Sullivan on Hate Crimes Laws -- Again

I've already made my views on Andrew Sullivan's opposition to hate-crimes laws known -- many times -- but it seems appropriate to revisit this issue again, in light of the current status of the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act. Sullivan is still pounding the same broken drum:

I'm for getting rid of all of these laws, as attacks on freedom of thought. I also think the current proposal is a bit of flim-flam that will likely make no difference in the real world. But the GOP hysteria over this hate crime law, as opposed to all the others, seems obviously a case of prima facie homophobia. That bigotry obscures the serious case to be made that all these laws are unnecessary infringements on freedom of thought and corrosive of equality under the law..

Hey, Sully -- you're free to think what you want. No one's going to put you in jail for it. They may laugh at you (which is what I think Sullivan fears most), but you ain't gonna be prosecuted. That's straight out of the wingnut right hymnal. (I find the idea that you should be able to advocate weird ideas without consequences -- i.e., public scorn, for example -- to be a bizarre twist on "freedom of speech." Excuse me -- the government didn't stop you from saying it. If your peers think you're a screwball, maybe you should re-examine your opinions, but you really do need to get rid of the idea that no one's allowed to criticize you for expressing them. That's called "the free marketplace of ideas.")

Did I mention overstating his position? "Corrosive of equality under the law?" How, pray tell?

As is typical of Sullivan on this issue (as so many others), he doesn't even attempt to present any substance. He's never demonstrated, to my knowledge, exactly how enhanced penalties for hate crimes -- i.e., crimes motivated by prejudice and directed against a class of people -- affect freedom of thought. (Reductio ad absurdum: By Sullivan's standard, any argument against his position on anything represents an attack on freedom of thought.) He titled this post "The Case Against Hate Crimes Laws," but he doesn't build any case: he merely asserts.

And also, by extension, we should eliminate any distinctions between Murder 1 and Negligent Homicide: after all, the difference is in motivation, and by Sullivan's standard, we're not allowed to consider that.

What we're talking about here is enhanced sentences for the commission of what are, in essence, terrorist acts. I doubt that Sullivan would oppose that. (I could be wrong, but I doubt it.)

Is this lame, or what?