What society thinks is irrelevant. By your definitions, interracial marriage, gay marriage, and intra-ratial marriage are all different things because society sees them differently. A crime is a crime. What society thinks in terms of opinions on how much worse things are if a person involved is from $GROUP[1] does should not matter.
But fine, let's have it your way. A white person killing a black person for being black is a hate crime. But a black person killing a black person can never be. Congratuations: It's now "more ok" (less punishment means it's not as bad) to kill someone within your own race. Hell, it's almost like the law encourages black people to shoot each other instead of whit epeople.
That is not equal protection under the law. That is giving additional protection to some, but not all, people.
if 2 gay roommates recorded a 3rd straight roomate's sex, it would be a violation of privacy worthy of 3 days in jail. But if that straight roommate they taped was raised by gay parents who wanted the straight kid to be gay (for some odd reason), and disowned them for being straight (for some odd reason), would the taping then be "heterophobic"?
If A->B gives extra protection to B that is not similarly granted to A when B->A, then it is unfair.
So in essence, we do not receive equal protection from the law if our own race/demographic kills us. And we receive greater protection from the law if a different race/demographic kills us. No, sir, I don't like it.
I do get that. But if it's a sentencing enhancement to do something to somebody because they are gay, then those of us who are not gay do not receive equal protection under the law because, in the same situation, the punishment would be less. If you are victimized because you are a minority, you receive equal protection under the law. That's about as "fair" as affirmative action. It's taking race (or sexual preference) and unnecessarily putting it into equations. A white can kill a white: 10 years. A white kill a black for race reasons? 20 years with hate crime enhancement. In that scenario, a black person gets less protection from other black people than from white people. If a black person is killed by another black person, it's not a hate crime, so the potential sentence is lower. It's basically "less illegal" to kill someone of your own race. That's fucked up. Race should not even be in the equation. If something is bad, it's bad no matter who it's done to. Singling someone out for who they are is shitty, but the crime is still the same crime. If I attack someone for having a shirt of the "wrong" political party, is that somehow better than attacking them for being the "wrong" color or loving the "wrong" person?
Yes, but should intent to humiliate a gay person be viewed as worse than intent to humiliate a straight person? If so, the straight person is not receiving equal protection under the law. Granted, they don't need such protection as much, but I don't find that a valid enough reason to take it away.
As for privacy, i don't think you have privacy *from a roommate*. Example, I can't photograph someone in their house becuase that is a violation of privacy law. But the second you step in public view, I can photograph you all I want. You lose the right to privacy. If we had a right to privacy from our roommates, that would mean it would be illegal for them to photograph you without their permission. I've not heard of such legality ever being used, but the second a roommate gets pissy at someone taking a picture, goes to court, and loses, is the second filming your roommate in any capacity basically becomes a different kind of violation. You either have privacy or you don't. You don't get penis-privacy-but-not-face-privacy. At least, that's not how I understand things to work.
So transmit in your context can mean "transmit to yourself"? Hmm. To me, you can't transmit something from your own computer to yourself, or transmit something from your webcam to your computer. To me, transmit implies... transmitting the data to a 3rd party/public access.
Okay fine, that's a hair to split. It's not thoughtcrime. It's a thoughtcrime enhancement: The exact same physical act changes in legal definition and punishment amount depending on one's thoughts.
So now we are required to lie to protect other people from society? I can understand if you're a Jew in Nazi Germany, but beyond that, we all have enough freedom to have alternatives to.. death.
So saying something isn't homophobic, but saying something after taping something is? If there was a dorm that had 90% gay people there, and they recorded a straight couple having sex, then laughed about it, would that be heterophobic?
...And a great deal of us grown-ups think that is bullshit. What you are basically saying is that if you can think of a better reason to assault someone, that your punishment should be less. Either it's legal or it's not. There shouldn't be "more legal assault".
Those people weren't committing voluntary suicide, they were jumping out of flames. Completely involuntary. Not only is it dishonest to compare the two, but way to make light of their decision, as if they had some kind of choice. But anyway: Apples and oranges. This guy did not have no choice. In fact, the school offered to change roommates for him twice, and he declined. In no way is it like jumping away from a flame into a deathly fall.
The crux in a case there there would probably be if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy from a roommate who shares the same room. I think a roommate can't prevent you from photographing them -- so setting up a camera would be fine by that. Plus there's the whole intent thing. I think his intent was to see if it was true, not to capture an image. He looked away as soon as he saw it was true. Also, the statute says record, and nothing I've read said anything was recorded. So it's a weak case full of holes.
So now one's actions is measured by how the parents of someone else reacts, something a person can't possibly know. Great. Also, nice for you to morph it into also having a video be sent. You added that to make the comparison dishonest.
Also, the fact that you can't speak to someone with a different opinion without trying to color them as a Republican (hah! Obama is too conservative for me!)) speaks volumes on your ability to discuss a topic.
So if we as a society agree that interracial marriage makes us react negatively, then that's it. It should be illegal.
Sorry, your logic isn't a tautology. You need to find a more convincing argument than "a mob told me so".
And no, society doesn't agree I was wrong, because he was not charged with or convicted of a hate crime. 30 days is nothing. Heat of the crime trigger pull between 2 lovers gets way longer (3 yrs for pulling the trigger in an "i dare you" situation where the gun was thought to be unloaded). I know because this happened to someone I know.
Right. Now if, say, she tweeted something like, "Not gonna sleep with a straight guy in my room! gotta watch my vag!", and I then felt very embarassed becuase my friends saw this, and killed myself: Is she now guilty for my death, because I had a thin skin?
Slashdot Mirror
But fine, let's have it your way. A white person killing a black person for being black is a hate crime. But a black person killing a black person can never be. Congratuations: It's now "more ok" (less punishment means it's not as bad) to kill someone within your own race. Hell, it's almost like the law encourages black people to shoot each other instead of whit epeople.
That is not equal protection under the law. That is giving additional protection to some, but not all, people.
if 2 gay roommates recorded a 3rd straight roomate's sex, it would be a violation of privacy worthy of 3 days in jail. But if that straight roommate they taped was raised by gay parents who wanted the straight kid to be gay (for some odd reason), and disowned them for being straight (for some odd reason), would the taping then be "heterophobic"?
If A->B gives extra protection to B that is not similarly granted to A when B->A, then it is unfair.
So in essence, we do not receive equal protection from the law if our own race/demographic kills us. And we receive greater protection from the law if a different race/demographic kills us. No, sir, I don't like it.
You're ignorant. Go learn.
typo, meant to say " If you are victimized because you are a minority, you receive ***GREATER*** protection under the law."
I do get that. But if it's a sentencing enhancement to do something to somebody because they are gay, then those of us who are not gay do not receive equal protection under the law because, in the same situation, the punishment would be less. If you are victimized because you are a minority, you receive equal protection under the law. That's about as "fair" as affirmative action. It's taking race (or sexual preference) and unnecessarily putting it into equations. A white can kill a white: 10 years. A white kill a black for race reasons? 20 years with hate crime enhancement. In that scenario, a black person gets less protection from other black people than from white people. If a black person is killed by another black person, it's not a hate crime, so the potential sentence is lower. It's basically "less illegal" to kill someone of your own race. That's fucked up. Race should not even be in the equation. If something is bad, it's bad no matter who it's done to. Singling someone out for who they are is shitty, but the crime is still the same crime. If I attack someone for having a shirt of the "wrong" political party, is that somehow better than attacking them for being the "wrong" color or loving the "wrong" person?
Yes, but should intent to humiliate a gay person be viewed as worse than intent to humiliate a straight person? If so, the straight person is not receiving equal protection under the law. Granted, they don't need such protection as much, but I don't find that a valid enough reason to take it away.
As for privacy, i don't think you have privacy *from a roommate*. Example, I can't photograph someone in their house becuase that is a violation of privacy law. But the second you step in public view, I can photograph you all I want. You lose the right to privacy. If we had a right to privacy from our roommates, that would mean it would be illegal for them to photograph you without their permission. I've not heard of such legality ever being used, but the second a roommate gets pissy at someone taking a picture, goes to court, and loses, is the second filming your roommate in any capacity basically becomes a different kind of violation. You either have privacy or you don't. You don't get penis-privacy-but-not-face-privacy. At least, that's not how I understand things to work.
So transmit in your context can mean "transmit to yourself"? Hmm. To me, you can't transmit something from your own computer to yourself, or transmit something from your webcam to your computer. To me, transmit implies ... transmitting the data to a 3rd party/public access.
Okay fine, that's a hair to split. It's not thoughtcrime. It's a thoughtcrime enhancement: The exact same physical act changes in legal definition and punishment amount depending on one's thoughts.
So now we are required to lie to protect other people from society? I can understand if you're a Jew in Nazi Germany, but beyond that, we all have enough freedom to have alternatives to.. death.
Seeing as nobody was actually shown any video, and no video was recorded, he could have easily simply denied the allegations.
So saying something isn't homophobic, but saying something after taping something is? If there was a dorm that had 90% gay people there, and they recorded a straight couple having sex, then laughed about it, would that be heterophobic?
wut
None of those things have anything to do with the act of filming.
...And a great deal of us grown-ups think that is bullshit. What you are basically saying is that if you can think of a better reason to assault someone, that your punishment should be less. Either it's legal or it's not. There shouldn't be "more legal assault".
Those people weren't committing voluntary suicide, they were jumping out of flames. Completely involuntary. Not only is it dishonest to compare the two, but way to make light of their decision, as if they had some kind of choice. But anyway: Apples and oranges. This guy did not have no choice. In fact, the school offered to change roommates for him twice, and he declined. In no way is it like jumping away from a flame into a deathly fall.
The crux in a case there there would probably be if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy from a roommate who shares the same room. I think a roommate can't prevent you from photographing them -- so setting up a camera would be fine by that. Plus there's the whole intent thing. I think his intent was to see if it was true, not to capture an image. He looked away as soon as he saw it was true. Also, the statute says record, and nothing I've read said anything was recorded. So it's a weak case full of holes.
Yes, just like that. (rolls eyes)
So now one's actions is measured by how the parents of someone else reacts, something a person can't possibly know. Great. Also, nice for you to morph it into also having a video be sent. You added that to make the comparison dishonest.
I get that, but that's basically thoughtcrime to me.
I actually don't think I'm in the minority. It's just that it's an unpopular opinion to express, so fewer express it. 30 days sounds right to me.
Also, the fact that you can't speak to someone with a different opinion without trying to color them as a Republican (hah! Obama is too conservative for me!)) speaks volumes on your ability to discuss a topic.
Sorry, your logic isn't a tautology. You need to find a more convincing argument than "a mob told me so".
And no, society doesn't agree I was wrong, because he was not charged with or convicted of a hate crime. 30 days is nothing. Heat of the crime trigger pull between 2 lovers gets way longer (3 yrs for pulling the trigger in an "i dare you" situation where the gun was thought to be unloaded). I know because this happened to someone I know.
I recall a lot of backlash on Slashdot when a Brit got a slander conviction for TRUTHFULLY outing someone. Where is it now?
Right. Now if, say, she tweeted something like, "Not gonna sleep with a straight guy in my room! gotta watch my vag!", and I then felt very embarassed becuase my friends saw this, and killed myself: Is she now guilty for my death, because I had a thin skin?