A local church is urging its members to permanently remove books from the Shelby County Public Library by checking them out and never returning them. The books portray gay characters and historical figures or explore LGBTQ+ themes.

Pamela Wilson Federspiel, who has been director of the library in downtown Shelbyville for 34 years, says the action is tantamount to “stealing.”

But three leaders of the Reformation Church of Shelbyville defend what they call an “act of civil disobedience.”

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    tl;dr “hate crime” has a legal definition and these actions don’t meet that definition. The definition should probably be updated to include this kind of antisocial behaviour.

    Pasting an excerpt from my earlier comment:

    “Hate crime” is a specific legal term. While unfortunate, the parent commenter is right; stealing books even when motivated by hate is not legally considered a hate crime.

    Under federal law, only actions leading to bodily injury or attempts thereof can qualify as hate crimes.

    Under Kentucky law (KRS 532.031), criminal mischief is only considered a hate crime if the amount of damage exceeds $500. While the total cost might exceed that, this is counted on a per-offender basis.

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Comment sections are not legal documents it’s live language.

      Why are you trying to apply a legal definition to what is a commonly accepted understanding of the words used?

      Stealing these books because to cause hurt and damage to a specific group of people who is hateful. It is emotion and communication, it is not a legal definition that is being used. You are welcome to point out how the legal systems are failing to protect people and the mechanisms, like not including all actions motivated by hate for another person, is kind of missing the point.

      Yes it’s not a legal argument, but that’s not how people actually talk or communicate unless they are specifically trying to speak legalese.

      You are using the wrong language(though it could be a dialect instead I suppose)

      By all means when someone is claiming it’s a legal definition that are taking about, then disabuse then if their error, but don’t simply assume “hate-crime” is intended to be anything other than its most literal usage, you can just ask them if they mean that phrase in a legal sense if you suspect that is what they are and or want to do.

      otherwise your arguing that hate crimes never happened before they were legislatuted into law. Which is stupid and I don’t believe you are stupid