Yeah, its all my fault.
I come out against the notion of a government regulating something as personal as emotions, and you try to say that my motivation is protecting the assholes who perpetrate hate crimes. Yeah, I'm the jerk here.
I'm just not seeing that, and despite the fact people start explaining about the additional crimes which have nothing to do with thought, and entail providing proof, you're still clinging to this weird Mad-Max fantasy that people are going to read your brain and arrest you for looking at that 13 year old girl funny.
Hypothetical, purely hypothetical.
You want hate crime legislation as the beginning steps toward controlling people's thoughts and emotions so that they'll never do anything illegal.
There, does that accurately depict your motivations? No. Of course it doesn't.
So you're using the slippery slope argument. That's fine. Being concerned about those issues is fine, but why don't you look at the hate crimes for what they are, not the fantasy of what they will become. You see a slippery slope where thoughts are treated the same as deeds. I could take your description of what you support, and say that it leads to legalizing actions like the KKK, where the intimidation is very carefully crafted to make sure no other laws are broken. Do you support that? My slippery slope is just as good -- if not better than yours, because my slope actually happens, while yours starred Tom Cruise.
You state of what *will* happen, with this prescient clarity. I don't see that happening because 1) We can't read minds yet, the 'Minority Report' thread notwithstanding and 2) the burden of proof of proving a hate crime is on the prosecution, not the defendant.
But what I want to know is this -- do you think terrorizing a group of people based on their skin color, sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation is wrong? And if you do, I'd kinda be curious what groups of the above you think deserve that kind of treatment.