Hate crime laws and the First Amendment
Re: “Good intent, hateful consequence,” Oct. 19 David Harsanyi column.
David Harsanyi demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding regarding hate crime laws and the First Amendment.
Harsanyi incorrectly claims that hate crime laws punish people for “saying something racist.” Not true. Americans are free to say and believe whatever they want. It is only when an individual commits a crime based on those biased beliefs and intentionally targets another for violence or vandalism that a hate crime statute is triggered. That’s why the Supreme Court unanimously upheld hate crime laws against a First Amendment challenge in 1993.
Harsanyi also asserts that hate crimes laws value one person’s life or property over another. Again, not true. Because hate crimes have a unique impact on the broader community, it is legitimate to pass separate laws to deal with them. Because such crimes resonate more broadly in the community, we deal with them with a different law.
Hate crimes are message crimes. Perpetrators use them to send a message to their victims – and the victims’ community – to threaten them and make them feel unwelcome. We applaud Boulder for sending the proper message: an official promise that everyone should feel safe and protected in our cities.
Bruce H. DeBoskey, Regional Director, Mountain States Region, Anti-Defamation League
Initiative 100 billboard
Re: “Marijuana backers remove woman’s billboard photo,” Oct. 20 Denver & The West story.
The Initiative 100 campaign recently came under fire from Denver city officials and some domestic violence groups for billboards supporting the campaign that suggested there would be fewer acts of violence against women if adults could privately use marijuana as an alternative to alcohol.
I am concerned with the disturbing response from our elected officials and these organizations. As a women who has experienced domestic violence first-hand, I am aware alcohol is not the root cause of domestic violence. Yet I am upset that domestic violence groups are 1) unwilling to acknowledge the indisputable fact that alcohol is a contributing factor in domestic violence, and 2) opposed to a measure that would undoubtedly decrease the likelihood of domestic violence by allowing adults of age to use an alternative substance that clearly does not contribute to such acts.
Debbie Tierno, Littleton
The tax burden and Referendums C and D
I pay approximately 40 percent of my income to state and federal income taxes. I pay exorbitant property taxes, which continue to escalate. In addition, I pay sales tax, gas tax, use tax, excise tax, luxury tax, RTD tax, cultural tax, etc. I also pay numerous other fees. Well over half of my income goes to pay some sort of tax. Calculate how much of your income actually goes to pay taxes and you’ll be amazed. When will enough be enough? Send a message to the state that it should live within its means like everybody else. Tell it that you’ve had enough; vote “no” on Referendums C and D.
Ken Johnson, Littleton
Tipping at restaurants: How much to give?
Re: “Tips – How much?” Oct. 20 Style section.
Years ago, the conventional tip for good service was 10 percent. Then, it became 15 percent. Now, a waitress says 20 percent is the new standard. Who elected waitresses to set standards for our generosity? The article also quotes a lady who gives 25 percent for good service and 15 percent for bad service. Some restaurants now mandate a 15 or 18 percent gift from parties of six people regardless of whether the service is terrible.
Let’s go back to 10 percent for good service and nothing for bad service. To paraphrase an old left- wing slogan: “Consumers of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your change.”
Gordon F. Lilly, Silverthorne
