tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19929098.post7203156312626454191..comments2024-03-23T08:54:02.530-07:00Comments on CRIME, GUNS, AND VIDEOTAPE: Bullying, Society, Law and the Thought PolicePaul Huebl Crimefile Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07841397705805774698noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19929098.post-2457087261459428162010-10-10T13:59:21.919-07:002010-10-10T13:59:21.919-07:00We have many thousands of laws too many now. The ...We have many thousands of laws too many now. The laws against threat, assault, battery and murder are adequate. <br /><br />Hate laws are simple feel good garbage for simple minds. <br /><br />We don't need more laws but it would help if we could keep bullies locked up for the real crimes they do.Paul Huebl Crimefile Newshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07841397705805774698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19929098.post-20988916690598369752010-10-10T13:20:16.013-07:002010-10-10T13:20:16.013-07:00Now the other myth that gets around is the idea th...Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you've got to change the heart and you can't change the heart through legislation. You can't legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion. Well, there's half-truth involved here. Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also. So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19929098.post-89775319847054397112010-10-03T19:36:31.701-07:002010-10-03T19:36:31.701-07:00Huebl, you could not resit taking a cheap shot at ...Huebl, you could not resit taking a cheap shot at Obama with this picture suggesting he's Gay.<br /><br />October 03, 2010 4:13 PM<br /><br /><br />surely you're not implying that obama is a cheap homo, are you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19929098.post-20620619538242892702010-10-03T16:13:01.639-07:002010-10-03T16:13:01.639-07:00Huebl, you could not resit taking a cheap shot at ...Huebl, you could not resit taking a cheap shot at Obama with this picture suggesting he's Gay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19929098.post-38730849679710155972010-10-03T15:59:34.970-07:002010-10-03T15:59:34.970-07:00Thoughtful piece, I always enjoy the posts on this...Thoughtful piece, I always enjoy the posts on this blog. It is too bad that for too many people, including those who make our laws, that there cannot be any rational discussion of sexual taboos and what related activities can and/or should constitute a violation of law.Ostrich Chaperonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04613038548427025797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19929098.post-31766784134893099802010-10-03T13:34:02.222-07:002010-10-03T13:34:02.222-07:00I always find you interesting. but here I must dis...I always find you interesting. but here I must disagree on your view of hate crimes. <br /><br />I have changed my mind on my view of hate crimes because of a couple of factors. <br /><br />1: The federal hate crimes law was created in 1964. State Laws where created long before then. Its not like there was a big backlash when the thing was passed to repeal the Federal Hate Crimes law. 2nd then it comes down to the classes of people in which you wish to protect.<br /><br />2: The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision on where the line is that separates Speech from Assault. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell <br /><br />I do believe that it is consistent with previous speech vs acts case law<br /><br />3: Courts have used previous statements in both the trial and Sentencing phase in criminal cases. I would not want to be at the other end of a DA rant because of my previous statements. Which does make me think about not saying certain things ie chilling my speech. <br /><br />I have not done enough research on this issue so i can't really say. I don't know what the test is that allows a statement in or out but it is probably not one in favor of a defendantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com