So burning a flag is a hate crime? Let's start applying this equally.

The motive is NOT the crime. No hate crime has ever been prosecuted without an actual crime taking place.

The definition of hate crime is spelled out very specifically in civil rights laws. In that definition it explicitly states prosecuting "hate" itself is a violation of civil liberties and freedom of speech.

 

My image of Batman's brain while he was reaching that conclusion.















And to answer: Since when is being Southern mean that he's supposed to have special rights? Are people beaten up for being Northerners (although if they are, take a guess at who's doing the beating)? Are people beaten up for being Easterners, or being Westerners? And why does his pride of being from where he's from trump other people's pride for being where they are from? Or is there some particular aspect that has given him the pride of being from that certain area?

Plus, one can change who they are. They cannot change what they are. And there is zero difference in someone being born Southern than there is in someone being born Northern, or Eastern, or Western.

 

I wasn't arguing that. I'm saying it's not right for the same crime to be prosecuted in two different ways -- one with drastically harsher sentences -- just because you change the descriptions of the people involved.
If a bunch of drunken rednecks beats up a gay guy because he walked into the wrong bar, they should be charged with assault or whatever the appropriate crime is based on the statutes.
If a group of gay men beat up someone because they don't like the Confederate flag sticker on his truck, they too should be charged with the appropriate crime based on the statutes. If that includes prosecuting it as a hate crime, then it should be prosecuted as a hate crime.
I don't agree with hate crimes laws. As others have said, it's called motive. The point is, if you're going to do it for one it should be done for all. Just because you agree with the "hate" doesn't make it not fit the description.

 

If there's a symbol of Northern Pride people want to display, have at it.
I also love how you imply that all Southerners are violent, racist psychopaths out there looking to beat the crap out of a Yankee. Way to be tolerant of other cultures.
Anyway, if Mr. Hypothetical is otherwise being a good citizen and not bothering anyone, what difference does it make what symbols he displays? Isn't that what we've always been told about gay pride, ethnic pride, minority pride, etc.?

 

The day roving gangs of gay men take to the streets to assault straight folks is the day rush limbaugh's heads explodes.

 

And why is there gay pride, ethnic pride, minority pride, etc.?

I'll give you a hint: Because they were persecuted.

Southerner whites weren't persecuted. They were the persecutors.

 

So if we just got rid of Southern whites, the world would be better off. Maybe we could just cut them out of the country entirely and let them go their own way. I bet they could come up with a really cool flag and everything.

 

The world would have been better off had Southern whites, and their fellow Northerners who still had them, given up their slaves to begin with. Or, after being forced to, sucked it up and stopped trying to re-live a war that had ended a century earlier.

 

I'm starting to think you're nothing but an Anti-Southernite.
All those posts on the wrestling thread praising Ric Flair and Dusty Rhodes were just lies, weren't they?

 

I don't see them as Southerners.

I see them as great professional wrestlers. Who are Americans.

 

Nice to know that they're "Good Little Southerners."

 

What the hell are you talking about?