Sometimes I wonder if certain posters on this site are just playing "Colbert".

When, not if?

 

I think so.

I believe it is the racial connotation that it carries.

 

If we are ever going to reach that alleged utopia known as a "color-blind society", we cannot continually set different rules for dealing with perceived attacks on certain special groups. Equality does not mean that some get more protection than do others. Also, the sins of past generations have nothing to do with people living in the present. To think otherwise is to use a crutch.

This was a really ignorant thing to do and if caught the people should be punished. There is no place for this kind of garbage.

First, of all I want to thank mcpapa for finding this information regarding Hate Crimes. Second, very good questions woodsrider. I actually went to & read from the website that was given by mcpapa.

Some excerpts-

Traditional hate crime legislation protects persons because of "his race, color, religion or national origin," as in the case of the 1969 federal hate crimes law. (18 U.S.C. Section 245). Most state laws now include additional protected groups. Some laws are restrictive and only protect a member of a group if she/he is involved in specific activities. For example, the current (1969) federal law only applies if the crime happens when a person is attending a public school or is at work or participating in one of four other "federally protected activities."

Existing state and federal hate crime laws:

The ADL reports (as of 2001-SEP-21) that: Seven states have no hate crime law (Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Wyoming)

Twenty states have laws that do not include sexual orientation as a protected group (AL, AR, CO, GA, ID, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, ND, oh, ok, pa, SD, TX, UT, VA, WV)

Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have laws that do protect people on the basis of their sexual orientation. (AZ, CA, CT, DC, DE, FL, IL, IA, KY, LA, ME, MA, MN, ne, nv, nh, nj, NY, OR, RI, TN, VT, WA, WI)

On 2000-JUL-4, Kentucky became the latest state to have hate crime bill signed into law which protects persons of all sexual orientations.

The 1969 federal hate crime law: Covers race, color, religion, ethnicity, and national origin only.

Does not include sexual orientation, gender or disability status.

Only applies if the victim of a crime is engaged in one of six federally protected activities.

 

By the way, I found both the Palin as well as the Obama incident repulsive, offensive, and totally unacceptable.

 

I feel sure the framers of our constitution would find the concept of "hate crimes" completely adverse to their intentions. They would be appalled just as anyone with a scintilla of knowledge of the constitution and traditional constitutional law should be appalled.

I remember when the effigy of Nixon was hung back in the Vietnam War day's of the sixties, and no one was imprisoned because of it! Heck you can burn the flag and nothing happens to you!

 

Just wondering (if you were alive back in those days) was that okay, that is to hang a effigy of The President of the United States, or was it a case of free speech then but not now?

 

The proper way to dispose of an American flag is by burning it.

Was this trully a hate crime or was some idiot college students playing a "prank" for attention?

If they are caught and are students, should be expelled from the public college system.

I commented on the Palin effigy in another thread. Horrible. Stupid. Ridiculous.

 

Let me comment on the one of Obama's on UK's campus. Horrible. Stupid. Ridiculous.

 

I would also like to commend UK's president for his letter/email.

Now wait a minute, boys. I haven't seen much indignation out of you over the Palin "hanging" several days ago in California. Of course, we are being told that nothing illegal was done and the dummy has not been, nor must it be, removed.

 

As a multiple graduate of UK, I must say I am disturbed by Todd's typical overreaction. UK has received its last alumnus dollar from me.

 

The truth of the matter is that, unless we have citizens with special "super rights", the reaction to Obama's hanging should be no different than the reaction to Palin's hanging. The last time I read the US Constitution, it clearly stated that all should be treated equally. Of course, that appears to be changing, doesn't it?

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb:

Was a law broken? It certainly is disturbing but I am unfamiliar with the laws.

 

Furthermore, is a law only broken because it is on public property, as opposed to Palin's effigy hanging in Cali?

Was a law broken? It certainly is disturbing but I am unfamiliar with the laws.

 

Furthermore, is a law only broken because it is on public property, as opposed to Palin's effigy hanging in Cali?

 

 

Those are some good questions.

 

But even if a law wasn't broken, in either case, it doesn't excuse sheer lack of respect.

 

Everyone always attacks Political Correctness, but IMO, what's missing in the world today are plain, old-fashioned manners. Everyone wants to be able to say and do what they want, regardless of what it does to someone else's feelings. When the heck did it become a bad thing to have manners? :confused: What ever happened to respect for others? :confused:

Those are some good questions.

 

But even if a law wasn't broken, in either case, it doesn't excuse sheer lack of respect.

 

Everyone always attacks Political Correctness, but IMO, what's missing in the world today are plain, old-fashioned manners. Everyone wants to be able to say and do what they want, regardless of what it does to someone else's feelings. When the heck did it become a bad thing to have manners? :confused: What ever happened to respect for others? :confused:

 

:thumb::thumb:

 

People on both sides of the aisle spend more time trying to justify hurtful, disrespectful actions towards those on the other side, then trying to be a good, decent person...

If these students (assuming it was students) broke the law or the code of conduct of the unversity then they should be punished in accordance with the law or the code of conduct. If they did not violate any law or the code of conduct, then no official action should be taken against them regardless of how despicable their actions may be. No one should be punished by the government soley because other people don't like what they have to say.

I don't understand why this is automatically considered a hate crime. Maybe whoever hated Obama enough to do this wasn't doing this out of some type of racial motavation. I can think of plenty of reasons to dislike Obama just because of what he represents. I would strongly dislike a white person with his views just as equally.