When Deaf Clowns Go Bad

In previous blog I discussed cyberbullying and stalking by some people in the deaf community and now would like to touch briefly on "hate crime."

Let's suppose the cyberbullying of deaf people through YouTube, chatrooms, in discussion forums, or even in blogs are the efforts to try and harass a person because he or she doesn't like the person in the first place. Are those examples of a hate crime in action? That depends on the nature of the hate, the context, and resulting response by people who received the brunt of that hate.

Let's look at a recent case of what some people say is an example of a hate crime.

Cyberbullyin is out of control.

For example, take the case of Tyler Clementi. Clementi was an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University who jumped from the George Washington Bridge after a video surfaced on the internet featuring Clementi and another male student engaging in sexual acts.

Two students were charged with counts of invasion of privacy but is that really all they deserve? These students should be held accountable for Clementi's death. This can and should be viewed as a hate crime not simply because of the student's sexuality, but because these students targeted that aspect of his life. They were the emotional shove that sent him falling from that bridge.

Was that really a hate crime or a prank gone bad? Just bad judgement all around and not about hate crime per se? Or is this a blurring of cyberbullying with that of a hate crime in action? Is it a hate crime to go on YouTube in the effort to purposely discredit a person's reputation by providing false information to viewers in a cyberbullying act? Can defamation be hate crime in action?

In California there's a court case in the attempt to connect a cyberbullying case with that of a hate crime. Was it really a "hate crime" that happened? What about the case of Amy Cohen Efron?

I get ostracized and harassed just because of my own opinion and my role as an Editor of DeafRead. As one of the pioneers of Deaf vlogging world, I get cyberbullied just like others. Yes, someone did call my employer about my online activities. This kind of stress caused a trip to emergency room.

Was that a case of a hate crime in action when that person or persons who followed through with his or her hate of Amy by actually calling her employer with the express purpose and malicious intent to cause psychological harm to her and damage her reputation at her place of employment? Was it a hate crime in action because others did not view her to be "Deaf enough" because of her views on certain Deaf-related issues did not agree with other Deaf people's more extreme views? Or was it a simple case of her releationship with Deafread and Tayler who owns Deafread on how he received his own brunt of hate for his opinions regarding avdism and how it was just a cover used by some Deaf people? Where is that line between cyberbulling, hate speech and hate crime?

Also, another question, is the action of sending threatening emails to other people a case of a hate crime in action if the perpetrator uses his or her own "Deaf hierarchy" (culturally deaf status) over others in the effort to "protect" the Deaf status quo in their own Deaf community? In other words attack those in the attempt to falsely report or ruin the reputation of people who do not share the same extreme "Deaf views." Or perhaps this was a case not being "Deaf enough" in the extreme sense?  A case of not jumping onto the "Deaf extremism" bandwagon? Or maybe a case of people who are "professional haters" who rely on false reporting and hyperbole to get his or her way?

But what about reporting a false hate crime that never existed? It does happen. Here's one professor who did just that and got caught. Not only got did he get caught for lying but got caught in a web of hypocrisy using the status as a professor to make the reporting of a "hate crime" sound even more legitimate.

And what about the hypocrisy of people who discuss hate crime while on a soapbox but continue to make vlogs or blogs in the effort to cyberbully other people in the effort to ruin their reputations with false rumors or false information? And yet we see cases where people ended up physically stalking somebody's house for a few days. A manifestation of a cyberbullying action that slowly transitioned into the physical act of stalking a person he or she hates. But sometimes the hypocrisy gets surreal when a person goes back to his or her soapbox on the whole hate crime, hate speech or cyberbullying spiel pretending nothing ever happened?

The question here is the shifting, blurry line of hate speech and cyberbullying with that of a hate crime. Where do you draw that line?

Very Special People Hate Crime

This whole hate crime thing is getting a bit out of hand here. Some are trying to make some money off it and get recognition for it by twisting certain words that do not reflect reality accurately. What's more, people are now tacking qualifiers to the words "hate crime" just because they think they really are "special people" and that they deserve the world's sympathy. What's even worse is for obnoxious people to attack other people by calling their opinions or disagreements as a "hate speech" and even go so far as to call it as a "hate crime." Very special people they are indeed. Amazingly tone deaf to this whole thing when it is just a simple opinion and nothing more. No crime was committed. Yet some people have the uncanny ability to take someone's strong but valid opinion and immediately call it a "hate crime." They go about assuming things about a perons's opinion but won't contact the person to ask for clarifications first, which would've saved a lot of headaches in the first place instead of getting all huffy about it. But calling a bunch of truly special people as "retards" or "tards" is not a nice thing to say, either. It is not their fault if they are placed in a special school so they can learn how to become independent. I'm sure these very special people still deserve some modicum of respect from each of us. Yet, I have been accused on a few ocassions when other special people called my blogs or opinions as a "hate speech." But my blogs were never about hate but making a point based on my perspective and experience. Sometimes the ball drops even further when the truly special people come out of the woodwork and call my opinions or comments as a "hate crime." Boggles the mind.

Well, isn't that special?

Deaf on deaf hate crime?

Lately I'm seeing desperation (or so it appears) in one deaf forum when one started a thread with a comment about hate crime claiming it had occurred there:

“We recently experienced a hate crime against our Deaf Community in the AD forum.”

A “hate crime,”? Where? Who? What? Against the Deaf Community in AD? Rather desperate jumping on the hyperbole band wagon are we?

Here’s the definition of what constitute as a hate crime according to the FBI:

“A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.”

All I see are opinionated people who have expressed their thoughts, however unpopular they may be. And nothing about crimes committed against members of AD as far as I can tell. Where and exactly what are the criminal offenses committed against members of AD that would constitute as a "hate crime"? I'm rather curious about this person's charge. Rather a bold (albeit reckless) charge with no merits whatsoever is what I'm seeing here.

I'm sure the person meant something else rather than claiming it to be a "hate crime" which would be a wrong description. Strong biases certainly do exist among members of AD when it comes to posting their own comments and that's natural but a "hate crime"? Until the original poster explains exactly what that "hate crime" was about people simply cannot accept such a charge at face value. More information would be needed to justify a charge of a "hate crime" that fits the above description by the FBI. Odds are that such a charge was generated as an appeal to emotion rather than fact based. Just as using the word "Audist!" as a weapon of choice much in the same way people use the "Racist!" word. Gets quite meaningless real quick.