Politics: August 1920 Archives

I've just come from the ACLU page listing their 100 greatest successes from 1925 through 1999.  Out of these, 35 involve our 1^st Amendment right to speak freely:

a)     The 1st three defended those who call for the violent overthrow of our government.

b)     Next, in 1938's Lovell v. Griffin, they challenge a Georgia ordinance prohibiting Jehovah's Witnesses from distributing literature.  Surprisingly, this was not a speech case; it concerned Christians prohibiting the religious expression of Jehovah's Witnesses; an 'Establishment of Religion' case.

c)      Next, they defend an anti-Semite in 1949's Terminiello v. Chicago.

d)     Then 16 cases through 1976 protecting: civil-disorder speech, obscene speech (twice), political defamation, political speech( twice), violent over-throwers (again), war potesters (twice), hecklers, flag-burners, Presidential-life-threateners, and some others.

e)      Then in 1977 the Jehovah Witnesses again, though this time not a religious case, but a "Right to Not Speak" case.

f)       Next, 1978's Smith v. Collin, the famous Skokie Illinois case protecting anti-Semites (again).

g)      Then 3 more cases, including another defense of flag desecration, and one protesting a School's desire to exclude some material from their library,

h)     Next, in 1992's R.A.V. v. Wisconsin, as they describe it: "A unanimous Court struck down as overly broad a local law banning the display, on public or private property, of any symbol 'that arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.'"  This ruling is followed closely by Lee v. Weisman, which made prayers at school unconstitutional.

i)       Next, 1993's notorious Wisconsin v. Mitchell: The various conversations that culminated in this unprecedented pivotal decision are one of history's finest examples of successful political sophistry.  For the first time in America, certain thoughts were not only illegal, but unconstitutional.  Such an accomplishment deserves its own name, and placement into our dictionary - "Hate Crime".  Unbelievably, having one of a particular class of thoughts, if combined with the commission of specific crimes, becomes, itself, also illegal.  As the ACLU describes it: "Wisconsin's 'hate crime' statute, providing for additional criminal penalties if a jury found that a defendant 'intentionally selected' a victim based on 'race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry', did not violate the First Amendment because the statute punished acts, not thoughts or speech."

This last one is sophistry at its best!  They couldn't possibly make thinking illegal; they couldn't even come close to it here in America.  So they shifted the discussion to actions; specifically, criminal acts.

They know that the vast majority of us believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., should be illegal and we're glad that they are.  Building on this foundation, they point out that a jury will consider many things while choosing between the verdicts Guilty or Not Guilty: Where did the alleged crime take place?  What time was it?  What devices were used?  What precipitated, or at least preceded, the crime?  Did the accused know they were breaking the law?  What type of planning took place?  And so on ...

Now they demonstrate that the "Evidence" a jury examines lies somewhere along a continuum from 100% physical action all the way to 100% abstract thought.  AND. Juries already examine stuff that's pretty close to 100% thought, like: did they know their intended action was illegal?  AND.  Conspiracy is already illegal, and thought plays a crucial role in the commission of illegal conspiracy.

It took a deft touch, but we come to understand this ruling as merely a trifling modification of this continuum.  The planning of the crime is a part of the crime brought to the attention of the jury in a conspiracy trial.  Planning is a type of thinking, and the jury is required to consider planning in a conspiracy trial.  They're only allowing the jury to examine a little more of the defendants criminal thinking, and even then only if that particular thinking was associated with the commission of a crime.

They get a lot from this sophistry:

• The pervasive belief that the addition of Hate Crime laws doesn't entail any drastic, even major, changes to The Law; it merely throws a few more things into the pot when considering criminal behavior.  Some more things just like some of the things already in the pot.
• It creates a new concept, Hate Crime, and they get to name it.
• They also get to populate it and so have defined it for current dictionaries for all time.
• They reinforce the idea and actuality of Protected Classes: Hate Crime only applies to Protected Classes.
• They claim the mantle of Civil Rights Crusader for protecting those classes.
• They introduce, and gain widespread acceptance of, the belief that these Hate Crime laws are just like those conspiracy laws which prohibit conspiracy type thinking.

It's critical that they accomplish this last point.  They need to sell you their analogy that Hate Crime law is just like Conspiracy law.  Once they do that, they can successfully demonstrate that as "conspiracy type thinking" is illegal even when the underlying crime remains nothing but a plan, so should "hate type thinking" become illegal, all by itself.

And Poof! Thought Criminals!!! The ACLU; those folks are experts!