3 ms·

I once thought much as you do: Because the latter terrorizes the subgroup and gives social proof making it "more acceptable" to target that group for both crim

• Locke1689 15y ago
  gives social proof making it "more acceptable" to target that group for both crimes and less than crimes. I think you need data to support this assertion. Following the Skokie march was there more violence against Jews in Chicagoland? As far as terrorizing the subgroup, I guess that depends. As a Jew I don't feel terrorized by Neo-nazi mailing lists, despite many of them being public. Moreover, even if I felt uncomfortable, I don't believe that my feeling overrides their right to express themselves in methods which don't constitute harassment.
  • AkThhhpppt 15y ago
    Ever hear of the "Overton Window" concept? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window Demonizing an outgroup to turn them into acceptable targets is exactly what this law is to prevent (and there is something to prevent: see the British National Party).
  • gte910h 15y ago
    You're talking about different things: He's talking about sentence enhancements on already violent crimes. You're talking about something about talking. I find the British reaction to this tweet appaling, that they jailed the racist twit. I however fully support the lengthening of sentences when a subgroup bias is determined to be likely. While nothing easy popped up via a google search, here is another reason: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes_study.html http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes_study... Apparently, victims of bias based crimes have more trouble getting over the crimes as well (as they can't very well stop being that thing).
• lunarscape 15y ago
  >And I didn't realize it while I lived on that street what it was named for While I'm sure such cases do exist it also happens that Lynch is a very common Irish surname.