Opinion, no matter how hateful, is protected speech. It’s legal and moreover a valid means of expression. It may evince backwards backwater logic, it may drip of hate and vile prejudice, it may be the quintessence of putrescent ideation. It doesn’t matter. It’s opinion and it’s protected. Sensibilities come and go and change and vary as to time and place and subject. The hate that you spew at al Qaeda or Osama bin Forgotten may not be considered hate but rather patriotic, good Americanism. Hate’s fickle. Hate’s relative. It’s not hate, it’s to whom it’s directed.
Alas poor Cliven. Bless his heart, Cliven Bundy was on the brink of making a pretty good case for unconstitutional land grabs. The plot was thickening as to Harry Reid’s connection not to mention the nefarious Chinese lobby. All seemed most interesting, notwithstanding his million dollar lien in unpaid fines and taxes that Ol’ Cliven accrued and amassed. The case could have been made that the means by which liens and fines were addressed were certainly draconian and excessive. But all that ended when Cliven made the most abstruse comments about slavery and Gawd knows what. From that moment, all discussion ceased, all interest vanished and all focus was redirected on his words and idiocy. The focus was now on the statements and motivation and thoughts of Bundy as well as his media supporters who were now caught in the backdraft. But irrespective of any constitutional claims he might have had and the consternation that his thoughts inspired, his speech and ideas were protected. All opinion is protected. And rarely if ever was that even addressed or considered. The left-right paradigm usual suspects spoke up and the bumper sticker and playbook commended. Full throttle.
The doddering owner gets set up by V. Let’s be clear, Donald Sterling’s case is most different. While his opinion is likewise protected, the NBA might be able to exercise owner-franchise sanctions as to his speech and the ignominy and opprobrium he inspired. Fine. But the question that I want answered inter alia is whether anyone read Miss Stiviano her Miranda rights when she made these recordings available, assuming she turned them over. As you know, California is a two party state meaning that both parties to a recorded oral conversation must consent to such recordation and interception. Methinks Donald didn’t. Not to mention his hate was contained, private and clandestine.
Either way, his ideas and thoughts and opinions are protected speech. Period.
Hate crimes are just plain stupid. That perfectly sums it up. Why? Because thought crimes (and they’re thought crimes, don’t you ever forget) are unconstitutional in my opinion. Hate crimes are laws and crimes already cognizable at law, exacerbated and aggravated by pairing them with constitutionally protected speech. Remember, opinions are protected. No matter how horrid and hateful. By penalizing behavior even more when uttering a form of speech, you’ve broken through the firewall. And that’s simply forbidden in our great republic.
Look what we’re doing and saying about words. So what?