The question I have is whether or not it can be considered censorship by the fact that they're stealing books related to a specific minority group/topic with the intent to censor information about that group.

I think there's a better case to be made there for federal charges.

yeah I hear you, I was just pointing out that it's motivated by hate. And if it was any sort of violent crime it would have a hate crime enhancer on it.

It's not direct harm, but the intention is to erase queer lives and queer media, that queer people rely on to find their reflection in. Especially if they grow up places where they don't get exposure to other folks like themselves.

It's more than theft. Because intentions matter. But, there's also no legal framework for the prosecution.

There it is. Thanks for the sanity check. I swear people go off half cocked if you aren't 100% hive minding. The book theft is absolutely motivated by hatred, intolerance and probably repression against LGBTQ in some misguided attempt to Save the Children ^TM^. I 100% agree they are looking to cause ignorance and indirectly that could lead to a person not getting information that could help them, but it's not permanent damage and certainly caused no direct harm.

I hear you but there's not a court in the land that would uphold book theft as a hate crime. And there are some heinous hate crimes that it would minimize by association (think eye rolling). In my town a guy got nearly destroyed by some drunk bar bros. His face was permanently broken up, he quit work at a friend's place and as far as I know, left the country. That's real hate with real impact And I could get behind considerjng targeted shit like this as hate-motivated crime, but then we need some sort of impact level and I have a feeling the fundies would turn it around to say they are being "hate crimed" when there's a pride parade or some other nonsense....

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

Literally any crime can be a hate crime if it is motivated by hate.

no one is diminishing anything. Because nothing is diminished by recognizing minority cases when they're are major cases involved. They are separate actions that are also hate crimes.

You are using the oppresors arguments against your own allies here. Your outrage is juvenile and misplaced. You should stop attacking your allies if you want to help your friends and family. That's keeping your unknown family and friends, the ones you haven't met yet, from finding you by your needless aggression.