I don't like people getting in trouble for saying "faggot," "gay," "etc. I don't like people being prosecuted for hate-crimes because I don't want to be treated as "special"--that feels so belittling to my potential.

Making Hawaii coach McMackin cry for his suspension can feel good in the short term like a junk-food fix but in the long term it fixates on smaller things than the greater. I don't think this is going to open his heart and mind to my civil rights.

I cried a lot in my earlier years growing up because I was afraid I would not be liked for being gay. Well, it hurts me just as much seeing people vilified for their ignorance of my civil rights. It makes me think of how the French republicans went mad with guillotines when overthrowing the French royalists. Christians tortured non-Christians when the tables turned. Invading Iraq felt good at the time but it squandered world empathy (and human life) at a critical moment.

Can we just focus on the hearts, minds, and equal rights without the vengeance for past inequity? I have no heart for putting another person through my great sadness growing up. We risk turning hurt into a virus; vaccination can be to laugh at the gaffes, live openly by example, and move purposely toward legislated equality.

I'm with you on the Hawaii coach thing..he needed to apologize and end of story.,...but I am totally in favor of extra attention being paid to somebody who is murdered or beaten to a pulp specifically because they are gay or black or Jewish or whatever. Sorry but there is an extra component to violent hate crimes that needs to be protected. There is a HUGE difference between what this borderline retared football coach did and what those ass****s dd to Matthew Shephard.

Gosh, I feel so out of the loop. You mean another mensa-member coach said something stupid? OMG! Stop the presses! This has GOT to be a first! I DO like it when people get in trouble for saying ignorant things into a hot mic. It's called THINKING BEFORE SPEAKING. The world would be a lot better if some would follow this advice. I haven't a clue who said what, but I am sure it was something really, really stupid. I DO like it when people are prosecuted for hate crimes. Tom, do you know how Matthew Shepard died? Multiple blunt-force trama to the groin. Can you imagine being kicked in the groin so many times that you die? This is why we need federal legislation for hate crimes. Let these f*ckers get raped in prison until they bleed. Trust me, after a few jamokes experience it, word will get out on the streets.

I have mixed feelings about hate crimes as well. Murder is heinous, no matter the reason. The torture and murder of the Polish-born US soldier and his wife was just as much a hate crime as the murder of the gay US sailor was. Still...

As for the Hawaii coach, what is more infuriating were the laughs from the crowd. What would have been the crowd's reaction, had he made a racial, ethnic, or anti-Semitic slur instead of a gay one? And what gets me was that the apology was more for what he said about the team first and only about gays as if an after-thought.

I am editing my post after reading of the gunman, who entered a gay teen club in Israel and killed two people.
Tel Aviv Shooting

Is hate crime legislation right? Still not sure, but hatred is a powerful motivator. Making the consequences harsher might be a deterrence. But how different is this latest attack than the recent terrorist attacks in SE Asia that targeted Westerners? Changing hearts and minds? Tough business.

People being prosecuted for hate crimes is not about you or me. It's not treating the victim as special. Prsoecuting a person for a hate crime is treating the offender as special. It's punishing that person for committing a crime he committed for no other reason than hate.

With respect to the idiot Hawaii coach, it pisses me off that he used the term "faggot" as he did. If he'd called a kyke dance or a wop dance or a gook dance, he would have been suspended and probably fired (not to mention the mother of all racial slurs). Why not suspend him for calling it a faggot dance? Why not suspend him for embarrassing UH by asking the media not to report it? Why not send the message to his kids that using these slurs is WRONG? You think a gay football player at Hawaii (if there is one) is going to come out with his coach calling us faggots? He did it during a press conference. How many times do you think he's done it in the locker room or on the practice field? Crew Chief, in another thread, told us how he spoke up at a restaurant when some bigot gave him and his date a hard time about being gay. Good on him and good on Hawaii. They both did the right thing.

But isn't it one's constitutional right to hate someone or something? If I walk down the street and say--stupidly, "I hate Asians," isn't that my right? If I beat up a person because he's Asian, I should be punished no differently than if I were to beat up a black person or white person or anyone else. Hate crimes demean one group or class of persons at the expense of another.

I can see the points people make and why they feel they do. Yes, I know of Matthew Shepard. I began telling people I was gay after his murder because he was gay like me and Wyoming wilderness was my home at one time. I wanted to add my face to gay faces to make it real.

I don't feel good when I hate or hold grudges. It feels righteous in the first hours and days but then it drains me. I don't like imagining Matthew's horrible dying. My climbing mate died years ago (climbing solo without me) and I had to stop imagining his expression while falling; it was too weird and was stunting my living. Enough to hold to the 99.999999 rest of his life.

No denying, several nations having laws that put gays to death. But my eyes are "on the prize" of equality. Hate feels crippling and I recall reading "nobody loves a victim." And if I can laugh along the way, then I feel superior for a spell. It seems to me that as more people come out, then fewer coaches and simpletons will resort to cheap talk. We may, ourselves, be the solution. But, what do I know!

Not sure why words like "faggot," "queer," "poofter," don't bother me. Sad people, closet gay, and cheap stand-up comics say these words a lot for shock value and nervous laughter. On the other hand, people who are careful with me because I'm gay make me uncomfortable but they mean well. I just like being normal, equal, as good as, and one of, having mates, but for gosh sake not "special"--that just sounds so.....

All speech is not protected. There's a broad category called "fighting words" which can be regulated (among other categories). You can hate whomever you want, you can even say it. When it crosses over, and couples with, violence, threats and other crimes then that's a different story.

We punish murder in different ways...you wanted to kill is murder, you were caught up in the heat of the moment due to some stimulus that's manslaughter....they're both still dead.

Gay rights supporters have been trying for years to get the point across that it's not OK to use anti-gay slurs. Civilized society seems to be on the verge of agreeing with them, which is a great thing. The corollary to it being not OK to call someone a faggot is accountability for having called someone a faggot. As I posted on the blog, I'm having trouble thinking of another sports figure who was ever punished for using anti-gay language. I see where you're coming from, Tom, but IMO we can't just jump from open season on gays to some kind of post-modern situation of being beyond punishments for offensive statements. A few people are going to actually have to pay the consequences for their actions before those consequences become outre.

That I know, but then it comes down to punishing thought, and all thought is protected. If I'm sitting around thinking, "I'm going to kill the president," I can't be punished, but if I verbalize that, then it becomes a threat and punishable.

If I think to myself, "I hate gay people," that is my constitutional right. If I say it to a friend of mine while walking through the city, it isn't punishable because there's no threat to a particular person's life. If I then see a gay person and beat him up, should I receive an additional penalty because of such thoughts? What if there are two guys walking down the street and I beat up the straight guy but not the gay guy. Straight guy Jim learns that upon conviction, I'm sentenced to say, 10 years in prison, but had I beat up gay guy Bob, I would have received 15 years in prison. How do you think this makes Jim feel? Exactly.

"Hate" crimes are an abomination, and if we who claim to support equality, due process, etc. are in favor of such laws, then we're being hypocritical, to say the least.

Hate crimes and constitutional theory have nothing to do with this discussion.

Considering the OP is the one who first mentioned it, I'd say they do.

First, regarding the coach, I don't believe the punishment was solely for using the slur "faggot," which I certaily use all the time (typically to rail against anti-gay people hating on us), but for using the slur multiple times and then trying to get reporters to cover up the story. At that point, when he went back into the room to try and stop the reporters, he crossed an ethical line far worse than any mere insult. Coaches, especially, cannot be currying favor with journalists or trying to censor how their teams are covered, no matter what the subject.

I don't know that the guy should have been fired, even though I agree that he would have been for a different racial or ethnic slur. That is a real sign of how far we still have to go for social acceptance. I do think he was truly contrite and probably learned a real lesson. Now the question is whether he will follow through on his promises.

Secondly, regarding the hate crimes discussion. I think Crew Chief has the wrong idea:



First, hate crimes laws don't punish thoughts, they punish actions, and in direct proportion to the threat posed by the type of crime we are talking about. When terrorists murdered 3,000 people on 9/11, we rightly considered that crime far more serious and far more henious than, say, a mafia member hiring a hit man to take out a rival. That is because the terrorism was aimed at hundreds of thousands/millions of people and was random; the hit man scenario is one that is easily avoided if one is not in the mafia.

Hate crime laws simply reflect the higher number of victims when someone is targeted for being a member of a minority group, and they apply whether the targeting is correct or not. That is why your example could not occur. Who you select of the two men to beat up is not the question, why you selected him is. When the two brothers were recently attacked in NYC for walking down the street arm-in-arm, the NY hate crimes law covering gay and lesbian people was invoked even though the victim was straight - the fact that he was mistaken for gay and targeted solely for that reason is the justification. Intention has long been a factor in the type of charges brought against a defendant, as well as in determining punishment. That is why the criminally insane cannot be held liable for their actions.

The heck they don't punish thoughts. That's what defines them!

(Emphasis added)

Which clearly illustrates my previous point: I'm being punished for my thoughts. But what if I didn't even know the guy was gay? What if I just beat up Bob and not Jim and didn't know Bob was gay, but after being arrested, I'm charged with a "hate" crime simply because Bob was gay? That's despicable.



Again, one's thoughts come into play.

And this argument about minority group, etc. is ridiculous. When the white man becomes a minority, for example, and he's beaten on the street, is the charge suddenly "upgraded" to a hate crime because said white guy is now a member of a minority?

This whole idea of hate crime laws is absolutely and totally absurd! When the same crime is committed against anyone, the punishment ought to be the same. Period.

They're just another example of our community's hypocrisy on parade. We scream for equal rights and treatment, yet we're willing to sacrifice these core principles when someone dares to pick on one of us. We scream about the right to free speech and expression, yet we automatically and immediately dismiss anyone who dares to hold an opinion contrary to ours. Moreover, we go so far as to attempt to squelch or shut down such persons. Bill Maher himself a few weeks ago was correct when he blasted liberals for being less tolerant in this regard. Hate crimes are but one example of this.

Crew Chief....you're not being punished for your thoughts....if you commit the action you described an all you did was think the "hate" then there wouldn't be any sentence disparity. It's when you act, coupled with speech or other action demonstrating a particular state of mind, that it becomes the hate crime.

People don't generally target straight people for violence BECAUSE they're straight. It happens to gay people all the time that they're targeted BECAUSE they're gay....no other reason.

And, it's not easy to get the added "hate crime" added on.....it's usually only the worst situations.

Frankly, I'm all or the enhancement....I would even be for it if someone targeted you for no other reason than you have hairy legs. That person should get more time than someone who attacks you w/ a "personal" reason (you pissed them off, stole something from them, etc..) ...although the attack is never OK.

So then the gay guy is treated preferentially in terms of a crime against him is punished more harshly than the same crime against the straight guy walking next to him. Yeah, that makes sense. I'm sure the straight guy feels this is fair. Not!

So much for equal treatment, due process, and the like.

A necessary part of being a man in the macho world of sports is the ability to not let name-calling get to you. Whining because someone says the word "faggot" in a vague way rather than to incite an imminent attack or other injustice makes gays look wimpy and laughable.

I disagree. Hate crime legislation is not about curtailing hatred (plenty of crimes are committed with hateful intent), nor is it about the perp. Hate crimes are about the impacted class of people. Beating up a gay kid or a Chinese immigrant is punishable differently than a standard battery because the beating up of a gay kid of Chinese immigrant is intended to terrorize the rest of that victim's class. Painting swastikas in a Jewish cemetary is designed to make all local Jews fearful for their safety and fearful of the unknown perpetrators in their very community. Hate crimes send a signal to everyone in the impacted class "watch out, you could be next." That's why they've been enacted.

Gee, now doesn't that sound just fine & dandy. Let's be real here. In theory, there might not seem to be anything wrong with hate crime laws, but in REALITY, there sure is. "Watch out, Jews or blacks or gays! You might be next.""Oh, you're white you say? Sorry, same laws don't apply. You see, you're not a protected class. You're not as special. You see, life's not fair."And neither are hate crimes. They treat people differently & are blatantly unconstitutional and just plain stupid--not to mention emotionally illogical.

Just because a crime victim was a member of a minority class does not make the crime against him a hate crime. There's more to it than that: the perp must have a certain level of intent (namely, to inflict terror in his victim). Committing a lynching alongside a public roadway sends an entirely different message than getting into a fight with a man who happens to be black and having it escalate to his death.

Here's a quote from wikipedia: "Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Hate crimes are intended to cause terror in the victim's class. They received additional punishment as a way of ameliorating anger in the victim's class, in hopes of cutting off an escalation of violence and the cycle of retaliation between ethnic and social groups. That's why they get additional punishment. It has nothing to do with the victim's skin color or limp wristedness or of being a whiney baby.



Emotion, by definition, is illogical. Hate crime laws are not unConstitutional.

A straight, white person most certainly could be the victim of a hate crime, but it would likely only happen in limited circumstances. Why? Because straight whites are such a large majority, that it's difficult to see a real world scenario where a hate crime could really happen against them. But it could if you took a white man out of his normal community and put him in a situation where he's outnumbered, I could see any number of scenarios where it could happen. We all saw the white truck driver who had his head bashed in with a brick by some thug after the Rodney Kind trial. Today, that could be prosecuted as a hate crime. A pair of white yuppies who get their house burned to the ground when they move into a poor neighborhood in hopes of gentrifying it -- hate crime.

My comment about hate crimes being about the perp and not the victim is in reference to the first poster's comment that he didn't want to be treated as special. The intent of prosecuting (or is it sentencing - is it an enhancement or an offense?) a person for a hate crime is not to make the victim or any of us feel special or to treat the victim differently. It's to punish the perp's actions that resulted from his intent to inflict terror based on the victim's perceived minority status. A hate crime will never be personal in the sense that the victim is not going to be a friend or a lover (although, in a stretch case, I suppose the victim could be a family member). I imagine that the majority of the hate crimes documented were committed against persons unknown to the perp.

And the straight guy who gets beat up while walking with the gay guy could just as easily be the victim of a hate crime - why was he beaten up? Undoubtedly, it's not because he's straight.

Back to the Hawaii coach. I, too, think he was punished for his little stage show as much as he was punished for using the f-word (see CPT Doom's post above). But I don't think the term faggot is a 'mere insult.' I used to use the term liberally in my inner circles until I was called faggot by someone who meant it. Maybe Coach McMackin now understands how hurtful it is like I do.

You didn't just quote Wikipedia to try and justify your point, did you? You just lost any credibility you had. Why didn't you just quote DailyKos or the Huffington Post? It would have been no different in this case.

What in the world is wrong with Wikipedia? Granted, it can be edited, but for the most part, I've found it very reliable and informative. Are you killing the messenger to avoid the message?

If you really need me to answer that question, I feel sorrier for you than I had originally thought.

Regardless, once he quoted an editorial comment, it was not news but instead an opinion, and an incorrect one at that.

Go ahead...answer the question then...what exactly is wrong with Wikipedia? There is no reason to feel sorry for me, as I am only asking a genuine question.

Considering I have to get up in less than 5 hours, there isn't enough time or space available to elaborate on Wikipedia's endless supply of inaccuracies and political opining--much like your beloved FOX News & MSNBC. And I'll feel sorry for whomever I damn well choose, including someone who treats editorializing as gospel.

You are a true piece of work, CC. You tap dance better than most politicians.

When I was in law school, we studied the following case (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, in which a group of black teens was charged with and successfully prosecuted for committing a hate crime on a white guy) with respect to the constitutionality of hate crime laws. Have a read when you're free: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-515.ZO.html

The State of Wisconsin's position with respect to its hate crimes legislation, as summarized by Chief Justice Rehnquist (in dicta) is as follows: "... the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm..." The State of Wisconsin's position was supported by a number of amicus briefs which Rehnquist summarized as follows: "The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." The Supreme Court then held that the State's hate crimes legislation did not violate the perp's free speech rights and the conviction was upheld.

So to address your points:

1. Hate crime legislation (per Wisconson v. Mitchell) has not been found to be unConstitutional. If YOU dislike such laws, that's fine: no one is required to agree and plenty of people with more legal education than you or I possess have issues with them. But don't claim something is unConstitutional when you don't know the facts.

2. My use of wikipedia was done for two reasons: (i) it's entry on hate crimes legislation is easily accessible and digestible by non-lawyers; and (ii) the section I cited also comes from the legislative record of the State of NY and remains factually accurate with respect to its hate crime legislation history. I did not endorse wikipedia, but the part I cited is accurate (as does, for the most part, the entire article on hate crimes).

If you'd rather I only cite law review journals or legal scholars on the subject, let me know. I'd be happy to hit up our law library at work on my lunch hour to find you more cases or legislative history on the topic.



Point taken. My intent was to augment what you said by giving some of the color on hate crime legislative history and legislative intent. I didn't mean to come across as contradicting you, sorry about that.

I've read that case. Just another example of the Court's fallibility. SCOTUS got it wrong then, hate crimes proponents have it wrong now.

I've thought about people's comments about language and law. My main afterthought is that no, I don't want straight people to call young gay people derogatory names while they are sorting out their lives. The fact that it doesn't bother me isn't the point--it is about good manners. Having said that, our parents and governments can't always be there to protect us from reality.

Secondly, most of you want hate-crime protection so maybe it is a good thing. It isn't so much that hate-crime laws bother me but, instead, that it is done with vengeance without regard to people feeling good about changing their minds. I'm more keen on access to marriage and military service than digging in the boot.

In a perfect world, Coach McMackin would know a confident gay player on his team before he spoke and no harm done. The personal trumps the legal in some cases--not all. And in a perfect world, gay people would get subsidised gym rates.

Don't mention it Aquaman! You're a true gentleman, even if you are a lawyer.

Someone above wondered whether McMackin was the first sports figure who has been punished for using a gay slur. Does anyone know? Outsports has done a great job of reporting on all of the "non-apologies" over the years, which are hardly punishing (although the offender may feel about 5 minutes of embarassment). I can't recall another time where a sports figure was suspended or fired for using such a slur.

Millerbeach, here you go:
Basic Information

I would not use Wikipedia beyond the most basic information. It claims that it is not responsible for the content of its articles. So, the biggest problem for Wikipedia is accountability. If you want thoughtful analysis, research or read elsewhere!

Getting back to the topic, what is most disturbing about hate crime legislation is the fact that it is meant to punish individual thoughts and beliefs for the benefit of groups.

Again, you can have any thought or belief you want. They are protected as long as they stay at that level. When you combine that thought with an overt act you then can't separate the thought/belief from the act.

It's not intellectually honest to equate what happens in a hate crime to a bar fight....they are not the same thing.

Crew Chief - With an ass shot as your avatar, your insights must be taken with a grain of salt....

This coach definitely was punished for his ignorance - I'd rather call it educated or schooled because that is the best reaction to ignorance.

Honestly CC, sometimes I'm convinced that you're simply trolling on this site just to incite people. 1st you assume to know more about global warming, melting ice caps, & the plight of polar bears than many in the scientific community. Now you assume to be not only wiser than SCOTUS, but assume to know the law better than them. You can be a REAL piece of work sometimes.

It would be different, for ie, if you said, "Yeah I know that SCOTUS ruled that way in such case, but I disagree." Or, "I don't know, I've read the literature but I'm still not convinced that global warming is happening becuz of humankind. I tend to agree w/ the arguments that the skeptics present."

It's certainly not easy being so gifted, but it's a burden I am willing to bear.

Definitely trolling!! & a classic MIB response. & so are the Darth Vader references.

Now, now. Be careful with whom you associate me. I've mentioned here (I think) that I have met MIB--he lives in the area--but other than a casual acquaintance, he and I are not related, associated, or even hang out. But I can thank him for the DV references. He's much more a fan of that stuff than I am.






Oh, puhleeze! You need to read up on other posts elsewhere to learn why I changed my avatar to that pic. Should I change it to a swastika perhaps? Would that fit this thread's subject matter better?

Oy vay!

Stop the presses, I just remembered an interesting conversation. Any Aussie's out there, listen up.

Swift and Shift ran one season here about a incompetent courier service. Very funny and antic. Everyone's an idiot and insulted for it: blond bimbo, feminist district manager, chauvinist in shorts running office, fat, skinny, dwarf who gets tossed about a bit, gay, Muslim always on the ready to smash something, Chinese or Korean (all look the same to me) who keeps swearing unintelligibly at his GPS, Indian also unintelligible and illegal alien, steroid bodybuilder, dufus twin twinks, retarded guy who they stuff into a packing box, Maori hoons, Greeks, Pacific Islander, Italian, etc. I mean to say, no one comes out of this looking fit or sane. In some sense, it is the world in microcosm trying to deliver a courier package.

OK, stay with me here as I make two points.

Point 1
I'm new here (from New Zealand) and it was a joy to laugh about the previous night's show with my own office staff about this and--here is my point--it allowed my co-workers to know that I was comfortable being gay. Humour, luaughing at our foibles lubricates social cohesion. And if your minority of choice was in that grouping then it suggested you were one of the lads like on a sports team. You could give-and-take within a greater society.

Point 2
There were no aboriginals on the show. No jokes about black fellas and indigenous. This is their homeland but off the social milieu menu. And when my office mate noted this, I felt glad (besides proud) to be gay. And my message from this is that if I'm not able to laugh at myself and be laughed at by others, then I'm stuffed. (stuffed for Americans = broken, damaged, etc.)

But I have to proclaim my bias: British humour and it's forms in New Zealand and Australia are so funny, politically incorrect, and keep us from being "precious" with one another. I'm more careful with Americans. America is a great country of hard-working, earnest people but its political correctness paves over real differences and retards natural amalgamation. Fawlty Towers--need I say more?

Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen on Hate Crime Legislation

My only 2 questions are these: Should a child killer(s)/molester(s) be given the same treatment of the law as any other criminal who has killed/molested adults? Or should the convicted child killer(s)/molester(s) be given a harsher penalty cuz they murdered/molested children?

Depends on whether the child was gay, black, a female, or a Jew.

They are treated differently regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or national origin (in Texas, anyway). It's a capital offense to kill a kid, but it's not always a capital offense to kill an adult (absent other circumstances).

As was mentioned above there is a difference re: sentencing. Also, they are many times forced to do things way beyond the end of their sentence unlike other criminals. But the child molesters are being punished for their thoughts, right?

How is the woman who's nude picture was taken and posted on the internet supposed to feel when her perp will probably be given probation, but he guy who does that to a child goes to jail for 10 years, may be murdered while there, and if not, may have to do certain things for the rest of his life that identify him as a criminal?

This discussion is really interesting to me. My gut feeling is that those who are against hate crimes are probably overwhelmingly white and are feeling their privilege slipping away. And although I don't believe anyone in this forum would commit a hate crime, making something that has always been the norm, racism, homophobia, etc... a hate crime is changing the foundation of our society. We're saying that everyone matters, which is threatening to white privilege.

That's was my pt SeaCraig & HoustonGator. Cuz according to those who think that hate crime laws are a bunch of hogwash would have to also argue that more severe punishments for child molesters/killers are also a "bunch of crap". Since according to their logic, "Crime is crime. So why should these convicts be treated differently under the law than say other convicts who committed the same act on adults?"

Bottom line, like others have basically said, it's about vulnerability.

Uh? White privilege slipping away? What horse hockey!!

The argument put forth against hate crime legislation is founded on the notion that assault, manslaughter, murder, or deprivation of civil rights charges somehow are not enough. Don't reduce the argument to essentializing its proponents.

Must have hit a nerve.

Sir, I am not questioning hate crimes legislation from a standpoint of privilege. I'm a gay man, who could be the target of vicious attacks, because of perceptions of my sexuality. I say perceptions, because a few months ago two men were attacked and one murdered in Brooklyn by men who perceived them to be gay (Street Re-Named).

What bothers me about "hate crimes" is their infringement on freedom of thought. Prosecute people for the crimes that they commit, not for what they might have thought as they committed them.

This week we read about the murders of the women in Pittsburgh by a man who was clearly misogynist. If he had not killed himself, should he have been charged with a hate crime against women? Shouldn't all groups be covered?

Then we'd have to get rid of manslaughter, too. And not guilty by reason of insanity. What the person is thinking is going to be material in many, many criminal cases. And I don't think it infringes on freedom of thought. Have the thoughts all you want. Just don't act on them. If you do, suffer the consequences.

I doubt it was anyone's intent to make McMackin cry in public, and I for one certainly didn't feel good about it. The point was to get his attention, to say "Hey, that hurt!" It apparently worked, this time. We've seen similar situations in which the guy pretty clearly didn't get what the big deal was. McMackin got it, his apology was sincere, and I respect him for that.

His offer to "volunteer coach" during his suspension ticked me off at first. But really, there would be no further point to be made by forcing him to stay away for a month and it would likely generate a lot more resentment and controversy. The fine and reprimand are fair, and enough.

I'm curious, how would you have handled the matter, Tom -- ignored it?