I. Cross examination of attack on status-quo.
Possible inherency 1. Rise in hate related crime do to lack of
legislation. – All criminal acts deemed hate crimes are already illegal.
If not they would not be their very nature be crimes. Questions – Is it
true that the terrible acts that you described are already against the law?
Is it also true that the “hate crimes” you have described are really just
as affected by a lack of adequate police force than inadequate legislation?
Would it be reasonable to assume that the afformentioned reason is true of
any criminal act despite motive?
Possible inherency 2. Inadequate punishment is being given to people
who have committed “hate crimes”. – Motive should not be the reason for
an increased sentence, but severity of the crime. – Is it reasonable to
assume that committing a criminal act on someone because of their race is
terrible? Is it then also reasonable to assume that committing a criminal
act on someone because they have refused your advances or simply because
they got pleasure out of hurting people is also terrible? Are you than
saying that the former case , the ones that you would call “hate crimes”
are more terrible even if the actual act is the same? You do realize that
this is what you are saying by assuming that hate crimes deserve a more
Possible inherency 3. Rise in hate groups promotes violence. – People
are not forced to listen to hate mongering groups. The people who mostly
follow them are people who believe what they are preaching. – You are aware
that you are recommending that we limit freedom of thought, even if the
thought is deplorable? Are you aware that this is in direct violation with
the first amendment of the United States Constitution? Do you realize that
if such legislation were passed it would give precedence for Congress to be
able to pass any law governing freedom of thought? Do you also realize that
if the government could pass any legislation on free speech or thought that
the ideals of liberty and democracy would be outlawed? Doesn’t it then
follow that by passing such a legislation we would be giving our government
the power to , with another such law, suppress another great idea which
could improve the world by accidentally limiting the right of expression by
someone who would think up such an idea?
Possible inherency 4. Marches and other assemblies by these hate
mongering groups encourage hate crimes. – First amendment makes any
legislation against this possible, and with good cause. – Are you aware if
it was legal to limit assembly labor unions would never have formed, and
the horrid factory conditions characterized by the 19th century, such as
low wages long hours, overcrowding, and no concern of workers well being,
would still be in existence? Couldn’t such a legislation also accidentally
prevent another great idea in the way of assembly from emerging?
Possible Sections for speech against their plan.
1. The plan that my opponents have stated has many blaring inherent flaws.
The first, and perhaps most obvious, is it total inability to be put into
use. The first ammendment to the United States constitution states that,
Congress shall pass no law violating anyones freedom of speech, religious
belief, or right to assemble. It is obvious that this, one of the most
important passages in the Bill of Rights, was placed there to prevent laws
such as this, for the second we allow our government any control over our
right of expression we have given them the presedence to pass other such
laws. It was said by Walter Lippman, a respected political columnist, that
“No official yet born on this earth is wise enough to seperate good ideas
from bad ideas, good beliefs from bad ones.” Mr. Lippman is correct. By
silencing any ideas at all you have violated the most basic freedom that
this great country bestows upon its people.
2. Another problem presented by the plan is its obvious lack of
enforcability. How do they propose that we find who are the members of
“hate groups”? Do we go on witch hunts for Klansmen? Come on if law
enforcemnt officers can’t control actuall crime that undeniably causes
physical damage, how do you expect them to deal with crimes that do no
physical damage, and that people can simply choose to avoid. I mean people
can’t just say to a mugger “Excuse me. I don’t want to be robbed at
gunpoint today.” but they can walk away from a “hate” rally if they choose
3. It is logically wrong to punish people for the motive of the crime.
What makes a murdurer who kills out of hate for a group any worse than a
murdurer who kills out of hate for an individual? The answer is nothing.
I fail to see the difference it makes for the victim, even if it is only a
4. United States law enforcement agencies are already facing severe
financial problems. It takes an immense cost to finance the trial and
jailing of criminals. Do you suppose that we throw these departments
further in debt due to a flow of people who are memberes of “hate groups”,
people who have not actually commited any crime other than speaking. The
cost of the trial process alone would be tremendous if your figures on the
amount of people who belong to “hate groups” are true.
1. Srillman, David Conpilation of Congressional Acts.
2. Lippman, Walter “Bans on Speech…the Implications” The New Yorker
3. Oxfard Dictionary of Political Quotations.
4. Grych, Peter Psycholgical Aspects of Prejudice.
5. Lane, Charles “Hate, A Problem of a Growing Democracy”