No, mainly because I don't believe in hate crimes. Especially hate crimes involving murder. Because what that does is weigh the value of an individual based on their difference from the criminal. But this should fall under some form of disturbing the peace.
I'm with "tired of liberal bs" above and have commented in my blog on the disturbing trend of conservatives invoking the idea of "hate crime". (Click on my name if interested.)
Basically, the legal category of "hate crime" is just a way to make certain kinds of ideologies illegal. When this is done, freedom of speech is rendered meaningless.
If you value your opinion, stand up against this insidious idea. Stupid effigies are really just that: stupid. And having to look at them is a very small price to pay. The way to look at such effigies is to let them stand as reminders of the precious value of freedom of speech, which, by the way, we all possess.
-- Gus Van Horn
Posted by: Gus Van Horn at
February 25, 2005 08:28 AM
>>I think stupidity is a mitigating factor here. As evidence I present this link, showing that it took Virginia six years to pass the BAR.
No. She was admitted to the bar Dec. 2, 1998, meaning she passed the first test out of law school.
I think stupidity is a mitigating factor here. As evidence I present this link, showing that it took Virginia six years to pass the BAR.
---------------------------------------------
I hope it's a mitigating factor for you. According to the California State Bar, she was admitted to practice in the same year she graduated from law school:
