But why should any of us be surprised given their track record this semester?

Their front page article about the vandalism of ROTC buildings at UNC and NC State was fine until the Tar Heel decided to publish an email from the vandals about their political motivations for defacing them.

Our illustrious campus newspaper only furthered the vandals' cause by giving them precisely the publicity they sought, and by doing so, the paper became a conduit for these crimes, whether knowingly or not.

Nevermind the fact that I disagree with the vandal's message (I'm not going to repeat it because that would only make me a hyprocrite, but you can probably connect the dots either by reading the linked article or by realizing it was vandalism against an ROTC facility--it's not too hard). I don't care if the vandals were trying to gain publicity for sword-fighting pirates in Indonesia. They committed a crime for the purposes of furthering a "cause" (sound familiar?), and by spreading this cause the DTH has only added to the problem. The paper's imagined, absolute devotion to "inform fully" seems to trump everything, including common sense.

Now, nevermind the fact that I fully support the DTH's right to publish what they did. I love the free press as much as the next guy, and legally speaking, they certainly haven't overstepped any bounds that they shouldn't have. As a journalist, I like being protected for publishing stupid things. (It happens).

What I am saying, however, is that the paper has an ethical duty to the well-being of our community (and you'd certainly have to hold them to this duty considering their incessant columns from editors to readers about wanting to be "your paper"). They clearly ignored this duty when they decided to give these idiots the attention they so badly wanted. It was an oversight at best, irresponsible decision-making at worst.

Sometimes I just wonder what they were thinking, or if they even thought at all...

Who decided they could cut down trees in front of Carmichael Dormitory? These weren't wee little sapplings either. These were big hundred-foot jokers. There better have been a good reason, like people were going to die from the continued presence of those trees or the cure for cancer was in those trees' sap and none other.

Also, who's the genius that decided to alternately close the sidewalk between Morrison and Manning as well as Ridge Road between Stadium and Manning? Now I never know which way to walk in the mornings. Thanks. A. Lot.

This UNC construction expansion better be amazing when it's done. I'm talking spectacular. High school seniors better come to campus and "ooh" and "ahh" and pass out at how freaking wonderful it is. Because right now, I'm annoyed.

David
www.nostempore.net

Your logic about not being able to legislate hate crimes is flawed, but really I think the situation is just more nuanced than either of you want to realize.

The courts differentiate between premeditated murder and crimes of passion, one obviously being much more serious than the other. That distinction is based solely on intent. In both types of murder, the victim is no more or less dead. Therefore, law can differentiate the seriousness of a crime based on intent, and dole out varying degrees of punishment accordingly.

Based on your logic we shouldn't use intent as a means for deciding punishment. In the case of hate crimes, the intent is more offensive to society's sensibilities than in crimes motivated by other factors. The same is true for crimes of passion versus premediation. Premeditated murder is merely more offensive to society than someone who kills out of anger or excitement. That's why it carries a harsher penalty.

I'll admit that hate is a hard thing to pin, and that someone should only be charged with a hate crime when it is utterly clear that it was a prime motivating factor. In cases such as the Duke Lacrosse scandle where the accused were allegedly yelling racial slurs at the victims, I'd say that's pretty clear.

But let's take this argument in a different direction (although it might be the same direction you took it in, just in different words).

So we got this thing, the first amendment. And it protects everything. My right to say whatever I want, your right to say whatever you want. If someone wants to think that all gay people are stupid and morally reprehinsible, that's protected just the same as the gay community's right to hold pride parades and live their lives the way they want to.

So if all opinions are protected under this first amendment, then if you attach a harsher penalty to a crime because of someone's opinion, you've essentially criminalized the opinion. But, is it true criminalization because the opinion isn't punishable until its acted on? Can opinions be protected in the abstract but then condemned when put into action?

My gut instinct says they can be protected and condemned, but the part of me that wants to live in Absoluteville* where everything is black and white tells me that harsher penalties for certain kinds of opinions is an infringement on the first amendment.

*terminology courtesy of Richard Hronek (intellectual property rights are a downer)