Painting symbols now a "hate crime" apparently

I thought "hate crimes" had to have evidence of being directed against a specific kind of group.

Apparently simply painting symbols can now be a hate crime, the type of symbol being used as "evidence" that it was directed against a certain special protected class of group.

This is the slippery slope phenomena. Over time, laws take on interpretations that become normalized, even though these interpretations would have originally been seen as absurd at the time when the law was first passed.

This was vandalism, sure.
But to start claiming that any time someone paints a swastika that is a hate crime is absurd.

'Deeply disturbing': UConn student charged with hate crime after allegedly painting swastika on building, police say
Elinor Aspegren, USA Today, April 29, 2021

A student was arrested and charged with a hate crime after allegedly spray-painting a swastika on the side of a building on the University of Connecticut campus.

Kristopher Pieper, 21, a junior from Enfield, Connecticut, was arrested Thursday and charged with intimidation based on bigotry or bias and criminal mischief, according to a police news release, provided by the school to USA TODAY.

Police had identified him as a person of interest in the spray-painting of a swastika on UConn's chemistry building, directly across the street from the school's Hillel chapter, a Jewish campus organization. Pieper allegedly painted the Nazi symbol on the first day of Passover on March 27.
​

That could have been just a coincidence. There are all sorts of different Jewish holidays throughout the year.

I've seen lots of vandalism on school walls throughout the years, and stuff like swastikas, along with crude drawings of genitalia are pretty common. Drawn mostly the shock value, usually.

This just goes to show how absurd the whole concept of hate crimes are, as well as how stupid laws can be interpreted and applied in even more stupid ways than many people thought they would be.

 

Bless the vandal's heart. How could drawing a swastika possibly cause any psychological harm?

He could also draw a picture of a noose under a tree. Just a picture, right?

/sarcasm

 

I don't see any slippery slope here. Paint the Swastika on your house, it is free speech. Paint it on someone else's property then it is a crime. There is no right to have your speech heard.

 

The issue is not that it is a crime. Vandalism is a crime, nobody disagrees with that. The issue is it is being prosecuted as a "hate crime", with the implication that the person will be prosecuted for what it was they wrote, rather than that they wrote something.

 

And you don't see a slippery slope to free speech here?

Punish them for the damage caused to the property, based on the amount of area the paint covers.

It's also interesting how they devote so many more police resources investigating a crime when it's potential "hate crime", like thirty times as much.
If this had just been a crude drawing of genitalia, or something like that, I doubt they would have even investigated it.

 

I suppose you're not a Jew or a black? Suppose it was a picture of your family member getting raped?

 

That would depend to what degree or likelihood the message could be seen as constituting a threat.

We can't be basing the law just on feelings.

 

Yeah, I'd liike to hear your feelings in that case.

 

Even if there is no right for the person to write a message on the wall, I just view them being punished for what they wrote being a sign of things descending into a nanny-state.

The only exception might be if it was a threat, or was so vulgar/sexual in nature that it constituted something obscene that was not good for young children to see.

What you would be doing is punishing them for the message rather than because they wrote something that caused damage to property.

 

Well, the accused better hope I am not in the jury. I am about to be stuck in the federal jury pool for the next year as I do not qualify for any of the exemptions

 

sounds like a hate crime to me, but they have to prove it, that often comes from the suspect themselves saying something

 

That sounds like stupidity to me.

Punish them more, because the suspect admits the reason why he committed the crime.

You can't actually seriously support that, can you?

This just seems like "thought control" in disguise.

 

But but but he is a right winger so he HAS to get off.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if he had been painting anything else? Or been non while - ooooh! Scream vandal! Should be shot!

Unless you are a Hindu and are painting good luck symbols then “you reaps what you sow a”

 

.

Here's is interesting ironic history related to the swastika.

Tsar Nicholas II [Romanov], his wife Alexandra and their five children were imprisoned for many months before they were brutally murdered by the marxist bolsheviks, July 1918.

Alexandra was born a German princess and her special personal symbol was the swastika.

While the Romanov family were imprisoned, Alexandra kept a diary. One of her daughters made a cover for her diary. On the cover of Alexandra's diary, she embroidered a swastika.

Alexandra's diary survived and still exists today. On page April 7/20, 1918 Alexandra wrote a note that Nicholas had read to them from the Protocols [what is known today as the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"]

The irony is... the April 7/20, 1918 date... April 7 was Russia's Julian date and April 20 was the corresponding Gregorian date [used in the Western Europe.] April 20, 1918 Gregorian - the date Alexandra wrote that note in her swastika diary about Nicholas reading to them from the Protocols - was Hitler's 29th birthday.

.

 

Excellent OP!

Yes, the notion of hate crimes is pure legal sophistry, perversely appropriate for a society and times of universal deception.

 

I don't understand why this is a problem? If you're going to spray paint a swatiska on a public building then yeah of course it's a hate crime. That's an effective tool for combating racism and anti-semitism. Make it clear the state won't tolerate that. It's how the state protects minority populations.

 

I like how they now want to say spray paining a Swastika on someone else property is now just painting a "symbol" that means nothing

this is what hate crime laws were designed for... they add 5 years on to the sentence

 

Trying to show a connection between the display of a symbol and a certain minority group actually suffering tangible harm is not going to be so clear or easy as you seem to imagine.

The strongest argument I can see would be to view this as some sort of vague generalized threat, but even that is a weak argument.

The way that I see it, the fact that it was an illegal act of vandalism should be mostly irrelevant. Yes, they are going to be punished for the illegal act of vandalism, totally regardless of what the meaning of what they wrote was, no one disagrees with that. But then there is the additional aspect of punishing the person for what the meaning of what they wrote was. Why should we do that when that person would not be punished for writing that message if they had the permission to write graffiti on that wall?
These are mostly two separate issues, the property damage versus the meaning of the message. But it seems you are trying to conflate the two together.
I don't see why the person should be punished more for the meaning of the message, when the message would otherwise not be illegal.

 

It's actually really easy.
1. Did the person take an action that has symbolic meaning against one group, especially one that invokes acts of violence against said group?
2. Is that group clearly definable, ie are they some sort of ethnic group?

Though to get to your real question because it's how the state ensures minorities are protected against hate crimes. It's a committment by the state to protect them because they didn't in the past. The state has an interest in preventing segments of its population from targeting others.

 

Yes, but my point was that "symbolic meaning against one group" is perfectly legal in other situations, so it just does not make much consistent logical sense.

Why apply that sort of logic in the case of vandalism, but not in the case of legal display of the same thing?

That's a stretch to claim that the symbol "invokes acts of violence".

The state is supposed to ensure every person is protected against their rights being violated.
Why is it that certain minority groups should get special protections from "hate crimes" that go beyond that?

If you cause property damage or harm to another person, you get punished based on the level of damage or harm actually caused. This makes perfect sense and no one disagrees with that. Why should there be additional punishment based on some other factor?

 

Let's call the sale of rope a hate crime.

 

Because it's the only way the US's definition of freedom of speech works. In those legal situations it's not a crime, it's allowable speech. I don't like the US's definition of speech, but it is what it is.

Not really. Imagine what would have happened if they didn't bother to remove the grafiti despite knowing it's there. What message would that send? It would send the message that it's okay to attack these people.

Let's say the state decides to protect the right to religion by saying everyone has time off on Sunday. But one group's religious day is Saturday. The state says they don't have to protect that group's rights because it gives everyone the day off on Sunday, whether or not they go to religious services. Is everyone's right to freedom of religion protected?

Because the crime doesn't just harm the people it effects, it can effect the community beyond that as well. A shooting in a bad neighborhood depresses real estate values, meaning less property tax for schools. Which in turn means children's education is negatively effected. Hate crimes aren't just crimes in of themselves but crimes against an entire community of people. It is the state's responsibility then to show that group is protected by the state, just as anyone else is.

 

In other words, you don't like the concept of freedom of speech, so when there are situations like this you view it as an excuse/opportunity to criminalize it.

That's really what it comes down to, it seems.

Do you really think anyone is going to attack someone when they wouldn't have otherwise, just because they see a noose or a swastika?

Last Independence day, I must have seen three or four different effigies of Trump hanging in a noose displayed in people's front yards.
Yet nobody thinks that rises to the level of an illegal message.

 

I don't like America's definition of freedom of speech because it makes no sense. How is speaking not an action? That's what it boils down to, and that's why I don't like it. It makes no sense logically.

 

Isn't any randomly committed crime a crime against an entire community of people, by that logic?