🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CGDuy0.DEr@world.std.com>, Rik Ahlberg writes:

} I actually read all those posts on this topic, and here's this gay man's 
} read on the situation:
} 
} If Clay were to perform that act on a streetcorner, I'd like to try to 
} get him prosecuted under the hate crimes statute. (not at all a likely 
} scenario, just one which intrigues me -- how protected _is_ public speech 
} when it advocates violence?) :>

I realize that you're not really serious about that, but even
suggesting the siuation betrays the fact that you don't really
understand the hate crime statutes in the US.  The only ones I know
of in the *US* [the situation is different in Canada, for example],
have "hate crimes" *ONLY* when there is _already_ a coincident
crime.  That is, the 'hate' component is an _additional_ factor on
top of something that is _already_ illegal.  The courts have made
clear that there is *NO* "hate crime", per se, in the US without an
attendant vanilla illegal act.  [the typical example situation is
with vandalism: you first have to commit an illegal act of vandalism,
*THEN* the courts can consider whether your actions were hate-motivated,
and if so increase the penalites [by a lot].

In the current context, that means that even if he were performing
on a streetcorner, since the *performance* is not illegal, it could
not possibly become a 'hate crime'.  And the answer to your
rhetorical question is "In the US, speech is *VERY*VERY*
protected".

  /Bernie\
-- 
Bernie Cosell                               cosell@world.std.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA         (703) 921-2358