Reading Reflection #10

"Nobody should have to turn to the police or the Legislature to get the same protections that most everyone else takes for granted."

"...hate crime legislation divides Americans into special classes and goes against the prinicple of equal justice under the law."

These two quotes seem to reflect the opposing arguments being established in deciding if this bill will actually pass. The first goes without saying. People should not have to be afraid of harassment, discrimiation, and, at the very least, hatred. People may be allowed to think what they will, but why extend those uninvited thoughts to the general public? To cause an uprising of some sort? To draw scrutiny? I understand why hate crime exists, but I don't know why people feel it is necessary to brink generally unaccepted thoughts to the surface. The second quote, however, is equally compelling. By acknowledging hate crime protection, we are, in essence, dividing people into special categories, thereby diminishing equal justice. Diminishing, perhaps, but not aleviating. True, to divide people under laws is to undermine that prinicple of equality. However, if people are going to act like assholes and cause a ruckus in the community, what can be done to ensure their safety? I understand what the person is saying in response to this editorial and it seems to make sense. I feel that if the offense is an actual physical, bodily harmful crime against another human being, justice will be delivered swiftly, perhaps without the assistance of a hate crime law. However, people do not need to be subjected to others' negative opinions of a certain aspect of themselves on a daily basis. No one need fear or endure a racial or prejudiced slur spray painted on their car. No one need even endure a crude comment shouted in their direction from a passerby, though that will likely never happen. If anything, however, it is better to be the victim of verbal harassment than a physical assault. I don't believe someon can be incarcirated for yelling an obscenity at another person, but in terms of something that is a bit more permanent, hate crime legislation seems to be an effective method at discouraging people from acting on their hate. There is definitely an uncomfortable division between protection of free speech and hate crime laws, but free speech is not free "act" so to speak. Words hurt, that is undeniable, but they don't hurt as bad a bodily harm. I feel that this law has leaps and bounds to go before it is fully accepted, but it cannot be ignored that equality is reaching a potential for full realization.