No need to worry, we don't flay newcomers around here. :)

Actually, I think most people here would agree with you. This paragraph...

I, too, believe in unrestricted free speech…to a point. When speech is about concepts, ideas, opinions, views, etc, then I believe such speech must be protected. But, when the speech turns to inciting violent or criminal action, it moves from the realm of speech to the realm of action, and I do not believe in unrestricted freedom of action.

...is completely in accord with my views, and probably most people's views here. Speech that incites or encourages criminal activity is itself a crime, and should be dealt with accordingly. But speech that only expresses an idea, no matter how detestable, should not be a crime.

We have to keep in mind the difference between hate speech laws and hate crime laws. Hate crime laws punish an action more severely if that action was already a crime and was motivated by hate of a particular group. Hate speech laws, however, punish the mere expression of an idea regardless of whether any action accompanies it. I'm always opposed to hate speech laws, but I think hate crime laws are at the very least defensible, though I personally haven't made up my mind about them. (Should I really be punished more harshly for beating you because I hate your race or religion than for beating you because I just don't like your face?)

I, too, believe in unrestricted free speech...to a point. When speech is about concepts, ideas, opinions, views, etc, then I believe such speech must be protected. But, when the speech turns to inciting violent or criminal action, it moves from the realm of speech to the realm of action, and I do not believe in unrestricted freedom of action. Your rights end where mine begin. I believe that anything that involves only consenting adults is protected action. Violence against others (unless they actually want it, big boy :-), infringes on their freedoms, of course. So, it is reasonable to restrict actions, but not thoughts, expression, and speech.

I don't know if the following are "good" arguments for or against hate-crime laws or not, but whenever I start waxing philosophical about criminal activity and its relationship to various freedoms, I have to remind myself that, by and large, at least in the U.S., the people who are arrested for violent crimes are violent criminals.

And I don't mean to gloss over the seriousness and tragedy of the all too frequent miscarriages of justice that occur, such as the one unfolding now in Jena, LA, but I'll have to save that tirade for another day.

I'm sure all here have read and seen much in the paper and on TV about just how bad some people can be. Someone once asked me, "How does a rational society deal with irrational behavior?", and he meant murder. His answer, "By acting just as irrationally.", and he meant the death penalty.

When those of us who believe ourselves "rational" deal with other rational people, we can act rationally. But when we deal with irrational people, it is usually futile to try to deal with them rationally. So, you and I don't need for judges to sit ten feet in the air towering over us to impress us with the seriousness and soberness of the situation, but violent criminals do, sometimes, respond to such psychological tricks. An irrational practice for the likes of us, but if it gives a violent criminal one millisecond of pause to think that maybe he's out of his league at the moment, then that one millisecond could make all the difference in maintaining control in the court room vs. having a violent criminal rampaging through it. (Yes, of course, it doesn't always work, but it does usually seem to work.) Similarly, I think, the gradations of punishments for different crimes are intended (if not entirely successfully) to deal with the gradations of violence in criminals. To us rational folks, it just seems either "feel good" or just plain silly, but to the mind of a more or less violent someone who is thinking maybe he'll just mosey over to that g-d- gay bar down the street and just maybe kill himself a queer for Christ, or even bag himself a atheist, it may give him a moment of pause 'cause he's heard from his drinking buddies that they'll go a lot harder on him if it's a "hate-crime". It is a matter of marketing. These sorts of laws, at least in the U.S., are not in place to control folks like us, but to protect us from folks like them.

Can such laws be abused...absolutely. It wouldn't be the U.S. if they weren't. Are they effective...who knows. But as long as there's a chance that some asshole who heard I was an atheist pauses to think about the extra consequences just long enough for me to get a head start on him to my car in that dark parking lot, then I'm all for it. Of course, I won't count on it, and I will never know if it really worked, but I guess I feel (have faith?) that having such laws is better than not having them. (More so for others, than for myself, because I don't frequent dark parking lots anyway.)

So, finally, the point is, yes, hate-crime laws seem silly, but then we are not their target audience.

(Just some of my random, synaptic firings. My opinion can be changed by a puff of wind. :-)

"Any country that lets me run my mouth the way I do and get away with it...deserves to be saved."--Bill Mahr.

This case is particularly urgent in terms of world stability since Bush seems to be hinting at military action against Iran. Such an invasion would likely increase the Islamic government's justification of further repression (as war often does). I'm not sure precisely what to do about this, but encouraging people to learn a little about the history of the region (especially recent history) can't hurt: For a user-friendly introduction, please see the film Persepolis (which is the story of a kid who was attending a secular school up until the Islamic government took power and whose life was colored by the increasingly repressive atmosphere).

but when used properly (in the context of disputes over desirable actions) and when an actual plausible connection between the proposed action and the worrisome long-term consequences can be shown to exist, they're legitimate.

Good point. I think we still have to add the caveat that the proposition would have to be sufficiently outweighed by the long-term consequences as well. No matter how plausible the string of consequences, and no matter how likely they are to follow, they can't in-and-of-themselves disprove the utility of the proposition. Maybe the line should be drawn at the point where slippery slope arguments are the only arguments employed against a proposition? If I offer other arguments and then buttress them by showing that poor consequences would also likely follow that seems like less shaky ground.

Thanks for the conversation on it, it helps me focus my ideas!

I feel it should be pointed out, though, that many people (okay, mostly conservatives) feel these laws are designed to protect ONLY minority groups, and therefore the law is unconstitutional since it doesn't protect everyone. They don't realize that if, for example, a gang of crazed pink pistol totin' lesbians attack a helpless heterosexual couple for their orientation the hate-crime law would then apply.

I wonder how long it'll be before one of these laws are used to prosecute a crime committed by a religious nutjob against an atheist?

I'm not holding my breath.

In fact, I find it hard to avoid slippery-slope arguments in lots of aspects of religious argument. Are there times that these arguments don't amount to fallacy, or does pointing to possible negative consequences of an otherwise neutral point automatically fall to the rubbish bin?

I'm not entirely sure where the concept of slippery slope as a fallacy separates from the effects of precedent on subsequent decision-making, but issues of precedent are clearly a legitimate concern. I would say that slippery slope issues are necessarily fallacious when deployed against empirical arguments (points of fact) or when they are used to scare people, but when used properly (in the context of disputes over desirable actions) and when an actual plausible connection between the proposed action and the worrisome long-term consequences can be shown to exist, they're legitimate.

Hate speech isn't quite the same thing, but hate crimes are different - hate crimes are declarations that an entire class of people is fair game.

In fact, I find it hard to avoid slippery-slope arguments in lots of aspects of religious argument. Are there times that these arguments don't amount to fallacy, or does pointing to possible negative consequences of an otherwise neutral point automatically fall to the rubbish bin?