaughter that grant 5 years. Should we be upset that someone facing 5 separate misdemeanor charges is possibly going to face up to 5 years in prison?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    89. Re:New classification needed by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He would be facing some pretty minor charges, not a 10 year jail sentence. There was no evidence of any violence or fraud or harrassment by Ravi.

      Steal enough candy bars, and you could rack up enough misdemeanor charges to be put in jail for years, even though the individual acts alone would only carry a small amount of time individually.

      There are no "special circumstances" - there is only "special groups", "protected groups", and "groups that are better" or something. That's not a circumstance. It's special privileges based on discrimination, and it violates equal protection under the law.

      No, it doesn't and this is well established by the courts. If you want to get this tried, then become the victim of a hate crime because you're white/male/christian/whatever, and when they don't push for hate crime charges, THEN you can pull out violations of the the equal protection clause.

      Let me give you an example of how "special circumstances" work. You walk into a barn, and there is a guy there, and you pick up a hammer and beat his head in until he's dead. If you brought the hammer, then it's first degree murder, if you just picked it up, then it's second degree murder. If you killed a police officer, knowing it were a police officer, then it's a special circumstances that in many cases is the only way that the prosecution is allowed to seek the death penalty.

      There are tons of "special circumstances", and people get all hissy about this hate crime stuff, because "zOMGs, teh minorities are getting special privileges!!!" NO! They're NOT! They're getting recognition that some people are willing to commit crimes upon people just because of racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever, and that such behavior is wrong, and deserves to be called out, and punished, while at the same time, we need to recognize that if we're going to punish the behavior, the behavior has to be a crime in the first place.

      If the legislature wanted to pass a "special circumstance" about committing a crime while being an asshole, or something like that, then it would be fine. And recall, hate crime legislation allows for PERCEIVED fitting of a class of people, it does not require that the person actually be part of that class of people, because again: hate crime legislation is not about the victim, it's about the intent of the criminal.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    90. Re:New classification needed by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      You took my post too literally. I'm not claiming that whites and Christians are persecuted, or that there is no need to discourage unfair discrimination, which is an issue. What's happening is the "political correct" codes of the last decade have a new meme that's being tied into "bullying", with the implication that if your speech isn't politically correct, you are bullying someone (cyber bullying takes this to a new level, but I won't go into that here).

      And what you say about bigotry not being criminal completely misses the mark. I'm not claiming there's going to be law enforcement as bigot police (still a LONG way from that, I think). Rather, it's the implication that if the target of your criticism, regardless of how it's stated, is a member of some protected group, that the criticism is unfair, even if the same statement about someone else is okay. This happens all the time, when for instance if a policy of the President is criticized, there are those that will claim it's racially motivated. Anyone should be able to speak about problems with the President's decisions without be called a racist - yet it happens all the time.

      And that may well be the case here. There was no indication that Ravi had any problem with his roommate's sexual orientation - in fact it seems he was okay with it. We aren't sure why he set up the web cam - it could have been curiosity (maybe Ravi is bi-curious), or a mild hazing incident. And that's the way it would have been taken if the he was heterosexual male with a girl. But since he was gay, people automatically assume it was a case of hate-motivated gay-bashing.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    91. Re:New classification needed by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      It protects everyone from being targeted based on religion, politics, race, sexual orientation, etc.

      Protects whites from blacks, straights from gays, Christians from Muslims?

    92. Re:New classification needed by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Ah... Sorry for jumping on your case then, I will eat my humble pie and like it. You had a couple trigger words in there that made me shortcut to my typical response to internet male WASP paranoia, which is getting frightfully common these days.

      I agree with you, then. I don't think that what your saying is a race/gender/religious issue though. Any criticism, on anything, is a perceived attack these days. If I point out a perceived flaw in your chosen political alignment, I'm magically a communist or fascist (and thus not worth listen to). If I point out flaws in Obama I'm a racist because its the quickest and easiest way to kill an argument, if the president was white I'd suddenly turn into a corporatist, fascist, neo-con (which isn't as efficient at killing arguments, but still works). If the president was a Republican, I'd be quickly labeled a communist or socialist (and if he was Bush, anti-American). This is especially true with criticizing the governmental policies of Israel ("Nazi!, Anti-Semite!"), or at leas this was one of the more obvious cases until Obama, as you point out. Its more a case of "discredit the person, not the argument" than having protected races or such.

      It is common when critiquing the various religious and cultural associations against gay marriage, as well. I've been called anti-Christian several times, and have been told that I'm actively trying to persecute them over a difference of opinion. No group is innocent of this.

      There was no indication that Ravi had any problem with his roommate's sexual orientation - in fact it seems he was okay with it.

      Agreed. I don't really say any gay bashing, or onus against gays here. Ravi is a jerk, and an asshole. He probably had no intention to have his roommate commit suicide as well. I'm not sure there is a crime here. I suspect there should be one, but I'm not sure what. The prosecutor, I'm guessing, is shoe horning in the hate crime status to ramp up the consequences to suit the consequences of the (potential) crime. Which is probably not the appropriate thing to do.

      I think we crossed spears before.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    93. Re:New classification needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It, again, all depends. Though, I don't know of an intentional murder that isn't just murder in the first degree. I may be mistaken, if so, please feel free to explain to me how.

      "[killing someone in the heat of the moment isn't murder] The reasoning is that you may not be in full control of your senses when you kill said man, therefore you did not have the capacity to judge your actions and your capacity to process intent was impaired."

      It was an intentional murder that will likely not be murder in the first degree. And that's your own words. Given the manner in which your argument changes based on what you think attacks my statements best, rather that sticking to a consistent point, you come across as someone so violently opposed to hate crime legislation that you don't even bother to have a consistent thought.

    94. Re:New classification needed by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      I told you why that wouldn't be murder in the first degree. The argument is that you don't have the ability to decide properly. That is why you get a lesser sentence. This is logically sound. And nice job trying to attack my character. I am opposed to hate crime legislation. I believe it to be unfair and I've told you why I believe it to be so.

    95. Re:New classification needed by dadorg · · Score: 1

      Protects whites from blacks, straights from gays, Christians from Muslims?

      That's how it is supposed to work. The cases that I have seen show a pattern of hatred leading up to the attack. Two guys aren't charged with a hate crime simply because they were in a bar fight.

      When we start demonizing and dehumanizing a group, it makes it easier to deny them the basic freedoms that we cherish and it also makes it easier to shoot them just for sport. Hate speech is fashionable and contagious. Anti-Semitic, anti-Islamic, anti-gay, anti-Catholic, anti-whatever has not only become accepted but in some circles it is expected. I'm not advocating limits on free speech. I am advocating holding people responsible for the results of their vehement rhetoric. That is why hate crimes, committed by anyone against any group, have to be singled out and more severely punished (IMHO).

      I'll step off of my soapbox now. Thank you.

      --
      Morality is herd instinct in the individual. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 116
    96. Re:New classification needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The law proves you wrong. The ability to decide is not a factor in firearms laws. If you drive a friend to the store and they rob it and shoot the clerk, even if you don't find out until days later and didn't make any plans or decisions to kill the clerk, you are guilty of the crime of murder in most places in the US. So I don't understand your irrelevant points about "ability to decide".

    97. Re:New classification needed by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      The law can be wrong, ever wondered that? Else I wouldn't be arguing that hate crime laws are wrong. So no, the law can't "prove me wrong."

    98. Re:New classification needed by the_bard17 · · Score: 1

      Can't tell if you're trolling for a response or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (despite your posting as AC).

      You read a lot between the lines in my posting, erroneously. If you're gonna stick me in a category, consider me a Christian Unitarian. I'll be the last one to go criticizing someone else's religious beliefs, as long as they don't go interfering with mine on a serious level (like hanging, stoning, flogging, beheading, or expensive fines). I'm well aware of the hypocrisy inherent in most, if not all, of the large/organized/popular religions. The Crusades were bad. The going on's in Palestine is a mess due to actions on both sides, as far as I can see. That deranged right wing anti-Muslim idiot? Yeah, see deranged. You may as well said deranged anti Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches idiot. He's a deranged idiot looking for any reason, and if anti-Muslim wasn't a reason, something else proabbly would have been.

      In short, I have no problem with a Muslim being affronted if I say something bad about Mohammed, as long as he's not about to go to the government and have my self-evident rights trampled on in order to salve his wounded faith. I'm not sure where you got the "spouting generalized hatred" bit about, but you might want to pick up some learning comprehension before getting all righteous.

      What I do have a problem with is a government imposing religious beliefs and imposing *serious* consequences for what I'd consider minor issues. Nobody in the U.S. is going to be arrested and face jail time or execution ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/saudi-writer-mohammad_n_1273081.html ) for tweeting critical statements about Jesus, Buddha, or any other religious figure. Rioting, murdering, raping, kidnapping, etc.? Yes, they should be arrested and dealt with appropriately. Not for making a critical statement, however irreverent.

      While we're at it, I also have a problem with large groups of people rioting, killing, and otherwise doing *bad stuff* for what would be considered a minor event anywhere else. All that rioting because somebody (likely unintentionally) burned a few copies of Koran? Ridiculous. If someone burned a truckload of Bibles in Afghanistan, I doubt I'd see rioting in the US or any where else.

      The way I see it, this world would be a lot better off if everyone took a step back from the situation, tried to look at it from the other guy's point of view, tolerated a bit more, and generally paid more attentions to their own business than what everyone else may be doing. Live by that "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

    99. Re:New classification needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      millions of voters who support the thousands of lawmakers who made those laws disagree (or simply don't care), so yes, the law does prove me wrong. This is a discussion on law. Is it or isn't it legal. Should it or shouldn't it be legal. So the millions involved (directly or otherwise) in making these laws do count, and they all count up to the opposite of everything you've said.

    100. Re:New classification needed by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      And who decides what an asshole is? A muslim cleric would say that insulting allah makes you an asshole and you should be fined (or worse).

      A jury of your peers.

    101. Re:New classification needed by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      An argument from popularity won't get you very far, after all, we used to think a year ago that being a homosexual was grounds from being removed from military service, yet it was wrong. Would you argue that it is only wrong now that everyone has "agreed"?

    102. Re:New classification needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      we used to think a year ago that being a homosexual was grounds from being removed from military service

      No, we didn't. Most people did not think it should be grounds for removal, but there was a disconnect between people and politicians. There is not much discussion on hate crimes, other than arguments about whether some special minority should be included. The Christians think they should be included, but not the muslims. The muslims would include Christians as well.

  3. Hate crimes... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "great" thing about hate crimes laws is that you can never have too many of them. There are so many minorities and victimized groups out there, and we can always use the media to create new ones. The perfect way to tack a few extra years onto a prison sentence and fatten the wallets of the prison industry's investors.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Hate crimes... by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Troll

      The funny thing is, all crimes against another person are hate crimes. Putting a special label on them is stupid and obtuse. But you've got to make the hug and run liberal establishment feel better over it, feelings have to be considered and guilt reconciled. Instead of treating a terrible criminal act, as a terrible criminal act and applying a harsh penalty.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Hate crimes... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      At the same time, what this evil bastard did needs punishing.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Hate crimes... by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bull-fucking-shit. The vast majority of crime is all about money or some other gain and has nothing to do with hate at all. These guys outed this guy in a huge public way, knowing full well the stigma associated with all of it, and knowing full well it could ruin his life. "hug and run liberal establishment"??...what the fuck does that even mean?

    4. Re:Hate crimes... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It probably means they hate queers too, and think this guy's actions were just a-okay.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Hate crimes... by Myopic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "all crimes against another person are hate crimes"

      No, they aren't. You should stop making that a part of your thinking, because it is wrong.

    6. Re:Hate crimes... by C0R1D4N · · Score: 3, Informative

      not quite. The point of hate crimes is to distinguish a heated argument in a bar leading someone to punching the other assault and a guy cornering someone in alley and beating the shit out of him cuz of his race or perceived orientation/religion/etc.

      One of those deserves just having the cops splitting them up and the other jailtime.

    7. Re:Hate crimes... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      The funny thing is, all crimes against another person are hate crimes.

      No, they're not.
      The difference between a "crime" and a "hate crime" is intent.

      There is an enormous difference between
      A) killing someone by accident (manslaughter)
      B) killing someone during the commission of a crime (murder)
      C) killing someone because they are different from you (murder + hate crime enhancement)

      Again, hate crimes are about intent. They are usually based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin.
      Our legal system does not always apply the law equally to all groups, but the law itself is neutral.
      If you look at the history of hate crime law, these crimes would create tension and cycles of retaliation in neighborhoods.
      There are strong reasons behind enhancing the punishment for certain crimes over others.
      Maybe some day we won't need those laws, but America is still struggling with basic things like equality for all.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:Hate crimes... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      First, I suspect that you are wrong and most crimes are motivated by greed rather than hate. Someone robbing a store doesn't usually hate the owners, he just wants their stuff. The point of a hate crime, however, is not that it is motivated by hate, but that it is motivated by hate of a group, rather than an individual. The question that determines whether something is a hate crime is whether the criminal would have committed the same crime if the victim had been another member of the same group, but would not if it had been a member of a different group. For example, if you beat up a gay person because you hate him, this is not a hate crime. If you beat him up because you hate gays, it is. In the first case, the victim was chosen because of your personal relationship. In the second, you could have substituted any other homosexual and the crime would still have taken place. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Well, unless you are a member of the judiciary, apparently...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Hate crimes... by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The funny thing is, all crimes against another person are hate crimes. Putting a special label on them is stupid and obtuse.

      Actually, "hate crime" is a serious misnomer, and it leads to misunderstandings like this. "Hate crimes" aren't crimes of passion; they're more akin to *treason* because they're crimes against liberty.

      Suppose you roll into town for the KKK meeting, and you pick out a black family's house at random for a cross burning. You have nothing in particular against the people living in that house. Although you're a racist, it doesn't even mean you can't have *cordial* relationships with individual blacks *as long as they stay in their place*. So the cross burning isn't particularly directed to the people living in the house. It's a message to *everyone*: *I* get to decide who lives where. *I* get to decide how you worship God. *I* get to decide what opinions you can express.

      And anyone who doesn't play by *my* rules had better look out.

      This gets complicated because these crimes often mixed with personal hatred; that's the reason for the misnomer. When you lynch a black guy for dating a white woman, you surely have *particular* hatred directed at that man. But you're also saying "*I* get to decide who sleeps with who," and *that's* the part of your act that's crime against liberty. The intention isn't just to hurt the man you hate, but to strike fear into anyone who doesn't live the way you think they should.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Hate crimes... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to Rick Santorum, you can just stop being gay, so this guy brought it on himself!

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    11. Re:Hate crimes... by Luke727 · · Score: 0

      That's ultimately the crux of the situation. This guy is obviously a grade-A asshole, but did he actually commit a crime? If the victim did not kill himself would this situation have blown up like it did? Personally I don't think so. It's a tragic story, and I would like this guy to be punished in some manner, but as far as I can tell no crime was actually committed. Trying to shoehorn it into something covered by hate crime legislation is just a desperate grasp for justice. There was a similar story a while ago about some sick fuck of a woman humiliating a girl on Facebook to the extent that she ended up killing herself. There was no way to fit that into hate crime legislation and if I recall correctly the woman ultimately did not end up in any legal trouble.

      --
      If you find this post offensive, don't read it! THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING! I am what I am because of how apes behave.
    12. Re:Hate crimes... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      It really is just brownie points for voters to notice. The absurdity of a hate crime is that it can/will be relegated to every violent crime.Picture:
      "I F**KING LOVE YOU [stab,stab,stab] We don't spend enough time talking{ Biff,Kick} Let's get a beer{shoots kneecap] ". Doesn't work does it.
      Literally any thing/one you attack in an overflow of anxiety is going to end up a hate crime. Then hate will be a crime. Doubleunplusgood ,quack.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    13. Re:Hate crimes... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Those are aggravating circumstances. Not intent.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:Hate crimes... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

      My favorite new minority is dickhead internet posters who make absurdly broad generalizations which don't even have the benefit of being premised on a nugget of truth.

      And how fucking delicious that you have been modded "FlainBait" by the /. Group Think... Perfect!

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    15. Re:Hate crimes... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One of those deserves just having the cops splitting them up and the other jailtime.

      Really? Why does one deserve jailtime and the other does not? Why do only some victimized groups get this special protection? Do you see WoW "nerds" getting special protection from bullying, the way homosexuals do?

      Hate crimes laws are another way to increase our prison population, without being as overt as the war on drugs. The pattern is familiar: first, the media lets everyone know about the terrible things being done to some particular group; then people lobby for that group to be included in hate crimes laws, with the media pointing to the progress being made by such lobbying; then the laws are amended so that another group receive this special protection. Meanwhile, society goes on victimizing other groups, using various slurs and expressions, and ignoring their plight -- people say they were "gypped" all the time, but nobody bats an eye at it (now imagine if someone said they were "nigged").

      Now homosexuals are the victim group de jour, and in 20 years it will be another group. The great thing is that the media can actually seed hatred for a group, then return decades later to talk about the plight of that group (sometimes without even stopping their own encouragement of the hate). While the media was trumpeting the progress of laws to protect black people, it was simultaneously stoking the flames of fear and hatred by portraying black men as dangerous criminals. The media keeps telling us that we should respect homosexuals and treat them like everyone else...and then portrays gay men as particularly effeminate or somehow not being as masculine as straight men.

      If you dare question the special legal treatment of homosexuals, you are a homophobe -- and in a particularly ironic twist, you might be accused of being a closet homosexual (by the same people telling you not to harass people for being gay). Naturally, the opinion of a homophobe on these topics is totally irrelevant, whereas the opinions of someone arguing to lock homophobes in prison for long periods of time are important to the conversation.

      That, in a nutshell, is the problem here. We are not addressing the problem (the victimization of particular groups), we are just expanding the size of the prison population. Hate crimes laws are worse than knee-jerk reactions: hate crimes laws have been carefully planned out.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    16. Re:Hate crimes... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You should really go study your criminology. Your thinking is wrong. Crimes are motivated by a persons mindset? Yes. All crimes against a person are motivated by their hate against another person, the only differences are how aggrieved they are against the other party.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have several issues with hate crime legislation:

      1. It's not clear what the rationale is for punishing crime motivated by a certain list of characteristics far more severely than crime motivated by other things. Specifically:

      1.1 Why this list? Is it because they are "born" and not "chosen"? That's an extremely anti-deterministic viewpoint. If you're born into an upper middle class suburban family, you can say that getting a nice car is "born" as well. If someone stabs you because they hate your car, aren't they stabbing you because they hate something you're born into?

      1.2 Why punish them more harshly? Is it because the pain felt is stronger? In that case, base all sentences on the pain felt more than anything. Or is it to discourage crime? So the rationale everyone agrees on is that more strict punishment leads to less crime?

      2. The process of determining whether characteristic X was a motive must by necessity be highly arbitrary. The only thing you can really base it on is the words being spoken. So whether someone is guilty of a hate crime or not depends completely on whether someone overheard one of the magic words during the incident. Then a subjective view by the judge whether this word was just incidental: "beat up the guy, oh by the way, he is catholic" or "beat up the catholic guy" or "beat up the guy because he is catholic".

      3. A big part of the rationale seems to be that minority groups must be protected. But that's completely flawed. The way they determine a "minority group" seems to be on a national basis, according to some astral karmic theory of adding together everyone in each group and their respective resources, and anyone who have lived in the past, and then pitting the groups against each other to see who is strongest.

      But in reality, which group is strong or weak depends _extremely_ on the individual situation. In big schools the only determinants of strong and weak is numbers and ability to beat up people. If an area is primarily inhabited by people of one ethnicity, then anyone else is by the same definition a weak minority that needs protection. Sure, you can agree racism is institutionalised, but if you don't have any of those resources available to you, then they count for absolutely zero. Applying a nation-wide minority calculation on any individual micro-situation is therefore totally wrong. If it matters whether someone is a minority, then you need to assess each situation to see who the minority was right there and then.

    18. Re:Hate crimes... by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      /. has no shortage of people stuck in group think mode. What's worse is they haven't figured out that -1 flamebait isn't "I disagree" rather it's "-1 I'm an intellectual coward."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This case has a new level. People are destroyed in public over the internet. I hope that guy gets a hard punishment. He is responsible for the death and did it intentionally.

    20. Re:Hate crimes... by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      So, some drunk idiot decides to punch me at a bar because he just likes to start fights, but since I'm white, it's not so bad? My nose is just as broken as the gay guy that got punched for being gay.

    21. Re:Hate crimes... by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Hate crime prosecution may be applied unfairly but the law itself is not. Blacks beating up a white should be treated just as harshly as vice versa. Motive for crime should absolutely be considered when deciding sentencing. Stealing bread to feed your family doesnt deerve the same punishment as shoplifting a louis vatton purse.

    22. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At the same time, what this evil bastard did needs punishing.

      and what was that, exactly? Record someone having sex and put it online? Charge him for that, and give him an appropriate time in prison. Hate crimes and murder? People commit suicide all the time, should someone's boss face jail time because the guy he fired killed himself?

      And this isn't a "hate crime", this is a "WTF MY ROOMMATE'S GAY?!" You're 17, you're in your college dorm, and you suddenly find out the man sleeping in the bed next to you likes men. Mind. Blown.

    23. Re:Hate crimes... by Myopic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have equated "crimes are motivated by a mindset" with "all crimes are motivated by hate". To do so is to equate thinking, with hating. That is wrong, so wrong that I have to assume you didn't really mean it (except that you've said it twice now). As so many others have pointed out, most crimes are motived by things other than hate, such as greed. So I assume you are trying to equate "a criminal feeling greed" with "a criminal hating a person who has what the criminal wants". Is that what you are trying to do? If so, then I have to disagree strongly. To do so would be to reject many ways of distinguishing hate from other forms of thought.

    24. Re:Hate crimes... by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      The drunk and you should be separated and he should be liable for the damage. Color is irrelevant in the situation. My point is that motive is important to determining sentencing and a targeted hate attack is a worse degree than being a drunken idiot.

    25. Re:Hate crimes... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blacks beating up a white should be treated just as harshly as vice versa

      Just like non-nerds beating up nerds. The crime is beating someone up; what difference does it make if it was motivated by hatred of a person's race as opposed to their lifestyle, hair color, academic success, or any of dozens of other reasons that people beat each other up? The problem with hate crimes legislation is that it unfairly labels some forms of hatred as being categorically worse than others, and that this labeling is almost always politically motivated.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    26. Re:Hate crimes... by cdrguru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are starting to get into the idea that there are different sorts of hate and different degrees of it. Hate against a protected class (say, a minority) is a different level of hate under this thinking. Clearly different from the sort of hate that many African Americans have against white people because they have been brought up to believe that all white people are slavers and want nothing more than to re-enslave the black race.

      No, sorry, you don't get to do that. Hate is hate. It is a destructive emotion but it is little more than emotion. Once we start prosecuting hate we are a short way away from prosecuting "conservatism" which to many is far more destructive than hate. Any internal throught process is then fair game regardless of its expression in actions. As much as I would like to prosecute Pollyanna-ish liberals for their beliefs in a "go along to get along" world, it is not the way to organize a society unless one is actively striving for 1984. Because if it were possible to do such prosecutions, you can bet it would be fashionable to prosecute all sorts of undesirable attitudes or the "wrong sort of thinking."

      Once you start prosecuting people for what they believe, trouble is bound to follow. And by definition "hate crimes" are clearly prosecuting someone for what they believe or are thinking.

      If you want to make the world safe for homosexuals, the place to start is not with what people are thinking but what they are doing. Simlarly, if you want to make the world safe for Jews "enhancing" sentances for swastica-painters because of what they believe is not the right way to do it. Instead, increase the penalties for external actions - like painting a swastica - which is something at least everyone can see.

    27. Re:Hate crimes... by garaged · · Score: 1

      I think intention is a big player in a crime.

      Do any harm and be punished, do it because you hated the affected person and get twice as much punish.

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    28. Re:Hate crimes... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      "Do you see WoW "nerds" getting special protection from bullying, the way homosexuals do?"

      Yes.

      Does that change the way you feel about it?

      If I sat around seething about how WoW players are subhuman, and don't deserve to live, and then I got some friends together and we went in and beat up a bunch of poindexters at a LAN party, that would be a hate crime.

      Crimes are often demarcated by intent; intent is an essential and central concept in criminal law. I'm honestly curious, do you think that Western criminal jurisprudence should discard the foundational notion of intent in the definition and prosecution of crime? That question is slightly separate from whether you think these specific hate-crime laws are good or bad; so if you want to retain the notion of intent, but not apply it in this case, then I'm also curious how or why you decide that.

    29. Re:Hate crimes... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It makes a difference because of the relative danger to society. If someone is beating you up because they don't like you then they are less of a threat to the general public than if they beat you up because you're the nearest available member of a certain group.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    30. Re:Hate crimes... by mounthood · · Score: 1

      Actually, "hate crime" is a serious misnomer ... they're crimes against liberty.

      The intention isn't just to hurt the man you hate, but to strike fear into anyone who doesn't live the way you think they should.

      Using liberty to define hate crimes depends on the actions of the victim, rather then the intent of the criminal only. But many hate crimes don't involve any actions by the victim, e.g. hanging a black man for being black.

      Interesting idea though, and it helps illuminate some of the issues: homophobes often argue that it's OK to be gay, so long as you don't *do* anything. Misogynists often argue that women are equal to men, but they should 'stay home' because of family/religion/society/tradition.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    31. Re:Hate crimes... by garaged · · Score: 1

      You gotta be lawyer, or play one on tv, or see too much "law and order"

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    32. Re:Hate crimes... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Unless you are talking about a group that is not covered by hate crimes legislation. Hate crimes legislation does not cover "nerds," even though there are plenty of cases of "nerds" being harassed and subjected to endless verbal abuse for no reason other than that they belong to a particular group. Hate crimes legislation defines particular forms of hatred as being worse than others, and the definition is expanded whenever a powerful political movement, with media backing, steps in to push for such expansion.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    33. Re:Hate crimes... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      You are right in the first sentence, and wrong in the second sentence fragment.

      Quoth wiki:
      Aggravation, in law, is "any circumstance attending the commission of a crime or tort which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to its injurious consequences, but which is above and beyond the essential constituents of the crime or tort itself."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggravating_circumstance

      I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the intent is an aggravating circumstance: the intent increases the guilt (according to statute), adds to its consequences, and is above and beyond the essential constituent of the crime itself.

    34. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wasn't intent already considered in the charges? For example, between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder?
      If someone planned and carried out my murder, how do their reasons make me any more or less dead, or them an more or less guilty?

    35. Re:Hate crimes... by Desler · · Score: 1

      No, the funny thing is is that you're wrong. I can accidentally kill someone in a car accident and there is no hate behind it at all yet it is still a crime. There are plenty of other examples. This is just a Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/etc nonsense excuse.

    36. Re:Hate crimes... by Desler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Clearly different from the sort of hate that many African Americans have against white people because they have been brought up to believe that all white people are slavers and want nothing more than to re-enslave the black race.

      Is that what they tell you at the Klan meetings every Tuesday?

    37. Re:Hate crimes... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      "Do you see WoW "nerds" getting special protection from bullying, the way homosexuals do?"

      Yes.

      Where do you live? Here in the United States, hate crimes are defined as crimes motivated by particular categories -- race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. Being a "nerd" of any sort is not in that category.

      I'm honestly curious, do you think that Western criminal jurisprudence should discard the foundational notion of intent in the definition and prosecution of crime?

      How about applying it equally? We do not -- hate crimes legislation defines particular categories of hatred that receive sentencing enhancement, and in practice even those categories are only selectively considered. Which particular victim groups receive this special protection depends on which particular groups can get enough lobbying power and media backing. If courts were applying the "if it is motivated by hatred, then increase the sentence" standard fairly, there would only be an argument about whether or not killing someone for being a nerd is a worse crime than killing a defenseless old woman because you wanted her jewelry.

      If it were just a matter of "well this guy really hated this other person for being $XYZ," then we would not have amended the law in 2009 to include sexual orientation as a factor.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    38. Re:Hate crimes... by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      The reason we have Hate Crime laws is because we have a history in this country of hate groups like the KKK who decided to terrorise some other people in an identifiable group for no particular reasons other than that they were "different". And we have individuals who may not have been formally part of those groups but somehow got the same idea. The Hate Crime laws are there to suppress that particular strain of criminality. Until and unless you are on the receiving end of one of those groups you don't really have the position to have a completely informed opinion about those laws. From a completely practical viewpoint you want people in identifiable (generally minority) groups to think they are protected under the law from such targeted criminality -- otherwise the populace will fracture into gangs for self-protection viewing everyone else as a potential deadly adversary, with the resulting mass violence.

    39. Re:Hate crimes... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      1. The rationale for all laws is found at the top, under a long list of WHEREAS clauses.
      1.1 Legislators sit around and spend a lot of time carefully coming up with the list, based on what they think the list should contain. That is the same way all laws are made.
      1.2 Neither: it's because the crime reverberates more widely in such a way as to prevent classes of people from participating in society. You can sort of think of it as a "chilling effect", which is a term we nerds know well.
      2. "Arbitrary" means based on nothing, or based on random whim; you can't possibly be saying that legislators picked protected classes at random. I request that you take back this point and not assert it again. It doesn't help your argument, it just makes you look like you don't know what arbitrary means, or don't know how the classes are chosen. Suffice it to say that the process of determining protected classes is exactly the opposite of arbitrary.
      3. These are state laws, or local laws, based on state or local standards, crafted by state or local legislatures. I'm not sure about the rest of this point, but yes, the rationale could probably be fairly described as "minority groups must be protected", although I think that misses some of the important bits. I would say "it is important to protect groups of people who are commonly wrongly denied their right to participate in society".

      There may be good reasons to oppose this kind of hate-crime legislation, but you haven't listed any.

    40. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you're also saying "*I* get to decide who sleeps with who," and *that's* the part of your act that's crime against liberty.

      Saying something is free speech. We already have laws against lynching people, regardless of the motivation.

    41. Re:Hate crimes... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Please don't be obtuse. I'm talking about *forcing* your will on other people, not just telling them what they *should* do.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    42. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a "nerd"? If you can't answer that question in a legally clear manner it would be pretty hard to write it into a law.

    43. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There used to be something called "exonerating circumstances", basically if you commit a crime, we look at the crime itself, decide on a punishment, and then if you had good reasons to do what you did, your punishment was reduced.

      Example:
      1) You stole bread because your children were starving and you had no other options - that's exonerating circumstances, you punishment will be lower.
      2) You stole bread because you were being cheap and wanted to save money to buy an expensive car - no exonerating circumstances, regular punishment.
      3) You stole bread just because the shop owner is a jew and you hate jews - no exonerating circumstances, regular punishment.

      A crime is a crime, whether you attack somebody because you're in a bad mood and that's your way of relaxing, or because of their race doesn't matter: it's assault and you have no excuse. The only time your motivations for committing a crime should be taken into consideration is when they might excuse you, for example if you attacked me because I raped your wife.

      The random guy who gets beaten up by a complete stranger because that stranger is bored deserves as much protection from the law as the guy who got beaten up because he's gay. Or take murder: if a guy tortured and killed gay people, should he get more time than the guy who tortured and killed out of pure sadism (assuming same acts, different motives)?
      And these laws make non-minority people better targets. In many cases, people were charged with a hate crime just because their victim was a member of a minority and even though the crime was not motivated by their minority status. It's typical cases of "let's throw everything we have and hope most of it sticks, this way we get a bigger punishment". So when that kind of stuff happens, when the law gets abused like that, a white mugger will avoid mugging minority members. He'll focus on mugging only white people because that's a 100% guarantee not to be charged with a hate crime. This means that as a white heterosexual, I'm more likely to be attacked, robbed or killed, all thanks to the law basically telling people "you'll get a lower sentence if you attack that guy". Bet you hadn't thought of that, had you? How would you feel if women were added to the list of hate crimes? If you are a man, would you still feel as safe as you do now when you walk home at night? Would you find it fair if the law basically told criminals to attack men instead of women, because attacking a woman gets you a higher sentence?

      Also "exonerating circumstances" and allowing judges flexibility in sentencing was done for exactly the same purpose these hate crime laws exist: for a given crime, give the highest punishment for inexcusable motives and give the lowest to offenders who have an excuse. The law already had a process in place to do exactly what those hate crime laws are designed for. Maybe judges shouldn't have been giving the maximum sentence to almost everyone all the time, eh?

      Finally, these hate crime laws also come down to punishing people twice for the same crime. Assault becomes Assault + Hate Crime. Maybe we should just make a law that being found guilty of a crime is a crime. "Guilty of murder, 20 years. Oh and since you've now been found guilty of a crime, you get an extra 10 years, because breaking the law is a crime on top of the law you broke".

      Look, these laws are unfair and unnecessary. They make some people more likely to become victims, and we already have exonerating circumstances to punish offenders differently depending on their motives. And if we just want harsher punishments, then let's be honest about that and just change the current laws to allow harsher punishment.

    44. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I punch a guy because he looked at me funny, *I* get to decide who looks at me. *I* get to decide how people look at me.

      You know what happens when you charge a guy with a hate crime for vandalizing the house of the black family? All the vandals now target my house because I'm white and there's no risk they might be charged with a hate crime. I guess the law thinks *I* should learn my place, right?

    45. Re:Hate crimes... by hey! · · Score: 1

      You know what happens when you charge a guy with a hate crime for vandalizing the house of the black family? All the vandals now target my house because I'm white and there's no risk they might be charged with a hate crime.

      That's an interesting perspective. "Hate crimes" have existed as a category of crimes for several decades now. How many times has that happened to you?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    46. Re:Hate crimes... by Myopic · · Score: 2

      "We are starting to get into the idea that there are different sorts of hate and different degrees of it. ...Hate is hate."

      I'm not sure what you mean. I certainly think there are different sorts of hate and different degrees of it. Is that something you disagree with? How could you possibly disagree with that?

      And to be clear, we don't try to legislate away all hate. We target specific, narrow bands of the most pernicious criminal acts exacerbated by hate.

    47. Re:Hate crimes... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Legislators sit around and spend a lot of time carefully coming up with the list

      No, lobbyists with the support of the media pressure politicians to include the group they represent on the list, in a way that appears to be politically neutral. That is why nerds do not appear on the list, why homeless people appear only on some state lists, etc. These are politically motivated lists, not carefully planned efforts at protecting society from itself.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    48. Re:Hate crimes... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      It probably means they hate queers too, and think this guy's actions were just a-okay.

      Or maybe he's just afraid of the government criminalizing thought and feeling, which you guys are apparently Okey Dokey with. Careful with that, though. Democrats aren't always going to be in charge. When you set a precedent, the other side can use it too. Anti-military speech? Why, sounds like a hate crime to me!

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    49. Re:Hate crimes... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Intent shouldn't matter one iota. If you murder because of money or because you hated someone, it changes nothing. The victim is just as dead. And what are you going to do? Give the killer the death penalty, twice? Turn up the juice on the chair just to let him know how awful his feelings were?

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    50. Re:Hate crimes... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Great... so in other words, they're trying to predict the future ("He'll do this again! I know it!") and lock people up based on the results.

      I love thought crimes.

    51. Re:Hate crimes... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      The basic model for hate crimes in most jurisdictions is that there are multiple victims. There's the person directly assaulted, raped, murdered or whatever, and there's a whole group of other people who were put in fear they might also be singled out for the same treatment (that's what the 1964 civil rights act refers to as additional societal consequences).. For the U.S. federal laws, and for most of the 45 states that have adopted hate crimes legislation, there are also limits to measuring those consequences - direct intent to violate basic rights of the people involved, such as voting, jury duty or public assembly, have to be affected, with intent by the criminal proven by their own speech. Many of these laws don't let a prosecuter even prove intent by membership in a group such as the KKK or Black Panthers that has advocated such consequences, unless the criminals own statements support the charge. But you go right on using the Faux news definition instead of what the law actually says (again in most jurisdictions) * Call people stupid and obtuse for figuring out that the criminal had intent to harm additional victims, and for taking those victims into account. Coddle the criminals. Get modded insightful for repating a lie about the law and sucking up to some of the worst criminal scum on the planet in the process.

      * I'm sure somebody can find, somewhere, a 'hate crimes' law that doesn't involve proving the criminal had intent to harm or frighten additional victims, but then I'm sure some place has a law against tresspassing that doesn't actually require physical entrance to the area, or some similarly stupid verion of most laws. It might surprise me if someone found a manslaughter law that didn't require an actual dead person, but even that probably exists somewhere. But go look at the actual laws as written for the federal government or any of the state wide laws that exist in the 45 states plus DC. There are a few that are under state court challenge because some of the rights they think are compromised are not specifically spelled out in those state's constitution or because someone thinks there's a systeminc bias against applying the laws to 'black on white' crimes (for example there's a move in Tennessee to claim that the Christian-Newsome murders in Knoxville were a hate crime, although the prosecuter says he looked at intent by the perps to target the couple for their ethinc background and was thoroughly convinced the four assalants would have done the same crimes regardless of race.).

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    52. Re:Hate crimes... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't care for thought crimes.

      "He doesn't that group of people! Therefore, he should have a harsher punishment for the exact same crime."

    53. Re:Hate crimes... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Until and unless you are on the receiving end of one of those groups you don't really have the position to have a completely informed opinion about those laws.

      What? That makes no sense. If anything, if you were part of one of those groups, you'd just be biased.

      If someone committed a crime, then convict them for the crime. I don't think their "hatred" of any particular group should ever come into play.

    54. Re:Hate crimes... by Myopic · · Score: 2

      Where do you live? Here in the United States, hate crimes are defined as crimes motivated by particular categories -- race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

      I admit that I am not a criminal lawyer. My understanding fits the wiki description:

      "In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

      "WoW nerds" would be a "social group" or "social status". I suppose it depends on how the law is written. Perhaps a WoW-hate-crime would fit the general description of a hate crime, but not the specific statute in this locality. If you can speak to the specific law in this case, by citing it and showing me that it doesn't include social groups or social status, then I will concede the point.

      How about applying it equally? If it were just a matter of "well this guy really hated this other person for being $XYZ," then we would not have amended the law in 2009 to include sexual orientation as a factor.

      So, again it depends on how the law is written. Most laws are written with a general principle, and then a long list of definitions. For instance, "speeding" is a crime because it is one of the definitions given for "reckless driving". The law says something like "no person shall drive recklessly, which shall consist of...(among other things) speeding". It would be something like that (I know that one because I've looked it up). So, my assumption is that a hate crime law says something like "battery and murder laws shall have an added 5-years of jail time if motivated by hate such as... (among other things) based on sexual orientation". But even if the law is more narrow than that, applying only to specified classes, that doesn't in any way invalidate it.

      Let me ask you this: if the law is open-ended, specifying protection against hate crimes generally, then would you support it? If not, then it's not fair for you to try to claim that as the reason you object.

    55. Re:Hate crimes... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      In this case, the person saying "hug and run liberal" is revealing his right wing orientation. What amazes me here is that his version of the right is 'tough on crime' (except when they think a tough law is 'Liberal", then they want to give a medal to the criminal). They're tough on immigrants not willing to be assimilated into the American culture (except when somebody thinks they have a right to apply the good old fashioned moral standards of the country they came from in place of US law, even where they have been informed (by the college administration in this case) that they don't).

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    56. Re:Hate crimes... by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      But motive shouldn't have anything to do with determining sentencing. The law exists to regulate behavior. The government has no business using the law to regulate attitudes. Hatred is a right of every citizen. It can't be taken away unless you give someone a lobotomy or drug them or brainwash them or something. So you can lock up a person, but you're liable to increase their hatred by doing that. Acting on your hatred in a violent manner can be forbidden by law, but it's the violence (an action) that's relevant to the law rather than the motivation.

      Similarly, greed is also a right of every citizen. If you act on your greed in a violent manner by robbing someone, you've done nothing illegal until you've acted in a violent manner. I would argue that far more and far worse crimes are motivated by envy and greed than by hatred. Furthermore, hatred is much more muddled: it's not always particularly clear whether a defendant in a hate crime case was driven by racial/homophobic hate or just hatred of the particular victim. Also, hatred can often be justified whereas greed cannot (if someone were to hurt your child, for example, your hatred for that person would probably be justified; but make no mistake, the emotion you feel is the exact same emotion a homophobe feels towards homosexuals).

      From a moral standpoint, I can't see how one can claim that a violent act motivated by bigotry is any different than a violent act motivated by greed or a violent act committed on a whim. It's not like most violent criminals who are motivated by greed are Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread. How can you make the claim that being beaten for your race is worse than being beaten for your watch? How can one act deserve a greater punishment than the other when the acts themselves are the same?

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    57. Re:Hate crimes... by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Thought crime is crime for simply thinking something. Not acting on it. Using your logic soldiers and those fighting in self defense should have the same punishment as someone committing premeditated homicide.

    58. Re:Hate crimes... by Artifakt · · Score: 2

      Do you really think there is any hate crime law out there that says crimes against white people are not so bad? Do you really think the laws are written so that a black person who punches you to 'teach whitey his place', or a gay guy who punches you because "breeders are pond-scum, and I'm gonna get them all before the get me" can't be charged with a hate crime? Please read what the actual laws say. If the law in your area actually marks you out as not being a member of a protected class, then by all means complain, lobby, and fight for your equal right to protection, but I'll bet you find that your state's hate crime laws, if any, are written to include actions designed to intimidate or threaten your group too. Or are you trying to claim that these are bad laws in themselves because in your area there's selective enforcement?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    59. Re:Hate crimes... by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Except that assault and robbery is a harsher penalty than simple assault.

    60. Re:Hate crimes... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      It does? Is hate crime not a separate crime?

      Regardless, I don't think hatred should come into it. I don't care what they think of the person, although I agree that intent (accidents) should be a factor.

    61. Re:Hate crimes... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      "These are politically motivated lists, not carefully planned efforts at protecting society from itself."

      My first question is, why can't they be both? What you said is what I said. Legislators meeting with constituents is covered by "sitting around coming up with the list".

      My second question is, aren't all laws politically motivated? That's pretty much the point of... you know... politics.

      Elsewhere I've been discussing that depending on how the law is written, nerds and homeless people can appear by default. Or, the law can be written very narrowly.

      If your complaint is that they only protect certain classes, then I have to presume that you are calling for these laws to be massively expanded and applied much more broadly? I don't know, as a moderate I think some laws like these are best written to be narrow and specific. But hey, you could probably convince me to massively expand them.

    62. Re:Hate crimes... by mrlibertarian · · Score: 1

      I don't see the difference between B and C. In both cases, the criminal clearly intended to kill the victim. Assuming that both crimes were planned, then the intent was the same, and both crimes qualify as murder in the first degree.

      What you seem to be advocating is a system where justice is not blind. After all, if some classes are protected, then by definition, some classes must not be. If my aggressor hates me because of my haircut, as opposed to my skin color, then that is a lesser crime, under the "hate crime" system.

      You could argue that some groups are indeed special, but I could never follow you down that road, because I believe everyone should be treated equally under the law. Once I start breaking people into groups, with only certain groups being protected, I will have abandoned that sacred principle.

    63. Re:Hate crimes... by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Stop! You're Spreading Santorum!

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    64. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely agree. We see this disparity even outside of "protected groups" like race, sexual orientation, etc. when we see statues, for example, that enhance the crime for cop killers, etc. (e.g., in NY, killing cops or witnesses or a few other "special circumstances" are necessary to qualify you for the death penalty under first degree murder).

      If there are separate crimes being committed, they should be charged separately. If we want to claim that killing a cop or killing a witness somehow is also a crime against the legal system, let's charge people with "disrupting the legal system," whatever that means. If it simply means "obstructing justice," then I'm not sure that the penalty for such a normal felony should increase to death just because the obstruction happened when attached to a particular crime.

      For protected group "hate crimes," the issues get more difficult. Can we even come up with a law that would be specific enough to identify an independent criminal element that should be prosecuted? If someone murders someone with intent, what exactly is the additional criminal element added by racial hatred as opposed to simply hating one's spouse or boss or whatever?

      And if we can't identify a separate criminal element that this difference in intent is dealing with (as with the difference between manslaughter and murder), the concept of "hate crime" shows a confusion of principles of fairness under the law, as you say.

    65. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. The idiotic notion that hate crimes are "prosecuting thought" in a way that is new or different doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of exploration.

      Hate crimes are not thought crimes any more than the degrees of homicide are thought crimes. Hate crimes are the same offenses committed by ordinary criminals--the distinction is in the motivation, and thus is considered in the penalty. This is neither novel nor unique. Our criminal justice system considers motive in a wide array of circumstances because it forms a crucial part of mens rea, criminal intent. In the same way we consider that stabbing someone is less severe if they've broken into your house in the middle of the night as compared to a drunken bar fight, which is in turn less serious than knifing and mugging someone completely sober, we should also consider crimes not committed from general criminogenic impulse, but those that are specifically motivated by specific prejudice. Stabbing someone specifically because you don't like a particular group of people with whom they identify is a much bigger issue for society than a drunken bar fight and that should be reflected in the proceedings.

      You don't get prosecuted for not liking the gay community. You get prosecuted for committing a crime, and the charges against you rightly increase when the reason you committed that crime is because you don't like the gay community, and if not for that, you wouldn't have done it.

    66. Re:Hate crimes... by Linuxmonger · · Score: 1
      I am a single human being, there are 6 billion of you who are not me - I am therefore a minority and should be protected from all of you - you should be taxed to pay for that defense, because there are so many of you and I am only one.

      A populace that fractures into gangs is a populace creating minority groups.

      Hate crimes are there to suppress the realization that there are differences in culture and thought

      You are a criminal if you don't think like me.

    67. Re:Hate crimes... by Lord_Jeremy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The difference between a hate crime and a bar fight is that one is that neo-nazis who have beaten up a black man think that they have some duty to beat up black men. A bar fight is typically the result of intoxication and impulsive emotions. After the incident, the people who were fighting will probably have regrets and remorse, while the neo-nazis will proclaim that the police are being controlled by jews or some such and that they were/are trying to preserve the moral fabric of society by assaulting minorities. Even beyond the simple fact that the neo-nazis are more likely to go back out and organize more attacks, there's a line between what can be considered an accident or a poor decision and a conscious, willful attempt to hurt people.

    68. Re:Hate crimes... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Do you see WoW "nerds" getting special protection from bullying, the way homosexuals do?

      Do you see WoW nerds getting disowned by their family's kicked out of their churches, ostracized by their own friends, and fired from their jobs... for being WoW nerds?

      No? Didn't think so.

      The crime might be the same "bullying group X" but the consequences of the crime aren't really in the same league.

      If you dare question the special legal treatment of homosexuals, you are a homophobe

      Not at all. I even agree putting poorly crafted laws on the books to protect homosexuals is wrong. The stigma of being gay is an epheral cultural anomoly that will likely eventually sort itself out... and once it does... the laws will still be around... ripe for abuse.

      But that doesn't mean we should shove our heads up our asses and pretend that being outed as gay is no different than being outed as a WoW nerd within the world today.

    69. Re:Hate crimes... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      It is not so much that I want a massive expansion; I would prefer a law based on affirmative defense, where the defendant could explain to the court that there was a good/excusable reason for the crime, or that the crime was committed out desperation (e.g. breaking into someone's home because your children are starving and you have not been able to find a job should receive a less severe sentence than breaking into someone's home for some other reason; hate crimes laws take the opposite approach, that certain crimes are more severely punished). Note that affirmative defense is not unheard of; killing someone to save your own life is an affirmative defense, even though killing would generally be prosecuted as murder or manslaughter. If that is not something that can happen, if instead we would prefer sentencing enhancements for hate-motivated crimes, then let the law be written in a way that requires the prosecution show that the crime was committed as an expression of hatred -- regardless of the reason for the hatred.

      The problem I have with the law as it exists right now is that it selects particular victim groups as "favored," while completely ignoring others. In general, this is how society has come to view discrimination; elsewhere I gave the example of a common slur, "gypped," which nobody seems to even blink at, while the very similar slur "Jewed" seems to be frowned upon, and a slur like "nigged" seems to be unthinkable. Why should any of these slurs be more acceptable than the others? The problem is that we have listed particular groups (Jews, black people, homosexuals) as being "victim groups," while other groups (gypsies, homeless people, nerds) are still "fair game." Unfortunately, the law has come to reflect this sort of thinking, although with a little less tolerance for discrimination (you can be charged with a hate crime for beating up gypsies, because they are an ethnic group).

      The narrowest and most specific law would be one that does not even attempt to probe a person's state of mind when a crime was committed. You beat someone up; it does not matter whether you did it because they are a member of a particular group, because you want to send a message to a rival gang, because you were drunk, or any other reason. Most people would find that to be too narrow, and would rather broaden the law so that beating someone up because of a drug-induced psychosis is not lumped together with beating someone up because they are a black man dating a white woman. I agree that it is too narrow; as I said, I would prefer a framework based on affirmative defense, where the prosecution only needs to prove that you committed a crime, and the defense can opt to prove that the crime was committed for an acceptable or less heinous reason if there is no room for reasonable doubt, for a lesser sentence.

      Now, in general, I am a fan of reducing prison terms and focusing more on punishments based on fines, community service, and so forth. Prison is a money sink, versus community service which increases the wealth of society. It is a fine line, of course, between community service and slavery, which is where we must be careful; however, I would prefer to walk that line than to try to navigate the line between prison-based punishment and an Orwellian nightmare (about which the US system already raises questions -- we have more prisoners than any other country, and the private prison industry is continuing to grow).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    70. Re:Hate crimes... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Every discussion on hate crimes has someone who insists "all crimes against another person are hate crimes". That entirely misses the point. A hate crime is a crime against an entire community. If a murderer kills a man, that's murder. If he kills a black man living in a white neighborhood because of the color of his skin, then in addition to the murder victim, he's also waged a form of violence on an entire community: "Move here, get murdered". In this specific case, it wasn't just an attack on one kid. It was an attack on the gay community: "Stop being gay, or be outed and face all the fucked up consequences our society attacks gay people with". Try reading up a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Psychological_effects, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_violence

    71. Re:Hate crimes... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I don't see the difference between B and C. In both cases, the criminal clearly intended to kill the victim. Assuming that both crimes were planned, then the intent was the same, and both crimes qualify as murder in the first degree.

      Here's my explanation: In any group, you will find people who hate others just because they belong to another group. Every person is about equally likely to perpetrate a crime due to that kind of hate. However, not every person is equally likely to be a victim. If group A has ten times as many members as group B, and there is an equally large percentage of group members willing to commit crimes against members of the other group, then group A will have ten times more perpetrators, with group B having ten times fewer targets, making members of group B 100 times more likely to be the victim.

      That makes it quite obvious and a matter of basic fairness to have laws that makes life safer for members of group B.

    72. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the laws are to reduce relative societal danger, then logically someone who is full of hatred in general and will assault any random person is much more dangerous to the population as a whole because a population is made up many different groups. If someone only assaults a group that makes up 11% of the population then they are only a danger to 11% of the population while the other is a danger to 100%.

      Why don't we prosecute everyone who assaults someone with the law, and allow society to change the individual's opinion about the person they assaulted instead of making a poorly run, overburdened legal system do the work instead?

    73. Re:Hate crimes... by thesandtiger · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you actually knew what the hell you were talking about, you would know that even members of a majority class can also be considered victims of hate crimes.

      If a black, lesbian, muslim woman murders a white, straight, christian man and makes it clear that she is doing it because her victim is white/straight/christian/male, that's a hate crime.

      See, the reason hate crimes are considered aggravated offenses is because their intent is to instil fear in the entire class of people they target in order to have an adverse affect on that entire class of people.

      So, you're entirely wrong about how hate crimes work - you only need one definition to cover any potential class of victim because potentially anyone can be a victim of a hate crime.

      Now let's talk about why you're wrong about how hate crimes as you imagine them to be are the perfect way to tack a few extra years onto prison sentences:

      What's the conviction rate for offenders of color vs. white offenders? What's the average sentence length, by conviction type, for both offenders of color and white offenders? In your fantasy world, it's only minorities and victimized groups who are able to be victims of hate crimes, and so, according to your theory, we should see sentence lengths for white offenders be higher than for offenders of color for the same offense (if it's so "easy" to tack on and if the overriding goal is to "tack a few extra years onto a prison sentence"), and possibly higher rates of conviction of white offenders.

      Yet we don't. What we see are that defendants of color are vastly more likely to be convicted, and when convicted, offenders of color are given typically longer sentences. When adjusted for other factors - usually economic - the gap is slightly lessened but still quite present.

      So, you're wrong about the intent and effect of hate crimes, too. Everything in your post is incorrect.

      Perhaps you'll take this as an opportunity to re-examine your views on the subject and see if they match up with actual reality rather than what you imagine reality is.

      Actually, you're right about one thing in your post - for-profit prisons are an abomination and should not be allowed in a society that considers itself civilized. There should never be a profit motive for subverting justice.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    74. Re:Hate crimes... by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine someone gave me a -1 troll?...WTF is that for...troll quoting?

    75. Re:Hate crimes... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      That's what sentencing is for. If the judge feels that the crime was 'justified', then he can impose a lighter sentence, within the guidelines.

      Don't create separate definitions of the basically identical crime, just because you don't trust judges. Prosecutors that want to be seen as 'hard on crime' will charge everyone with the most severe charge they can find - even if they know it's not the most appropriate one. So don't give them the chance to blow things out of proportion.

    76. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm honestly curious, do you think that Western criminal jurisprudence should discard the foundational notion of intent in the definition and prosecution of crime?

      The "foundational notion of intent" in the Western (and specifically the American) criminal system has nothing to do with why the defendant committed the crime, and everything to do with what the defendant intended to do. If I shoot a gun in your general direction because I'm being careless, I haven't committed attempted murder, because I wasn't trying to kill you. If I was trying to kill you when I shot in your direction, that is attempted murder. It makes no difference why I was trying to kill you.

      Some crimes require that you have some specific intent--attempted (whatever), burglary, larceny, etc. Others require only recklessness or even negligence, like arson. Some crimes require no intent at all, like statutory rape. In no case does it matter why you did it. What matters is what you intended to do, compared to the intent required by the crime.

    77. Re:Hate crimes... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      So how do you determine which attack was motivated by hate? Let's say the guy in the bar had beaten up a black guy, and it was well known that he hated blacks. What if the black guy was just the most convenient target when he got drunk? What if he'd have attacked anyone that was near him when he got drunk enough?

    78. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We seem to not like charging people with the worse crime and giving them a lesser sentence in the worse crime. The adult who targeted a specific child with a known "issue" to deliberately encourage her to commit suicide should have been charged with murder, not hacking. She committed a harm, and, in the commission of that harm, the other person died. That's murder almost everywhere. If you hit someone with a hammer and they die, even if you didn't mean to kill them with the hammer, your act resulted in their death, and your act was not a reasonable one to take in the first place, so you pre-meditated the harm that killed them - murder.

      But no, we make up "hacking" charges for violating Facebook ToS, rather than charging them with murder and going after a lower than max sentence.

      When you fix that, you'll fix a number of these problems.

    79. Re:Hate crimes... by mrlibertarian · · Score: 1

      That makes it quite obvious and a matter of basic fairness to have laws that makes life safer for members of group B.

      But rights are a zero-sum game. If you wish to give members of group B special rights to make their life safer, then you must take rights away from group A. And this is exactly what "hate crime" legislation has done: Instead of a single standard of justice, we now have different standards of justice, depending on which groups the perpetrator and victim belong to. If I belong to group A, my crime will be judged harsher, simply because I belong to the "wrong" group. I fail to see the fairness in that.

    80. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      And this isn't a "hate crime", this is a "WTF MY ROOMMATE'S GAY?!" You're 17, you're in your college dorm, and you suddenly find out the man sleeping in the bed next to you likes men. Mind. Blown.

      So you are saying that the fault here is with the university not allowing easy room changes based on orientation and sexual preferences? If the homophobe were given sufficient support services, would he have felt it necessary to try to humiliate his roomie?

    81. Re:Hate crimes... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Is it your contention that there are no people anywhere who changed sexual preference?

      Because that appears to be what Santorum actually said.

    82. Re:Hate crimes... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      So why is choosing a person randomly because you hate the group worse then choosing a person randomly because he has money?

      In both cases the person gets hurt/killed, and in both cases the criminal did not care about them personally.

    83. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Is hate crime not a separate crime?

      It's a separate crime like killing someone is legal, but the legal difference between "homicide" and "premeditated murder" make killing someone a hate crime.

    84. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How can you make the claim that being beaten for your race is worse than being beaten for your watch? How can one act deserve a greater punishment than the other when the acts themselves are the same?

      Tell that to the families of the dead from the old man that drove through a pile of college students outside a bar and was not charged with *anything* (not even speeding or such, so he got to kill and keep his license) because, as the police said, "he didn't mean to do it." But if any of the dead were to kill driving home, being college-age and coming from a bar, they'd get murder and all sorts of crimes filed against them.

      You may mean well, but reality has proven you wrong. The act of killing someone gets, in the US, anywhere from an apology from the Austin chief of police to the death penalty. When every other crime in existence has such a range, to argue against that with hate crimes just makes you look like a hater.

    85. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The law disagrees with you. If you believed that, why aren't you out there protesting the difference between manslaughter and murder?

    86. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. has no shortage of people stuck in group think mode. What's worse is they haven't figured out that -1 flamebait isn't "I disagree" rather it's "-1 I'm an intellectual coward."

      Or "-1 You're a fucking retarded group-thinking-con-bot".

    87. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why this list? Is it because they are "born" and not "chosen"?

      It includes religion, which is chosen and not born.

      If someone stabs you because they hate your car, aren't they stabbing you because they hate something you're born into?

      Yes. If there was significant class crime in the US, I would expect it to work that way. There isn't, so nobody cares. Sure, I had a Porsche for a while, and it's the only car I ever owned that was spit on (repeatedly), so there is some class friction. But not enough to get anyone to notice or really care. Plus, the rich already receive better protection than everyone else.

      Why punish them more harshly? Is it because the pain felt is stronger?

      Because it's terrorism. They aren't killing the black person because they don't like black people, so they don't like that particular black person. They are killing that particular black person because he slept with a white woman, and the message needs to get out that black people don't sleep with white women, and any black man that does will die a painful death as well. That's not just a murder, that's a murder and an implicit threat against millions of other people. The threat in there is the trigger for the additional punishment, and that threat has been used for justification for harsher punishment many times before, but only when protecting blacks or gays does anyone complain.

      The process of determining whether characteristic X was a motive must by necessity be highly arbitrary.

      The entire system is highly arbitrary, so I don't see that as an adequate disqualifier.

      A big part of the rationale seems to be that minority groups must be protected. But that's completely flawed. The way they determine a "minority group" seems to be on a national basis

      Almost all "hate crime" legislation is at the state level. As your comment is provably false, addressing the underlying implication based on false assumptions is not required to nullify your comments.

    88. Re:Hate crimes... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I hadn't thought about it that way. Is that right? The law does recognize the difference between, say, cold blooded and hot blooded murder. Isn't that the same as the difference between regular battery and hate-crime battery? Maybe we in this thread have been using the term-of-art "intent" when we should have used a more precise word. Is the right term "state of mind"? If you are a lawyer, or especially knowledgeable, then you can help find the right word.

    89. Re:Hate crimes... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      The law disagrees with you. If you believed that, why aren't you out there protesting the difference between manslaughter and murder?

      Because there's a difference between accidental death and killing someone on purpose. Murder is Murder is Murder.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    90. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you were fencing said louis vatton purse to get money to buy bread to feed your family?

    91. Re:Hate crimes... by euroq · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is, all crimes against another person are hate crimes.

      Absolutely positively incorrect. You have no fucking clue what it is.

      A hate crime is a crime against a large group of people. They were designed to allow for punishment against a burning cross in a black person's yard. A burning cross in a yard is more than just an attack one someone's personal property, it is an attack on a certain community. So a hate crime is meant to provide a way for the perpetrator of a person who puts a burning cross on someone's yard to be punished for more than just a private property desecration (which is relatively minor) - it provides for a punishment for the attack on all of the blacks in the neighborhood.

      It is not, and should not, be criminal to hate black people or gay people or Christians or whoever the fuck anyone wants to hate. Just because a hate crime is sometime improperly used doesn't cause the definition of it to change.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    92. Re:Hate crimes... by euroq · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of crime is all about money or some other gain and has nothing to do with hate at all.

      I just want to point out that a hate crime is not any crime which involved the emotion of hate. It has to do with the intent to cause harm to a large group of people, beyond the person(s) involved in one particular attack.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    93. Re:Hate crimes... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the families of the dead from the old man that drove through a pile of college students outside a bar and was not charged with *anything* (not even speeding or such, so he got to kill and keep his license) because, as the police said, "he didn't mean to do it." But if any of the dead were to kill driving home, being college-age and coming from a bar, they'd get murder and all sorts of crimes filed against them.

      I ask again, when did this happen? Was the old man speeding? Was the old driver negligent? The comparison is only valid if age is the sole difference in the stories, yet here you need to add drunk driving to the young driver's tale. The young driver is indeed more likely to see a murder charge if, as in some jurisdictions, extreme negligence is included in the legal definition of murder. Surely though the elderly driver could face the same penalty if they drunk drive. I imagine a similar argument could be made if the old person is of sound mind, yet half blind and driving against the advice of their optometrist.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    94. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Because there's a difference between accidental death and killing someone on purpose.

      Only a difference in intent, same as hate crimes...

    95. Re:Hate crimes... by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      She committed a harm, and, in the commission of that harm, the other person died. That's murder almost everywhere.

      Sorry, no. Almost everywhere, murder means there's an intent to kill. That's the case with street brawling, for example: if someone dies from a beating and the opponent didn't use weapons, or had proffesional combat training, the sentence will be much shorter.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    96. Re:Hate crimes... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I've met people who are just plain nasty, who will pick a fight with anyone. As far as I'm concerned, they're more dangerous than neo-Nazis, because the latter can be seen and avoided.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    97. Re:Hate crimes... by euroq · · Score: 1

      Once you start prosecuting people for what they believe, trouble is bound to follow. And by definition "hate crimes" are clearly prosecuting someone for what they believe or are thinking.

      No, hate crimes aren't supposed to (regardless of whether or not they are applied incorrectly sometimes). The definition of a "hate crime" is not a crime involving the emotion hate. Hate crimes are always crimes against actions, not thoughts. The act of hating someone or some group is not and should not ever be illegal.

      Sometimes, a prosecutor is influenced by a vocal community to bring hate crime charges against someone. Even if the defendant did not intend to cause harm to whatever group of people, the prosecutor brings the charges anyways. This is a fault of the system, a case where justice is not blind.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    98. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no. Almost everywhere, murder means there's an intent to kill.

      Not in the US (by everywhere, I was meaning the American-centric, "most US states"). If you drive a car for some guys going to the store, and they rob it and kill the casher, you will likely be found guilty of murder, even if you never intended anyone harm. There is no requirement for "intent to kill". Further, if you harm somone in a manner calculated to harm, and they die, that is murder in almost every US state. You punch somone (illegal felony assault) and they trip and land on a spike, causing your death, that is murder.

    99. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I ask again, when did this happen? Was the old man speeding? Was the old driver negligent?

      Where was answered before you posted this. When, was about 1992 or 1993 or thereabouts. He wasn't speeding. He was negligent in that he was incompetently elderly and unable to control his car. I think he "fell asleep" was the final answer, and the chief of police apologized to the old man for the ordeal he had to go through for killing all those kids.

    100. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I belong to group A, my crime will be judged harsher, simply because I belong to the "wrong" group. I fail to see the fairness in that.

      I'm not surprised that someone with the name "mrlibertarian" doesn't understand the point of hate crime laws.
      Your crime will not be judged harsher because you belong to "group A"
      It will be penalized because a prosecutor proved that you targeted someone from "group B" because they were from "group B"

      Hate crime laws came about because there was a wave of neo-nazi groups actively attacking minorities.
      It's unfortunate that Libertarian ideology tends to actively ignore history where it disagrees with libertarian premises.

    101. Re:Hate crimes... by mrlibertarian · · Score: 1

      The fact that neo-nazi groups actively attacked minorities does not prove we need multiple standards of justice. Also, since members of "group A" face harsher sentencing when they target someone from "group B", but members of "group B" do not, it is fair to say that membership in "group A" is one of the defining factors that results in a harsher sentence. My original point stands.

    102. Re:Hate crimes... by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      Nope, dumb girl killed herself by her own choice. Was it fucked of for that lady to do it? Yes, but it isn't murder, and don't you dare call it that. In what world do you hold and individual responsible for someone else's actions? If I kill myself because of your horrible reasoning, should you be charged with murder? Let's say you insulted me with the purpose of making me feel like a dumbass. Is that murder? Let's say you knew I might kill myself because I'm easily swayed to strong feelings? Is that murder? I would argue no, since in all cases, I have the ability to not kill myself.

    103. Re:Hate crimes... by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      What stigma? The guy was already known to be gay, well before the incident. So again, how is this a "hate crime" and why does his motivation matter?

    104. Re:Hate crimes... by pseudofrog · · Score: 1

      If even one gay person cannot become heterosexual, then the analogy between race and sexual orientation is reasonable. Since Santorum was disputing the analogy, I think it's fair to assume that he meant all gay people can become heterosexual. Let's not feign ignorance.

    105. Re:Hate crimes... by pseudofrog · · Score: 1

      Not to everyone, he wasn't.

    106. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So should you get prosecuted for greed when you thieve? If not for that, you would not have stolen.

    107. Re:Hate crimes... by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      I'm perfectly within my rights to hate or like whatever damn group/race/religion I want. The government should have no say in trying to make it illegal.

    108. Re:Hate crimes... by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      The act of hating someone or some group is not and should not ever be illegal.

      Why? The "act" of hating? What constitutes hate as an act rather than a thought? Is murdering a Jewish man the act of hating Jews? Or is it just the murder of a Jewish man? Why is it worse because I hated his heritage as opposed to just him or his whole family? What if I intended to intimidate his family, but not because of their ancestry? Is that a hate crime? Or is it only a hate crime when I target a larger group? How large and defined does the group have to be?

    109. Re:Hate crimes... by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      And yet it isn't a hate crime to beat up fans of the Dallas Cowboys, even though my drive to beat them up might be the same. Why is that not a hate crime? Or better yet, what if I targeted people that were only between the statures of 170cm to 200cm? Is that a hate crime?

    110. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the word is 'terrorism'. hate crimes are crimes committed to terrorize.

    111. Re:Hate crimes... by readin · · Score: 1

      At the same time, what this evil bastard did needs punishing.

      Yes, but unfortunately he is already dead. What? You meant the guy who twittered? He broke few laws and was rude, but I don't see how you can call him 'evil'. The guy who killed himself, on the other hand, was a selfish bastard who chose to murder his parents' child, kill his best friend's best friend, and give permanent emotional scars to his siblings and to who knows who else. He is the one responsible for his own death and it is unfair to pin the blame on someone else.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    112. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is, all crimes against another person are hate crimes.

      You think a drunk driver who crashes his car into yours hates you?

    113. Re:Hate crimes... by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      You fall asleep at the wheel, hit and kill a person. Or you kill a person during a robbery. In both cases the victim is just as dead. Why should one offense be punishable by death and the other have a relatively minor punishment? My guess is the relative danger for society. Same with hate crimes.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    114. Re:Hate crimes... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Thanks. If that is how you describe then yes, more should have been done in the driver could reasonably have been shown to have not exercised due diligence. If someone is diagnosed with narcolepsy, continues to drive against medical advice, and ends up killing someone as a result of this, then let this be a harsher sentence as its an accident that happened largely because of their negligence.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    115. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Why do only some victimized groups get this special protection? Do you see WoW "nerds" getting special protection from bullying, the way homosexuals do?

      Because that austrian painter did not bring the WoW nerds to the gas chambers, the way he did with homosex and jews and gipsy and the disabled people. This is probably no news to you, unless you skipped histrory classes for the 1933-1945 period (provided world history is taught in the USA, of which I am not sure).

    116. Re:Hate crimes... by Lord_Jeremy · · Score: 1

      Sure those could be hate crimes. Acts of violence become hate crimes when there is a malicious reason that they are targeting a subset of people. Burglars intentionally targeting elderly people because they are easier to burgle is not a hate crime. The same burglars targeting elderly people because they think that anyone over the age of 65 does not have a right to live is a hate crime.

      There is of course a difference of degree between beating up black people and beating up fans of the Dallas Cowboys. There are probably more people who would go out and beat up black people if they could get away with it. Not to mention parts of this country have a history of violence against black people. Hence hate crimes against black people tend to get more air time than hate crimes against fans of the Dallas Cowboys.

    117. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like the student is paying his room and board and the university does not have the right to force the straight roommate to room with a gay man.

      The university absolutely has the obligation to allow a room change at the earliest possible convenience.

      Otherwise, it could be said the university provoked this incident. Furthermore, they are jointly responsible for this incident simply for pairing up a straight roommate with a gay roommate.

      However, the gay roommate killed himself, by choice, due to not being able to cope with the humiliation. No one killed him, no one should be charged for his death.

      Disallowing racism: fine, students need to learn to understand other races. Disallowing a room change due to threatening living environment, i.e., a straight roommate who does not want to live with a gay roomate (or lesbian roommate, in the case of females wanting a room change), is completely unacceptable. Incidents such as outing the gay/lesbian roommate should already be expected once the university declines the room change. In fact, the university is quite lucky that all the straight roommate did was video and post it to the internet. Someone with violent tendencies towards gays/lesbians could have very well beat him up or worse.

      And again, that gay roommate did kill himself.

      (Thankfully, I went to a university that offered single rooms for extra cost, but the extra cost was reasonable. For me, the gay vs. straight roommate issue was completely non-existent and I am quite thankful that those roommate politics were not something I had to worry about.)

    118. Re:Hate crimes... by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      If you don't even know the difference between an accident and armed robbery, then I'm not sure if you should even be commenting on this.

      Or do you think people accidentally punch people?

    119. Re:Hate crimes... by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      Do you really think these laws were put into place for blacks beating up whites? I have a feeling most DAs aren't really going to push to hard for a hate crime when a white person, catholic, or straight person gets beat up...

    120. Re:Hate crimes... by Tharsman · · Score: 1

      The true hate crime was not committed by Dharun Ravi.

      The true hate crime was committed by most of us.

      Tyler Clementi didn’t kill himself just because of one guy finding out he was gay. He killed himself because all of society leads him to believe his entire life was ruined, that anyone knowing he was gay was too much to bear and that society would forever reject him.

      Yes, Ravi committed a crime, but it seems the court system is trying to stamp the entire blame of the suicide on the one guy and call it all good. It won’t be good as long as society makes people feel that going out of the closet is an unbearable burden.

    121. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      More like the student is paying his room and board and the university does not have the right to force the straight roommate to room with a gay man.

      What about, say, not "forcing" (there was no force involved, and no evidence he ever officially complained, so I don't think a random room assignment made without knowledge of orientation is "forcing" someone to live with someone else based on that characteristic) a white person to room with a black person? You think state schools should bring back segregated dorms for the racially insensitive?

    122. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Murder has a specific legal meaning. Hurting someone's feelings to the extent that they kill themselves, as fucked up as it might be, is not murder.

      Murder has a specific legal meaning that differs by location. If you are going to assert that it has a specific meaning, then interpret that meaning to support your personal opinion, it would be beneficial to either state your jurisdiction so others could look it up, or better, give the definition you are operating under. Otherwise, I'll assert that the law in Texas (where that incident occured), when applied according to my opinion of how it should have been applied, does not agree with you.

      Maybe you should have taken on their case pro bono.

      Taken what case? You can't be a prosecutor pro bono. You could sue, but criminal standards are mostly irrelevant for that. Do you even know anything about law, or did you learn all you know from Denny Crane?

    123. Re:Hate crimes... by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      The intention isn't just to hurt the man you hate, but to strike fear into anyone who doesn't live the way you think they should.

      Please correct me if I'm wrong, but people who bomb abortion clinics and assassinate doctors who perform abortions should fall into this category, yet they aren't ever charged with hate crimes (to my limited knowledge). I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation of what a hate crime is, but simply pointing out that there appears to be a gap between your definition and the real-world application.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    124. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you swapped someone's pills so that an underlying disease they had was the actual cause of death, and they voluntarily consumed the wrong pills, you just changed the bottles, did you murder them? You took an action purposefully designed to result in their death. You performed that act. And that act did result in their death. You didn't give them diabetes or whatever, so the cause of death was not the action you took, but the action you took lead to a chain of events that caused the diabetes to kill them.

      So, murder or not murder?

    125. Re:Hate crimes... by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      And yet, in your scenario the victim had no way of changing the outcome. In this case, the "victim" had the choice to live or die and they chose to die. Why should that be anyone's problem?

    126. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you are unwilling to answer any questions. but you'll ask plenty, but only ones you think you know the answer to so that you can continue to badger without discussion.

    127. Re:Hate crimes... by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      You really are being disingenuous. A reasonable person would expect to cause death to the owner of the pills, or if not, it is at least a lesser form of homicide. On the other hand, if I tell you to kill yourself and you do, that is no fault of mine. You chose to kill yourself.

    128. Re:Hate crimes... by euroq · · Score: 1

      1. There is supposed to be proof that the defendant intended to cause harm to a group of people. The jury decides if the proof is good enough.
      2. As for most of your other questions, I supposed these questions are decided by the laws written by legislators, and the judges who have to interpret them.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    129. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You really are being disingenuous.

      Yes, yes I am. You are pedant who wants to prove I'm wrong, but without ever stating what you think, as I may be able to prove you wrong, even if I'm wrong. So hide like a little roach, I expected, and you did.

    130. Re:Hate crimes... by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      I think that you know quite well what my opinion on this issue is. If it's somehow wrong, then attack it.

    131. Re:Hate crimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Causing a death through knowingly taking an action that you both know and expect to result in the death of another is murder. But, if you (personally) can find any fault with the dead person (they were mentally ill, rather than physically ill, and thus deserved to die, or perhaps you go for the short-skirt philosophy), then it isn't murder.

    132. Re:Hate crimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a really good illustration of the point. Theft, or any stealing crime, is an intent crime where motive is a factor. It can be defeated entirely in most circumstances by lack of intent--if you took someone else's Galaxy phone because you thought it was yours, you did take someone else's property and intend to keep it for yourself, but you didn't have the requisite criminal intent for theft, being that you meant to take property that wasn't yours.

      Even if you did knowingly commit theft, greed is not the only motive for theft. Pocketing some jewelry out of greed is viewed differently than taking it because you are desperate to pay medical bills for your child. Taking produce from a fruit stand because the owner annoys you is different from taking it because you're starving.

      These things are considered in court and always have been. It doesn't make a difference on the fact of the conviction, only on the severity of the penalty. Hate crimes are exactly like that--they don't result in a conviction where none would otherwise exist.

  4. So he's a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you gotta teach him that kinda spying isnt really cool bro, you are gonna have to teach him to give something back that's hard work, so there isnt a next time na i mean ?.
    make him help his community, make him look after the kerb edges in his neighbourhood, make him realize doing good is usually easier than doing bad.

  5. Rutgers alumni here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was around when this happened. His main offense was not that he spied on his gay roommate, but that he posted the video on twitter.

    1. Re:Rutgers alumni here by Jiro · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, he didn't post the video on Twitter. He posted a message.

      At any rate, I would say that if you want to punish him for causing the death, then do that. If you don't think you can prove he's guilty of that, then don't punish him for it.

      It seems like what the court is doing is officially claiming they are trying him for spying and not for causing the death, while in fact they're trying him for causing the death. That's an end run around the fact that they can't prove him guilty, and doing so is a perversion of justice, even if he is a creep.

  6. Somehow by bytesex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think that the action (suicide) is warranted by the crime (published observation). Don't get me wrong - it's a totally creepy thing to do, and it's not up to me to judge what motivates anyone, but if *that's* what it takes for you to commit suicide, well, then you've got other problems ahead of you.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    1. Re:Somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When that person spreads video of you engaging in a sexual activity in what is assumed to be a private sphere, then it is not just 'published observation'. He explicitly set up a camera to spy on his roommate in order to catch him engaging in sexual activity and then distributed it.

    2. Re:Somehow by metlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. Let's be honest -- most of us have done immature and "jerk"-ish things as teenagers. To be honest, I was perhaps a bit of an ass in school and college.

      Now, looking back, while that may certainly have been reprehensible, I would have been appalled if my actions were to push someone over the brink.

      I feel bad for the kid who committed suicide, but it sounds like he had other problems, and this was just one of the factors (one of the proverbial straws, perhaps).

      Reading some of the IMs, it sounds like Dharun wasn't really a homophobe -- if anything, he was just being a curious teenager, and perhaps a bit of an ass. But while you can debate the technicalities of privacy violations (which would be weird, because technically, it's also Dharun's room), tacking on the labels of hate crime and murder is just using the law to set a deterrent, and punishing someone to an extreme (unjustly so) to placate some groups and make an "example" of a poor kid's life. Hell, by that extension, Tyler's mother should be the one tacked as an accessory, because she certainly played a role in making her son feel unwanted.

    3. Re:Somehow by Myopic · · Score: 2

      Most of us agree that suicide is rarely warranted by any but the most extreme circumstances. Of course, suicide is especially terrible because it is obviously unwarranted, from the viewpoint of those of us who aren't suicidal. I think that's the crux of the issue: some people taunt and bully the suicidal, because they don't share the human empathy the rest of us feel for that kind of person. Thus, to drive a suicidal person to suicide is so disgusting, that we have crimes for it.

    4. Re:Somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where he stops being a curious teenager and starts being an asshole is the point at which he decided it would be okay to post the video he made.

    5. Re:Somehow by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Thus, to drive a suicidal person to suicide is so disgusting, that we have crimes for it.

      It's a shame that you might be blamed for someone's suicide (that seriously makes no sense to me) because you previously exchanged words that they didn't like with them.

      Truly a shame.

    6. Re:Somehow by Greystripe · · Score: 1

      Actually since he committed suicide I doubt he's going to have problems or anything ahead of him.

    7. Re:Somehow by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I can't think of a way that you could be blamed for someone's suicide because of a mere exchange of words they didn't like. For you to misrepresent bullying as an exchange of words, uncovers you as either an extreme ignoramus, or as a person willing to engage in false equivalencies in order to bolster a political position. I am guessing you are the second of those two, because nobody could equate bullying with talking.

      I've only heard of a person being prosecuted for causing a suicide in a few very extreme circumstances such as
      * a person threatening to kill herself, in an extreme rage, and a second person handing them a loaded gun. This has happened, and I'm not sure how the court ruled.
      * a person bullying a fragile and vulnerable person, suggesting over and over that they kill themself, until they actually do it. I don't actually know if this has been successfully prosecuted, but recently it was unsuccessfully prosecuted, when that horrible woman bullied her daughter's classmate.
      * this situation in this story, which is even weaker than the first two, and my guess is that the prosecution will not be successful. But it might be, if the law fits the situation.

      One last thing: "blamed for someone's suicide (that seriously makes no sense to me)"

      The law sometimes recognizes guilt for indirect actions. For instance, you can be convicted of murder if you hire a hitman to kill someone, even though you "merely exchanged words" with the hitman. In fact there are lots of laws like that.

      In the end this case will probably come down to the question "could the bully have reasonably foreseen that the roommate would kill himself?" My guess is that the answer is no, so that charge will not be successful. Prosecutors commonly charge a defendant with a bunch of extra crimes, as part of the trial tactics.

    8. Re:Somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if *that's* what it takes for you to commit suicide, well, then you've got other problems ahead of you.

      Like being dead?

    9. Re:Somehow by metlin · · Score: 1

      ...and that deserves 10 years in prison? Seriously?

      If you really think that's the case, you're not after justice, you're after blood and revenge.

    10. Re:Somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not encourage suicidal people to go ahead and do it? If you don't value your own life then no one else should value your life either. How exactly does one empathize with ingratitude?

      I understand a terminally ill person committing suicide. I can empathize with that. But when I hear about some college kid committing suicide I think "good riddance." If life at an academic institution in a first world country is too difficult for someone to go on living, it's best for everyone that they blow their brains out. There are too many fucking people anyway so the best way to thin out the herd is to encourage the emotionally weak to do themselves in before they breed and teach their kids to be little pussies, too. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

    11. Re:Somehow by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      or as a person willing to engage in false equivalencies in order to bolster a political position

      Yeah, like hiring corporate shills to infest Slashdot, this will get me far. What a highly probable scenario this is.

      I am guessing you are the second of those two, because nobody could equate bullying with talking.

      Really? I have seen many, many people who have claimed that people are bullying based on comments they made. No physical contact is necessary, they said. Simple comments. Is that not talking? Speaking? If not, then what is it?

      But they're actually "mean" words.

      For instance, you can be convicted of murder if you hire a hitman to kill someone, even though you "merely exchanged words" with the hitman. In fact there are lots of laws like that.

      Well, you might want to find a different example, because I disagree with that hitman law. Mainly based on the fact that I believe in absolute freedom of speech. Simply a preference.

    12. Re:Somehow by Myopic · · Score: 1

      "Why not encourage suicidal people to go ahead and do it?"

      I'm not trying to intellectualize it: the answer is because it offends my sense of humanity, and I think the sense of humanity of most people. In almost all circumstances it is grossly unhuman to wish death on a person.

    13. Re:Somehow by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, at least you are consistent. If you disagree with prosecuting a person who hires a hitman, then that is indeed a pretty extreme position to take, but I give you the benefit of the doubt that you take it seriously, or at least think you do.

      Tell me, do you understand where people are coming from when they do support the hitman prosecution scenario? or do you not even understand that point of view?

    14. Re:Somehow by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Tell me, do you understand where people are coming from when they do support the hitman prosecution scenario?

      Pretty sure I do. I simply don't agree with them.

    15. Re:Somehow by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      Well, you might want to find a different example, because I disagree with that hitman law. Mainly based on the fact that I believe in absolute freedom of speech. Simply a preference.

      I have some karma to burn and I'm going to burn it right now: YOU ARE A STUPID FUCK and I cannot wait until you get hoisted by your own petard.

      Conspiracy to kill someone is a crime as seeks to deprive one of the unalienable rights ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") mentioned at the outset of the Constitution, before even the Bill of Rights where the First Amendment is enumerated.

      --
      blog
    16. Re:Somehow by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      I have some karma to burn and I'm going to burn it right now: YOU ARE A STUPID FUCK and I cannot wait until you get hoisted by your own petard.

      I'm completely defeated now.

      Conspiracy to kill someone is a crime

      Right now. Not that it being a crime is relevant to what I said, though.

      unalienable rights

      Not sure about that "unalienable" part, though.

    17. Re:Somehow by twebb72 · · Score: 1

      You'd be correct if the person who was bullied didn't commit suicide. You cannot simply justify a crime by taking it (the invasion of privacy) completely out of context. Sure, invasion of privacy -- say posting a youtube video of someone having sex with an ugly girl without permission -- is against the law. Does it deserve a ten year prison sentence? Of course not.
      In comparison, if that same victim commits suicide because someone posted the encounter on youtube -- it absolutely merits a severe prison sentence for the perpetrator.

      Context is important. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be hate crimes, just crimes.

    18. Re:Somehow by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the action (suicide) is warranted by the crime (published observation). Don't get me wrong - it's a totally creepy thing to do, and it's not up to me to judge what motivates anyone, but if *that's* what it takes for you to commit suicide, well, then you've got other problems ahead of you.

      And who says the relation is direct? Maybe the outing lead to bullying at school, or the family disowning him or something else. Or maybe not and it is just an exagerated reaction by a teenager.So far I have no information about it.

      The question is that the outing/spying was due to prejudices from Dharun, who wanted to harm his roommate. And whose prejudices are shared by a subset of the population large enough that the roommate could have trouble with the rest of his community. Hence, the hate crime. It is not as if Dharun is being judged by manslaughter.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  7. Where is the evidence of hate-based intimindation? by pavon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've read a few articles about this, and it's clear that Ravi did invade upon Tyler's privacy, and should be punished for it. But I haven't seen any evidence presented that he bullied or intimidated Tyler, let alone did so for homophobic reasons. Either the prosecution is saving it for the trial, or the DA is trying to make an example with bullshit charges (probably to look tough on cyberbulling leading up to an election year).

  8. Misanthrope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shhhhhhh! The politicians may add a law that says misanthropy is a hate crime. So any assault, battery, murder etc ... will get an extra charge of a "hate crime".

    I know a guy who punched out someone who got nose to nose to him and was yelling obscenities at him. Long story short, for every punch that he landed, it was a separate assault and battery charge. He landed quite a few.

    He "cut a deal" where he was charged with only one assault and battery.

    With that mentality in the "justice" system, if you unloaded a clip of 9mm into someone, you'd be charged with 15 counts each of assault, battery, attempted murder, murder, homicide, disturbing the peace, discharging a weapon in city limits, etc .....

  9. Re:News For Nerds by ThorGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What does this have to news for nerds whatsoever? I'll tell you the answer: nothing.

    Actually, many of us nerds were bullied in school. I, for one, was bullied and appreciate hearing society put some pressure on bullies. This very egregious example of bullying deserves the light of day.

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
  10. I know they're defense lawyers, but... by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    18 years old != "boy", except in the colloquial sense.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:I know they're defense lawyers, but... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      So... what you are saying is that 18 years old means "boy", colloquially. So then, what is your complaint? Do you think people should stop using colloquial speech? That's a pretty tall order.

    2. Re:I know they're defense lawyers, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Technically 18 is an adolescent child, and typically the specific word teenager is applied to that child. However, the even more specific words boy or girl are equally applicable.

      Here in the United States of America only people 21 years of age or older may legally purchase and consume alcohol. We call them adults in the colloquial sense.

      I've always maintained that as long as the Federal Government has control over that, then all citizens of the USA are children in the eyes of the law until the ripe old age of 21.

    3. Re:I know they're defense lawyers, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With rare exception, 18 years old males are boys in *every* sense, except the legal sense.

    4. Re:I know they're defense lawyers, but... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      You've got a point about alcohol, and I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense, but 18 years is old enough to sign a contract, fight a war, and be legally responsible for your actions, the last part of which is what's important in this case. If we as a society don't like that, we should change the law.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:I know they're defense lawyers, but... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I didn't think this was that hard to understand. 18 years old is not a "boy" who "does stupid things" in a legal sense, which is what's important in a legal case. He's an adult who's responsible for his actions.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:I know they're defense lawyers, but... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      The point being, the argument that he's just a kid being stupid is something a defense lawyer may be required to say, but I don't see it as a winning argument.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:I know they're defense lawyers, but... by sphealey · · Score: 1

      ===
      Here in the United States of America only people 21 years of age or older may legally purchase and consume alcohol. We call them adults in the colloquial sense.
      ===

      Which is an utterly bizarre exception to the general rule. An 18 year old citizen can vote, sign binding legal contracts including those for real estate, end all association with the local public school district, get married, join the army, renounced his citizenship... anything except buy a beer. He/she is an adult in every sense of the term. Whether or not he/she will exercise those rights wisely is another question, but they are there.

      sPh

    8. Re:I know they're defense lawyers, but... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Oh okay, I get you. You don't think the lawyer should waste his time getting the judge to certify this 18-year-old as a minor for the purposes of prosecution. Well worry not! I don't think the lawyer will try to do that, because he would almost certainly fail. Just like you want, I'm pretty sure this 18-year-old will stand trial as an adult who's responsible for his actions!

      As for what the lawyer said to these journalists, I think it's a standard part of the work of a lawyer to generate public sympathy for his client zealously, \using language artfully to spin the situation in the best light for his client. It's fine for us to disagree on whether it is appropriate for a lawyer to do so; I think it is appropriate.

    9. Re:I know they're defense lawyers, but... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't use the word "appropriate", but I concede that as it's the defense lawyer's job to provide a robust defense, manipulating the media certainly comes under that heading. I was just pointing out (as the media probably would not do) that what the lawyer said was not technically correct and was indeed an attempt at manipulation.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    10. Re:I know they're defense lawyers, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many 18 year old boys do you know?
      Sure, they've reached the age of majority, but very very few are men.

    11. Re:I know they're defense lawyers, but... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Well, I was one, and I'm pretty sure all my male relatives were one at some point, and roughly half of my friends, except the two who didn't make it to that age. (One lost at pedestrian vs car, and the other, on a motorcycle, didn't notice that the freeway corkscrew had metal grating that probably couldn't hold traction at the speed he was going.)

      Incidentally, I moved out of home and to a different state three days after my 18th birthday, got a job and an apartment and put myself through college, without ever committing a felony or causing another student to suicide. It can be done.

      But the point is not whether 18 year olds are generally mature or not. I think you could make that argument up to 25 at least. The point is that on the day of their 18th birthday, they are legally adults and responsible for their actions. If you don't like that, feel free to change the law. But if you're going to make them less responsible for their actions, some curtailment of such actions is probably in order. Responsibility or supervision, pick one.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  11. Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget the sexual orientation issue for a moment. If one person can violate another person's privacy like Mr. Rhavi did, then any person (Google, etc.) can. We need laws to protect our privacy.

    I think Ayn Rand would have gone absolutely (and impotently) batshit if somebody would have done this to her.

    1. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ayn Rand would have stood up for the owner's right to use his own laptop's camera to whatever the Owner desired. The Owner's right is A, and A is A. Thus, John Galt spoketh.

  12. Re:Where is the evidence of hate-based intimindati by ThorGod · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    He posted the video of Tyler having gay sex on a website "for all to see and mock", and did (in fact) see and mock the video himself.

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
  13. Commercial? What? by guises · · Score: 1

    In what way is that commercial related to this story, and why was that included in the summary? Is it the fact that teenagers have sex? Or that people have roommates? Or that computers... exist?

    1. Re:Commercial? What? by Ironchew · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the submitter felt a non-sequitur about Microsoft was necessary to get this submission accepted on Slashdot. Either that, or it was some not-so-clever shilling.

    2. Re:Commercial? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed; theodp's posts almost always end with a crass non-sequitur.

  14. Re:Where is the evidence of hate-based intimindati by russotto · · Score: 2

    Yeah, that's my take on it too; the invasion of privacy charges ought to be a slam-dunk, but the bias intimidation charges are there only because Tyler killed himself and Something Must Be Done.

  15. Re:News For Nerds by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Yup, I was bullied too. I'll wager a fair proportion of us were. There have been a number of examples over the last few years in North America of bullying leading to suicide. I've seen others who weren't just bullied, but were subject to campaigns of abuse and violence, and all the while school administrators turned away and let it happen.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  16. oh pelase are you blind ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Knowing the US society at large is still quite homophobic, at least to a great part, do you REALLY think that outting a male making out with anotehr male has no homophobic connotation ? It would have gone nowwhere if it was two hetero, and chance is that the guy would not have published it or the hetere male would simply have garnered brownie point. But you have to be utterly blind to not see that outting homo male , was done with the intention of damage. It usually *always* is.

    1. Re:oh pelase are you blind ? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Knowing the US society at large is still quite homophobic, at least to a great part, do you REALLY think that outting a male making out with anotehr male has no homophobic connotation

      Best I can tell the motive was more likely voyeurism than intimidation.

    2. Re:oh pelase are you blind ? by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      I would agree that if the motive was voyeurism then it would not be hate crime. But then, posting his discovery in twitter makes it hard to believe that it was his motive "hey people! I find gay people making out interesting and I am a peeping tom!"

      Anyway, that is what the judge is for.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  17. Re:News For Nerds by Myopic · · Score: 1

    "What the fuck does this have to news for nerds whatsoever?"

    It was a crime committed on the internet having to do with themes important to nerds, such a free speech and bullying. Have you been reading Slashdot long enough to remember the Hellmouth series? I assume you have not, because if you had you would instantly know why this is news for nerds.

  18. Re:Where is the evidence of hate-based intimindati by Myopic · · Score: 1

    "I haven't seen any evidence presented that he bullied or intimidated Tyler"

    Well, you and I aren't jurors for this trial, but the evidence is (will be) that he posted a video of the kid having sex, on a public website. You haven't heard about that? I'm surprised to hear you say you haven't heard about that, seeing as how it's sort of the entire point of the story.

  19. Re:Where is the evidence of hate-based intimindati by C0R1D4N · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pretty certain when he put the stream up he said something like "the faggot is doing it again" his motive was well established.

    Also he asked fora new roommate cuz he didnt wanna room with a gay

  20. Sad Story by wes5550 · · Score: 1

    I read the entire New Yorker feature, and it left me feeling sad for both of them. Yes Rhavi is an asshole, but I pity him too. The saddest part of the whole story is that had they just talked to each other a couple of times, the whole thing would have been avoided. - also, I think everyone on this board would benefit from reading that New Yorker article, the amount of digital records the author had access to is disturbing.

  21. Wrong questions.. by pablo_max · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I cannot dispute that this guy is a complete asshole and should certainly be punished in someway. Deported at a minimum. Not so sure about prison though. I have a hard time believing he envisioned the room mate killing himself. Either way, he gets to live with that.

    For me, the real question is fundamental. Why, in the modern "free" world does being outed as a homosexual cause one to prefer suicide rather than live with the shame?
    As a society, would it not be better to address such a fundamental social problem than to simply treat the symptoms?

    1. Re:Wrong questions.. by sphealey · · Score: 2

      === For me, the real question is fundamental. Why, in the modern "free" world does being outed as a homosexual cause one to prefer suicide rather than live with the shame?
      As a society, would it not be better to address such a fundamental social problem than to simply treat the symptoms? ===

      You are aware that Rick Santorum has a significant chance of being nominated for President by a major political party in the United States, and thus given the affect of random events such as blips in the economy or oil prices has a significant chance of being elected President of the United States (and de facto leader of his political party)? Are you aware of Mr. Santorum's views on homosexuality and how homosexuals should be treated in our society? And that apparently his position is not a fringe belief but one which could see him installed in the Oval Office?

      sPh

    2. Re:Wrong questions.. by burki · · Score: 2

      I think you answered it already: ".. than live with the shame". Why should it be a shame and not something perfectly normal?

    3. Re:Wrong questions.. by bieber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Regardless of the outcome, I think secretly recording and broadcasting someone else's sexual activities should absolutely get you jailtime. It's difficult to even imagine a worse violation of privacy.

    4. Re:Wrong questions.. by guises · · Score: 1

      Deportation is not a trivial punishment, that's huge. For many people a limited prison sentence would be preferable.

      Regardless, whether or not this is deserving of punishment should really depend on what he did with the recording after it was made - it's not a hate crime if he just quietly deletes it. The reason why the roommate killed himself isn't given in the summary, so none of us actually knows what's going on here. Nor will we ever, unless someone comes along and writes another summary.

    5. Re:Wrong questions.. by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      For me, the real question is fundamental. Why, in the modern "free" world does being outed as a homosexual cause one to prefer suicide rather than live with the shame?
      As a society, would it not be better to address such a fundamental social problem than to simply treat the symptoms?

      That there IS exactly the issue, mate. If you belong in any sexual minority you are constantly bombarded with how "wrong" it is, how "unnatural" it is, how you're a horrible person and so on and so forth. Hell, it is even worse for guys! Not to mention the stage in your life where you still haven't quite figured out who you are and how you wanna be and you're exploring that; you're already in a rather insecure situation, but this kind of stuff can really push you over.

      There was this nationwide campaign by Christian church that targeted homosexual teenagers, claiming all kinds of things and going around with the motto "You can be cured!"..Well, that sh*t sent loads of kids into therapy and suicide, all because teenagers are still trying to find their place in the world and then there comes such a large body of people telling you you're a twisted, worthless human being unless you do as they tell you. That right there is your "fundamental social problem", sh*t like that being pulled. The church got enormous amounts of flak for that and they lost government funding, too, but that's already too late, the damage is done.

    6. Re:Wrong questions.. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Absolutely agree that your scenario should lead to punishment.

      Problem is -- it doesn't seem like that happened here, at least according to the New Yorker article. There was no recording, and there was no broadcast. At most (according to that article), one guy and a friend surreptitiously viewed two people across the hall making out (no sex) for a few seconds. There was some talk by the defendant about either potentially recording or making a wider viewing available on a subsequent occasion, but it never actually happened, both because those being spied on turned the computer off before it could happen AND (the defendant claims) he never intended to follow through.

      The defendant may be a scum bag, and he certainly invaded his roommate's privacy. But he apparently (according to the New Yorker piece) did not do either of the more heinous acts you mention. If he did, he should be punished. If not, I think charging him with "being a peeping tom in the third degree" is probably a more appropriate charge, which still might deserve a punishment, but much more minimal.

    7. Re:Wrong questions.. by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      For me, the real question is fundamental. Why, in the modern "free" world does being outed as a homosexual cause one to prefer suicide rather than live with the shame? As a society, would it not be better to address such a fundamental social problem than to simply treat the symptoms?

      Absolutely. Unfortunately, much like the civil rights era, we're just not at that stage and I see no way to force society to advance more quickly than it is ready to advance.

      Look at the Republican primaries as a great example. The more moderate opinions on gay marriage tend toward either "it's none of the governments business" (a fine position but hardly a stand on the issue) or "separate but equal," an acknowledgment that denying gays the ability to marry is wrong but still wanting to make it clear that there's just something wrong with gay people and the relationship they have can't be the same as the relationship straight people have. Those are the moderate positions. Then you have guys like Reverand Dozier, honorary co-chair of Rick Santorum's Florida campaign, declaring that "homosexuality makes God want to vomit" and is "a paramount sin." These are the men vying to be the leader of the United States for at least the next four years -- and even among them there's a kind of tacit approval of discrimination. This isn't meant to be a political statement against the Republicans, by the way; if I'm not mistaken, President Obama took that exact same "separate but equal" gutless position. If we can't even expect better behavior of our leaders, and one of the most powerful men on the planet, then I don't see how we can advance the debate. (Ironically I respect the "eew, burn in hell!" folks more than the "separate but equal" folks. At least they're willing to take a stand. The ones trying to have it both ways irritate me to no end, but that is neither here nor there.)

      Likewise, look at the schoolyards. The first insult out of a kid's mouth these days will be some variation of "fag." In some ways it doesn't feel like that should be a big deal, but can you imagine being a gay student and seeing that when other students want to insult each other that the worst thing they can think of to say about each other is that are, well, exactly like you? Are you likely to come out in that environment? How long, exactly, are you going to suppress your own sexuality because you're ashamed of it? Maybe this kid didn't realize that his roommate would kill himself, but neither should it be particularly surprisingly. There's a definite psychological impact to feeling like you have to hide who you are.

      The good news is that the tides are changing. I think my generation--I'm 28--is either the tail end of the acceptance of this kind of behavior or perhaps the first generation of unacceptance. That's not to say that the problem is gone or that it is going to be gone any time soon, rather that I think we've reached the tipping point and by a small amount, the attitude of tolerance and acceptance is now the majority opinion. This will only continue until, much like discrimination against black people today (we have a ways to go with Latin discrimination it seems), the holders of those discriminatory opinions will be the ones with something to hide and something to be ashamed of. I have no idea how many generations that will take, but I doubt we can speed it up.

    8. Re:Wrong questions.. by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      declaring that "homosexuality makes God want to vomit" and is "a paramount sin."

      I've never understood those kinds of people. It's been proven over and over again that homosexuality is perfectly normal among animals, yet when people do it it's suddenly unnatural? Something that happens all the time in the nature is unnatural, but then boxes with moving pictures, metal monstrosities weighing several tonnes and churning out toxic gases and so on are somehow much more natural and acceptable? How the f*ck can e.g. a mobile phone be more natural than having sex with someone?

    9. Re:Wrong questions.. by superwiz · · Score: 0

      Umm, so you think gay men don't want anyone to know that they are gay because of illegality of gay marriage?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    10. Re:Wrong questions.. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

      why don't you tell us? it's your strawman after all.

    11. Re:Wrong questions.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deported at a minimum.

      You are guilty of wrong presumptions! Don't be so quick to judge people by their names. The accused is an American citizen by birth. No place to send him, except Guantanamo, maybe.

    12. Re:Wrong questions.. by superwiz · · Score: 0

      Ha? That's the main point of contention with Santorum. That would make it the apropos point of discussion rather than a strawman. The post to which I responded was stating that Santorum's views and their wide acceptance is what causes gay men to want to stay in the closet I am sorry, what made my question a strawman?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    13. Re:Wrong questions.. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      by the way; if I'm not mistaken, President Obama took that exact same "separate but equal" gutless position.

      Though he did basically go "we're not going to bother defending this" with regards to the DOMA. Not that it changed things much given that congress is picking up that torch and dragging it out for a few more years.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    14. Re:Wrong questions.. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      declaring that "homosexuality makes God want to vomit" and is "a paramount sin."

      I've never understood those kinds of people. It's been proven over and over again that homosexuality is perfectly normal among animals, yet when people do it it's suddenly unnatural?

      because that "proof" is obviously propaganda created by the liberal elite scientists to further their goal of legitimizing these disgusting "people"'s lifestyle choices and lead the people away from the True Way of Salvation through our Lord.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    15. Re:Wrong questions.. by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      What worries me about your post is why a church had government funding.

    16. Re:Wrong questions.. by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      I've never understood those kinds of people. It's been proven over and over again that homosexuality is perfectly normal among animals, yet when people do it it's suddenly unnatural?

      Answering your question (rather than presenting an argument), this is two different senses of the term 'natural'. The first being "occurs in nature" and the second being "does not fit with some ideal of humanity".

      All sorts of behaviours occur amongst animals, such as theft, rape and murder. Rape, in particular, we would shy from describing as 'only natural' for humans.

  22. Color of Jason's eyes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Color of Jason's eyes?

    Beer bottle brown.

    Too much rimming for that guy.

  23. Re:News For Nerds by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 0

    Actually, many of us nerds were bullied in school. I, for one, was bullied and appreciate hearing society put some pressure on bullies. This very egregious example of bullying deserves the light of day.

    Perhaps you should lobby for an expansion of hate crimes laws, so that they cover "nerds" as well.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  24. Re:News For Nerds by NEW22 · · Score: 1

    Does it deserve 10 years in jail for spying on 2 guys kissing? I'm not even sure I would call this incident bullying. Possibly it could be, but it sounds more like someone was shocked and curious, like someone who comes across a juicy diary that shows entries to their friends. It sounds like something that probably deserves a punishment a little harsher than whatever a peeping tom gets, but less than you'd get for passing a non-consensually recorded sex tape around.

  25. Re:Where is the evidence of hate-based intimindati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh ThorGod, please don't lie. Ravi didn't make any sex tapes, nor did he post any videos. Read the article before accusing people of such crimes.

  26. intent is often important by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    You do have a good point, murder/manslaughter is a good example. Hate crime legislation is one of many examples of considering the offender's intent. some people who oppose hate crime legislation seem to be confused on this point.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:intent is often important by RazorSharp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Motivation and intent are different things. In a hate crime murder and a non-hate crime murder the intent is the same: to kill. In a manslaughter, the intent to kill was not present even though that was the end result.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    2. Re:intent is often important by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And what do you think about killing a black person to demonstrate to all the other niggers in the area that we won't stand for those niggers sleeping with white women? The intent isn't just to kill, but to intimidate and threaten hundreds or thousands via the death and disfiguration of one example killing.

    3. Re:intent is often important by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      But I can do the same thing by just saying it and actively campaigning against them. That is not illegal, so why does it add to sentencing when a crime is committed? Could it be that it's because society is intolerant of unpopular opinions? They are wrong in my opinion, but they deserve equal protection under the law, and that includes fair sentencing.

    4. Re:intent is often important by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But I can do the same thing by just saying it and actively campaigning against them. That is not illegal,

      But it is. If you form a protest campaign saying "kill niggers who sleep with white women" then you can be charged with murder when one such man ends up dead (and likely would end up with a variety of charges before that point). Your ignorance of how things do work as a basis for lecturing on how they *should* work speaks volumes as to your stance on the subject. Especially since you keep quoting "equal protection" as if hate crime legislation reduces equality.

    5. Re:intent is often important by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      But that's an explicit threat. Isn't the point of hate crime legislation that it punishes for the implicit threat made by the crime? If so then why can you not make implicit threats such as, "Niggers who sleep with white women should die." That is perfectly legal.

    6. Re:intent is often important by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, since you are stating that implicit threats are "ok" you see no difference between shooting a black man in the head for his wallet and taking a black man who slept with a white woman, dragging him behind a pickup until fatally wounded (that takes more dragging than one would think, and the damage is quite extensive), then stringing him up on a cross and burning him to death with a sign at the base saying "uppity nigger got what he deserved"?

      Oh wait, I asked a question, so I'll be expecting an insulting non sequitur in response, perhaps an argument about how he could be veritably fatally wounded by the dragging if he were burned alive?

    7. Re:intent is often important by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      The difference is in the amount of brutality in the crime, but both are murder and so are no different. I thought this would be obvious.

    8. Re:intent is often important by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I thought this would be obvious.

      It isn't to many. For whatever reason, the senseless deaths of ~4000 people on 9/11 was vastly different in meaning and response than the senseless deaths of ~4000 people on US roads in September of 2001. So "death" is not equal "death" to most people. That you are unique doesn't qualify you to be a champion for "obvious".

  27. Fine line... An examination of online culture... by ewwhite · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've followed this case with interest mainly because it seemed to be a perfect storm. The timing coincided with highly-publicized teen suicides and increased focus on (cyber) bullying. The initial media reports implied the existence of a "sex tape", an outing and broadcast video. There was a terse suicide status update posted on Facebook. It tapped into people's fears about and unfamiliarity with technology. The mystery surrounding the older hookup, M.B. (that part of the story really didn't seem to be examined) Perhaps the story resonated with me because I remember pranks like this in my college years... It's interesting to see lives ruined today over something I would have potentially done or experienced when I was younger.

    Reading through the New Yorker article and other accounts since the incident, it seems that Dharun Ravi's actions and tone were consistent with how kids interact with each other these days. Being jackasses online, boasting to his peers and just juvenile behavior. But isn't that reflected in popular culture (Reality TV, Tosh.0, TMZ, etc.)? He and Tyler did not communicate well, and I think those soft-skills are missing among today's youth. In a world of tweets, Facebook, blogs and other online communities, we also leave quite a trail... Maybe that's the biggest lesson here. Neither of them seemed to have a filter. Unprotected Twitter accounts, posting openly in webcam/porn/sex communities, bringing an older hookup back to the dorm... I think there needs to be more education about maintaining your online identity.

    As to the case, it seems as though Tyler was troubled long before college. There was a mention of his fascination with the G.W. Bridge, as well as issues coming from a conservative family life. Maybe Ravi's actions had no influence on Clementi's suicide. There's a bit of immaturity on both sides as well. I think "sexiling" your roommate multiple times so early in the school year, is extremely disrespectful. That goes regardless of sexual orientation. I had roommates in college who brought questionable partners home for hookups. But we at least had an understanding, and it was certainly after we had a chance to get to know one another. But maybe Tyler was experimenting and taking advantage of his relative freedom? There's no harm in that, but it illustrates more about his home and family life than anything else.

    The webcam angle also seems overblown. Dharun was most-likely venting about being booted from the room, but relishing the fact that the drama provided a attention/bragging opportunity. He may have also been trying to demonstrate his tech-prowess. But as the New Yorker article referenced, there was "no posting, no observed sex, and no closet."

    Homophobic? Hate crime? I don't think so. I just think there was an extreme lack of respect and understanding between the two. But the case has been politicized and we'll have to see how it plays out...

    --
    Edmund White
    http://flickr.com/ewwhite
  28. Beware of kneejerk thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are two issues here. The most important is individual responsibility – should a person ever be held responsible for another's suicide? If you believe in individual rights and responsibilities (as do most in the West), you should surely be against this in all circumstances.

    The other is homophobia. And here is seems that things are changing, fast. A recently published book finds that school students are now more likely to lose popularity by being homophobic than to gain it.

    True, this was in the UK (the author says the US is "10 years" behind). But the study concerns high-school students. It is reasonable to expect that college students – especially in elite places like Rutgers – would be ahead in this trend of tolerance.

    Homophobia has been a terrible plague but it seems at last to be fading. In our hurry to condemn it we should not forget that the alleged perpetrator has rights which need protecting too.

  29. Get over yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Tyler Clementi's life is OVER. His family's life is DESTROYED."

    Yeah, well, he was screwed up in the head.

    If it wasn't this, it would be his double espresso wasn't prepared properly.

    "Yes, he was perhaps overly sensitive---gay kids usually are, because it's still not easy to be gay."

    No, he was just screwed up. He was 99% ready to off himself. This was just the other 1%. The final nudge. But like I said, it could be that somebody cut him off in traffic that would've been the final trigger.

    1. Re:Get over yourself by Myopic · · Score: 1

      "If it wasn't this, it would be his double espresso wasn't prepared properly."

      It is callous and disgusting to equate a coffee snafu with having your sex life made public. More than being callous and disgusting, it is wrong. You seem to imply that his suicide was a foregone conclusion, which is a horrifically disgusting assertion unless you are prepared to back it up with evidence.

  30. Re:News For Nerds by ewwhite · · Score: 1

    I think it's relevant because the story played itself out on social media (Twitter, Facebook) and involved *scary* technology like webcams! Note how many people still use the term "videotape" in describing the events of this story...

    --
    Edmund White
    http://flickr.com/ewwhite
  31. Whom to blame by Elixon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am sure that he didn't jump because he was videotaped by one asshole. It was most probably that he feared the reaction of others when it leaks... the reason was the homophobic society rather then one particular guy. I would say that the society's attitude killed him. What would be the label for the society then?

    --
    Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
    1. Re:Whom to blame by ewwhite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Santorum, Bachman, etc...

      --
      Edmund White
      http://flickr.com/ewwhite
    2. Re:Whom to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah if too many of them get near you you might catch the gay.

    3. Re:Whom to blame by Elixon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I ain't scared of homos, but I don't want them around me.
      First part of this sentence clearly contradicts the other part. You simply say that "excomunication" (not having "others" around) is what you prefer.

      Did you know that for social beings the excomunication from the society is in fact even worse then death? Why would you wish anybody such as horrific punishment if you are not a homophobe?

      To me it looks like you are the typical homophobe. :-) Sorry if I am wrong but there is no other way I can explain your words.

      --
      Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
    4. Re:Whom to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're old and rich, who cares? You're old and rich!

      When you're young and poor, society can and will permanently fuck you up. Enjoy the next 40-odd years with everyone around you knowing that you're a fag.

    5. Re:Whom to blame by DesScorp · · Score: 2

      Santorum, Bachman, etc...

      The only blame in this is on the guy that set up the webcam. And that charge should be violation of privacy. Period.
      The very notion of hate crimes is dangerous. It essentially criminalizes feelings. That's one huge Orwellian road to go down, and it opens a Pandora's box of hellish proportions.

      If someone murders, charge them with murder. If someone beats someone else, charge them with assault. Let that be the end of it.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    6. Re:Whom to blame by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The very notion of hate crimes is dangerous. It essentially criminalizes feelings.

      It doesn't criminalize feelings, or anything else that wasn't already criminal. It simply increases the punishment for crimes where the culprit was motivated by them.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Whom to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you, white heterosexual! You provide insight that otherwise wouldn't be well enough represented in global culture these days!

      The motivation for one's crimes is of the utmost importance, especially when deciding the punishment due. For instance, the difference between first degree murder and involuntary manslaughter is... shit, I already forgot the word... hang on, I know I hat it written down somew... oh, here it is: "intent." The motivation for one's crimes can do almost as much damage as the crime itself.

      A KKK gathering that lynches a black man in a place where the body will be easily found not only results in the death of an innocent black man, but conveys a message to the local black populace: they are not welcome here, and will suffer terribly if they dare to live in the local area. This destroys the morale of the local minorities, creates tension and separatism amongst the populace, and reinforces these negative behaviors while further instilling these values within the next generation. For the white kids it says: "These people are less than human and should not be tolerated." For the rest of the children it says: "We think you are less than human, white people are dangerous and think less of you, and you should be careful and untrusting of them."

      Hate crimes are real. Hate crimes are damaging, and to a far greater degree than crimes motivated out of purely selfish considerations(and say what you will, hate crimes aren't necessarily selfish: the people committing them believe they're doing it for 'the greater good').

    8. Re:Whom to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you post this same argument when someone is charged with murder 1 vs murder 2 vs manslaughter?

    9. Re:Whom to blame by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Whew! At least I'm covered. If I kill someone based on my belief that all humans need to be purged from existence in the most painful way for the glory of Lord Satan, at least it isn't a hate crime. Good to know!

    10. Re:Whom to blame by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      I find your ideas interesting and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    11. Re:Whom to blame by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I know about social beings. They will whore themselves to anyone, for anything, just so they don't have to be alone. Some of us actually prefer solitude - we can't be "lonely", but we can be alone without suffering.

      Me? I'm an asocial asshole. I don't give one flying fuck whether anyone likes me, or approves of my attitudes and opinions. I have my views, I have my likes and dislikes. I don't like queer - and you want to call that "homophobia"? That's plain fucking retarded.

      Let me list a few other things that I don't like, and maybe you can "diagnose" me with a bunch of other retarded "phobias".

      I don't like lima beans. I won't have one in the house, and most certainly not on my plate.
      I don't like chittlins. Well, actually, I don't know if I would like them - I never got past the smell.
      I don't like bulldogs. I love German Shepards, but I don't like bulldogs. Or those damned rottweilers.
      I don't like Harley Davidsons. I prefer a nicely engineered inline twin, a three cylinder, or even a four cylinder bike with real power and speed, rather than a noisy bike that vibrates itself to death.
      I don't like two faced politicians.
      I don't like religious freaks who try to tell everyone around them how to live.
      I don't like disrespectul athiest bastards who try to tell religious people how they must live.

      Now, get off the lawn, junior. (obviously, I'm not referring to your slashdot member number)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:Whom to blame by Linuxmonger · · Score: 1
      The term hate crime has always been offensive to me.

      Laws are meant to punish actions that infringe the rights of others.

      Thoughts are not actions. They are not provable.

      I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person stole my bicycle, I cannot prove that he was thinking of an ice-cream-sandwhich at the time.

      It is mostly irrelevant why a crime is commited, If I steal a dozen apples from you, I have commited a crime, and if caught, I should be punished. Whether I stole those apples to sell, eat, or feed my children should not matter, there is really only one issue - did I know it was a crime at the time the crime was commited. This is not a measure of the quality or morality of thought, only of intent.

      If you bowl over a child while driving, you have commited a crime unless you lost control of the vehicle through some fault of the vehicle itself, not caused by negligence on your part (driving with bald tires is negligent, a tie rod snapping because of a bubble in the casting is not). I don't care whether you injured the child because you were drunk, high, stupid, angry, or careless, it doesn't matter - there is only one issue, did you know it was a crime at the time, or was it a manufacturing defect? This is not a measure of the quality or morality of thought, only of intent.

      I also don't care how you happen to become impaired, only if you are or not, NyQuil is as bad as pot or worse, don't do drugs and drive, licit or otherwise, stay home and enjoy them in the privacy of your own home.

      Hate crimes are an invention designed to lock a person up before they have done anyone a wrong - It's simply newspeak for 'I don't like the way you think and will hurt you any way I can!"

      Punish actions, you cannot prove thoughts.

      > I ain't scared of homos, but I don't want them around me. First part of this sentence clearly contradicts the other part. You simply say that "excomunication" (not having "others" around) is what you prefer.

      Did you know that for social beings the excomunication from the society is in fact even worse then death? Why would you wish anybody such as horrific punishment if you are not a homophobe?

      To me it looks like you are the typical homophobe. :-) Sorry if I am wrong but there is no other way I can explain your words.

      I could point out that the person might simply be iridophobiac instead of homophobaic - and that an assumption was made as to who was being excommunicated. I know a number of folks who want to separate themselves from society.
      I also question the assertion that excomunication from the society is in fact even worse then death, you haven't met my spouse and cannot immagine the desire for peace and quiet.

    13. Re:Whom to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not as simple as this. Homosexual people are the minority and as such stand under much more pressure than any other. The society in which they live of course has an influence and you are right of course - if one such unperson as Santorum is able to gather so much support these days and this with his hate speeches then one indeed should have doubts about society.

    14. Re:Whom to blame by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      When it come to your dislike for other group of people, you list more universally despised traits like being self-aggrandizing liars, and fanatics. What traits do you find equally offensive about gays when the thing most folks don't like to observe (sleeping with other men) is something you don't have to experience? Or is this a case where you don't like ANY display of homosexual affection? Or possibly you find the stereotypical mannerisms associated with gays offensive?

    15. Re:Whom to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this insightful? Dear liberals, or other 'balanced' , 'progressive'... whatever people. GLBT individuals too.

      If you want to argue with the conservatives--the burden is on YOU (not them) to use sound logic. Pointing out flaws in their logic is USELESS.

      Elixion -- you aren't sorry, you're being snide and snarky and engaging in acts of ostracisim and public shaming. And it won't help your cause -- it just makes it easier to label you as another "faggot lover" and reject your arguments out of hand by association.

      Q: Why would you wish such a horrific punihment on someone if you're not a homophobe?

      A: Because you don't care. Because they're "an outsider". Because you don't want them in YOUR society, but don't care what the hell they do when you aren't looking and don't know about it. Because you want to ignore it, look the other way, not be confronted by the issue. Any of a dozen easy, common answers that an "enlightened" individual like yourself SHOULD be aware of, but instead you and a bunch of others mod your drivel as insightful.

      Yes, ostracism is worse than death in social species. But he isn't proposing excommunication--he's proposing they all move to san francisco so he doesn't have to see them in his town.

      Look--I'm not going to indicate what side I fall on. But Elixon--you're an idiot. The people that modded you insightful are doing a disservice to any sort of progressive agenda. If you want to make an argument, you HAVE to make it correctly, completely, and soundly.

      Otherwise you really are fueling the haters by aiding them in labeling you as the fool you come off as.

      Your argument's invalid, your method's reek of the ostracism you oppose. You're a hypocrite. And you're in the majority opinion of a minority demographic so you stand out to everyone but yourself.

      You're setting yourself up for failure with arguments like that, and this issue deserves a little more fucking respect than to have people parrot logic-fail sound bytes as a means of brandishing the side they fall on. This crap is more important than democracy or the vote -- this is about human rights. And more than just GLBTQ rights. This is about freedom of (and from) association.

      Quite joining sides and start pushing for /the right thing/, whatever you may believe that is.

    16. Re:Whom to blame by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The term hate crime has always been offensive to me.

      Are you similarly offended that there's a difference between "homicide" and "murder"?

    17. Re:Whom to blame by sidthegeek · · Score: 1

      Heh, you're a self-proclaimed "asocial asshole", and suddenly you care about how well society is functioning. And if you're so "asocial", why are you even wasting your time here on Slashdot?

    18. Re:Whom to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the word choice. "phobia", an irrational fear, simply is not the accurate way to describe most negative views of gay people. A "homophobe" does not react to gays the way that people react to legitimate phobias. It's an intentionally loaded word that is intended to polarize people -- the implication is that you must be "afraid" of gays because of the implicit assumption that there's no other possibility for why you simply don't like them.

      Sure, there are some bible-thumping types who legitimately fear "for the children" that gays are going to corrupt their kids. But gay-haters are found in all pockets of society right down to the amoral counterculture types who have no love of religion. People are anti-gay for the same reason as some people are racist. It's more accurate to call it an "irrational hatred" than a fear. Yet aside from relatively rare, and specific applications of the very general word "xenophobe" you generally don't see people describing racism primarily as a phobia. There are no afrophobes or latinophobes (though racism often is rooted in fear, associated with socioeconomics and crime statistics), and yet there are "homophobes". Why is that?

      Politics.

    19. Re:Whom to blame by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I get the aversion to influenza; it makes you sick. What do the homosexuals do to you?

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    20. Re:Whom to blame by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I'm amused, so I stick around. It's not like I have to sit in the same room with you while reading your words . . . and no, I'm not sharing my chocolate, or my chips.

      As for being asocial, social, or antisocial - what does that have to do with studying social interactions? None of the terms implies stupidity, illiteracy, or ignorance. Each of the three terms implies a method of dealing with society around you. I've always been a people watcher. I can sit in a bar all night long, watching the simians interact, without interacting with them. The only biped I need interact with, is the bartender.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    21. Re:Whom to blame by euroq · · Score: 1

      The very notion of hate crimes is dangerous. It essentially criminalizes feelings.

      It isn't supposed to, in theory. It sometimes isn't used correctly.

      A hate crime is a crime against a population - for example, a burning cross in a yard is more than just an attack one someone's personal property, it is an attack on a certain community. So a hate crime is meant to provide a way for the perpetrator of a person who puts a burning cross on someone's yard to be punished for more than just a private property desecration - to provide a punishment for the attack on all of the blacks in the neighborhood.

      It is not, and should not, be criminal to hate black people or gay people or Christians or whoever the fuck anyone wants to hate. The hate crime is improperly used if a perpetrator did not intend to cause harm to a larger group of people. Unfortunately, it many times is - almost like a bad roll of the dice that a man got hurt because he happened to be apart of some minority, so now the punishment for the crime is four times as worse as if the crime was randomly against someone else.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    22. Re:Whom to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's playing semantic games. He claims he finds homosexuality disgusting, not scary, and so "phobia" isn't accurate, rather as I might claim that I find the smell of vomit disgusting, and wouldn't want to live somewhere smelling of vomit, but am not scared of vomit. It's a silly argument that has been run and lost many times. Possibly homophobia isn't the most accurate choice of word, but it's the one that exists, and should be read as analagous to "racist", "sexist" or just generally "bigoted" rather than "arachnaphobe" or "triskadecaphobe".

    23. Re:Whom to blame by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      Motivation is different than intent. If I have intent to murder, then it is murder, if not, it may be manslaughter. If I kill someone because I personally hate him, it's murder. If I murder someone because I want to feel what it's like, it's still murder. My motivation matters not, my intent to commit the crime does, and so hate crimes are an irrational thing. I don't think what happened was right, and he should be punished, but the fact is that his motivation shouldn't matter, only his intent to violate privacy, which is a serious thing.

    24. Re:Whom to blame by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      So what if some guys want to hold a parade celebrating the murder of black gentlemen? That same intimidation exists, yet it is not criminal. The fact is, that an attack on an individual cannot constitute an attack on a whole populace, even if that is the intent. Acting aggressively to a population results in the same thing, and yet only explicit threats are illegal. Punish crimes and hate crimes will be just as punished as any other crime, but why is that not enough? Or is it a hate crime when they bully some nerdy kid at school and beat him up? After all, it can be meant to intimidate all the other weak nerdy kids in school, yet this is not a hate crime. Why? Because implicit threats always exist. You cannot punish a crime more harshly because you think that it is also an implicit threat towards a wider group. This just doesn't make sense. To treat an individual as a representation of a group, would also require that the group the perpetrator is part of to be punished. After all, they are the ones that drove him to act irrationally and hatefully, so why are they not part of the intimidating factor? They very much are, and the fact that they are still out there means that hate crime legislation isn't very effective, unless you want to throw the book at some jerk that you think deserves disproportionate punishment.

    25. Re:Whom to blame by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      That's intent, not motivation. Think, "Did I want this to happen?" That's intent. "Why did I want this to happen or not?" Is not intent, that's motivation. Hate crimes are derived from motivation and not intent, and so are very much ridiculous.

    26. Re:Whom to blame by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Killing someone because you walked in on him diddling your wife will get you a different charge than killing someone to take money from them, despite the identical intent.

    27. Re:Whom to blame by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      The reasoning is that you may not be in full control of your senses when you kill said man, therefore you did not have the capacity to judge your actions and your capacity to process intent was impaired. Notice, that this gets you a lower sentence, not a greater one. What argument can you make for hate crime legislation?

    28. Re:Whom to blame by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I ain't scared of homos, but I don't want them around me.

      There's no reason for you to have that attitude, though. I can guarantee that gays would find your ignorant ass as repulsive and undesirable as women do. You could walk buck naked down the middle of a Gay Pride parade without anyone coming on to you.

      Although, quite frankly, I suspect you'd find that Gay Pride parade a lot more liberating than you think.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    29. Re:Whom to blame by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      How so, there are other reasons for now wanting to be around a group of people besides being scared of them. I do not want to be around homosexuals because I think they are morally corrupt. I'm surer as hell not scared that they will attack me from behind and force buttsex on me.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    30. Re:Whom to blame by tyrus568 · · Score: 1

      Oh. You think homosexuality is a choice. That's all I needed to know.

    31. Re:Whom to blame by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You may or may not make a valid argument that it is not a choice. But, a man's actions are indeed a choice. I'm tempted sometimes to grab an attractive woman, drag her back to my dungeon, and take her however I wish. But, I don't act on those desires, nor do any other responsible men. A man is responsible for the choices he makes - as are women. Choice. Your entire life is a result of choices you have made.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    32. Re:Whom to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd like to not have gay people around you, well, that's your wish. It's a reasonable request if you're also willing to consider other people's requests - you see, I don't like ignorant uneducated fools around me on the internet, so my request is that you leave the internet.

      Of course, you wont adhere to my request, so really that will just demonstrate that you're a hypocrit - that you expect people to respect each others wishes, just not when it comes to your turn. If that's the case then your opinion is meaningless and gays have every right to be around you - why should they care about your wishes when you're not willing to care about anyone elses?

      Still, with any luck the 1956 in your name is your birthdate, and according to your other posts you're from the Texas region, this means you're almost certainly obese, and will hopefully die soon solving the problem anyway. Fat Texans combined with America's failure to deal with it's lower life expectancy than much of the rest of the West means life expectancy for people like you is thankfully pretty low.

    33. Re:Whom to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ain't scared of homos, but I don't want them around me.

      Then why did you join the Navy?

    34. Re:Whom to blame by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I don't like queer - and you want to call that "homophobia"?

      Well, my dictionary says that homophobia is "a fear or dislike of homosexuals". So yes, you're a homophobe.

    35. Re:Whom to blame by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Nope. "Fear" and "dislike" are worlds apart. Fear inspires the "fight or flight" reflex, which people have little if any control over. Dislike does not inspire violent reactions. And, as I've pointed out many times, you people who are politically correct don't get to corrupt my language. Phobias are fears, they have nothing to do with dislikes, likes, preferences, or even rationals disagreements.

      Are you a rationalphobe?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    36. Re:Whom to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, I was on a bus today, sitting in a window seat by myself.

      The big guy who then sat to me in the aisle seat made sure he was hip to hip more than 14 times. The armrest could be lowered and he could have turned sideways a bit, but he chose to overlap into my seat. If I didn't pull myself toward the window and cross my legs, we also would have been leg to leg since he spread out his legs so that the left leg was intruding in my leg space. He also bumped into me with his left arm nine times. Then when I get getting out of the window seat and sliding into the aisle while passing the aisle seat, he was close enough so that my rear would contact his front as I slid out of the seats into the aisle, he definitely needed to be further back.

      No, I won't be allowing him to sit in the aisle seat next to me again, I will insist he take the window seat and I take the aisle seat, or I will change seats if he wants the aisle seat.

      Whether he is or is not--it's still not hate, it's addressing someone being inconsiderate and possibly indecent.

    37. Re:Whom to blame by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Ah, so its ok for a guy to be gay, but just not to be able to express love?

      Oh, and your bullshit on marriage being solely about raising children - I assume you dont think infertile people should marry?

      Thankfully I live in a sane country, where i can (and did) marry my husband, to show our commitment to eachother. You? Fuck off and die, ignorant, bigoted fuckwit :)

    38. Re:Whom to blame by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      The irony of an American talking about Cambridge English corrupting a language.

    39. Re:Whom to blame by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      In what rational moral system is loving someone of the same sex "morally corrupt"?

    40. Re:Whom to blame by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Where did I use the word "solely"? I said it's "all about", leaving room for fringe benefits, but I did NOT use the word "solely".

      Express love? Sure. I love my dad, my brothers, my sons, my shipmates, and even some of my workmates. Doesn't mean I want to "marry" any of them.

      Fuck off and die? Go right ahead. Feel free. And, that goes double for having attempted to put words into my posts that aren't there. You may or may not like my opinion, but you have no right to try to make my opinion something that it is not.

      Your "husband"? Barf.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    41. Re:Whom to blame by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      Where's my hundred dollors and my membership card...

    42. Re:Whom to blame by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You've seen my arguments for hate crime legislation. You don't like it and aren't interested in hearing anyone else's opinion on the matter, just replying to all said posts to disagree.

    43. Re:Whom to blame by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      Your arguments were erroneous in nature, so yeah, I still argue with you. Or is the point of arguing only agreeing with you?

    44. Re:Whom to blame by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, the point is that you like arguing, so regardless of whether you agree, you'd continue to argue forever. "devil's advocate" is what professional assholes dismiss their tactics as.

    45. Re:Whom to blame by euroq · · Score: 1

      You cannot punish a crime more harshly because you think that it is also an implicit threat towards a wider group. This just doesn't make sense.

      Yes you can - those are bias intimidation laws. It makes complete sense, regardless of whether you think they should actually exist. You use the word "implicit" - if there is implicit threat it is not a hate crime. The intent has to exist (motivation for a crime) and therefore be explicit. At least, if correctly used (and many times they aren't).

      So what if some guys want to hold a parade celebrating the murder of black gentlemen? That same intimidation exists, yet it is not criminal.

      Exactly. That's free speech vs. criminal acts. Bias intimidation laws can only be applied to crimes; parades aren't crimes.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    46. Re:Whom to blame by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      I'm not a devil's advocate. I actually disagree with you. I'm not trying to show you another point of you. I plainly state that you are wrong. Your logic is faulty, my friend.

    47. Re:Whom to blame by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      Let me correct myself. When I stated that those laws did not make sense, I meant that they do not make sense and thus should not exist, not that they do not have logic behind them, however faulty that logic may be. I know what the law is, but I disagree with it.

    48. Re:Whom to blame by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But you've never attacked my logic and had a logic discussion. You discuss logic when you think that's easiest, then point to the real world when the logic is against you, then point over your shoulder to distract when neither is on your side. You attack my opinions without pointing out why and how (aside from generalities you step back from when I support my original position, not to mention that you attack what you think is my opinion as if it is mine for finer points I haven't commented on and have tracked me to multiple threads to attack me, indicating some irrational issues you have with regards to this or arguments in general). If you think my logic is faulty. State what you think my logic is as step one, then demonstrate why it's wrong. Assuming it to be something then demonstrating that false assumption to be wrong just shows you aren't trying to address my logic, but just argue for argument's sake.

    49. Re:Whom to blame by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      I just noticed you are the same person. I rarely read user names, since they are hard to see for me. I did not mean to "track you," and I'm sorry you feel that way. Also why so angry? And yeah, I'm arguing with you just for fun. I'm sick in bed what do you want me to do? I'm going to end it here, since you seem angry.

    50. Re:Whom to blame by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I just don't like "devil's advocates." If you have an issue with something, present your side and try for a middle ground. Devil's advocates move the goalposts constantly in order to create an argument when none existed.

    51. Re:Whom to blame by euroq · · Score: 1

      OK, fair enough. But what would you do about the case of a burning cross or an effigy of a hanging man in a black family's yard in a mixed neighborhood?

      In reality, such an offence is a paltry collection of property violations: illegal trespassing and slight destruction of a part of the yard. Nobody was hurt, yet the horror and repercussions of the crime is obviously much more than the simple property violations. In reality, such a crime would cause terror throughout the entire neighborhood. The black families would live in fear. And likely some of the white families would learn to think less of the black families, when such actions can be taken with such insignificant repercussions, and be more likely to do things against the black families whereas before they wouldn't.

      Now, like I said elsewhere, I don't believe the case against Ravi constitutes a hate crime. But to say all hate crime laws should not exist, then what should the law do about the above scenario?

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    52. Re:Whom to blame by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      The effects that could come from that are already crimes. Don't you see that? We can already punish the perpetrators of subsequent violence, so why do we need this?

    53. Re:Whom to blame by euroq · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, I do see what you're saying. And I don't think I have a perfect answer for it.

      I suppose the reason that I accept bias intimidation laws as acceptable in theory is that such offences are an offence on top of the existing offences. If someone intends* to harm many by harming one, then there should be a way to provide punishment for the effect of harming many. If someone didn't intend to harm many by harming few, then they shouldn't be punished for it.
      * intent is the key word here

      If perhaps there was a good way to have such a punishment without bias intimidation laws, I would be OK with that. For example, the range of punishment could be much wider (a prank against a friend vs. an attack on a community could mean community service versus many years in jail for the same offence). I don't see how to codify this, though, without including the measures of "harming many vs harming a few" into every single law.

      And yes, I do see the inherit problem with the very idea of bias intimidation laws. They are abused, as such is the case in Ravi's scenario. They are obviously misunderstood - lots of people think that they are laws criminalizing thought/hate (which they aren't - they only criminalize actions), and apparently they are actually used as such sometimes. I'm just trying to clearly separate what they are meant for from what they are unintentionally thought to be for and incorrectly used for.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  32. Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by cdrguru · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is clear evidence that the political correctness movement of society demands that when something that can be considered to be "hate" it must be so. There is no room for interpretation here - if we are going to criminalize hate then it must be done forcefully and completely with no options for wiggling out through supposed ignorance. This makes for a very uncomfortable legal environment for a lot of people, myself included. I believe the idea of a "hate crime" is nonsense and trying to enhance penalties for ordinary crimes because of "hate" being a factor is a bad idea. This clearly is delving into the area of trying to decide what people are thinking internally and externalizing it in some way. What does it matter what someone is thinking and why should we increase penalties for certain thoughts?

    The legal system should not be considering thoughts but only actions. Unfortunately, that is not the direction we are going.

    In the US today we have "protected classes". These are classes of people that must not be assailed in any way. Women are a protected class and any treatment of them that singles them out because of their gender is illegal today. Similarly, minorities are a protected class in this manner - if you treat an African-American male as an African-American, that is illegal. However, if you treat an African-American male as a male, well, that isn't a protected class. It can get pretty confusing.

    The idea of a protected class apart from others is not how one builds an equal society but one where some are more equal than others. There is no condition that I can agree with that says minorities should receive treatment under the law that is different from anyone else. Especially because they are a member of a minority. The law should be minimizing the fact of their differences from the "rest of us" rather than attempting to maximize the differences.

    It is somewhat an open question how much homosexuals are a protected class. There are some states having laws that offer blanket protected class status to homosexuals and make it illegal to consider sexual orientation in any manner or for any purpose. Other states have less clear laws and there may only be certain situations where sexual orientation is forbidden from being considered. For example, while many would consider it to be inappropriate for a gay male to be teaching a sexual education class to young girls. In some states it is illegal to bar them from this activity whereas in others it may actually be forbidden by law for them to do it. Very confusing, especially when you get into transsexuals. Court cases are beginning to pop up where it starts to become necessary to discuss what sort of anatomy the is present and what sort of anatomy is desired regardless of what is present.

    In the US we are clearly moving into some very interesting territory, one that encompasses the outer edges of what consent can be considered to be. In the US we have been conditioning ourselves to think of unequal power relationships as bad between men and women. But when you get into sexual behaviors where one party is clearly dominant and the other (often permanently) submissive we are supposed to throw all that conditioning away and embrace "the new way". For a lot of people this is very difficult to absorb and they are going to consider unequal power relationships - where one party is clearly in control and the other just has to follow along and do what they are told - as a bad thing. The fact that the US has just gone through, and is still going through, efforts to establish women as equal to men with bra burning, effective birth control and significant changes in the legal framework makes it even more difficult.

    1. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by sphealey · · Score: 2

      === the political correctness movement ===

      "Political correctness" = I can no longer get away with openly hurling vicious insults at groups of people I dislike, and my fee fees are hurt because I am now publicly called out for being vicious; I want to go back to the days when I could bully with impunity.

    2. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Join the DNC. Watch their treatment of minorities and women who don't agree with DNC platforms. In their case it is perfectly acceptable to bash with hatred anyone they disagree with.

      "Political correctness" does not protect a class of people, it approves hatred towards non-liberals and protects liberals from critism for anything. Palin or Herman Cain say that we need to cut federal spending and the personal attacks are non-stop. You say Obama shouldn't sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and suddenly you are the racist (the only reason to disapprove of anything Obama does).

      Look at it this way, if the case were switched and a KKK member were outed and killed himself would there be similar outrage? No, because political correctness only protects liberal viewpoints.

      Don't be fooled.

    3. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      I think it's teaching people to be oversensitive. "Wow! He expressed an opinion that I don't like! He must be censored, punished, and ostracized!"

      It ends up being that you can't say much of anything without fear of you being called racist or something such as that.

    4. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by wmelnick · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "The legal system should not be considering thoughts but only actions."

      Really? So manslaughter = murder? You might want to rethink this. The whole idea of "Mens Rea", or what the person is thinking is integral to the entire criminal justice system in the US. If I hit you with my car and you die, it should not make a difference if I was trying to mow you down or you jumped out from behind a car and there was no way for me to see you? Without considering thoughts those two actions are the same.

    5. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by sphealey · · Score: 1

      === I think it's teaching people to be oversensitive. "Wow! He expressed an opinion that I don't like! He must be censored, punished, and ostracized!" ===

      Because when members of the dominant culture expressed opinions that minority cultures didn't like all the way up through the 1980s (and often followed those words up with beatings, house burnings, job losses, killings, etc) they were "censored, punished, and ostracized" by their society and contritely agreed never to do it again.

      Oops, wait, no they weren't and no they didn't. I grew up on the abuse-heaping side of that cultural divide and saw it go on for years - decades - unchecked, brutal, and destructive. So now that the overall culture is changing to make such behavior unacceptable it is "oversensitivity"? Can't agree with your police work there.

      sPh

    6. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Because when members of the dominant culture expressed opinions that minority cultures didn't like all the way up through the 1980s (and often followed those words up with beatings, house burnings, job losses, killings, etc) they were "censored, punished, and ostracized" by their society and contritely agreed never to do it again.

      I think those physical crimes sound pretty bad... unlike the words. I'm simply a freedom of speech advocate.

      So now that the overall culture is changing to make such behavior unacceptable it is "oversensitivity"?

      If it comes to criminalizing words or being overly offended by them, yes.

    7. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, "political correctness" just means a limitation on which groups you can viciously insult. If someone is gay, they're "protected". If someone is unsuccessfully heterosexual, they're a valid target.

    8. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by ediron2 · · Score: 2

      This. Someone throw a modpoint for parent, please -- Wish I had modpoints.

      GP's comment was worse than wmelnick implied, actually: it pretended that this whole 'requisite intent' / Mens Rea thing is a newcomer to legal decisions that's getting stronger due to political correctness. That's absurd.

      As for GP's rant against political correctness: Earlier this week, a devoutly religious coworker openly chortled about a news story showing an uptick in Hep C infections/deaths. Said they bring it on themselves. I believe he's not a hateful person, just used to accepting most info that comes from his weekend hours spent in a religious echo-chamber. He's hardly the first coworker I've known that spouts off this crap; it's easy to remain sheltered. When I asked him how he reconciled that 'serves 'em right' mindset with his faith, he was at a loss for words. He also couldn't list any other groups of 'others' that deserved that sort of 'let them die' comments.

      Fifty years ago, I could have been having the same conversation with someone who wasn't even necessarily *opposed* to interracial marriage, but just assumed that the sunday church banter was how everyone thought and picked up the concepts as casually as I might pick up news or sports highlights in a conversation. Echo chambers are a cliche for a reason. Today, I could have this sort of conversation involving 'brown people', either in the guise of immigration or wars the US has recently fought. But it's casual systematic dehumanization at this level that weakens the social barrier against crimes against 'others' like these.

      A way to stop this is to focus on exactly those sorts of crimes by enhancements: cut down gun crime by enhancing the penalty for crimes involving guns, for example. If you want to make a bullyish bigot think twice about beating up gay guys, enhance the crime if said bigot beats up strangers that 'seem gay'. It may seem harsh to people who think they should be free to be intolerant, but THAT IS THE POINT.

      Without societal protection, gays feel perpetually under siege. When they're treated like subhumans by strangers and/or cops, ethnic minorities fear or resent the rest of us. Hate crime enhancements take those who felt they could act like rat bastards with relative impunity, and make them fearful; and we take someone living under siege and let them feel like society recognizes their plight and will protect them from prejudicial or anonymous violence. So WHAT that watching how we talk causes nuisances for us WASP males. We can adjust. The tiny takings we endure is far smaller than the lack of fundamental protection someone else endures. Again, THAT IS THE POINT.

    9. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Calling retards "retarded" is not bullying. It's calling things by their own names. Insisting that negative information must be sugar-coated or it can't be conveyed even to those who perfectly capable of handling it is not bullying. And, at times, political correctness actually brings about labels which are more harmful than the labels they replace. "African American", for example, is far more offensive than "black." It puts a qualifier on "American" as if the person were not as American as other Americans.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    10. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

      Nobody is criminalizing words. Instead, the action of uttering some of them sometimes is a crime.

      So?

      The fantasy that words and actions are two totally different and separate things is just that, a fantasy. You can with words alone get someone to lose their job and friends and have them starve to death. But hey, it's just words! That guy who threw those Kool-Aid parties? Just words! And even the scrawniest geek could have knocked out Adolf Hitler, that joke of a man. Yea, verily, I speaketh unto you: when it came to physical action, Adolf Hitler did zero. Zilch. He petted his dog and raised his arm, so how come people call him murderer for that?

      I guess it's just a fucking mystery.

      You say it's unacceptable to be "overly" offended by mere words, and I guess you're the judge what constitutes "overly". If so, do you also have a standard of being "underly offended" by something? How much is to little?

    11. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other side of the coin is: my friends often greet each other with some good-natured insults, which are often racial in nature. All of us are fine with this, but one time my friend was overheard by a Campus safety officer calling me a dirty polak or something like that. Despite my protestations to the contrary, he had to meet with 2 Deans (with me there to support his side) in order to avoid being put on probation at my university.

    12. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Nobody is criminalizing words. Instead, the action of uttering some of them sometimes is a crime.

      Wow. You could use this logic to ban any word ("It's an action, man!").

      The fantasy that words and actions are two totally different and separate things is just that, a fantasy.

      So what's the point of freedom of speech in the first amendment, then? If we used your logic, the government could ban whatever speech it wanted.

      You can with words alone get someone to lose their job and friends and have them starve to death. But hey, it's just words!

      Right. And they are just words. The words aren't sentient beings that force you to lose your job and friends. Do you know who does that? Idiotic people who believe everything they hear and consequently fire you and/or other such nonsense.

      so how come people call him murderer for that?

      No idea. At most, he commanded people and forced them to do his bidding with the threat of violence.

      You say it's unacceptable to be "overly" offended by mere words, and I guess you're the judge what constitutes "overly".

      That's pretty funny considering how subjective this entire case is (punishing someone because of someone else's suicide). I simply gave you my opinion. If you're looking for a precise explanation, then you won't even find that in the law.

      But I'll try. "Overly," is, to me, getting offended at all.

    13. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Wow. You could use this logic to ban any word ("It's an action, man!").

      The word is a word, instantiating a word is an action, it doesn't just happen by itself. Sorry if that comes as news to you.

      So what's the point of freedom of speech in the first amendment, then?

      Well? It doesn't mean "you can say whatever you want whenever you want". If you know for sure there is a lethal dose of poison in a glass of water, and someone asks you if it's safe to drink, and you say "sure, go ahead", you're a murderer. If you tell a little child that running into the street makes candy rain from the sky, the same applies.

      If you can't understand that, just strap on a helmet and give up.

      Right. And they are just words. The words aren't sentient beings that force you to lose your job and friends. Do you know who does that? Idiotic people who believe everything they hear and consequently fire you and/or other such nonsense.

      Right. It's clearly the fault of a 4 year old if it believes you something you tell it, and you cannot be held accountable at all.

    14. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      It doesn't mean "you can say whatever you want whenever you want". If you know for sure there is a lethal dose of poison in a glass of water, and someone asks you if it's safe to drink, and you say "sure, go ahead", you're a murderer.

      I disagree completely. You might be a liar, but they are the ones who drank it. You never forced them to.

      If you can't understand that, just strap on a helmet and give up.

      Yes. Your subjective opinion is 100% right and mine is 100% wrong.

      Right. It's clearly the fault of a 4 year old if it believes you something you tell it, and you cannot be held accountable at all.

      "It"? Heh. But yes, it is. Not that I'd expect much out of a 4 year old, but it is. You thought I'd change my mind because you mentioned children? My survival of the fittest mentality regarding speech remains.

      Too often do people believe everything they hear. Perhaps this would help them think twice about doing so.

    15. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      The word is a word, instantiating a word is an action, it doesn't just happen by itself. Sorry if that comes as news to you.

      Yeah. And I was saying you could use your logic to completely circumvent the first amendment's protection of freedom of speech for any type of speech. All you need to do is say that words are actions.

      It doesn't mean "you can say whatever you want whenever you want".

      It doesn't say that that isn't the case, either. Words are never "actions."

    16. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      That's not "my logic", that's reality. To utter or write a word is an action. To not do so, is an inaction. There are no "illegal words", but if you combine them the right way for the right (or wrong) purpose -- and doing that is an action -- you might be commiting a crime.

      you could use your logic to completely circumvent the first amendment's protection of freedom of speech for any type of speech.

      How so? Since when are actions restricted just because they're actions? They're not, just like words aren't magically untouchable because "they're just words, man!" (see how that works both ways haha?).

      You're free to move around to where you like in your own home and public spaces for example, and in a similar way you're free to voice your opinion. But you're not allowed to slander or defraud, for example, or wander into private property and sing at the top of your lungs. That doesn't circumvent freedom of speech -- it's just that the concept (and the legality surrounding it) is a bit more subtle (and sane) than you make it out to be.

      Words are never "actions."

      No, but uttering words is. I'll go you one further, that is not ever NOT an action.

      But hey, seeing how this is the THIRD time I simply repeat that very basic fact, and you keep twisting it around, that will just have to be lost on you.

    17. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (posting anonymously because apparently I've hit some sort of post limit)

      That's not "my logic", that's reality. To utter or write a word is an action. To not do so, is an inaction. There are no "illegal words", but if you combine them the right way for the right (or wrong) purpose -- and doing that is an action -- you might be commiting a crime.

      It's nice to know that China and other such countries are such great proponents of freedom of speech, then. After all, they're only banning certain actions (words combined in the right way for the right purpose). Am I seriously misinterpreting you here or something?

      You're free to move around to where you like in your own home and public spaces for example, and in a similar way you're free to voice your opinion. But you're not allowed to slander or defraud, for example, or wander into private property and sing at the top of your lungs.

      Why do you keep doing this? You keep mentioning that there are things you cannot say right now. I know this. I just do not agree with it.

      That doesn't circumvent freedom of speech

      But it does. It's punishing people for certain speech. If that's not circumventing freedom of speech, then I doubt anything is.

      But hey, seeing how this is the THIRD time I simply repeat that very basic fact, and you keep twisting it around, that will just have to be lost on you.

      No, you're just straw manning me. I didn't mean to claim that they weren't "actions." If it makes you feel any better, I could try to spell out what I've been trying to say: speaking is an action, but the first amendment protects speech (and, admittedly, certain speech is banned, but the law is irrelevant here).

    18. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      It's nice to know that China and other such countries are such great proponents of freedom of speech, then. After all, they're only banning certain actions (words combined in the right way for the right purpose). Am I seriously misinterpreting you here or something?

      Misinterpreting what, exactly? That I approve of specific laws in specific by understanding some basics about reality/law? Yeah, kinda ^^

      But it does. It's punishing people for certain speech. If that's not circumventing freedom of speech, then I doubt anything is.

      Try not punishing them then... Whenever little Claudia wants to say something in school, the bullies start blabbering, so nobody can hear her. She dies like a little flower, and sad music plays. I really hope you're happy now.

      Seriously though, I agree that in this case it's kinda bollocks (I mean making the guy seem like a murderer because the other guy killed himself, that's more hysteria than justice). But I agree in principle that minorities have to be protected from the whims of the majority (a big function of any state really; it's all about giving up power so it can be theoretically used for the greater good (I know it's fucked up in practice, but the theory is somewhat sound IMHO)), and sometimes restrictions of individual freedom kinda increase the greater freedom that way.. it decreases the freedom of bored or mean people to say stuff they could perfectly well without saying, and increases the freedom of others to live as a member of the human race, which they are.

      That's a mighty fine trade-off to me, kinda like the fact that your doctor isn't supposed to chat about your health problems with everybody in the village. You make "circumventing freedom of speech" sound so bad, but it really isn't hard? If your actions decrease the freedom of others beyond a certain degree, they're trumped. Yes, the law is crude, the nations are corrupt, ladi-blah. I'm not even being sarcastic, they are. And I know you can separate humanity into a billion "minorities" and be none the wiser, and still have left out ten billion more minorities. But the basic concept is still valid to me. (Though I don't think it can or should be completely legislated, because that just means we're fucked and need to be forced to be decent - but that's kinda besides the point here.)

      And you know what, just because China or others abuse that insight, doesn't make it a bad insight per se. They're breathing air as well, doesn't mean I'm gonna stop doing that just out of spite. It's just that I'm a hypocrite, because when I really think about it, calling someone a dumb fuck is every bit as dehumanizing and vile as calling someone a faggot or whatever. But I do accept the principles by which I am a hypocrite.

    19. Re:Hate is certainly in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Misinterpreting what, exactly? That I approve of specific laws in specific by understanding some basics about reality/law? Yeah, kinda ^^

      But I agree in principle that minorities have to be protected from the whims of the majority

      I don't agree if it comes to speech.

      it decreases the freedom of bored or mean people to say stuff they could perfectly well without saying

      Yeah, I'm sure you could "increase" the freedom of a majority that doesn't like people criticizing their religion by not allowing criticism.

      That's a mighty fine trade-off to me, kinda like the fact that your doctor isn't supposed to chat about your health problems with everybody in the village. You make "circumventing freedom of speech" sound so bad, but it really isn't hard?

      It is, in my opinion, bad. I'm opposed to all forms of government censorship. One reason is that I believe it makes it far easier for a corrupt government to take action and remove dissenting opinions (slippery slope). Another is that I believe it makes people think that they have a right to not be offended, and they begin believing everything they hear because the government will take care of liars.

      I doubt I'd change my mind.

      If your actions decrease the freedom of others beyond a certain degree, they're trumped.

      As far as I know, words can never do that. Unless you mean the freedom to not be offended. Or something. Well, they might do that with the laws as they currently are.

      And you know what, just because China or others abuse that insight, doesn't make it a bad insight per se.

      I didn't say that was the case. I just meant that even the countries with the 'worst' governments could be considered as having freedom of speech like the US if you say that they're just restricting certain actions (words in a certain order used in a certain way).

  33. a different approach by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    you can't entirely stop abuse or pranks, how about making sure that behavior doesn't lead to suicide?

    as for the Microsoft reference in TFS: maybe Dharun was also fed up with being sexiled (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sexiled)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:a different approach by ewwhite · · Score: 1

      The sexiling is the biggest thing for me. I would not be happy having that happen twice in such a short period of time. It's tacky, to be honest (at least that early in the schoolyear) As I posted above, this really seemed to be a communication issue, coupled with bad practices. Bringing dude home from hookup website; bad. Getting crafty with webcam; bad. Blathering about it all on non-private social media; bad... But look at the examples. How many times have we seen this type of behavior on MTV or Tosh.0?

      --
      Edmund White
      http://flickr.com/ewwhite
    2. Re:a different approach by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      okay, I replied to the post you linked to.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  34. Its a hate crime by erexx23 · · Score: 1

    Its a hate crime. This guy obviously had something against him being Gay. No matter how his reasoning is wrapped, in the end its still Hate and Ignorance, plain and simple. Gays will always be a minority. Gays will always be a minority. Gays will always be a minority. There can be no equal Rights for Gays unless the Majority of Straits can empathizes with them as equals. Their lives and life styles -will always be- in the control of the strait majority. Try to imagine how that marginalization would warp your life. As long as there are those who marginalize Gays, there will be enough Hate for them to allow the average person to think it OK to destroy their lives. Human Empathy Test Fail = Human Rights Fail

    1. Re:Its a hate crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There can be no equal Rights for Gays unless the Majority of Straits can empathizes with them as equals.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait

    2. Re:Its a hate crime by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      The meme around these parts is: "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inigo_Montoya

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  35. Re:Of course by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    So had he walked in in an intimate moment, that would have been an invasion of privacy as well?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  36. lesser charges? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I figure Dharun should get lesser charges for taking and posting the video; that was dumb but the suicide seems like a unexpected result.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  37. Re:Where is the evidence of hate-based intimindati by walkerp1 · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen any evidence presented that he bullied or intimidated Tyler, let alone did so for homophobic reasons. Either the prosecution is saving it for the trial, or the DA is trying to make an example with bullshit charges (probably to look tough on cyberbulling leading up to an election year).

    Perps will often be charged with a core set of charges accompanied by any BS that can be loosely tied to the case but not proved. The BS is useful for scaring a plea and will ultimately be dropped as an incentive. The hate crime charge here appears to be BS from TFA. I predict a swift plea accompanied by a swifter deportation.

  38. If the shoe had been on the other foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the gay guy had filmed his ultra-Christian roommate's heterosexual encounter for the purpose of embarrassing him in the religious community, to the point he committed suicide, nobody would be talking about it as a hate crime.

    Just sayin'

    The faggots have the full force of our ultra-leftist tyrannical regime behind them... bet they enjoy it, too.

    1. Re:If the shoe had been on the other foot by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      You, sir, just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Your first point is absolutely correct. If the circumstances had been reversed, this would be a non-issue.

      Your use of the slur undermines your credibility.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:If the shoe had been on the other foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What slur? Gay people are called faggots.

      In my country, "faggot" is not a slur. Neither is "gringo." It's just what white people are called. "Nigger" isn't either, because black people call themselves that willingly.

      You must be American, because only Americans are so hyper-sensitive to what things are called.

    3. Re:If the shoe had been on the other foot by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      You mean if someone who has no problem calling out hellfire for all sorts of people, for basically "everybody but us", gets *some* of what they have coming, people aren't as outraged as when someone who doesn't harm anyone gets abused for that? You don't say.

      To put it bluntly: to hate Nazis isn't hate, it's the self-defense of life, and ultimately an expression of love towards those the Nazis would have a go at otherwise. So go tell your imaginary ultra-christian friend to cry Jesus a fucking river.

    4. Re:If the shoe had been on the other foot by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      What slur? Gay people are called faggots.

      Not by anyone with any measure of class.

      In my country, "faggot" is not a slur. Neither is "gringo." It's just what white people are called. "Nigger" isn't either, because black people call themselves that willingly.

      White people here will most likely laugh at you for calling them "gringo", but call the wrong gay man a "faggot" or the wrong black man "nigger" and you'll find yourself having a very unpleasant day.

      You must be American, because only Americans are so hyper-sensitive to what things are called.

      Of course, I'm an American. Though we still have a few throwbacks in our midst, for the most part we eschew such small-minded bigotry.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  39. "Hate Crimes" are bullshit. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    As a member of a minority myself, I've always felt that if someone ever assaulted or murdered me, what's more important is that I was assaulted or murdered not the reason why the asshole did it.

    Punish the offender under regular laws, there is no point in this kind of legislation other than the stack the deck in favor of the prosecution.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:"Hate Crimes" are bullshit. by euroq · · Score: 1

      Just so you know, the intent of bias intimidation laws are to give the ability to prosecute for crimes that a perpetrator applies to a large group of people on top of the crime committed. For example, if you place a burning cross in your neighbor's yard, it's a slight charge of destruction of private property which is nothing more than a fine. Bias intimidation is for the fact that the burning cross was meant to intimidate and harm a whole group of people, on top of the slight property harm.

      Bias intimidation laws, or hate crimes, are now incorrectly thought to be "any crime against a minority are even worse than a regular crime". That is not the intent. If it is used in such a way it is incorrect.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    2. Re:"Hate Crimes" are bullshit. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Just so you know, the intent of bias intimidation laws are to give the ability to prosecute for crimes that a perpetrator applies to a large group of people on top of the crime committed. For example, if you place a burning cross in your neighbor's yard, it's a slight charge of destruction of private property which is nothing more than a fine. Bias intimidation is for the fact that the burning cross was meant to intimidate and harm a whole group of people, on top of the slight property harm.

      Bias intimidation laws, or hate crimes, are now incorrectly thought to be "any crime against a minority are even worse than a regular crime". That is not the intent. If it is used in such a way it is incorrect.

      I don't know about where you live, but where I live burning a cross on someone's yard is a felony, we call it arson.

      • (d) Reckless burning or exploding.--A person commits a
                  felony of the third degree if he intentionally starts a fire or
                  causes an explosion, or if he aids, counsels, pays or agrees to
                  pay another to cause a fire or explosion, whether on his own
                  property or on that of another, and thereby recklessly:
                                (1) places an uninhabited building or unoccupied
                        structure of another in danger of damage or destruction; or
                                (2) places any personal property of another having a
                        value that exceeds $5,000 or if the property is an
                        automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-
                        propelled vehicle in danger of damage or destruction.

      Burn a cross on the wrong yard in this state and you find yourself in serious danger of getting shot by the homeowner.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  40. wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the video showed a naked guy with a small penis, or a girl fucking a horrendously ugly guy, that could be every bit as embarrassing for the small-dicked man or the woman in question as this was for the homosexual man.

    No, actually, and this goes to show how ignorant you are on GLBT issues.

    GLBT individuals don't face "embarrassment." They have to face things like
    "being disowned by their family"
    "fired from their jobs"
    "excommunication from their religious communities", and
    "being a target of physical violence."

    While we should work towards a society where GLBT people don't have to hide - it's still their choice when they come out and to whom.

    You know what this was? This was kid who grew up in a country where being gay is illegal, who found himself living with a gay roommate, was really threatened/offended/bigoted, and decided to "out" the kid to get rid of him. Just spend a few minutes with Google - India's views on homosexuality are amongst the most hostile on the planet.

    1. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Informative

      India's views on homosexuality are amongst the most hostile on the planet

      India's views on inter-racial marriage, hell even marriage within the same race (as it is socially defined) but outside of your own caste is the most hostile on the planet. For that matter, India's views on just about every social issue are extremely hostile. They make the US look like a bastion of liberal tolerance.

    2. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ...You know what this was? This was kid who grew up in a country where being gay is illegal, who found himself living with a gay roommate, was really threatened/offended/bigoted, and decided to "out" the kid to get rid of him. Just spend a few minutes with Google - India's views on homosexuality are amongst the most hostile on the planet.

      You're right. Ravi was brought up in a society that is totally hostile to homos. All his life he was taught that homo=monster. He probably could not stand to lie in his room and hear his roommate getting repeatedly rammed in the ass by some other guys dick. It probably made him physically sick. He asked for another roommate but nothing was done.

      A couple of questions. Would this have happened if cultural differences are/were taken into consideration when determining roommates? Would it be a hate crime if the homo hadn't offed himself?

    3. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by general_re · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For that matter, India's views on just about every social issue are extremely hostile. They make the US look like a bastion of liberal tolerance.

      Comparatively speaking, given the state of most countries, the US is a bastion of liberal tolerance.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    4. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      So what do you think about gay groups that out closeted gays (e.g., for their conservative political views)?

    5. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have a stutter, I have been made fun of for years because of it. I have had films taken of me posted on YouTube of me stuttering. I have lost girlfriends and opportunities ruined because I stutter. And as much as I don't want to have some asshole make fun of me in public, the very idea that someone could go to jail for 10 years for something like that, when some people who kill other people get less than that makes me ill.

      I can't help that I stutter and seem like I have an IQ 60 points lower than what I actually have, and it is difficult to deal with the results sometimes. But you know what? If I committed suicide, it's me doing it, I'm not being shot. If you're gay or have a stutter, you know what? It fucking sucks sometimes, but you can either be a damn victim or deal with it.

      If anything being gay isn't even really all that bad these days. Sure your family might disown you, but fuck them if they do. You don't need assholes like that anyway. Jokes on them, you're here, they paid for your shit, now get on with your life. In the past, you could get persecuted for *real* for being gay, but there has also been times where you could do very well for yourself being gay, and today is one of those times. Fuck, half of the media has a hard-on for gays. Gays generally make money on average above and beyond what even white males as a group do. You just need to head to the right places and not look back. Hard, absolutely. Impossible, no.

      This kid committed suicide. That was his choice. The Indian was a fuckwad, and he illegally spied on that roommate. Convict him of illegal spying or whatever, but don't fucking tell me that he committed some sort of horrendous hate crime. Next thing you know, someone is going to tell me that I am going to get thrown in jail for 10 years for lighting up once. Oh wait... I can. This shit has got to stop.

    6. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? Either that or I never met the kind of people that beat up people for fun for fucking some girl.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right? Either that or I never met the kind of people that beat up people for fun for fucking some girl.

      No, I'm not kidding. And, I'm not going to allow your ignorance/inexperience/lack of education to influence my world.

      Do us all a favor, pick up a newspaper or watch the evening news. There, you 'll find reports "of people that beat up people for fun for fucking some girl." It happens very regularly.

    8. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can ONLY be gay
      if you do it THEIR way.

      It's like being Black and conservative. One might as well don hoods and sheets and burn crosses.

      Rule Zero:A conservative worldview negates minority identity.

    9. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      India's views on just about every social issue are extremely hostile.
      Interesting. Lets see.. India has a Sikh prime minister, a Moslem past president, and a foreign born party president. The US has such bastions of tolerance as Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry. Yeah I guess that really does make the US a bastion of tolerance!

    10. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was unfortunate phrasing. Where does a straight guy go to get the shit kicked out of him because people think he's interested in women? (Not a specific woman, just women in general.)

    11. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does a straight guy go to get the shit kicked out of him because people think he's interested in women?

      Lesbian biker bar?

    12. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except for religion. The Indians are famous for tolerating just about every fruity religion that has come along. Things are changing though. They are seem to be slowly opening up to accept more than just their strict traditional values - but she's certainly a big country, I'm sure you could find intolerant nutters there if you wanted to.

    13. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why liberal tolerance? Why not just tolerance?
      Why the need to slap liberal or conservative on everything?

    14. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparatively speaking, given the state of most countries, the US is a bastion of liberal tolerance.

      Unless you're a liberal circlejerking on the Internet.
      Then the US is a backwards, ignorant, intolerant, uneducated, corporate-owned police-state hellhole.

    15. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Except for when they burn down churches and assault missionaries, sure, theyre wonderfully tolerant. I have a friend who is an indian and a christian who hasnt told his family because of the repercussions (disowning etc). If you think India is religiously tolerant, you are sadly mistaken.

    16. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take the time to read the article before you go off. You are speaking from a position of ignorance.
      -Tyler was not "outed" via the video. He was out in the months prior and was not excommunicated, disowned or the target of physical violence (per the article, my knowledge goes no further).
      -Ravi moved from India as a toddler, so he grew up in the US.
      -It does not appear that Ravi was trying to get rid of Tyler. Instead, he seems like an awkward asshole not knowing how to react to the situation. In fact (from the article) he seems to be more offended by the age difference with M.B. than the fact that they were both men.

      Incidentally, for the other posters:
      -At no time was video recorded, let alone posted to the internet.
      -At no time were any "private parts" or explicit sexual acts seen by anyone through the webcam (or any other way). In all, it appears that video feed was viewed for a total of a few seconds.

      There is no question that a crime was committed here, but let's discuss it based on the facts available (as presented in the linked article) and not the facts according to Anderson Cooper.

      I have been a lurker on Slashdot since 1998 and this is the first time I have posted. I have read many comments over that time that say "if you actually read the article", but this is heinous. I know the article is long, but important facts (like: Tyler was already out and there was no video) are being totally missed. Details matter.

    17. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They are very tolerant of just about every fruity religion that has come along, but they are highly intolerant of criticism of any other religion.

      India has very strict blasphemy laws. To their credit the blasphemy laws are extremely broad and protect minority and majority religions but by western standards they would be considered an infringement of rights.

    18. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to a lot of European countries, the US is a bastion of conservative ignorance. Please stop acting like you know what it's like in other countries that you have never lived in. I've been to India numerous times, each time staying for around 2 months, and I have lived in Europe for 10 years. People here in the US just love to talk out of their ass about what's going on in other countries, but most of em have no idea what they're talking about and are just regurgitating some sensationalist headlines they found on the internet and using them to generalize negatively about other cultures in order to justify their complacency.

    19. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole country has the same views on marriage! Who would have thought!
      Here's a scenario for you to envision: A person on the other side of the world is watching TV and reading news articles about America. They see the presidential frontrunners on the republican side and just hear a bunch of idiotic rhetoric and the kind of complete bullshit that they're known for. From this they get the idea that America's views on abortion, gays, and the income gap are very harsh and poorly thought out, if thought out at all.
      This is how your post comes off. Like some simpleton who takes the attributes of a certain number of inhabitants of a country and relates them to the entire country. Generalizing like this about any country makes one look like a bastion of unintelligent retardation.
      India has a hugely diverse population. There are numerous cultures, languages, and religions. Your mind, however, is apparently very simple, so I will stop here and let you think about it. Good luck.

    20. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      India is actually a bastion of liberal tolerance in the region - free press, secular government, civilian military control. Compare with China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma.

      It's difficult from someone outside India to understand what happens inside India.

      First, the reason why homosexuality is hard to accept for Indians is that it significantly changes the dynamic of same-sex relationships (for example, men hold other men's hands in India as freely as men and women hold each others' hands in the US). Second, most parents tend to focus teenagers on education and not sexuality, so many Indian schools are same-gender with the assumption that it's going to cut down on hormonal distractions. Accepting homosexuality challenges both those assumptions. I'm not saying it's right, just that the social institutions will take some time to evolve.

      Second, think of India not a mostly homogenous country like the U.S., but a diverse collection of states with their own language, food, culture, and religious interpretation. It's more like the EU, with only 250 years of western thought. The parent incorrectly defines these boundaries as "race" when they are not about how you look, but what you do. There is a caste system that slices these boundaries in another dimension but these days it only comes into play in marriages in rural India.

      Third, the high population combined with limited economic resources in the past resulted in larger families cohabiting, and not nuclear families as is the case in the U.S, Canada, Australia and Europe. Therefore, language and cooking styles and behaviors are a key consideration in marriage. Social change is much harder in those settings.

      Ultimately, all those things will change for the better and be addressed because there is freedom of speech and an independent judiciary and a commitment to education.

      That said, there are more people in the US going bat-shit about creation and eliminating women's reproductive rights than in India.

    21. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak to it in general terms, being that I know relatively little about India, but I was pretty surprised when this girl I like told me her parents -- at least one of whom is a prof at Princeton (where she grew up) -- still pressure her to accept an arranged marriage. Then again, it sounds like her parents are really shitty at being parents and she was mostly raised by her grandma.

    22. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well my previous comment got buried, so lets try again...
      As I said India has a Sifh Prime Minister, a past Moslem President, a current foreign born Party President.. while the US has presidential contenders like Santorum, Gingrich and Perry, some real bastions of tolerance there!

    23. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Girls don't have fathers where you live? :P

    24. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They do. They even have jealous ex-boyfriends and they have friends who think that she shouldn't fuck you.

      But where I live there are no random strangers that kick the shit out of you just because they think it's not ok that you fuck girls.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, it's fairly easy to avoid those. Especially in areas where you get the shit kicked out of you for loving the wrong sex.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This was kid who grew up in a country where being gay is illegal, who found himself living with a gay roommate, was really threatened/offended/bigoted, and decided to "out" the kid to get rid of him."

      Then the university fucked up putting diversity over the likes of that student, pairing them up with a gay roommate. That was that guy's home, and they had no business forcing GLBT diversity politics on the hetero student, even by accident.

      Note to the universities: mixed race is okay, mixed sexual orientation is never okay when the hetero student is paying for their room and board. If it is discovered that a gay roommate was put with a hetero roommate and the hetro roommate objects, then move them to another room with a straight roommate--honor their room requests. Otherwise, the universities are jointly responsible for instigating the tension that leads to these incidents, which will likely occur at least occasionally.

      But what about GLBT in the workplace? GLBT in the classroom? They don't have to _live_ with them by sharing a a dorm room as their home.

    27. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which, really, raises the question of why "hate crimes" are defined half-assed.

      Why aren't the families, employers, and religious communities pursued with equal vigor for hate crimes? If exposing someone's homosexual orientation is so terrifying that the exposure is a hate crime... all the resulting, terrifying consequences of exposure should also be hate crimes. If there were no consequences to exposure the exposure wouldn't be a hate crime either.

    28. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are seriously misinformed. I am an Indian and I live in India.

      Inter-racial marriage may not be common, but it is not frowned up on. The state does not interfere. You get a marriage certificate irrespective of caste/creed from the state. Whether your conservative friends/relatives object is another matter altogether.

      About homosexuality - India is troubled by the British era Victorian law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India - which still in the rule books which denote homosexuality is a crime. The Supreme Court is about to give a landmark ruling and has opined the world has changed and the laws need to change.

      India tolerates a lot. But there are intolerable, conservative fruitcake Indians - do not confuse the two.

    29. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Just spend a few minutes with Google - India's views on >>homosexuality are amongst the most hostile on the planet. I'm from India and no, they're not. LGBT folk face a mix of meh to ridicule. No more than say, the US

    30. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by kgskgs · · Score: 1

      Yes, there have been cases of attacks on churches and missionaries. But for the bigger picture over longer time, that is not the norm.

      Conversion can be still a sticky issue. But that can be true for USA also. And conversion from Catholicism to Methodism is not real conversion. How would a countryside rural family react if their child were to convert to say Islam or Hinduism?

    31. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Indian, and one of the GLBT minority I am in agreement with the above comments about Indians being highly intolerant. They are very think skinned people, cannot even imagine anything but arranged marriages and cannot take criticism easily. I have observed many Indians who move to the west looking down on westerners with barely concealed contempt and think that they come from a superior planet. They protest discrimination at the drop of a hat when they discriminate on the basis of caste religion etc. I find it amusing that they constantly protest denial of visas by Westerners, and at the same time do not let Western bussiness into India. I can go on, but I also have to say that I have been accepted by many Indians, and the extreme violence that is evident against GLBT people in the rest of the world is not alarming in India. They seem to be equal opportunity in their hatred against not just GLBT minorities but free choice in marriage, inter caste and inter religious marriage etc.

    32. Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that he was born and raised in new jersey, not india.

  41. suicide - hate crime against one's self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rhavi's actions were stupid but his roommate commited violence against himself, not Rhavi. Rhavi's actions may have lead to a hate crime but I would think it would have to be proved that his intent was for his roommate to commit suicide in order to for Rhavi to be guilty. Then again this is Amerika in the 21st century and a thought crime may be equal or worse than a physical crime.

  42. "Hate crime"? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

    Why exactly does it matter who you commit a crime against? If you kill someone, then I don't think they should arbitrarily decide to put you in prison for a larger amount of time simply because of the color of the victim's skin (or something like that).

    1. Re:"Hate crime"? by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Ask the people lynched for fun just for being in an oppressed minority. If the majority thinks casual abuse to people who are different is OK just because the target is different, then maybe the law has to be there to correct that idiotic smug thoughtlessness?

      Everyone's different to their peers one way or another: you might think differently if suddenly you were on the wrong end of constant harassment for some random (and entirely legal) aspect of your life.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:"Hate crime"? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Ask the people lynched for fun just for being in an oppressed minority. If the majority thinks casual abuse to people who are different is OK just because the target is different, then maybe the law has to be there to correct that idiotic smug thoughtlessness?

      I fail to see how that's casual abuse.

      And no, I don't believe in violating people's freedom of speech because some people are getting their feelings hurt (provided you meant speech). If you didn't mean speech, then prosecute people for whatever crime they committed regardless of the characteristics of the victim. I fail to see the problem here.

      Everyone's different to their peers one way or another: you might think differently if suddenly you were on the wrong end of constant harassment for some random (and entirely legal) aspect of your life.

      I hear this all the time. "If you were in another situation, you'd feel differently." So? That doesn't mean my current opinion is wrong (and indeed, I might very well be more biased if I was in their situation).

      If you were in my situation, you'd agree with me (my assumption). I can literally apply that logic to anything and anyone.

    3. Re:"Hate crime"? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Ask the college students run down on 6th Street, Austin. The old guy who did it just fell asleep, so he was let off without so much as an official warning. But if one of those college-age people were to run over an old person, they'd be in jail until they were an old person. So it very much does matter who you are and who your victim is for all "regular" crimes, but when such discretion is coded into laws, bigots everywhere come out and defend their right to abuse whole subcultures violently based on their prejudices.

    4. Re:"Hate crime"? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      So it very much does matter who you are and who your victim is for all "regular" crimes, but when such discretion is coded into laws, bigots everywhere come out and defend their right to abuse whole subcultures violently based on their prejudices.

      It does? It doesn't to me.

  43. Bah by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    Just save the money, deport him and never let him back. Should be punishment enough. He have enough idiots here already to think we have any reason to let a proven one back.

  44. Re:Cyberbullying is not OK. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

    But people, wake-up, Tyler Clementi's life is OVER. His family's life is DESTROYED.

    I wonder why that is? Oh... because he committed suicide.

    But who cares about freedom of speech? What if someone's feelings get hurt? Suicide is murder because someone said mean things to them before they killed themselves.

  45. Re:News For Nerds by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

    I was bullied, too. I'm still 100% against political correctness and am for freedom of speech.

  46. Re:Hate Crime Or Stupidity? by DamonHD · · Score: 2

    Trolling.

    Or you have never thought about what's it's like to be in an out-group over any topic at all, however trivial or important.

    But at least neither of them was *black* because that would be a "generally deplorable" life choice, yes?

    Rgds

    Damon

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  47. Re:Where is the evidence of hate-based intimindati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wrong on all three counts (just read the New Yorker article linked in the summary):
    1. There was no video stream, or even photos. He just tweeted that he'd seen his roommate with a man.
    2. The tweet was "it's happening again" (the word "faggot" was never used, and in fact the worst term he'd used was "gay").
    3. He didn't ask for a new roommate, quite the opposite: when approached by a dorm councilor after Clemens (the victim) asked to move, Dharun wrote him an email and said that he'd like him to say, although he understands why Clemens would want to move.

    Obviously Dharun is a major asshole, but throughout this whole tragedy the impression I get is that he was more in it for the LOLZ and the gossip-value rather than homophobia or even anything personal against Clemens. It just looks like a teenager trying to boost his own social standing. It's obvious that something deeper must have driven Clemens to commit suicide, and this was perhaps just the catalyst (not even sure how much of that, because Clemens' IM transcripts with a close friend show that he wasn't all that bothered about it).

  48. Misinformation abounds on this thread by Boawk · · Score: 1

    Next Tuesday the trial of 19-year-old Dharun Ravi opens. . . . If found guilty, Mr. Ravi could go to jail for ten years.

    What did Dharun Ravi do? Well, he was a freshman roommate at Rutgers University with a chap named Tyler Clementi. Clementi was homosexual, and not a closeted one — he didn’t make much of a secret of it. Why would he? Our young people are taught from kindergarten on that “gay is just as good as straight,” that Heather has two mommies, that homosexuals should be “proud,” and so on. My local high school has a club for homosexual students. Anyone who’s embarrassed or ashamed about being homosexual hasn’t been paying attention for about thirty years. And in fact, Clementi wasn’t ashamed: in those first three weeks of his freshman year, he attended at least one meeting of the Rutgers students Bisexual, Gay, and Lesbian Alliance.

    Well, a year last September, Dharun Ravi and another freshman, Molly Wei, used a webcam to secretly watch Clementi kissing a young man Clementi had picked up. After watching the video, Ravi gossiped about it on Twitter, quote: “I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.”

    Three days after that, Clementi committed suicide by jumping from the George Washington Bridge. Whether this had any connection at all to the webcam incident, is not known. That Dharun Ravi thought his prank might drive Clementi to suicide is preposterous; that he intended that result is preposterosity squared.

    The homosexualists were up in arms none the less, and every damn fool politician in New Jersey joined in the hue and cry. Chris Christie, who I think less of every time he opens his fat mouth, quote: “I don’t know how those two folks are going to sleep at night, knowing that they contributed to driving that young man to that alternative.” They don’t know that, Governor, and neither do you, and neither does anyone. They played a trivial prank; Clement killed himself; cause and effect are not obvious, certainly not established to any fair evidentiary standards.

    (And nor will the trial attempt to establish such cause and effect. As the USA Today report notes: “Ravi is not charged with anything to do with the suicide.” A legal friend tells me that if the prosecution so much as mentions Clementi’s suicide, that would be grounds for a mistrial. The trial is not about the suicide, it’s about what Dharun Ravi did – see above.)

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291621/darkness-new-jersey-john-derbyshire

  49. Read the timeline of events by Animats · · Score: 1

    Read the timeline of events. Dharun Ravi was kicked out of his own room for the night so that Clementi could have gay sex with an older guy from off campus. Ravi then went to a female friend's room, Molly Wei, connected to his own laptop back in his room over iChat, and watched what was going on. Ravi posts the following message to his Twitter account: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay." Molly has some of her female friends over to watch briefly. Soon after, Wei IMs her boyfriend, Austin Chung, regarding Clementi: "He's NICE but he's kissing a guy right now / like THEY WERE GROPING EACH OTHER EWWW."

    Then Clementi does the whole thing again, two days later, with the same guy, again throwing his roommate out so he can have sex. Some of this gets seen on iChat, too. Clementi is already aware he was seen on iChat last time.

    Where's the expectation of privacy here? Clementi made no effort to conceal what he was doing. Ravi, on the other hand, has a First Amendment right to comment on the situation.

    1. Re:Read the timeline of events by ph1ll · · Score: 1

      You quote the article that says Dharun Twittered: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight" but your interpretation is the defendant "was kicked out of his own room for the night" and the victim was "throwing his roommate out".

      Forgive me if I think you're not the best person to interpret what was going on.

      I'm not American but I am fairly sure that your First Amendment does not give you the right to watch your roommate indulging in a sexual encounter when he has asked for privacy. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

      --
      --- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
    2. Re:Read the timeline of events by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Uh, he was thrown out of the room. Clementi wanted privacy. There's the expectation of privacy right there.

      It is amazing to see how much fuckery has been going on in this thread. It's really really offputting.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    3. Re:Read the timeline of events by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      He wasnt even thrown out - he asked to have the room until midnight.

  50. Re:Hate Crime Or Stupidity? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Of course, there are things that people have no control of that get lumped into the hate crime category, and I realized that even as I wrote my post. There are many others that people do have control of. And I'm sure that we'll soon see (if it hasn't already happened) people charged with "hate crimes" because they took actions against someone who made the "lifestyle choice" of being a child molester.

    If you want an unbiased society you have to have laws that apply equally to everyone. You only continue to breed hate and resentment by having laws and privileges that give one group an advantage over another.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  51. Re:News For Nerds by sunking2 · · Score: 2

    The funny thing is if you read the majority of posts they are defending the 'bully' as doing nothing wrong. Why? Because in this case it appears the bully also has some nerdish qualities and was able to use a remote control something or other to spy. I wonder what this thread would have looked like if it were a member of the lacrosse team peering through a window with his dime a dozen cell phone cam at some people at a Linux users group.

  52. The same thing is true of race, etc.. FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same thing is true of race. FTW

    Race, sexuality, gender - none of these are binary in reality. Thus - you have to get into the MIND of the person commiting the crime. Did they THINK the person was a 'nerd'?

    Thus - thoughtcrime.

    1. Re:The same thing is true of race, etc.. FTW by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      The same goes for "planned murder" and "accidental manslaughter". Sure, call it thoughtcrime if it makes you happy. Now what? Taking the mind into a account is perfectly valid, actually necessary, and standard practice for as long as we have codes of law. So what's your point? You seem to say "thoughtcrime" like it's a bad thing, yet you have zero leg to stand on, how come?

    2. Re:The same thing is true of race, etc.. FTW by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_(law) Different from motivation. By kicking your ass because you're a homosexual, I intended to kick you ass just the same as if you had pissed me off in any other number of ways. I am guilty of assault. The intent is the same, however my motivation for the crime is different. The reason I was willing to bring about such outcome should not be taken into account because I already knew that beating you up was illegal.

    3. Re:The same thing is true of race, etc.. FTW by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      By kicking your ass because you're a homosexual, I intended to kick you ass just the same as if you had pissed me off in any other number of ways.

      Orly? What number of ways? If they are ways that are unrelated to the individual and their actions, like being gay is, then what the fuck are you on about? It's not the same, one is an individual instance of shit happening, the other is something that's likely to happen again, since the individual doesn't matter, but the prejudice does, or let's call it the agenda of the hater... When you said "if you had pissed me off" that was bullshit pure and simple: try "if *I* had pissed off *myself*, using you as a scapegoat". And that's the point. It's unrelated to the victims, it's all about the sickness of the perpetrator, and I can see why dealing with that harshly is preferable. It's not about justice, it's about sending a very clear signal even a dumb person who only speaks violence understands: "cut that right out". It's not like homosexuals haven't been murdered enough, or aren't still being murdered in wide parts of the world, or "just" treated as less than human by many -- and you don't get progress by making a friendly suggestion, or by explaining how the world works, not with the crowd this stuff is aimed at.

      The reason I was willing to bring about such outcome should not be taken into account

      Why? Because you say so?

    4. Re:The same thing is true of race, etc.. FTW by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      It should not be taken into account because punishing me for what I am likely to do in the future goes against western justice ideals. For that very reasoning, hate crime laws are flawed. I don't care about the homosexuals in this way because they deserve the same treatment and protection under the law. Special punishment for their aggressors is unjust.

  53. That's impossible to fathom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes no sense cannot be understood.

    The state exists to impose consequences that have been decided by your fellow human beings. What would be the point of it otherwise?

  54. Re:Hate Crime Or Stupidity? by DamonHD · · Score: 1

    No, being gay is no more a "choice" than being black or female or having legs.

    The problem is the widespread tolerance for various forms of smug in-group bigotry, and that making someone's like is unpleasant is just fine and dandy because they are in a minority, *just because* they are in a minority.

    People are driven to despair because of the in-group's relentless nasty attitude to them being a geek or having the wrong accent or living on the wrong side of the tracks or being foreign or female or poor or adopted or so many things....

    Hate crimes are about attempting to stop bigotry and prejudice whether malicious, or unthinking and generally stupid as this looks to me have been. It can be intolerable to be the butt of everyone's disapproval and the reason for others behaving towards you as they do is not necessarily apparent or important.

    If you've always gone with the flow and been a fashionable well-off white middle-class male, and possibly supine and unoriginal, then you may never have been on the wrong side of "punished for being different". But that doesn't make your ignorance or smugness right, IMHO. Nor does it give you any legal rights to set out to intimidate and hurt others.

    In fact, starting from the good US meme of "not truly succeeding until you've failed at least once" I'll suggest that you're not a real rounded human until you have found yourself on the wrong side of one of these idiocies for being different somehow, and overcome it.

    Too bad one student seems to have been driven to his death rather than overcome it.

    Rgds

    Damon

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  55. Comparing KKK to being gay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we can simply dispense with your insane viewpoints.

  56. Rutgers suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm extremely distressed to hear of a suicide in the Rutgers fraternity.
    This represents a huge increase from the no suicide ever here in the United States.
    I demand that we repatriate our Foxconn oversight delegation from Shenzhen, because we have a far greater suicide rate increase problem right here at home to investigate. Lest we become complacent and suffer for our lack of vision.

  57. Bad manners is NOT a "hate crime" by msobkow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is ZERO evidence that this kid had a general hatred of gays, persecuted gays, or otherwise was involved with "hate" speech of any kind.

    As much as it will piss off the gay community, it IS legal to hate your roommate and to try to embarrass them.

    The end result was sad and deplorable, but it's not the result of a "hate crime."

    Had the roommate been some guy screwing around with this fellow's ex-girlfriend, and had he even posted videos of them on the internet, no one would be calling it a "hate crime."

    The gay community needs to get over themselves. I'm starting to hate the gay community not because they're gay, but because they slam out stupid lawsuits like this that try to paint EVERYTHING as "hate crimes" when they're not. The gay community wanted us out of their bedrooms. Fine. They got their way. Now get the hell out of our court rooms.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Bad manners is NOT a "hate crime" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah cuz the gay community is a single entity with fixed and unitary ideals and thoughts and the blacks why can't they just get over slavery already.

      Seriously, you're a bigot.

    2. Re:Bad manners is NOT a "hate crime" by westlake · · Score: 1

      As much as it will piss off the gay community, it IS legal to hate your roommate and to try to embarrass them.

      Hate is an emotion.

      Public exposure or harassment of another's sexual behavior is an action.

      Why the geek would think that such an action is or should be legally protected is as clear as mud to me,

    3. Re:Bad manners is NOT a "hate crime" by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      Mr. -------,

      Your preceding post has been identified as a Category Two Thought Crime. Please report to the Saskatchewan Education Center for your completely volunatary re-education program, completely paid for by Brother Joe.

    4. Re:Bad manners is NOT a "hate crime" by euroq · · Score: 3, Informative

      The gay community needs to get over themselves. I'm starting to hate the gay community not because they're gay, but because they slam out stupid lawsuits like this that try to paint EVERYTHING as "hate crimes" when they're not. The gay community wanted us out of their bedrooms. Fine. They got their way. Now get the hell out of our court rooms.

      This is about as ignorant as saying "the gay community has an agenda to do ". I'm a gay man and, I was not invited to the committee which decided what the prosecutor was going to charge Ravi for. I've never written any legislation which created the idea of a "hate crime" in the first place. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there was no mob of gay people at the court house unilaterally deciding the charges brought against Ravi and "slamming lawsuits" against Ravi.

      Don't blame the gays, asshole. Blame the prosecutor.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    5. Re:Bad manners is NOT a "hate crime" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I have to say a few things about this.

      1) The gay guy elected to kill himself, no one forced him to do it, and not being able to cope and blaming someone else is just a cop out. Otherwise, any time someone says or does something to someone else that isn't violence but they kill themselves, someone's going to end up being charged with a crime.

      2) Maybe, just maybe, this will be a wakeup call to universities to knock it off with the forced diversity stuff. Disallow racism, sure. Gay is not and never will be a race. So, if someone's roommate is gay, the other person is forced to share that room as their home. Maybe, just maybe, the universities should honor the roommate change requests from straight people who don't want to live with a gay person.

      3) Otherwise, expect something like this can and will happen again. Hate crime charges or no hate crime charges (And since when did embarassing someone for an act they were caught doing in theirs and someone else's home become a crime?)

    6. Re:Bad manners is NOT a "hate crime" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gay community needs to get over themselves. I'm starting to hate the gay community not because they're gay, but because they slam out stupid lawsuits like this that try to paint EVERYTHING as "hate crimes" when they're not. The gay community wanted us out of their bedrooms. Fine. They got their way. Now get the hell out of our court rooms.

      Gay people deserve no less rights than white people, black people, or any other demographic group in your nation. Until legislation reflects true equality, I for one hope that gay people stay in the courtrooms. Hate crime legislation is effective in Canada in protecting minority groups--I'm not sure why it wouldn't be equally effective in the US.

    7. Re:Bad manners is NOT a "hate crime" by pseudofrog · · Score: 1

      The gay community needs to get over themselves. I'm starting to hate the gay community not because they're gay, but because they slam out stupid lawsuits like this that try to paint EVERYTHING as "hate crimes" when they're not.

      The prosecutor, whose sexual orientation I don't know, is the one pressing charges. With that in mind, can you point to one case the "gay community" (whatever that is) is bringing you don't like? It should be easy since there are so many of these lawsuits it's actually making you hate gay people.

    8. Re:Bad manners is NOT a "hate crime" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I thought you gay guys liked assholes?

    9. Re:Bad manners is NOT a "hate crime" by jbolden · · Score: 1

      There are people who are doing life for scaring people to the extent they killed themselves. For example Bryant Jerome Clark was robbing Hilda Blackburn her fiance intervened with a gun and was a lousy shot and hit Hilda. Clark got charged with felony murder.

  58. Plea Bargain - Missed Chance? by yams · · Score: 1

    I think the biggest problem here is Dharun's refusal to accept a plea bargain:

    A second offer was made in December: no jail time, an effort to protect him against deportation, and six hundred hours of community service.

    It seems like a reasonable compromise. I wonder why he turned it down.

    1. Re:Plea Bargain - Missed Chance? by euroq · · Score: 1

      It seems like a reasonable compromise. I wonder why he turned it down.

      Probably because he doesn't feel that he should serve 3-5 years for the things that he did. Nor do I, and I'm not in any way saying he's innocent. And I'm gay. But I hate an overzealous justice system that spends our taxpayer money to put young men (barely not a child) in an expensive prison for so many years for the stupid shit that kids do. No, it's not okay for him to do the things he did. No, he shouldn't go unpunished. It was fucking awful that the poor young man committed suicide. Fucking awful, and I can imagine how much the family of the man and so many other people want Ravi to be punished harshly. But a justice system that puts a young man (almost a child) in jail for 5 years (oh and now it may be 10) for a spycam, and lets murderers go free after a few years on probation, is fucked up.

      Once again, I am in no way approving Ravi's actions. He was wrong, and should be punished. But it is unjust that he should be put in jail for 3-5 years, and especially not 10 years, for what he did.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    2. Re:Plea Bargain - Missed Chance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the plea bargain was for no jail time - that's what the article says.

    3. Re:Plea Bargain - Missed Chance? by tyrus568 · · Score: 1

      I agree, it is fucked up. I haven't looked at the case at all, but I also don't think it was intended as a hate crime and I don't think that charge will stick. I imagine, though, that for the privacy violation he would get a slap on the wrist and that's all. I'm not sure how I feel about that (for example, say he got 60 days probation with no jail time or fine. Is that excessive? I don't know, and, like most court cases, no one but the jury will ever know all the details (and they probably won't know about the suicide until the trial is over). I'm gay, too, by the way.

    4. Re:Plea Bargain - Missed Chance? by euroq · · Score: 1

      Oh I see, there were two plea bargains. The first was for 3-5 years, the second one was with no jail time.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  59. Re:Not Proven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Scotland we have three possible judgements - Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven.

    The latter can basically be interpreted as "Not guilty - and don't let us catch you at it again!"

    "We know damn well you did it, but we can't prove it", seems to be the interpretation most folk I knew in Scotland put on it.

  60. Does not bode well for nannycams by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    Okay, so from what I gather from TFA, it seems Mr. Ravi did the digital equivalent of "walking in" on his roommate. You know, the occurrence that happens so often in meatspace that it's a common TV trope for comedic effect. If he had a "whoops, forgot my wallet!" moment, it would've been roughly the same breach of privacy. It's just not a good idea to do a Russian Unicorn while your roommate is out, hiking or otherwise. And while it seems no recording or posting to the internet took place, roommates do "walk in" with a camcorder (or cell phone in video mode) from time to time, just look on YouTube. I'm sorry, but when two people have the key to the same place, you have no expectation of absolute privacy.

    More importantly, what is wrong with setting up a video camera to monitor where you're living? Maybe you think your nanny might be locking your kid(s) in their room and using your place for a casual encounter. Oh right, that happened in a movie too. Perhaps Mr. Ravi thought his roommate's fling might make off with some of his stuff, or maybe he wanted to make sure the guy wasn't bringing illegal drugs. Point being, there's plenty of good reason to want to know what's going on where you live, while you're not there.

    As far as I'm concerned, this story could read exactly the same way if the roommate were straight. Plenty of gays get inadvertently outed or walked in on in college and don't need an exit bag as a result. Mr. Ravi should not suffer because his roommate likely had severe unaddressed psychological issues.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  61. Re:News For Nerds by MisterSquid · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you should lobby for an expansion of hate crimes laws, so that they cover "nerds" as well.

    This is the best suggestion you've had this entire thread. The answer is not to ease punishment for hate crimes but to legally recognize all groups who are persecuted for simply being.

    --
    blog
  62. Re:News For Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, you could just pass a law that says "we won't tolerate bullying" instead of having to qualify it with "we won't tolerate bullying of $FAVORED_GROUP."

  63. I'm not sure where you live by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    But, as someone raised by an out-of-the-closet lesbian, I can assure you that being outed as gay has some pretty severe consequences in many parts of this country. The one year I attended a public school in Kentucky, as one example, I faced very real threats of violence because my mother was gay even though I myself am straight.

    Granted, in some parts of the country, this has ceased to be an issue. In fact, some of my daughters' friends at school think it's `cool' to be gay. At one school attended by my eldest daughter, you might say that being bisexual was the new black.

    But in a world where two thirds of the voting public in Ohio pass a state constitutional amendment banning not only gay marriage but also recognition of same sex civil unions, I can assure you that there are still many places in the US where being outed has very real, very significant, and oftentimes very brutal consequences.

  64. You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putting aside the question of whether this was intended as bullying or a hate crime whatever...
    Regardles of motivation, it's still a crime to install a camera in somebody's place wihout permission. If the victim was female, you wouldn't see a lot of people defending the bastard.

    1. Re:You know... by euroq · · Score: 1

      Regardles of motivation, it's still a crime to install a camera in somebody's place wihout permission. If the victim was female, you wouldn't see a lot of people defending the bastard.

      Well, I don't think that's the controversy here. I think it's agreed it's a crime and the acts were wrong; what isn't agreed is the extremeness of the punishment, and the culpability of the defendant's responsibility of the victim's suicide. If the victim were a female, you wouldn't see charges brought against the teenager for 10 years in jail.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  65. One less idiot on earth. That is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The gay guy had no reason to commit suicide.
    His reaction was that of a childish gutless idiot.

    If public knowledge of a personal choice will lead
    to such an extreme reaction on the part of the person
    who is "outed", then the person should have thought
    about all that before he decided to have a sex life which
    involved such activity.

    Sure, it was tasteless and wrong for his room mate to video
    him. but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that the guy
    killed himself, and trying to pin even a slight amount of blame
    for the suicide on the guy who killed himself is pure BULLSHIT.

    Sorry, but that's the truth and if you don't like it maybe
    you should consider growing a pair of balls.

    1. Re:One less idiot on earth. That is good. by euroq · · Score: 1

      If public knowledge of a personal choice will lead to such an extreme reaction on the part of the person who is "outed", then the person should have thought about all that before he decided to have a sex life which involved such activity.

      OK, so all I have to do to prevent you from preaching Christianity in your own personal time is for me and my friends to have an extreme reaction. That way, when we have an extreme reaction to your silly Christianity you will realize you should have thought about the fact that we didn't like it before deciding to do such things in your personal time.

      Sure, it was tasteless and wrong for his room mate to video him. but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that the guy killed himself,

      Ummmm... apparently it does, because it was why he killed himself. (Regardless of whether one thinks he should of, or the defendant should be charged with a crime, it does relate)

      Sorry, but that's the truth and if you don't like it maybe you should consider growing a pair of balls.

      I've got a nice big, hefty pair of balls, and I don't post anonymously.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  66. Re:Fine line... An examination of online culture.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The suicide note that the police have not shown to the parents probably shows Tyler Clementi blaming his mother. She hasn't been open about the conversations she's had with him. He talked of being rejected by her. She seems to loathe her gay sons.

    He showed her around the bridges. He committed suicide for her.

  67. Re:Fine line... An examination of online culture.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things were different when I was in college - there wasn't any Internet, and the object of such pranks had the possibility of moving elsewhere and starting over with their life. Not so much so now...

  68. Bah, privacy rights and all that stuff aside.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome any reason to send another dothead back to their curry stained shit hole continent.

  69. Of course it's a hate crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dharun and that girl who engineered this whole thing got a huge kick out of exposing the gay guy. It was his potential misery that fueled it. Have you heard the testimony about how they discussed their plans? They were hungry for this guy's pain. They are sociopaths, plain and simple.

    Quite frankly nobody would go to this much trouble to do something that screwed up unless they really had it out for somebody. Dharun and that girl are homophobes and freaks. Nobody wants to destroy somebody's life "for kicks" unless they have a number of screws loose.

    At the very least, you can say they have absolutely no sense of morality. I can't imagine what kind of parents or caretakers they might make in the future.

  70. Re:News For Nerds by ThorGod · · Score: 1

    I was bullied, too. I'm still 100% against political correctness and am for freedom of speech.

    This is the furthest thing from simple political incorrectness/speech.

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
  71. MOD PARENT UP! by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    I agree with the above. I read the article a few weeks ago and it was enlightening, if for nothing else then to see how social interactions have changed SO dramatically in just 10 or 20 years!

    These two kids lived in the same dorm room for weeks. They had more interactions online, than face to face, despite both of them living in the same room! wow... They also went to great extents not to hide their privacy in any way. Especially tyler who had the same email address/handle for every single site he visited.

    Kids today!

    --
    -
  72. not sure the qualifier makes it ok by superwiz · · Score: 1

    This kind of puts the cart before the horse. It should be a crime before it can be a hate crime. I don't see how a motivation can make an act which is legal into an act which is illegal. Motivation can be considered as an aggravating factor in committing a crime, but the act has to be a crime to begin with. If all the guy did was post a video which he himself recorded while on his property, I don't see how that's illegal. The person who was videotaped was not a minor. Can it really be illegal to record persons in ones own domicile? And certainly if the recording wasn't illegal, then posting it wasn't illegal. So what's the crime? He was an ass? That's not in itself illegal. Nor should it be.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  73. Cyber-bullying by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    The timing coincided with highly-publicized teen suicides and increased focus on (cyber) bullying.

    Cyber-bullying is blown way out of proportion. People lived just fine without Facebook and Twitter accounts. We're not talking kerosene lamps and butter churns here - it really wasn't that long ago. The whole aspect of why it sucks to be bullied is not being able to escape the situation. When you're a kid going to public school and there's a handful of jerks who tease you every day - yeah, it wears on you and it's frustrating when the teachers/staff ignore the problem (or worse, blame you).

    We really don't need more laws treating cyber-bullying as some special problem. If you're an unpopular person and being teased really bothers you, learn to use the privacy features or stay off the social networking sites. Hell, your life might even turn out the better for it.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  74. Re:irony by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

    irony? that's not irony, that's just you not knowing what irony is.

  75. Re:No rule of law in New Jersey by Johann+Lau · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Still though, Clementi obviously believed that what he was doing was shameful and wrong, and he killed himself for it. If anybody "shares blame" for Clementi's suicide, it's the "gay rights" advocates.

    Bullshit. Moron. NEXT.

  76. Re:Of course by dlp211 · · Score: 1
    It depends. Did he walk in for the sole purpose to spy on his roommate? If the answer is no, then no, if the answer is yes, then yes.

    Equating walking in and deliberately using equipment in the room to spy on your roommate is just a terrible analogy. A more analogous analogy would be "peering through the window".

    In the latter instance, the roommates privacy is being violated without him having any knowledge of the incident. In the 'walk in' scenario the roommate is aware and has been precluded to his entrance, even if just briefly.

  77. Re:Hate crimes.../ minority? by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    MINORITY?!?!?!?!?! WTF?!

  78. Club Gitmo Vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Castrate Ravi and then send him to Club Gitmo as a terrorist that way not trial is even required and his incarceration can be forever without any right to appeal. He may have been stupid but stupidity has consequences. Ravi is hereby ordered detained under the NDAA and related laws pursuant to the War on Terror(ism). Case closed. Time to get to the chicken BBQ before the noon sun peaks.

  79. Re:Cyberbullying is not OK. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    When you target someone with the intention of causing them harm, and, while committing that pre-meditated harm, they die (the method of death does not matter), you just committed murder-one. This has been held to be the case if you loan a car to someone who robs a store and an elderly patron has a heart attack at the robbery, the owner of the can can and will be found guilty of murder (that's not one that's happened yet, but an "innocent" car owner was charged with and convicted of robbery for loaning their car to someone who used if for that, and the rest of the chain has happened more than once).

  80. Re:Of course by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

    No.

    And before you ask, neither would have been stacking three crates of melons on a motorbike, or whatever unrelated bullshit you might come up with next.

  81. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  82. Re:Fine line... An examination of online culture.. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    But as the New Yorker article referenced, there was "no posting, no observed sex, and no closet."

    Are you saying (or they saying) that the make-out session wasn't posted/streamed online?

  83. Re:Fine line... An examination of online culture.. by ewwhite · · Score: 1

    That is correct. It was not streamed publicly, recorded or posted anywhere. It'd be a different story if it ended up on YouTube... But nothing was recorded.

    --
    Edmund White
    http://flickr.com/ewwhite
  84. Re:irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ironic, isn't it?

  85. I once had a roommate who... by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    I once had a roommate - a guy - who would bring women back to the dorm room for sex. WHILE I was sleeping in the bed across the room, 10 feet away. I'd wake up from the door opening, normally fall back asleep, but the female voices and the quiet moaning would keep me awake. Now, this happened multiple times. I'd have exams the next day, or whatever - I needed the sleep. One day, after several of these trysts, I woke up in the midst of their flagrante delicto and let them know that the party was over. The roommate was pissed at ME because I... I don't know... something like I "pretended to be asleep." Idiot. He was a tall handsome blond guy whose ass most people kissed, and as a result, quite narcissistic.

    Anyway, I don't know the intimate details of this story, but if someone were not infrequently keeping me out of my dorm room with hookups, I'd be pretty effing pissed. However, I'd probably talk to the roommate about it, not set up a video camera and threaten to distribute / actually distribute the video.

    A data point.

    1. Re:I once had a roommate who... by euroq · · Score: 1

      An annoying roommate you had... but this anecdote doesn't really relate to the story. The defendant, Ravi, was never kept out of the room and was never in the same room while his roommate was hooking up.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  86. Re:Fine line... An examination of online culture.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole roommates in college idea is just odd. Replace the shared room with two broom closets with beds in, and each individual can do as he pleases within the confines of his own closet (as long as he's not too loud).

  87. Hate or moronic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say it was manslaughter .

  88. Re:Where is the evidence of hate-based intimindati by Mitreya · · Score: 1

    Also he asked fora new roommate cuz he didnt wanna room with a gay

    You say that like it's a bad thing (well, he should have asked to move out himself, of course). If one is uncomfortable with a gay roommate they should part ways rather than power through. You should respect other people (their preferences, etc), but you certainly don't have to be comfortable living with them.
    You know that you are allowed to discriminate by gender when searching for roommates (e.g., sharing common bathroom/kitchen/etc.) on craigslist? I assume that is similar.

  89. NJ is a country now? by l00sr · · Score: 1

    You know what this was? This was kid who grew up in a country where being gay is illegal, who found himself living with a gay roommate, was really threatened/offended/bigoted, and decided to "out" the kid to get rid of him. Just spend a few minutes with Google - India's views on homosexuality are amongst the most hostile on the planet.

    This is wrong in several ways. First, New Jersey is not a country. Second, being gay is not technically illegal in NJ, believe it or not. Seriously, did you not read the first 10 words of the article? i.e.:

    Dharun Ravi grew up in Plainsboro, New Jersey, in a large, modern house with wide expanses of wood flooring and a swimming pool out back.

  90. Re:No rule of law in New Jersey by euroq · · Score: 1

    This is, of course, a show trial put on by the Gay Mafia.

    OMG, I'm gay! How can I join?

    Given that the two had no information as to Clementi's psychological instability, there's no way that Ravi and Wei could have reasonably believed that this prank might drive Clementi to kill himself, and therefore, to say that Clementi's suicide was an intended result is preposterous.

    Nobody said it was the intended result. He's not charged in any way with his suicide... in fact if the prosecution mentions it, it will likely be a mistrial.

    If anybody "shares blame" for Clementi's suicide, it's the "gay rights" advocates.

    OMG! I feel so bad now.

    The prosecutors (persecutors) in this case need to be shot to death. For allowing the case to go forward, the judge also needs to be killed.

    Oh awesome! Don't you wish we live din North Korea or Iran, where they'd actually do that! I wish I could kill everyone who I disagreed with, boy wouldn't that be a wonderful world! And the best part is, I can see how you live in Christ's love and live the life of a Christian for saying those words. God loves you, and wishes He could kill those damn prosecutors and judge!

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  91. Re:Hate Crime Or Stupidity? by euroq · · Score: 1

    particularly if based on some generally deplorable choice they have made in their lives.

    Regardless of the other things you mentioned, it's no longer a majority that believes being gay is wrong in America. So it is a minority deplorable "choice" now.

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  92. What was in the Suicide Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. No one involved in the trial knows what was in Tyler's handwritten note. 2. No one knows what Tyler talked about with his mom during his last phone call.

    1. Re:What was in the Suicide Note by ewwhite · · Score: 1

      That's what I'd be very interested to see.

      --
      Edmund White
      http://flickr.com/ewwhite
  93. Re:Cyberbullying is not OK. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

    This has been held to be the case if you loan a car to someone who robs a store and an elderly patron has a heart attack at the robbery, the owner of the can can and will be found guilty of murder (that's not one that's happened yet, but an "innocent" car owner was charged with and convicted of robbery for loaning their car to someone who used if for that, and the rest of the chain has happened more than once).

    Well, I disagree with that.

  94. Re:News For Nerds by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

    This is the furthest thing from simple political incorrectness/speech.

    Right. It's just blaming someone for someone else's suicide.

  95. Re: Make Him an Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I try to catch a girlfriend cheating on me and post the video all over the place to show what a slut she is, it's stupid, it's childish, and it's selfish.

    If you are dumb enough to do this, then you have done it in a hateful way. I never known someone to do something against someone else without some type of payback being behind it, payback, and anger, words associated with ""hate"". This was a bad example you have set forth..

    However you made the point of Ravi's not being hateful of gays.. I have not heard the facts from the case, but for some reason he thought it would be funny to do humiliate his roommate. He should be facing charges for this, it should be an example to other teens out there who go to far, it should become a slap in face, and make them think twice before they do stupid shit like this.

    Whats even more stupid is it took the dude to commit suicide before anyone bothered to bring this kind of over the top behavior to the courts. Yes he is a teen and yes teens fuck up, or do stupid shit, and even more so when it comes to colleges and there idiot pranks, but Ravi's had to be aware that his roommate did not want to have it publicly known he was gay. It is pretty obvious he was trying to hide his sexual preference..

  96. Re:Where is the evidence of hate-based intimindati by Squiddie · · Score: 1

    He hasn't heard about it because what you say didn't happen.

  97. Re:Fine line... An examination of online culture.. by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    so basically the behavior was par for the course (at least in this day and age, for better or for worse). From your description it sounded like Tyler also communicated badly.
    Thus, Dharun shouldn't get any special punishment?

    I went to a university in my hometown, so I didn't move out, so I can't speak on those social politics.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  98. sodomy is a hobby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not a lifestyle

  99. Re:Hate Crime Or Stupidity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While child molesters generally get tarred and feathered, your post is ironic in that pedophiles are treated the same as child molesters, when they've done nothing wrong and didn't choose to be attracted to children. The majority of them will never have abused a child in their lives, just as the majority of straight adults aren't rapists, either. Yet pedophiles are the bottom of the totem pole, as you mention, and everybody can feel justified in hating every single one of them.

  100. His Own Room by glorybe · · Score: 1

    This young man only filmed what was going on in his own room. I doubt that there was malicious intent but even if there were malicious intentions the act of suicide is 100% upon the person who kills himself. I see no crime at all in this. We take all people as being the same and the fact that someone is unusually fragile or under social pressure does not go back to a party that simply activates and already broken person. The gay guy could as easily have been proud and boastful about being gay as humiliated or embarrassed. These days it is like if you win a tennis match and the other player can't handle the loss and kills himself it is somehow your fault for winning the game. It just makes no sense at all.

    1. Re:His Own Room by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      He asked for the room for the evening, and Ravi agreed, establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy.

  101. No mercy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Defense lawyers on Friday argued that Ravi's actions were the mark of an ignorant teenager, not a hateful homophobe.

    Homophobia, and more broadly, hate, are both marks of ignorance. His age is not relevant. He was 18 when he did it. Lock him up and throw away the key. Case closed, nothing to see here, move along. Save your bleeding heart for someone who deserves it.

  102. Re:Fine line... An examination of online culture.. by ewwhite · · Score: 1

    This shouldn't have needed to go beyond university punishment. The university housing should have handled this. Unfortunately, this blew up because he left too big of an online trail.

    --
    Edmund White
    http://flickr.com/ewwhite
  103. Re:Where is the evidence of hate-based intimindati by anonymousNR · · Score: 1

    Didn't we learn from Law and Order, this is typical of a Judge with a political view/Agenda and the DA making the defendant sweat.

    --
    -- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
  104. Re:No rule of law in New Jersey by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

    The Gay Mafia?

    really? Are you THAT retarded?

    Oh wait, misunderstanding of Sodom and the story it teaches (hints, its not about buggery, no matter what your sunday school taught you) kind of gives that away.

  105. Re:News For Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, more like 'News for Fagets'.

  106. Re:Cyberbullying is not OK. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The point is that when something like that happens, people "disagree" but don't complain/petition. But if it's about gays or atheists or some other allowably hated minority, and people complain quite loudly, and petitions and such do get formed.

  107. Re:Hate Crime Or Stupidity? by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

    As long as you dont Act out your bigotry. Leave it to your own house, mkay?

  108. Re:No rule of law in New Jersey by euroq · · Score: 1

    Idiot. We aren't talking about mere disagreement. We're talking about agents of the State committing violence against someone for the "crime" of turning on a webcam.

    No, we aren't talking about any agent of the State committing violence by the act of a court prosecution. If that's the case then every court case is an agent of the State committing violence.

    And if you didn't catch the irony, the judge and prosecutor shouldn't be killed even if they are wrong. And the "crime" wasn't a "crime" in quotes, it was an actual crime of which most everyone here seems to agree with. They don't agree with the degree of punishment nor the bias intimidation accusation (and neither do I), but they tend to agree that Ravi did indeed commit a crime by turning on the webcam and publishing another citizen's private, intimate moments.

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  109. Oh god that Win7 ad :-( by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    That ad is just so damn depressing :-(

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel