Monday, June 29, 2009

Iraqis React to Partial US Withdrawl
4 US Servicemen Killed
Two Contend They're President of Honduras
CIA Factbook Honduras
President Obama Meets With LGBT Leaders
Wash Blade/Transcript
Canada's Different Approach: Hate Speech Laws
Pakistan Militants End Truce
Seeds of Mideast Peace
Commentary on New Haven Firefighters
NYT: Confusion Follows Fighfighter Case
NYT: S. Ct. Refuses 9/11 Appeal
Anti-Illegal Immigration Group in Spotlight After Killings
SPLC: Mississippi Pol Address Racist Group
LA Hate Crime Case's Hero: Victim's Wife
Provincetown, MA Hate Crime Forum Set For Sunday, 6/28
Commentary: Pass Matthew Shepard Hate Act:
Commentary: Proposed Fed Hate Crime Law Breaches Free Speech, Double Jeopardy
Fact Check: Supreme Court Ruled Otherwise:
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (Unanimous Opinion Upholding Hate Crime Laws):
"The First Amendment, moreover, does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. Evidence of a defendant's previous declarations or statements is commonly admitted in criminal trials subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like. Nearly half a century ago, in Haupt v. United States, 330 U. S. 631 (1947), we rejected a contention similar to that advanced by Mitchell here. Haupt was tried for the offense of treason, which, as defined by the Constitution (Art. III, § 3), may depend very much on proof of motive."
United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922)
"It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both, and may be punished by each."

No comments:

Post a Comment