Only if you act on your opinion that some group needs to be the target of violence because of who they are.
The whole concept of "hate crime" is nuts, because whenever a crime is committed out of anger it is a hate crime. The fact that it happens against a certain group should not make any difference at all, in fact treating groups differently in a court of law is simply wrong. Nobody should be judged innocent or guilty based on group association, and their sentences should not be effected either. either you believe in equality under the law or you don't.
"Is your name Tammy Bruce???" Tammy Bruce is a lesbian feminist democrat who was a high official in NOW and overall about as liberal as you can get without being communist and totally anti-american. She believed in her view points, but she never lost site of the greatness of the constititution which allowed her to express her views. She became totally appalled at what had become of NOW, the women's movement, and the extreme left in america. Her book is about how the left hates freedom of speech, while simultaneously using it to their advantage.
yes, that is true I believe. for now, anyway. if you don't think this is a warmup for thought-only, actless crimes, you're kidding yourself. and not sure whether the need for an accompanying act makes any substantive difference - it is still criminal punishment on the basis of disfavored opinion. If john kills his gay boss out of boredom, and jack kills his gay boss while simultaneously disliking homosexuals, jack gets sentenced to an extra amount of time. that extra sentence corresponds, directly and solely, to jack's dislike of homosexuals. it is thoughtcrime.
Thanks for clearing that up. If someone's going to post something on the board, please make it an informational reference instead of a direct link to someone's e-commerce "buy my book" page. That was my point with the "Are you Tammy Bruce" post. And have you read the book? If so, maybe you could give us some actual examples from within the book... and maybe something outside the scope of NOW, since the synopsis from the amazon link (which you restate in part above) makes it sound like she thinks NOW is the same as "the left". That's a comical viewpoint. I'd still like to get more examples of how "the left" hates freedom of speech. And then, as a separate issue, how, once again, "the left" uses this tactic to their advantage MORE than "the right". This is all so stupid anyway... please quantify what you mean by "the left" and "the right". I know it's difficult because there are so many interest groups, religious organizations, etc. that have political affiliations, but this isn't a very exact science until we've determined exactly what the target of our rhetoric is. For example: NOW would be "the left" in this case. And my point would be that nothing they do limits free speech. They are just a damn interest group. An example of "the left" limiting free speech would be the democrats introducing legislation to ban first amendment rights when talking about Bill Clinton, and making fire-bombing a viable form of political expression, but only against republicans. Now that would be an example worth debating. So I take it you're not a lesbian feminist democrat, huh?
Whenever a group dislikes a measure it's a slippery slope. Similarly, a ban on late-term abortion is a slippery slope to a ban on abortion. Not true in both cases. Lines can be drawn. VERY good example. The issue is that John killed somebody. Determining why he killed him is another matter altogether. Killing someone occurs in the real world, so there is no thoughtcrime. If he says "I'm going to kill my homosexual boss", and separately doesn't like homosexuals, then he is guilty of murder. If he says "I'm going to kill my homosexual boss BECAUSE he is homosexual", then he's guilty of a hate crime. I think that is the distinction.