General > General Technical Chat
Amazon accuses customer of racism & shuts down their smart home!
TimFox:
Several posters have given their opinion that a crime (e.g., assault) stands on its own and the motivation (e.g., hatred) is irrelevant to the legal proceedings.
Based on my reading of current US Federal Law (as I discussed above), the laws in the United States about "hate crime" vs. "regular crime" can be summarized as follows:
1. If you hate a person for an individual reason (e.g., he's a jerk, he's your boss, he stole your girlfriend), you cannot control your emotions, and you assault him, that is a "regular crime".
2. If you hate a recognizable group (e.g. race, religion, sexual orientation) and commit assault against a random member of that group or a larger number (e.g., congregation), the law may presume that this act was not only an assault on the specific victims, but an attempt to intimidate the larger group. In that case, the statutes against "hate crime" may come into effect.
I don't know what Magna Carta says about that issue in other countries.
gnuarm:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on June 29, 2023, 07:09:11 pm ---
--- Quote from: gnuarm on June 29, 2023, 05:38:08 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on June 29, 2023, 11:28:43 am ---There's nothing wrong with hate. It's a perfectly normal human emotion. A good number of crimes are motivated by hate. I don't see why the punishment should be any different, whether the motive is greed, hate or lust. Perhaps the punishment could be lighter if it was accidental i.e. carelessness.
--- End quote ---
Yes, there is something wrong with hate.
--- End quote ---
What's wrong with hate?
--- End quote ---
When combined with illegal acts, it can be a form of terrorism. I suppose it is not actually the "hate" that is the crime, it is the action.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---The crime committed may be relatively innocuous, such as placing something on a lawn. But if the message sent was onerous enough, it requires a much more severe punishment.
--- End quote ---
Why?
--- End quote ---
The example of placing something on the lawn should clarify the matter. If you throw toilet paper in someone's trees as a prank, that's simply a nuisance. If you place a burning cross on someone's lawn, that sends a message of hate, which will almost certainly cause fear by the recipient.
Yes, that requires a stronger punishment. If you can't see that, I don't know what you are missing.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: PlainName on June 29, 2023, 05:42:17 pm ---I think that even where you are, if you start racist shit you'll be taken in, won't you? But that's just sticks and stones. As is transgender stuff (which has also resulted in a court appearance here). So, way back in this thread, coppice said (in response to you, and with my emphasis):
--- End quote ---
They only do something about racism, if it's directed at protected minorities, otherwise it's sticks and stones.
--- End quote ---
Huh? Who else would racist acts be directed toward? I'm not following what you are saying.
--- Quote ---It's not possible to outlaw everything which is unacceptable. As has been hinted at above: it's impossible to determine the rational behind someone's actions and even if it's obvious, it should the their actions which need to be punished. For example burning the pride flag might offend people, but it should be protected free speech. I don't agree with everything Laurence Fox says, but I'm familiar enough with his views to know he wasn't advocating violence. My guess is he disagrees with trans activists, who only represent a tiny minority.
--- End quote ---
Some things are protected free speech, others are not. Burning a flag is not in itself illegal. That some people find it offensive is not a legal issue. The point is if the act was done in a way that violated the laws.
Most of these sorts of conversations hinge on the definition of words. Calling it a "hate" crime is not actually useful. To understand the law, requires reading the actual text of the law, and how it is enforced. Often, in discussions, people make up examples that have never happened. But in any case, most people are just arguing, without dealing with reality.
Zero999:
--- Quote from: gnuarm on June 29, 2023, 07:50:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on June 29, 2023, 07:09:11 pm ---
--- Quote from: gnuarm on June 29, 2023, 05:38:08 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on June 29, 2023, 11:28:43 am ---There's nothing wrong with hate. It's a perfectly normal human emotion. A good number of crimes are motivated by hate. I don't see why the punishment should be any different, whether the motive is greed, hate or lust. Perhaps the punishment could be lighter if it was accidental i.e. carelessness.
--- End quote ---
Yes, there is something wrong with hate.
--- End quote ---
What's wrong with hate?
--- End quote ---
When combined with illegal acts, it can be a form of terrorism. I suppose it is not actually the "hate" that is the crime, it is the action.
--- End quote ---
I agree.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---The crime committed may be relatively innocuous, such as placing something on a lawn. But if the message sent was onerous enough, it requires a much more severe punishment.
--- End quote ---
Why?
--- End quote ---
The example of placing something on the lawn should clarify the matter. If you throw toilet paper in someone's trees as a prank, that's simply a nuisance. If you place a burning cross on someone's lawn, that sends a message of hate, which will almost certainly cause fear by the recipient.
Yes, that requires a stronger punishment. If you can't see that, I don't know what you are missing.
--- End quote ---
What about my lawn? If I want to burn a cross on it, then should have every right to do so.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: PlainName on June 29, 2023, 05:42:17 pm ---I think that even where you are, if you start racist shit you'll be taken in, won't you? But that's just sticks and stones. As is transgender stuff (which has also resulted in a court appearance here). So, way back in this thread, coppice said (in response to you, and with my emphasis):
--- End quote ---
They only do something about racism, if it's directed at protected minorities, otherwise it's sticks and stones.
--- End quote ---
Huh? Who else would racist acts be directed toward? I'm not following what you are saying.
--- End quote ---
The majority, who are subject to systemic racism, by certain big organisations, in the name of diversity, inclusion and equity.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---It's not possible to outlaw everything which is unacceptable. As has been hinted at above: it's impossible to determine the rational behind someone's actions and even if it's obvious, it should the their actions which need to be punished. For example burning the pride flag might offend people, but it should be protected free speech. I don't agree with everything Laurence Fox says, but I'm familiar enough with his views to know he wasn't advocating violence. My guess is he disagrees with trans activists, who only represent a tiny minority.
--- End quote ---
Some things are protected free speech, others are not. Burning a flag is not in itself illegal. That some people find it offensive is not a legal issue. The point is if the act was done in a way that violated the laws.
Most of these sorts of conversations hinge on the definition of words. Calling it a "hate" crime is not actually useful. To understand the law, requires reading the actual text of the law, and how it is enforced. Often, in discussions, people make up examples that have never happened. But in any case, most people are just arguing, without dealing with reality.
--- End quote ---
The law in many parts of the world, especially Europe has slowly being shifting towards criminalising anything which might offend a minority. Now we have co-operations such as Amazon, who are taking the law into their own hands, by penalising customers who they believe are guilty of offending a minority. We need to fight this. Not allowing them to control your home with IoT is a start, but there are other ways they can come after you.
coppice:
--- Quote ---I've noticed as society has become progressively safer, the bar to what constitutes harm has been lowered.
--- End quote ---
When seat belts became compulsory A&E departments went quiet, then the injured slowly crept back up. Saying the best safety measure for a car is a big spike sticking out of the middle of the steering wheel is not just said in jest. People slowly bring their risks to some equilibrium. Now society has become so safe they are making up bogus risks to achieve some weird kind of equilibrium.
james_s:
--- Quote from: coppice on June 29, 2023, 09:06:24 pm ---
--- Quote ---I've noticed as society has become progressively safer, the bar to what constitutes harm has been lowered.
--- End quote ---
When seat belts became compulsory A&E departments went quiet, then the injured slowly crept back up. Saying the best safety measure for a car is a big spike sticking out of the middle of the steering wheel is not just said in jest. People slowly bring their risks to some equilibrium. Now society has become so safe they are making up bogus risks to achieve some weird kind of equilibrium.
--- End quote ---
I think there is some truth to that. Cars in my opinion are too safe now, they go to absurd lengths for safety which makes them very complicated and expensive and a lot of these safety assist features simply enable people to engage in risky behavior.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version