Deliberately to embarrass a person is a felony, if the person belongs to a favored group
From an article at radio station 101.5 about the Dharun Ravi guilty verdict:
Some of the jurors said that Ravi’s tweets, especially one that “dared” friends to watch the webcast that never happened, were key evidence in convicting him of anti-gay intimidation.”That post, what it said, struck a chord in all of us,” said Ed Dolan, a finance manager.So, what proved Dharun Ravi guilty of the “hate crime” of “bias intimidation,” for which he may be sentenced to prison for ten years, is that he intended to “embarrass” Tyler Clementi over the latter’s homosexual assignation with a 30 year old man in the college dorm room Clementi shared with Ravi.
Let’s face it. We now live under the naked tyranny of the anti-discriminatory principle. If you do or express anything discriminatory, intolerant, or negative with regard to blacks, women, or homosexuals, you don’t just lose your job, career, and social standing; you go to prison.
In this connection, I am surprised that no one commented on my suggestion last week about what universities should tell students during freshman orientation. A reader had written:
Fundamentally this is no different from a situation where you go to jail for insulting the King in Thailand. Or get lashed for insulting Islam in Saudi Arabia. Every society has its taboos. If you violate one, you can expect punishment far in excess of what is appropriate.To which I replied:
Absolutely right. Instead of telling entering freshmen, “We are a campus devoted to diversity, we are so diverse, we celebrate our diversity,” the school should tell the students in straightforward language: “We have a rule here. Pay careful attention. If you say anything negative about, or do anything which is considered offensive to, homosexuals, women, blacks, or other designated nonwhite groups, you have violated our Prime Directive, and we will cause you serious harm, ranging from social disapproval and shunning, to exclusion from academic honors and advancement, to expulsion from the school, to prosecution and imprisonment as a hate-crimes felon.” And if a school does not give such an honest freshman orientation, the parents of students should explain this to their children before they send them off to school. Not in terms of, “This is right,” but in terms of, “This is the reality. So exercise extreme caution when saying anything. Keep your true thoughts to yourself and to tested friends you know you can trust.”
America is truly no longer the land of the free and home of the brave. The verdict and the jurors’ comments indicate how deeply the rot of liberalism has penetrated into the psyche of the “average American.” I would be willing to bet that the jurors were afraid of the reaction from the liberal culture of our country had they found him not guilty. Instead of a bulwark against tyranny, as the Founders envisioned the practice of trial by jury, jurors have now become willing instruments of the powers that be. We have nothing on the old Soviet Union in this regard. Ravi is the equivalent of a “class enemy” in Stalin’s day, who must be punished.JC continues:
LA, your reference to Columbia in 1967 revived some of my own memories. I started college in 1968 and lived off campus. Whenever I dated a coed who lived in the dorms on campus, I would pick her up at the WOMEN’s dorm. Males were not allowed past the reception desk. Sex in the dorms was a definite no-no. Of course I don’t know how that policy of no coed dorms would have worked out on Ravi’s case. Open homosexuality simply did not exist, at least here in conservative Texas at that time. There’s a lot to be said for those old, outdated rules of behavior!March 20
Scott B. writes:
In retrospect, it would seem that the totalitarian prosecution of the Ravi case was an end to which “hate crime” legislation was pointing from the outset.LA replies:
There’s really no limit to what they can now do. Even before hate crime legislation, left-liberals spread the idea that anti-liberal opinions created an “hostile academic environment,” or an “intimidating work environment.” Well, all the liberals had to do was declare in law (1) that to “intimidate” a person is a crime, and (2) that if such intimidation is motivated by hostility to a designated victim group, the intimidation is a hate crime, meriting a more severe punishment.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 19, 2012 05:39 PM | Send