Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
QuoteWith which specific recommendation does Don Diego disagree?
Originally posted by: DonDiegoQuoteDonDiego might well find himself among the lonely 2%. Although he agrees with the spirit of alanleroy's solution generally, and pretty much with penalties for clear physical attacks and actual destruction of property, . . . and he recognizes alanleroy's legal recommendations are undoubtedly well intentioned, . . . he supposes they are perhaps a bit too broad with respect to, f'rinstance, free speech.
Originally posted by: alanleroyIIQuote
Originally posted by: billryan
People of goodwill should condemn it everywhere and every time. Claiming it's everywhere and everyone does it is pretty disturbing. If good men don't stand up , who will?
Alrighty then...Let's start here and now.
Kids who spout racism in schools should be expelled.
Anyone who defaces property with graffiti of any kind should be arrested for vandalism..and made to clean it up....and publically humiliated. If it's racist graffiti, double the penalty.
Anyone who attacks another person because of their political views should be charged with a hate crime.
Anyone who is responsible for destruction of property or attacking other people or police during a protest should be charged with a felony.
Political Leaders of both sides should condemn all of the above provocateurs.
There. I bet 98% of both sides would agree. Now let's move on.
Read How federal law draws a Line between free speech and hate crimes for some insight.
i. "Kids who spout racism in schools should be expelled."
Definition: racism - the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Definition: free speech - the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
Unless the "spouting racism" is intended to incite riotous behavior or physical assault, it is free speech.
At a minimum alanleroy would need to provide a definition of "spout racism" to include such harmful intent.
Otherwise a statement/discussion/argument expressing agreement that "characteristics or abilities are specific to races" should not be punishable.
Likewise a statement/discussion/argument expressing disagreement on these matters should not be punishable.
Without injurious intent, the door opens for politicians/lawmakers to ban speech with which they disagree, because they disagree.
ii. "graffiti of any kind, . . . etc, etc., etc."
********quote*****
[In Texas]
Graffiti is defined as permanently marking, painting, drawing on, etching, engraving or scratching property without the owner’s permission.
Graffiti is classified as a separate property offense under the law. It carries a punishment range that is tougher than criminal mischief. Penalties range from a Class B misdemeanor to first-degree felony. These penalties are based on the amount of damage caused by the graffiti.
It is a state jail felony to mark graffiti on a school, place of worship or burial, public monument or community center, if the damage is $20,000 or less.
If three or more individuals “tag” property, they may be considered gang members and punished more severely.
*****endquote*****
Ref: American Enterprise Institute
Graffiti is already illegal on the State level; as always poor old DonDiego says if a Law is on the books, enforce it. He might add, if one does not intend to enforce an existing Law and so passes a new Law addressing the same activity; the new law is also likely to be unenforced.
If the authorities choose to adopt alanleroyII's suggested penalties, DonDiego has no objection.
iii. "Anyone who attacks another person because of their political views should be charged with a hate crime."
DonDiego doesn't know whether he agrees or not. It depends on a definition of "attack" for one thing. Oh, and "political views". DonDiego suspects physical assault statutes on the books are sufficient. Adding "political differences" to the list of motivations for hate-crime offenses may be a road better not traveled.
iv. "Anyone who is responsible for destruction of property or attacking other people or police during a protest should be charged with a felony."
DonDiego doesn't know whether he agrees or not. Again, there's lots of statutes addressing destruction of property or attacking others or police; he supposes they may be sufficient. As a rule DonDiego would espouse enforcement of present applicable Law over enacting new Laws which are no more or less likely to be enforced than the originals.
