DiscussMormonism.com

As per usual I'm watching something play out online. If a person creates a photoshop image of two (same gender) people (using their images gathered from social media and putting their heads on a husband and wife image) and posts it online for the express purpose of insinuating that the two people are in a gay relationship so that others will mock and harass them...is that a hate crime?

At the federal level, hate crime laws include crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/lear ... ate-crimes

I'm saying yes. What do you all think?

According to that definition, before something can be a hate crime, it has to be a crime. I'd be surprised if it would be a crime of some type under any state of federal criminal statue. I'm pretty sure it would qualify as speech for purposes of the first amendment. There are categories of speech that are not protected by the first amendment, but they are fairly narrow exceptions that i don't think apply.

Is it an action motivated by hate? Sure. But I don't think it's a hate crime. And I don't think it should be.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 09, 2023 9:10 pm

According to that definition, before something can be a hate crime, it has to be a crime. I'd be surprised if it would be a crime of some type under any state of federal criminal statue. I'm pretty sure it would qualify as speech for purposes of the first amendment. There are categories of speech that are not protected by the first amendment, but they are fairly narrow exceptions that i don't think apply.

Is it an action motivated by hate? Sure. But I don't think it's a hate crime. And I don't think it should be.

Online harassment and bullying isn't a crime? One of the persons in question is disabled. Is that not a protected class? Neither persons are gay. 'splain how that works to me, Lucy.

Also good to know...the haters in question have doxxed the hell out of the two people...searched up one of persons licensing status, a criminal charge without bothering to note the outcome (not guilty), named their real name, location, misrepresented custody arrangement, had people drive by their home to photograph it, exposed the person's professional work history.

There's more but I think some of it's more likely debatable. Basically it's all manipulation and slander/libel depending on the method by which it was shared.

No, not a hate crime in my opinion.

Bigoted? Clearly. Unkind? Absolutely. immature? Yep.

Jersey Girl wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 09, 2023 10:13 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 09, 2023 9:10 pm

According to that definition, before something can be a hate crime, it has to be a crime. I'd be surprised if it would be a crime of some type under any state of federal criminal statue. I'm pretty sure it would qualify as speech for purposes of the first amendment. There are categories of speech that are not protected by the first amendment, but they are fairly narrow exceptions that i don't think apply.

Is it an action motivated by hate? Sure. But I don't think it's a hate crime. And I don't think it should be.

Online harassment and bullying isn't a crime? One of the persons in question is disabled. Is that not a protected class? Neither persons are gay. 'splain how that works to me, Lucy.

Okay, it works like this. First, you have to find a crime in the relevant state law or in federal law. Only then can it possibly qualify as a hate crime. That's how it works.

You posited the posting of a single photoshopped picture that is not porn. There are criminal statutes that make "revenge porn" illegal. But porn isn't protected under the first amendment regardless of context.

Whether the target is a member of a "protected class" isn't relevant until you first establish that a crime has occurred. Although "bullying" may involve criminal conduct (like assault), I'm not aware of any law that makes "bullying" a crime per se. If you can find a statute that makes bullying a crime, and what you describe fits the definition of "bullying" in the statute (undefined, it's too vague to pass constitutional muster), then you have a potential hate crime. Generally, it's not a crime to be mean or cruel or an asshole, especially when the meanness, cruelty, or assholery comes in the form of speech. Criminal harassment is going to involve a pattern of conduct that isn't protected speech. That's how the first amendment works. The government simply doesn't have the Constitutional power to throw someone in prison for posting a non-obscene picture that isn't something like a classified document.

Jersey Girl wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 09, 2023 10:19 pm

Also good to know...the haters in question have doxxed the hell out of the two people...searched up one of persons licensing status, a criminal charge without bothering to note the outcome (not guilty), named their real name, location, misrepresented custody arrangement, had people drive by their home to photograph it, exposed the person's professional work history.

There's more but I think some of it's more likely debatable. Basically it's all manipulation and slander/libel depending on the method by which it was shared.

It could be libel or slander. But those aren't crimes. They're civil causes of action for damages. The doxxing might qualify as invasion of privacy, which is also a civil cause of action. But I don't know whether courts have recognized whether anonymity on the internet is a protectable privacy interest. Given the volume of doxxing in general on internet and the absence of reports of successful lawsuits, I doubt it. But it's possible.

There is another civil cause of action called "outrage" or 'intentional infliction of emotional distress." That might apply, but the standards for that are pretty high. Like, it requires pretty extreme conduct. In a society where being a cruel asshole online is just another day on the internet, I'm not sure how that would play out.

But none of these things are crimes. They may cost you in damages, but they won't land you in jail.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 10, 2023 12:06 am

Generally, it's not a crime to be mean or cruel or an asshole, especially when the meanness, cruelty, or assholery comes in the form of speech.

I don't think they are crimes and don't think they should be crimes - But, if they were crimes (a very slippery slope to travel), then I'm pretty sure that we would have some criminals among us on this board.

Anyway, I always appreciate you sharing your legal expertise as well as your ability to call balls and strikes based on pitch location alone.

Absolutely NOT a hate crime per the statute.

ceeboo wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 10, 2023 12:19 am

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 10, 2023 12:06 am

Generally, it's not a crime to be mean or cruel or an asshole, especially when the meanness, cruelty, or assholery comes in the form of speech.

I don't think they are crimes and don't think they should be crimes - But, if they were crimes (a very slippery slope to travel), then I'm pretty sure that we would have some criminals among us on this board.

Anyway, I always appreciate you sharing your legal expertise as well as your ability to call balls and strikes based on pitch location alone.

There is sometimes confusion over the difference between hate crimes and hate speech. Hate speech can be and is a crime in some countries, including Canada. If i recall correctly, Jordan Peterson's claim to fame began as a protest against a hate speech law in Canada. In some countries, blasphemy is a crime under laws that also criminalize speech.

In the U.S., "hate speech" that would be a crime under other country's laws is protected by the first amendment. If that sounds wrong, consult a librarian. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate That's a pretty good explainer of the distinction.

My bias on this issue is that of something pretty much like a first amendment absolutist when it comes to speech. I think giving the government the power to lock people up for speaking is an incredibly bad idea, except in narrow, defined circumstances. If you go back into the early days of the U.S., before the passage of the 14th amendment, you'll be stunned at what you can find state governments doing. State and local government would jail people for criticizing those in power. Anybody want to go to jail for criticizing Biden? Trump?

The line between speech and conduct is fuzzy. Under a famous Supreme Court case, nude dancing in a strip club is protected speech. I don't want government pressing at the margins, so that's just fine by me.

ETA: I think you're comment about this board is spot on. It's why I am resistant to adopting rules against hate speech in this forum. It would be the ultimate hypocrisy to have rules against hate speech that don't include religion.