Culture Pennsylvanian Man Charged For Anti-White Hate Crime

https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/29/hate-crime-cops-nazi-black-man

https://theappeal.org/a-black-man-called-the-cops-nazis-and-was-charged-with-a-hate-crime/

Pennsylvanian Robbie Sandson was caught shoplifting at a local CVS and was promptly arrested. In response, Sandson made the decision to decry persecution and accuse his arresters as being "Nazi's," "skinheads," and members of the Gestapo. In response, his charge was changed from a single misdemeanor to a misdemeanor including allegations of a hate crime.

Hate crime laws in this instance, however, may have been misused to press additional charges on the individual. We'll get into that in a second.

On Sept. 23, 2016, Robbie Sanderson, a 52-year-old Black man from North Carolina, was arrested for retail theft in Crafton, a small town near Pittsburgh.

During the arrest, Sanderson called police “Nazis,” “skinheads” and “Gestapo,” according to an affidavit of probable cause filed by the Crafton Borough police.

For that, he was charged with a hate crime.

Because of those epithets, Sanderson was charged with "ethnic intimidation." Insulting the officers in such terms was an anti-white hate crime, from the perspective of the authorities. Sanderson had made bias-motivated "terroristic threats," they claimed. The alleged motivation increased the seriousness of Sanderson's crime from a first-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony.

Being arrested for ethnic slurs is justifiable under the law and the accused can be charged for allegations of a hate crime and hate speech under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, in practice, anti-hate crime laws are no so cut-and-clear.

Sanderson's accusations of hate speech were eventually dropped, but the effects of the accusations are still prominent according to reason.com's take. The accused often face more significant charges because of hate speech while committing a crime, but will not suffer punishment strictly for the hate speech in of itself given the current stature of hate crime laws. In a legal sense, hate crimes are often tacked on to a preexisting charge, making the punishment more severe.

[...][T]he threat of a hate crime conviction can still hurt. Defendants might plead guilty to other offenses, for instance, if prosecutors agree to drop a hate crime charge.

Making racially biased remarks isn't against the law. Rather, hate crime provisions enhance the penalties for offenses such as vandalism, assault, and, yes, terroristic threats. A man who beats up his neighbor might be guilty of assault, but a man who beats up his neighbor because the neighbor is black could be guilty of ethnic intimidation. Merely shouting at the cops during the course of an arrest shouldn't count.

This does raise the question as to where protection from racial persecution begins and where free speech ends, as noted by the article. But in return, it also suggests the law is beginning to recognize accusing unaffiliated Caucasian individuals as Nazis as a racially derogatory statement. Coming off of the heels of the 2017 Chicago kidnapping incident where the accused four black teenagers were charged with a hate crime for kidnapping and torturing a white child, this shows promise of the protection under anti-hate crime laws becoming less unidirectional.

Still, there's a discussion to be had as to whether or not the additional charges were justified, how should hate crime laws should be used, and what the future looks like related to the legal protection from racial discrimination.

 

[GethN7]

To be honest, hate crime laws and hate speech laws are dumb regardless of how they are applied.

Both sides in this thread make good arguments:

1. Hate speech laws, at present, are made and enforced by dumbasses who are generally butthurt partisans.

2. Hate speech laws, if we must have them, need to be applied regardless of race, creed, or any other factor related to the participants.

The fact that BOTH are valid arguments in present day highlights a flaw in the laws as they stand, and given hate speech laws are not likely to fade away or become invalid anytime soon, the only way to start that process is to make sure their application applies equally.

Unpopular laws that punish arbitrarily are best defeated when no one is happy with the results and they are legally repealed.

Plessy v. Ferguson was completely legal until Brown v. Board confirmed it was based on utter horseshit based on a theory with no basis in reality, key to that the fallacy that "separate" in any way equated "equal" treatment.

Hate speech laws are generally based on a similar fallacy, that mere insults based on bigoted speech are equivalent to inciting crime on them.

The former is vile yet should be protected speech, the latter should not be, but the laws have been misapplied and partisaned to blur the lines between the two definitions for certain groups, which is horseshit.

And the only way to make people realize said laws are horseshit is to make sure everyone knows without regard for who they are how much said laws stink.

 

[Marvin]

I'm surprised at how ignorant people in this thread are.

Hate speech laws don't exist in the US. They've been ruled unconstitutional, over and over and over again.

The fighting words exemption to the first amendment is extremely narrow. Like you can call a cop a nazi all you want and that's protected by the first amendment. Public employees are pretty much the most valid target of offensive speech.

In order for the fighting words exemption to apply when dealing with a cop, you basically have to say something like "yeah, your wife, Megan, gives handies for $2 down by the dock, and a blowie-joey for $5". You have to get excessively personal and loud and in their face.

Basically, if it wouldn't get you hit at a dry wedding (as opposed to just thrown out), it's not fighting words.

 

[GethN7]

I'm surprised at how ignorant people in this thread are.

Hate speech laws don't exist in the US. They've been ruled unconstitutional, over and over and over again.

The fighting words exemption to the first amendment is extremely narrow. Like you can call a cop a nazi all you want and that's protected by the first amendment. Public employees are pretty much the most valid target of offensive speech.

In order for the fighting words exemption to apply when dealing with a cop, you basically have to say something like "yeah, your wife, Megan, gives handies for $2 down by the dock, and a blowie-joey for $5". You have to get excessively personal and loud and in their face.

Basically, if it wouldn't get you hit at a dry wedding (as opposed to just thrown out), it's not fighting words.

I must dissent for one reason.

While what you said is true in a strict sense, I have lost count how many laws for discrimination and for the purposes of anti-bigotry have been bent or even broken for the purposes of criminalizing speech by some parties but not others.

While not "hate speech" laws in the literal sense, they have become that for the purposes of people seeking to get away with denigrating groups on one hand while excusing the same by others, and the extent the legal system has been manipulated to allow this to happen is disturbing.

As for literal hate speech laws outside the U.S, it's even worse, as they are simply a naked, unashamed means of censoring and persecuting people legally, whereas within the United States, it's more subtle but the same practical effects of censorship and persecuting under the shield of law are still wrought, just via tortured bastardization of anti-discrimination and anti-bigotry laws that are legal.

I frankly find all such legislation outside that which punishes the incitement of crime to be hypocritical and abominable because if it's tendency for abuse by parties seeking to enact "rules for thee but not for me", therefore, if we must have such laws, like the Chinese school of Legalism, I'm in favor of said laws applying equally regardless of any other factor save the offense and the penalty graded on the severity as determined by law regardless of country.

Hopefully, if that becomes the case, all involved will realize just how terrible such legislation is when the shoe is on the other foot, such abuses of such laws will cease to become common, and the human race will learn to accept people can be vile shits if they please so long as they commit no crimes in the process and get the fuck over mere words.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm surprised at how ignorant people in this thread are.

Hate speech laws don't exist in the US. They've been ruled unconstitutional, over and over and over again.

This isn't true, though. There are plenty of statutes on the books and being enforced that are called "hate crimes" laws. Sometimes they're sentence enhancing statutes. Sometimes, they create enhanced crimes when the motive was racial or some other bias. Sometimes they're city ordinances. They definitely exist, though, and the ones passed more recently at least attempt to take into account rulings that they're unconstitutional.

 

[Marvin]

While what you said is true in a strict sense, I have lost count how many laws for discrimination and for the purposes of anti-bigotry have been bent or even broken for the purposes of criminalizing speech by some parties but not others.

While not "hate speech" laws in the literal sense, they have become that for the purposes of people seeking to get away with denigrating groups on one hand while excusing the same by others, and the extent the legal system has been manipulated to allow this to happen is disturbing.

Is it?

From what I can tell, the US legal system functions pretty well. It's not what I see from overseas. In Europe, it seems that the courts frequently outright discriminate and no one bothers to appeal or the appeals don't work or some shit. It seems like they got their legal system out of a crackerjack box.

Whereas in the US, I frequently hear about cases where a man sues for sexual harassment, for example, and the court rules with him on a technically. "You're technically right. The best kind."

Like how Hooters keeps getting sued by men for employment violations. They regularly settle, because if they don't, they risk setting a precedent that'll permanently fuck their shit up.

It seems to me that the rules are in place, and in the US, when they're challenged, the court frequently does the right thing. More often than not.

Seems to me we just need more lawyers to take up cases like Damore's.

This isn't true, though. There are plenty of statutes on the books and being enforced that are called "hate crimes" laws. Sometimes they're sentence enhancing statutes. Sometimes, they create enhanced crimes when the motive was racial or some other bias. Sometimes they're city ordinances. They definitely exist, though, and the ones passed more recently at least attempt to take into account rulings that they're unconstitutional.

I said hate speech, not hate crimes.

Hate crimes are trickier to me. I think the popular implementation of them sucks, but I can't dismiss them outright.

A valid use would be to protect vulnerable populations. So in the past, killing a black person in a recently desegregated town in the south, might be a valid application of a hate crime law, to me.

I think these laws should be written to be defined in respect to actual danger though. There should be a concrete reasons why this particular person was in extreme danger. Not, y'know, shooting a black guy in a robbery is not the same thing as shooting him just because you hate black people.

And it should go both ways as well. Heh, political views are protected class in California, right? If we're going to have hate crime laws, they should protect Republicans in San Fransisco too.

I'm not sure if these laws are even necessary anymore. But if someone wanted to have hate crime laws, I'd be OK with them if they were written that way.

 

[GethN7]

Is it?
Seems to me we just need more lawyers to take up cases like Damore's.

That'a a good point, and you are almost certainly right on that one.