David Link on the conviction of Rutgers student Dharun Ravi over his mistreatment of eventual suicide victim Tyler Clementi [Independent Gay Forum; earlier here, here, here, etc.] (& Greenfield)
P.S. James Jacobs and Tish Durkin were among contributors to a recent roundtable on hate crime laws at the NYT’s “Room for Debate”.
Assuming the Rutgers roommate/consummate jerk should be facing criminal charges in the aftermath of Tyler Clementi’s suicide — a big if — it shouldn’t be over purported “bias intimidation,” argues Jacob Sullum [Reason, more; Jersey Conservative] Earlier on the Clementi case here, here, and here. And a Boston case has prompted questions about the reach of hate-crime law: “Are Lesbian Gay-Bashers Guilty of a Hate Crime?” [Atlantic Wire]
Related: At Psychology Today, Israel (Izzy) Kalman writes a blog critical of the rise of the “anti-bullying industry” and attendant efforts to criminalize for the first time many personal interactions both verbal and behavioral.
States have begun to add the homeless as a protected group. Hans Bader offers a critique.
“…please don’t name a statute for me. Send flowers instead.” Gail Heriot on the federal hate-crimes bill [Philadelphia Inquirer]
Steve Chapman on the “empty symbolism” of the federal hate crimes bill (via Sullivan).
Hans Bader points out that a very important motivation for the pending expansion of federal hate-crimes law is to exploit a loophole the Supreme Court has created in its application of the important Constitutional principle, by exposing defendants to jeopardy a second time despite acquittal or dropping of charges in state courts.