Thought Police: real and imagined

posted at 10:39 pm on July 19, 2006 by Michelle

Despite Dahlia Lithwick’s hyperventilations, the Bush Administration is not on the verge of criminalizing bad thoughts.

The Belgian government, on the other hand, is a different matter.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

As is the British government. And the Italian government. And the French government.

Alex K on July 19, 2006 at 11:37 PM

Sounds like paranoia to me. Maybe she has opened her mouth in public one time too many, and thus fears incarcaration, or maybe she is intelligent tnough to know that hewr preferred party is in dire straites resulting in an advanced case of PEST.

I’ve seen the libs at DIGG losing their minds over her article. They need to get a hobby, imho.

DannoJyd on July 20, 2006 at 12:00 AM

Guess what I’m thinking!

It’s about grapes to make wine crushed by the toes of Brigitte Bardot. I still have the hots for her.

That’s what I thinking, is that bad?

Kini on July 20, 2006 at 1:09 AM

Wait, wasn’t it liberals who pushed for hate crimes laws? Sensitivity rules etc?

BillLalor on July 20, 2006 at 9:21 AM

Haven’t these idiots figured out yet that if we really wanted to lock them up, we could have done so decades ago? And that, frankly, if we wanted to, they wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of stoping us? So if they were right, then all the frenzy and panic in the world wouldn’t do anything to stop what they think is happening! Do they just find hyperventilation FUN?!? or something?

They said this horse hockey about Reagan too, I believe. Surprise, surprise, they were wrong then as well. Maybe we should have humored them instead, and actually locked them up. Wouldn’t necessarily be a good thing, but the world would be a bit quieter…

RH

RobertHuntingdon on July 20, 2006 at 10:35 AM

Interesting that Lithwick is so worried about Bush criminalizing thought when she seems at least willing to debate the idea here.

An excerpt:

If we are going to debate whether gender, disability, or sexual preference should be added to state and federal hate-crimes legislation, let’s have the rational, well-informed version of it. There are valid arguments on both sides. Slippery-slope arguments about wholesale jailings of the nation’s clergy is mere fear-mongering, and debates over who’s the biggest victim rarely result in fruitful policy.

(emphasis added).

But I guess arresting terrorists who would stone people to death for the wrong sexual orientation is off-limits with her. Maybe she should move to Belgium … or the U.K., or Italy, or France.

thirteen28 on July 20, 2006 at 11:16 AM

“. . .fruitful policy.” Isn’t that hate speech?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 20, 2006 at 12:36 PM

I think we need to change the terminology to finally get the liberals to realize what is really going on – instead of “terrorist conspiracy” it should be hate crime conspiracy – after all, isn’t that what these islamo-nazis are attempting to do. They hate (and would like to kill off) everybody who does not believe as they do (a.k.a. infidels). Liberals think that the police, or law enforcement in general, should only be used to prevent hate crimes. Therefore, if we change the terminology, we will all be on the same side.

Rick on July 20, 2006 at 6:08 PM