The United States has no hate speech laws, it is not a concept that exists in our laws. We have hate crime laws, doing physical damage to someone and defacing property are not speech. While hate crime laws are stupid they are not hate speech laws.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
They don't call it hate speech crime here it's ethnic intimidation, depending upon the severity it can just consist of words. I guess it's a mixed bag. A crime can become a hate crime by means of words use while engaging in an assault, otherwise it's just assault. Weird.
can you please direct me to the specific statute you are referring to?
It's actually more vague than you describe, you can actually use a racial epithet while assaulting someone and it is not a hate crime unless hate was what was motivating you to do the assault so a judge or jury has to know what was in the offenders heart at the time of the crime and that somehow determines the severity of the crime. I suppose its not much different than how Hillary was innocent of all her crimes because she had no intent to commit crimes.
Michigan Penal Code
750.147b Ethnic intimidation.
Sec. 147b.
(1) A person is guilty of ethnic intimidation if that person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's race, color, religion, gender, or national origin, does any of the following:
(a) Causes physical contact with another person.
(b) Damages, destroys, or defaces any real or personal property of another person.
(c) Threatens, by word or act, to do an act described in subdivision (a) or (b), if there is reasonable cause to believe that an act described in subdivision (a) or (b) will occur.
(2) Ethnic intimidation is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(3) Regardless of the existence or outcome of any criminal prosecution, a person who suffers injury to his or her person or damage to his or her property as a result of ethnic intimidation may bring a civil cause of action against the person who commits the offense to secure an injunction, actual damages, including damages for emotional distress, or other appropriate relief. A plaintiff who prevails in a civil action brought pursuant to this section may recover both of the following:
(a) Damages in the amount of 3 times the actual damages described in this subsection or $2,000.00, whichever is greater.
(b) Reasonable attorney fees and costs.
(a) Causes physical contact with another person.
(b) Damages, destroys, or defaces any real or personal property of another person.
(c) Threatens, by word or act, to do an act described in subdivision (a) or (b)
(a) and (b) are clearly not speech right? Those are criminal actions and (c) is making threats, making a threat to commit a crime is not protected speech, right?
That is very much a hate crime law but still not a hate speech law. Do you have a ballot referendum process in MI?
I don't know how that got passed to tell you the truth, we do have a ballot referendum process but I don't ever remember that coming up for a vote and I have almost a impeccable voting record. Here you can threaten people all you want it's not until you act upon those threats does it become a crime. I would imagine if one drove it into a harassment phase something could be done about it, or did it with racist intent.
what you should do is craft a well written ballot question to repeal that law. Threats to commit a specific crime are never protected speech.
Nah, my activist days are over. Last time I took a petition around the neighborhood they were all renters, nobody cared. Something on the magnitude you are talking would require a army of people that cared to help you out.