Ravenwood - 12/30/02 07:58 PM
Fox News reports on a host of new laws coming for 2003:
Out with soaring jury awards, mercury thermometers and youngsters motor-boating without training. In with insurance coverage for substance abuse treatment, donation limits for judges' election campaigns and devices that prevent drivers from starting their cars when they're drunk.I don't see very many promising changes coming. It looks like more of the same, and it makes me realize that the problem is the legislators.
Legislators seem to legislate for legislation's sake. That is, they don't feel like they're doing their job unless they're coming up with some new law to address some 'problem' some where. Were Amish buggies such a problem in Illinois that they felt the need to tax them? Should government committees be keeping databases on prescriptions drugs, looking for addicts and patterns of drug abuse? Tennessee thinks so. Should 'inciting others to commit a hate crime' be a crime, as it is in Illinois? That could have serious First Amendment conflicts.
Every year, legislators pass more and more laws, and every year we have the same old problems. Crime isn't going away, people still drive drunk, and the government seems to think that everything is bad for you, or at the very least 'causes cancer'.
It depresses me just thinking about the amount of government intervention in our lives. Look around your house, and try to find something that isn't taxed or regulated in some way by the government. It isn't easy. Sometimes I feel like I grew up in the wrong century.
I agree with your sentiment, but you are wrong on one point:
Should "inciting others to commit a hate crime" be a crime....?
Of course it should. The First Amendment does not protect incitement to commit crimes. While I don't accept the concept of "hate crimes" (they are just crimes, regardless of whether the perpetrator hated his victim), inciting someone to commit a crime should be a crime in itself. Talking someone into committing a murder, or talking a crowd into a riot, makes you a willing accomplice to the act. (I recognize that there are degrees of speech here: it's one thing to say, "America is lousy and we should revolt"; it's an entirely different thing to say, "Let's all get gasoline right now and go set fire to that building over there.")
Remember the old line about free speech not including shouting "fire" in a crowded movie house....
Posted by: Steve at December 31, 2002 2:39 PMI am inclined to disagree. If a kid goes into a convenience store and steals some candy, he should be the one punished, not the jerk of a 'friend' who double-dog dared him to do it.
However, this is altogether different than paying someone (or rewarding them) to commit a crime on your behalf. Then it becomes a contract, which is a crime. The difference is subtle, but it is there.
Posted by: Ravenwood at December 31, 2002 5:13 PMSteve, you are presenting a straw-man, and you are misrepresenting what I wrote.
First, I never said that the person who incites the crime should be punished while the perperator is not punished. Second, I never said that incitement to commit a particular crime is a more serious offense than the actual crime. Third, there is a big difference between "daring" someone to commit a crime and "incitement." You can dare someone to start rioting, but that's not incitement to riot.
My point remains: actual incitement -- inducement -- to commit a crime should also be criminal. Tell me how inciting a crowd to beat up some unsuspecting passer-by is protected under the First Amendment....
Posted by: Steve at January 1, 2003 7:37 PMI interpreted it to mean that certain speech or expression (like that of the KKK or Louis Farrakhan) that 'incited' violence could result in a conviction. I guess it depends on what the definition if 'incite' is.
The problem is that the government often changes those definitions to suit their needs.
Posted by: Ravenwood at January 1, 2003 8:43 PMThe problem is that the government often changes those definitions to suit their needs.
And to fit their predjudices. I can see the KKK gatting hammered by this, but not Farrakhan... for the simple reason of skin color.
Shortening the legislative session might help. "No man's life, lierty or property is safe while congress is in session".
So, lets give them less "session" with which to damage the country.
Posted by: Ryan Waxx at January 2, 2003 11:26 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
