Timoleon: August 1920 Archives

An Effective Use of Sophistry by the ACLU

By Timoleon on August 18, 1920 12:00 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While spending some time at the ACLU site in the summer of '08, I excerpted this excellent example of effective political sophistry from their About page:

 

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

 

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

 

Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs

 

Consider their reference to our Bill of Rights (sophistry). The term "Bill of Rights" entered our collective mind circa 1790 with tremendous prestige and that august history is brought to the reader's mind; especially the reflexive defense of it.

 

By providing the date of ratification and other facts (sophistry), the reader is invited to accept their point of view as that of a knowledgeable, scholarly, historic authority.

 

They write:

 

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments ... adopted in ...

 

If they meant to describe how majority power is limited, they would have written:

 

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights -- which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791 -- plus the three post-Civil War amendments ...

 

Instead, they add 4 amendments to the Bill of Rights (sophistry), skipping forward over 70 years for their first addition, and almost 130 years for their last.

 

Next, the ACLU claims to be on a:

 

"... mission ... to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:"

 

Typically, the first thought to enter the reader's mind will be that the protections and guarantees the ACLU is referring to are those just mentioned in the previous text regarding the Bill of Rights.  Here, the implication is that all who support the Bill of Rights should support their champion, the ACLU (elementary sophistry).

 

Now, with the deft use of a colon (sophisticated sophistry), the reader expects to find an enumeration of "... all of [the] protections and guarantees..." acknowledged by our Bill of Rights.  Instead, the reader finds a 4 point summary of the ACLU's agenda, which the uneducated and unwary conclude is a complete list of our rights under the Bill of Rights.

 

If the ACLU's rhetoric is successful, they create another supporter - hopefully, dues-paying and card-carrying -- and gain the reader's acceptance as a worthy defender of the Bill of Rights and an authoritative interpreter of the Constitution.

 

 

Bumper Stickers that caught my eye:

"Friends don't let friends vote republican."

"Guns don't kill people. I do."

Better late than never: ThoughtCrime finally arrives

By Timoleon on August 18, 1920 7:00 AM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well George, you missed it by 10 years, and that's not so close considering you made your prediction as recently as 1949 with your novel "1984".  It wasn't until 1994 that federal law created thoughtcriminals by passing a law against hate crimes. [1]  Not only were you 10 years too early, but we still don't have a special branch of Thought Police to 'protect' us.  As for Big Brother; let's leave that for another time.

 

On the surface, I find the justifications for hate crime legislation pretty convincing.  After all, the legal concept of mens rea -- literally 'guilty mind'; usually used synonymously with "intent" -- has been a fixture in western jurisprudence for a long, long time, and the person committing a hate crime [2] certainly intends to commit a crime. (And 'criminal intent' is required to be culpable, therefore punishable; the law often forgives 'accidents'.) These particular crimes are also said to produce greater suffering for the victim, [3] as well as harm the victim's community. [4] 

 

On the web I have found a plethora of sites defending, justifying and legitimizing hate crime legislation, [5] and a dearth of sites challenging this legislation. [6]  Since so many states have passed hate crime legislation and so many Supreme Courts have upheld them, [7] maybe the disparity between the number of sites, Pro and Con, can be explained because the issue has been debated enough and is now closed; hate crime legislation won.

 

This may be the case with our legal system, yet many claim that system has become so radicalized, its opinion doesn't count for much anymore.  As evidence, they point to the fact that the General Counsel for the ACLU - from 1973-1980 - is now sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States --  Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I wonder ... With such credentials, if Justice Ginsburg isn't legitimately labeled a radical, who in America could be?  Or have we moved so far that the ACLU is no longer radical; is now so much closer to the middle of the road as to be only liberal?

 

Here's an amusing twist: vegetable hate crimes.  (Is it interesting that the ACLU seems to be defending the hatred of vegetables while working to criminalize the hatred of certain people?)

 

If you look into the Pros & Cons of hate crime legislation and the judicial rulings surrounding them, you will find lots of references to the perpetrator's motive and motivation, as well as what the perpetrator intends to do, -- their intention; and how these apply to the law.  If you then look up the definitions of these words, you'll find reference to the words: believe and belief; thought and think; opinion and of course hate.

 

Take note of the subtle, esoteric similarities and differences in the definitions of these words.  For instance:

  • The noun thought is defined as: 1a) the action or process of thinking; and 2b) the power to imagine.  It is also defined as: 3b) a developed intention or plan.
  • The verb think is defined as: 1) to form or have in the mind; 3a) to have as an opinion; 4a) to reflect on.  It is also defined as: 2) to have as an intention.
  • The verb intend is defines as: 4a) to have in mind as a purpose or goal.

 

Notice particularly that to intend (mens rea) is to "have in mind", and to "have in the mind" is to think. 

 

Can the case be made that the esoteric reasoning surrounding the legitimization of hate crime legislation is mere sophistry?  Whatever your answer to this question, it must be admitted that stating in public something like: "I hate XXXXXs"; [8] or "I enjoy it when a XXXXX is hurt"; or "I like to hurt XXXXXs"; or "I want to hurt XXXXXs"; is constitutionally protected.  It must also be admitted that thinking and/or announcing these thoughts while committing a crime against a XXXXX is now illegal.

 

Maybe the proponents of hate crime legislation [9] are correct (a lot of good minds think so).  That despite the possible confusion of terms, hate crime legislation does not make the thinking, or speaking, of a thought illegal.  What is clear is that reasonable folks of goodwill disagree regarding this claim. 

 

But the larger question is why our lawmakers and courts are so willing to tread so close to the line [10] of making certain thoughts [11] illegal, if they haven't crossed it already? [12] Our Supreme Court has often avoided entanglement in certain issues because they feel they are not properly involved in such areas or not competent as a body to render judgments in some areas.  Is the freedom of thought one such area?   In other areas, the court said there was a wall of separation which so many deem so important.  Why is the line between criminalizing behavior and criminalizing thought practically impossible to see and comparatively so unimportant?

 

With the line between thought and action so blurry, how will one know when one has crossed it?  Heck, maybe it won't even matter in our politically correct times:

 

"In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be nowords in which to express it". Syme; one of Big Brother's henchmen from Orwell's 1984

 

Notes:

 

[1] On September 13, 1994, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was amended, to make hate crimes illegal, via the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (H.R.3355, Public Law No: 103-322) to include the following:

 

SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.

 

(a) DEFINITION- In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

 

(b) SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT- Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes. In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other guidelines, avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense, and take into account any mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions.

 

[2] According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Hate Crime Statistics for 2004, there were 7,649 criminal hate crime incidents, out of 1,367,009 violent crimes and 10,328,255 property crimes; 0.065% of crimes committed in 2004 were hate crimes.    In perspective, according to the National Safety Council, or NSC, in 2003 there were 4,500 accidental workplace fatalities and 13,900 fatalities due to accidental poisoning.  I wonder how many of the hate crimes were fatal to the victim?

 

[3] In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the American Psychological Association, or APA, said:

"... the experience of a serious hate crime has more severe psychological ramifications for the victim than a random crime of similar severity ..."

 

[4] According to the Anti-Defamation League, or ADL,

"Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community."

 

[5] Some interesting reading supporting hate crime legislation, soon to be called 'bias-crimes':

  • University of Tennessee: Hate Crimes Laws: Progressive Politics or Balkanization? 
  • Boston College: THE RHETORIC OF LEGAL BACKFIRE [against hate crime legislation]
  • Harvard Symposium Essay: AGREEING TO AGREE: A PROPONENT AND OPPONENT OF HATE CRIME LAWS REACH FOR COMMON GROUND. (This is a particularly thoughtful, scholarly essay.)

 

[6] Some criticisms of hate crime legislation:

  • A 'Google book'  excerpt of Jacobs' and Potter's book "Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics"
  • FraudFactor: Fixing Criminal Justice System Weakness Only for a Select Few
  • The Any Rand Institute, Op-Ed piece: Criminal law should not be used to enforce ideological orthodoxy.

 

[7] In Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed and upheld Todd Mitchell's enhanced sentence for committing a hate crime.

 

[8] For XXXXX, substitute any particular race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

 

[9] Criminal law:

  • North Carolina Wesleyan College: Basic Intro to criminal law.
  • From Northwestern Law School: What is a crime Outline.
  • Boalt Law School: Criminal Law Outline.

 

[10] Quotes surrounding freedom of thoughts:

  • Benjamin Franklin: "Without freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom"
  • Victor Frankl: "The last of the human freedoms is to choose one's attitudes".
  • William O. Douglas:  "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."

 

[11] "A History of Freedom of Thought"; The University Press, Cambridge, U.S.A., 1913

 

[12] "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."  James Madison.

1st Amendment cases from the ACLU's "100 Greatest" page.

By Timoleon on August 18, 1920 2:00 AM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've just come from the ACLU page listing their 100 greatest successes from 1925 through 1999.  Out of these, 35 involve our 1st 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!

 

« Timoleon: October 1909 | Main Index | Archives | Timoleon: January 1973 »

About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries written by Timoleon in August 1920.

Timoleon: October 1909 is the previous archive.

Timoleon: January 1973 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Timoleon: Monthly Archives

Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed
Powered by Movable Type 4.0

Search