No, they aren't less dead because you did it for a different reason.
But the different reason means you have differing levels of incentive to do it, and those differing levels of incentive need differing levels of counter-incentive.
Hate-crime laws are an attempt to provide increased counter-incentive, to oppose the increased incentive provided by hatred.
You can disagree that that's appropriate, but you should still recognize that that's what they're trying to do: reduce crime originating from extreme causes. Simply asserting that the argument doesn't exist or doesn't matter fails to counter the argument.
If the laws against murder, by themselves, are enough to keep you from murdering B and C, but are not enough to keep you from murdering A (because you hate left-handed people), how is increasing the penalties in an attempt to discourage you from murdering A a bad thing?
While it's true that refusal to host your speech does not equal government censorship, it's also true that censorship does not consist only of government censorship.
The only type of censorship which is prohibited by the First Amendment is censorship by the government - but the only unqualified definition of "censorship" I've ever found which seems neither too broad nor too narrow boils down to "an attempt to prevent some particular audience from being exposed to some particular information", and it's certainly possible for non-government entities to do that; for example, it's entirely routine for parents to censor the material available to their children, and people often self-censor by refraining from saying something they think will get a negative reaction in their current company.
Theoretically, that should be prevented by the "only hacking to identify the people responsible for hacking you" clause(s), which would make any given hack-back much less likely to be noticed than an "original" (and not-permitted-by-this-law) hacking attempt would be.
There's considerable difference between theory and practice, however.
Last time I checked, murdering someone by dragging them behind a truck is illegal, what does adding hate on to it do?
Well, that depends.
The thing is, hate crime laws are - or at least, when properly understood and implemented, should be - entirely about motivation and deterrence.
Say you have three people: A, B, and C.
A is left-handed; the other two are right-handed.
B hates left-handed people, and thinks they're subhuman mongrels; the other two don't feel that way. None of the three have any particular negative feelings about right-handed people.
Any of these people might decide that they hate one of the others for something specific, rather than over the question of handedness.
Now imagine a set of scales, representing the decision of whether or not to commit a crime against a particular person - for example, murder. The incentive from the specific hatred would be a weight on one side of these scales, tilting the decision towards committing the crime.
The laws against any given crime will - at least in theory - be designed to balance the scales, by adding enough weight to the other side of the scales that the decision will tilt the other direction. That weight comes partly in the form of rules which affect the likelihood of being caught and convicted, and partly in the form of penalties - the punishments for those convicted of the crime.
Those penalties will - at least in theory - be set at the level necessary to deter most people from committing the crime. In this case, that will be the level needed to prevent B from murdering C, or prevent A or C from murdering anybody.
But B's hatred of left-handed people means that B has additional incentive to murder A; the weight on the "commit murder" side of the scales is heavier. That same level of deterrence will not necessarily be enough to prevent B from murdering A.
The idea of hate-crime laws is to add additional weight to the "don't commit the crime" side of the scales, by increasing the deterrence factor, to match the additional incentive which is provided by the hatred.
Re: This comment will be moderated for a while... Thanks TD!
Given that there's a reply to your comment timestamped barely 22 minutes later, it looks very much as if your comment was not held for moderation at all - or at the very least, not for any meaningful length of time.
Is it plausible that someone who knows about the McEwan's beer brand could, upon seeing a McEwan's whiskey brand, reasonably conclude that the company behind the former has expanded into additional types of alcoholic beverage?
To my eye, that seems like an entirely plausible scenario - and one which looks like a clear case of consumer confusion. The only question is one of whether it rises to the level of confusion which trademark law is intended to prevent.
Other details of the branding - such as the font, colors, and logo used - could make such confusion significantly less likely, such that having the name used by two different entities in that way would not be a problem - but the difference in product alone is not likely to be enough to avoid that confusion, IMO.
(Mind, I agree that shutting down someone's ability to use his own name in commerce is undesirable, and that there are a number of problems with trademarks as currently implemented. I'm just not convinced that the dividing lines of markets prevent consumer confusion as effectively as this article, and its predecessors on similar subjects, seem to believe - or that relying entirely on those lines wouldn't result in problems as bad as the ones the current situation creates.)
Re: I could do a simple two-word reply, but then I would get flagged.
if you thought a post was insightful, and then the POST EXECUTIONER wanted to bury it under a nameless headstone, do you get a voice? Do you vote?
Yes, you get a vote. Those buttons at the top-right corner of a comment allow you to vote on whether you think a comment is insightful or funny. They also allow you to flag a comment as "abusive/trolling/spam". The whole point of the system is to allow the commenter community a degree of control over what comments are deemed worthwhile to a given conversation.
Sometimes the same post gets enough votes to be marked both ways: with the ! for Insightful, and the "click here to show it" hidden status of trolling.
I've actually flagged a single post with both votes myself, at least once in the past...
CyanogenMod as such doesn't exist anymore; the company pulled the plug on it on December 25th, 2016.
The development community have migrated over to a fork called LineageOS; the development, build, and release patterns are a little different, and the process of migrating from CyanogenMod to LineageOS isn't as clean and simple as could be hoped for, but the result seems to be just as good overall as CyanogenMod was. (At least so far.)
Even not permitting a keyboard app access to network communications doesn't protect against keystroke surveillance entirely.
If you permit it to access storage, and then the people behind it get another app onto your device which _does_ need to access both network communications and storage (such apps being far from uncommon), that app can transmit a stored record of keystrokes.
Er. Apparently even I am susceptible to failing to notice the "reply to this" link. This was intended for the "if you follow orders to sexually assault people as part of your job" comment, which is just above it as I type thos.
And get fired. And replaced by other people, who won't say no.
For so long as we still have the TSA, which is worse: to have the TSA staffed by people who think the groping is a bad thing and don't want to do it, or to have the TSA staffed by people who see nothing wrong with the groping or outright want to do it?
The former type of people are more likely to exercise appropriate restraint, and use good judgment about when the groping (and/or even worse measures) is and is not necessary.
If the former type of people refuse to do it and either quit or get fired, we will be left with nothing but the latter type of people in the job. I am not at all convinced that that is an improvement.
Leaving aside the possible legal consequences of that suggested course of action, the problem isn't actually the TSA "gropey people" themselves; it's the system which mandates that such people be present, and engage in the groping, regardless of whether or not they actually *want* to be "gropey".
The thing to target here is the rules, and (if necessary) the laws which give rise to them, not the people who apply them and carry them out - even if some of those people seem as if they might be inclined to do such things even without the protection of those rules.
If you don't like these problems, lobby Congress - and the airline industry, and anyone else you think may be able to affect things - to abolish the TSA as security theater and go back to something more like the metal-detectors-and-passive-explosives-sensors model of airport security we had before 9/11, as being a better solution to the cost/benefit problem.
It's this particular anonymous troll's next-to-latest thinks-he's-clever nickname for Mike Masnick. (The latest being a literary reference I haven't bothered to remember, something about comparing him to a socialist dog - a literal canine.)