A 45-year-old Massachusetts man doesn’t want his face to appear on television after seeing his front door vandalized with fun terms like “AIDS,” “get out,” and unnamed gay slurs which we can safely assume are of the “faggot” variety. “I refuse to be victimized, I refuse to not come forward, I refuse to just duck my head in the sand and act like it did not happen,” he says while police figure out whether they want to call this a hate crime.
[flv:http://flash.whdh.com/worldnow/WHDH_20110211225000033B.flv https://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/02/30010284.jpg 650 400]
christopher di spirito
Of course, this meets the definition of a hate crime.
Now, I’m sure the CPAC/Coulter/Palin apologists will chime in to say this is simply an expression of free speech but, to them I say would you say the samething if the hater wrote “N****R” on the door of an African-American tenant?
Steve
There really are two separate questions:
1. Do the details of the vandalism clearly prove that the act of vandalism was motivated by hate and constitutes a hate crime?
2. Will the local law-enforcement officers be willing to write it up that way?
In my experience, the answer to question 2 has always been, “No”.
pacman
wooo gurll ur nails ..trim em
Dave
When I was in high school, someone carved “FU FAG” into my locker. The school administration said I “brought it on myself.” Mind you, I was so closeted you’d think I didn’t hit puberty before you’d suspect I was gay; so, I have no clue how I was supposedly “attracting negative attention.” That’s a lot easier for them than to actually do something. It doesn’t make sense, and it isn’t fair, but it’s how it works.