|
 |
 |
|
Do We Want to Become a Society of Censorship?
-
05/14/07 05:56 AM ET
Crime is deadly and tragic. Criminals themselves would have a hard time disagreeing. However, it seems that now we have a new question: Is thinking about crime bad? Or perhaps more accurately: Is having thoughts or beliefs about a certain group a crime? Is it worse to say, “I don’t like a particular type of people” or to actually do something to those people?
Regardless, isn’t a crime a crime? If someone steals from you because you’re a black man, are you supposed to be more upset than if they stole from you because you have a wallet? More importantly, however, we have to decide if we want justice to be equal for all or based upon race, religion, sexual orientation and any other number of characteristics. We’ve seen crimes committed because of things that cannot be controlled and cannot be hidden: race, religion, profession, age, but only the first two are covered by hate crimes. Frequently the police are attacked intentionally; same with the elderly. Just because they are police or elderly, why would these not be included? Moreover, why, once they start adding groups, wouldn’t they just continue to add groups until every group is represented, and every crime is a hate crime?
Much of the opposition for the expansion of hate-crime categories comes from religious organizations claiming a moral opposition to homosexuality. Regardless of the veracity of these claims, the First Amendment to the constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. If religious organizations are persecuted for presenting their religious views, then that is a violation of the First Amendment on two fronts. It prevents the freedom of speech of the person making whatever statement, and prohibits religious expression simultaneously. Obviously none of us wants anyone to be hurt by fanatics, or crazed, hateful individuals, but we also have to ask ourselves: Do we want to become a society of censorship? Do we really want to be governed by thought police?
Regardless, isn’t a crime a crime? If someone steals from you because you’re a black man, are you supposed to be more upset than if they stole from you because you have a wallet? More importantly, however, we have to decide if we want justice to be equal for all or based upon race, religion, sexual orientation and any other number of characteristics. We’ve seen crimes committed because of things that cannot be controlled and cannot be hidden: race, religion, profession, age, but only the first two are covered by hate crimes. Frequently the police are attacked intentionally; same with the elderly. Just because they are police or elderly, why would these not be included? Moreover, why, once they start adding groups, wouldn’t they just continue to add groups until every group is represented, and every crime is a hate crime?
Much of the opposition for the expansion of hate-crime categories comes from religious organizations claiming a moral opposition to homosexuality. Regardless of the veracity of these claims, the First Amendment to the constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. If religious organizations are persecuted for presenting their religious views, then that is a violation of the First Amendment on two fronts. It prevents the freedom of speech of the person making whatever statement, and prohibits religious expression simultaneously. Obviously none of us wants anyone to be hurt by fanatics, or crazed, hateful individuals, but we also have to ask ourselves: Do we want to become a society of censorship? Do we really want to be governed by thought police?
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
