LAST EDITED ON 03-18-12 AT 10:16 AM (EST)

Would there have been a hung jury if not for the random pull of an alternate's numbered ball? No way to tell. From what's been said by the deliberating jurors -- the ones who have spoken -- there was more than a little debate on the bias charges, which might have indicated a room initially divided to whatever degree. And one which ultimately came to a consensus. But...

http://www.northjersey.com/news/bergen/bergen_news/031712_RAVIJUROR0318.html

...you have to wonder.

Meanwhile, jail time debates have begun. The Star-Ledger op-ed piece thinks the bias law was poorly worded and prison shouldn't result. Others feel some prison time is warranted, but not the maximum -- ten years if all charges ran concurrently. (The minimum appears to be two, with parole and good behavior as permissible shortening elements.)

There's been a lot of talk about whether this will force people to consider what they say through social media -- beyond the 'I can never speak to a gay person again!' panic shown above by people who already make every attempt to never say anything nice to them anyway. Awareness that what you say really can be used against you, and everything you do online leaves some sort of trail. Open wondering if the hatred now has to find more subtle avenues.

Some people will wake up -- at least to the degree of being more careful about how and where they show their feelings. But others won't. 'They won't get me' is always a rallying cry, and they'll feel that their computer will be as much shield as sword.

But no matter how much the bigots panic and call this thought policing, it's not. They are still free to say whatever they like. But if they act on it, there are new sources of words with which to search for intent.

ETA: Another recurring theme I'm seeing in the articles is that this case puts a major wound in the 'Boys will be boys' defense, also known as 'jerky kid' or 'young and dumb'. I'm curious to see AyaK's take on that one.