Get Ready To Be Gagged
by Blake on Apr 29, 2009 at 11:33 Political
Ooh, today, the Congress is set to vote on a new Hate Crimes Bill, and the convoluted language in this one really takes the cake. It is the true first step to abridging your right to free speech, and it should make you madder than anything else this boneheaded administration has proposed so far.
What, in effect this bill does is hold, for example, a minister liable for the sermons he preaches. Oh yeah, that’s right- this takes on free speech AND religion at the same time in a patented end- around that this idiot administration is rapidly becoming famous for.
An example here would be a minister speaking out against homosexuality, and someone in his congregation going, after the sermon and spray painting a sign demeaning homosexuality. This would lead to criminal charges against not just whoever painted the sign, but also the minister, who would face, because it is a hate crime, an additional TEN years in prison. This is nothing more than a naked attempt to gag free speech, and stifle religious thought, all in one bill. They should call it the Taliban Omnibus Bill.
Listen up, all you liberal mush brains. The First Amendment not only gives the right to free speech, but implied in that amendment is the right to offend people with that free speech. Not everyone will like what you say, but you DO have the right to say it, at least for now. This is why the KKK and Black Muslims can say inflammatory things- their right to free speech cannot be stifled just because you do not agree with what they say.
In the pulpit, the right to free speech is combined with the freedom of religion- if you do not agree with the religion, you may leave the church. You have that freedom- the church has the freedom to preach as they will, without government interference.
This is as wrong- headed as attempting to hold handgun manufacturers responsible for the shootings that happen in this world.
This is another blatant attempt to socially engineer our world, and shrink our rights. Because these liberals believe that the Constitution is “a Living Document”, they believe that the rights contained therein are malleable, and subject to change. Listen up, Dummies- the only way to change the Constitution is by an Amendment, which requires three fourths of the States to ratify the proposed changes. This is the only way to change it, but this bunch of morons feels that they can slide a bill through and fundamentally alter free speech through the legislative process, bypassing the process needed, because these ethically “challenged” people know that they can’t win with the process our forefathers put in place. Three quarters of the States would not ratify this retarded bill- it, like much of this administration’s legislation, goes against rational thought.
First- a Hate Crimes Bill? I pretty much believe that any crime has an element of hate to it. You will never hear that someone loved someone else to death- not literally. This is an oxymoronic bill, and all it does is make the liberal mokes feel good, but not much else except restrict our rights.
You know, the one thing that liberals never talk about is personal responsibility. You know what that is, right? It is when you own up to your actions, and don’t blame it on society, your inner child, your abusive past, a bad hair day, or the fact that the government didn’t prevent you from doing what you did. Be a real person and admit to your actions. If you can’t do that, your parents didn’t do their job. The government, however, can not, nor should it act as your parent. If you can’t be an adult, and do adult things in an adult and responsible way, why should we coddle you?
This bill would be the legislative equivalent of communistic thought control, and should scare the heck out of anyone who loves our country, because if this bill passes, our freedoms just got smaller and more restrictive.
That should never happen.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: first amendment, hate speech, responsibility
First of all the fact that so many conservatives (you and Big Dog included) deny that there is a difference between a hate crime and other crime is laughable and asinine. There is an element of hate to any crime? Right.
Second, have you even read the legislation you’re complaining about or did you just get your talking points from some Focus On the Family like group? You never like to source anything so I’m always left wondering what you base your opinions on. That being said I’m pretty sure you didn’t read it or you’d know what you’re saying is total nonsense.
The bill deals with violent crime, not hate speech or free speech in general. From the bill:
That sounds a lot like it’s going to “gag free speech, and stifle religious thought” right? There’s really nothing worse than an oppressive government making sure our rights to commit violent crimes against individuals based on their race, gender, religion, or sexual affiliation are made smaller and more restrictive, is there?
And when has the Constitution stopped liberals from doing what they want?
Gee Adam, I would have gone to the bill you cited, but in the time I had, the “lawmakers” changed it, and now it doesn’t appear, much like your logic. You should have been a lawyer- only a lawyer could say, we are going to find a way to have LEVELS of violence within a particular law.
No! Just apply the law as written- the Blacks, the Gays, the Women, all these groups need not be set apart, either in life, or law.
The penalties should be the same.
Crime is all about the hate.
Leave it to a liberal to get self righteous about “enhancing” a penalty of law.
Blake, this is how liberals define things. It is all about feel good. Oh, it is not bad enough to put a person in jail for shooting someone, the guy was black so we have to call it a hate crime and add time to the sentence. It is moronic. Crimes are crimes and when we get into defining hate then we are saying we know what is in someone’s mind. It is a crock.
You’re distorting the idea of hate crimes to suggest any crime against a black person for example automatically becomes a hate crime. It does not. If you can’t determine the motive to be hate based then it is not a hate crime and saying all crime is about hate is just lame. If you attack somebody because of their religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation then it is a hate crime, period.
If you attack people because of their religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation it is a CRIME period. Why do we need to add hate? If you refuse to hire someone because of these reasons it is a CRIME. No hate is attached to the charges, it is a CRIME.
If you rob a rich person and shoot him can we call it a hate crime because you hate rich people?
Crime is crime. I don’t know why you insist on adding to a crime for something that is not a crime. It is not a crime to hate someone for any reason. You can hate who you want. If you commit a crime then you should get what you deserve. Adding hate punishes someone for exercising the right to free expression. It is not against the law to hate.
But tell me, how many Muslims do you think will be prosecuted under hate crimes when any of them commit a crime based on religious hatred? How many blacks will be prosecuted under hate crimes? Find me one instance where any have been.
The idea of hate crimes is distorted logic- it’s truly oxymoronic in both the term, and the act.
Big Dog:
Refusing to hire somebody based on race is not a hate crime, it’s discrimination. Committing a crime against a person protected under hate crimes doesn’t not automatically make it a hate crime. No, it’s not against the law simply to hate but it’s not infringing free expression by increasing the punishment for a crime motivated by hate.
If you shoot a rich person because you hate rich people that is a hate crime just like attacking a veteran because you hate vets. The question is how prominent are such crimes and are they at a level that they require special treatment in legislation? On both accounts no.
You like to blur these lines to make the whole idea of a hate crime look silly but people like Matthew Shepard wouldn’t think it’s too silly.
I can’t say much on prosecutions because if you really wanted to see you could find it yourself. Here however is a table of stats from 2007 for hate crimes. You’ll find Anti-White, and Anti-Protestant stats collected there along with the others. You sometimes like to pretend this legislation doesn’t count if a black person attacks a white person because he or she hates white people.
Blake:
Maybe you should look up the definition of an oxymoron.
That link went bad. Here is a better link to the 2nd more recent version of HR 1913. You’ll find the text slightly changed from my previous quote but here is what it says today:
Go read the bill for yourself and let me know when you find the part about thought crimes and the part that gags or restricts your speech or religious freedom.
You two folk’s arguments against hate crimes are childlike and illogical. So we can differentiate between motives and degrees of murder, robbery, assault and theft but those degrees can’t include differentiation between crimes that are and are not motivated by hateful bias toward a particular religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation? That makes a lot of sense, guys.
The motive always includes a degree of hate- always. You do not rob someone because you love them, nor do you rape or murder.
There should not be degrees of murder- manslaughter? That’s trying to say it was an accident. The ONLY true accident I could come up with was being struck by lightning on a clear blue sky day.
Everything else is a preventable error, or negligence- but not an accident. EVERYTHING else could have been avoided, if the people had only used their brains.
If they didn’t, they pay the price.
An author I once read postulated that true justice would be punishment by doing unto others EXACTLY as had been done to the victim. If someone was hit and run, the defendant would be hit and run.
A rape? Well, Big Bubba down at the prison might just be your next sweetheart- you get the picture.
An eye for an eye, exactly. It’s hard to find fault with the logic, in my opinion.
Here is an absolute example. A Republican who is saying I guess if you guys are going to pass this thing then I think vets who are attacked because of their being a vet should be included and the response he got.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/04/pedophiles_are.html
Excellent find. This yenta Wasseman says the vets are not real victims but the gays, Jews, and blacks are. Veterans have been attacked. Look at Berkeley. I think any vet who is attacked should kill the attacker and be done with it.
Child molesters are victims. I would not shed one tear if Wasserman dropped dead.
She is an example of a true believer- troops bad, pedophiles good (as long as they weren’t troops).
Look, a crime is a crime is a crime- to have “enhancements” for a crime is not only unnecessary, it is needlessly cruel.
And you moonbat libs say we are cruel when we consertvatives call for the death penalty- what is more cruel, to kill someone for their crimes, or keep him in a glorified kennel for the rest of his life. Well?
Please note that the opinion on veterans by Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is not the same as the opinion on pedophiles by Rep.Tammy Baldwin. Those are two different people so why are we merging the two ideas to attack Wasserman-Schultz?
No one is merging opinions to attack Wasserman. I am attacking her on her position on veterans and then commenting that the child molesters are given victim status under a vote they took (and I think she voted FOR). So if she voted for child molesters then she must be of the same opinion. Please note that the opinion of Wasserman on veterans is that it is not a hate crime to attack them for being a veteran but it is a hate crime for attacking a black or gay or Muslim for being black or gay or Muslim.
I think all hate crimes legislation is stupid and nonsensical but if we are going to have them then all groups must be protected.
Blacks will never be charged with a hate crime for targeting whites.
I don’t want to mislead people. There was no amendment to protect child molesters. The amendment was to exclude them from receiving protection under the convoluted definitions of sexual orientation. The Democrats voted against the amendment and the Republicans for it. So Wasserman and all the Democrats voted to give child molesters protection and Wasserman then decided that Vets were not REAL victims.
The veterans in this country make sure this b*tch can say things like that.
Maybe she will get swept away in a hurricane…
The reply was to Blake who said “She is an example of a true believer- troops bad, pedophiles good (as long as they weren’t troops)” attacking Wasserman-Schultz for an opinion she did not specify. It’s a total cheap shot to even make the argument.
You continue your childish and illogical arguments about hate crimes by saying “all groups” should be protected as if hate crimes against veterans for example aren’t rare. I linked to the stats above showing a table of the kind of hate crimes tracked in 2007 and if you think you can find even fraction as many hate crimes against veterans as say anti-Protestant hate crimes in 2007, then you can say veterans need to be protected against hate crimes.
We’ve had this conversation before and you’re telling a bald faced lie again when you say blacks will never be charged with a hate crime. Crimes against white people are covered under hate crimes legislation and just 2 years ago we saw nine black women convicted of hate crimes for racially motivated attacks on a white woman. So stop telling lies.
I’m still waiting for one of you to read the hate crimes bill and let me know when you find the part about thought crimes and the part that gags or restricts your speech or religious freedom.
I think this whole mess about Hate Crimes is a waste of time and energy. Anyone claiming a hate crime enhancement has to purport to know what the person was thinking or feeling at the time of the crime which is, obviously, not really possible. Hate is a factor in many crimes but they are choosing to issue these enhancements ONLY when it involves a person of a minority, say a homosexual or black or hispanic. When it is black on white crime, the violence is not attributed to hate (just repressed feelings from being kept down, slavery, whatever). I have seen violent murders get less time than the 10 year extension on a hate crime enhancement. It’s proposterous and just another “feel good” thing to appease the minority whiners.
What happened to Matthew Sheppherd WAS A PATHETIC CRIME. Regardless of the motivation, the people should be punished and held accountable for what they did. I don’t care that he was gay – or if he made a pass at them – or if the killers were homophobes. NOT RELEVANT. They committed a heinous murder and should pay for it. Period. Making these other issues a part of the process just takes more time and resources than should be wasted on the trial in the first place.
The next step – mitigating factors for those same “Special” groups because they are not mainstream and people might hate them. Give me a break.
That’s right- all these enhancements do is water down our existing laws and begin to put the Constitution on the path to becoming a Handi- Wipe.
Consistent punishment according to our existing laws is all we need.
I know that this has been brought up before, probably when ‘hate’ crime legislation was being written, but isn’t it a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to apply special protection (in this case, protection from ‘hate’) to certain victims?
Murder is murder, and by applying more severe penalties for certain crimes, those victims are being treated differently from other victims.
It is not a violation of equal protection because it covers every race, both genders, each sexual orientation, and every religion. Anybody who says otherwise is either confused or telling an outright lie.
The fact is hate crimes legislation is unnecessary. If you commit a crime then you commit a crime. Are you saying that it is the number of times it occurs or that it occurs to a protected group. I mean, if only one Jewish family as targeted because they are Jews is that OK but if many more are then it is not? You seem to think that because veterans are attacked less frequently they deserve no protection. I thought the purpose was to punish the hatred someone has for a member of a particular group regardless of how many times it happens.
I am glad you found that one instance of prosecutors calling it a hate crime. Is that what they were convicted on? It says they were convicted of the assault bu the hate crime conviction is not mentioned.
If this legislation covered everyone then why do the specific groups need to be mentioned in it? All they would have to do is say that a hate crime, regardless of who it is committed upon, carries a longer sentence. If it covers everyone then it would not be necessary to enumerate specific groups.
Hate crime legislation is foolish. We have laws to cover crimes. Let’s actually enforce those.
I am white. Adam, if I beat you up (I would not do that) could they make a case that I hate liberals so it is a hate crime. I mean, what if I beat you up because you pinched my wife on the butt (actually, she would beat you up)?
This sums up my thoughts from this thread on hate crimes and the misconceptions you folks are spreading:
1. Hate crimes are redundant or unnecessary
This is false. To act like a crime is a crime and there aren’t differing levels from accidental to the very heinous is simply not reality. We already assign degrees of charges and punishment for murder, robbery, and assault. Acknowledging the heinous nature of hate crimes, specially bias based murder, is an extension of that differentiation and consistent with our system of justice.
The fact remains however that many times murder for instance isn’t charged as a hate crime because the penalty is already severe. In many states hate crimes apply to lessor crimes in order to acknowledge the more severe nature of the crime.
2. Hate crimes charges punish hate or thoughts or restrict our freedom
This is false. You are still free to say what you want and hate all you want as long as there is not violence involved. Hate speech is no crime at all, much less a hate crime, and this isn’t changing.
The text of the bill includes the following words:
The constitution in this sense protects your freedom of expression and thought but you do not have a freedom to commit crime so it is not restricting any freedom.
3. You cannot tell what’s in somebody’s heart or determine hate so you can’t tell what is a hate crime.
This is false. A white person attacking a black person for example isn’t automatically a hate crime and the court system isn’t going to simply try to imagine what was going through the person’s head or in that person’s heart.
The text of the bill includes the following words:
Substantive evidence has to be provided to show there was bias as a motivating factor in the crime.
4. Hate crimes only protect minorities.
This is false. While the goal is to protect minorities it would be unconstitutional not to afford the same protections to all. You can clearly see records being kept of hate crimes against non-minorities. Just two years ago 10 black individuals were convicted of hate crimes against white people.
5. All groups should be protected if any group is.
This is false. It is not to say attacks on veterans for example aren’t bad or even aren’t hate crimes but rather that the occurrence of such events are so fewer in number as to not require special status or legislation to protect veterans. When hate crimes legislation first came about the protection for LGBT individuals was not included. As the crime stats I posted above indicate there is a significant number of hate crimes against individuals for their sexual orientation and that is why the new bill seeks to include those.
How many minorities have been convicted of hate crimes compared to white people. I know of many cases where people were shot for being white in the wrong part of town and no hate crime was prosecuted. I have heard officials say they will NOT pursue hate crimes against minorities. Why is the goal to protect minorities?
All people deserve the same protection. Were these crimes against LBGT specifically hate crimes or was there a crime and it was prosecuted as a hate crime?
This is a slippery slope that will lead to problems, the same ones we have already seen with current hate crimes legislation.
And you wrote that if a white guy beats up a black guy there is no automatic hate crime. Adam, if you beat someone up it is not because you love them. It is a crime and there are already stiff penalties for committing them. We need the judicial system to prosecute instead of coddle.
Remember, most crime in the black community is black on black.
Adam, I’m just trying to understand, so please don’t bite. Why do you, (just your own personal opinion) think that there is a need to distinguish been crime and a hate crime?
Would I be correct in saying – A person who is severally beaten by a person, who is not of the same race, gender or sexual orientation, etc…Could or should be considered a for hate crime? And how is that determined? Is it just based on the victims perception?
I guess I’m just not getting what the added value is. What exactly are they trying to accomplish with differentiating between something being a crime and the crime being a hate crime?
Thanks
As I mention above it is not simply a hate crime because for example a white guy beats up a black guy. There has to be substantive evidence of bias or hatred in the motivation of the crime or it is not a hate crime.
Most people will acknowledge that crime effects our communities. Differentiating between hate crimes and other types of crime is just one way our justice system acknowledges the severe nature of some actions and the psychological effect that has on our communities.
In many ways hate crimes are a form of terrorism. On 9/11 terrorists flew planes into the WTC not only to kill folks in that area but to strike fear in all Americans. In many instances hate crimes are not about an individual but rather a targeted attack on a group in general.
Most communities that have high crime rates have huge minority populations and the crime is them on each other.
Once again, how do you determine motivation. When Sharpton said to kill the Jews and the crowd killed one, should he not have been charged with a hate crime?
Adam- how about hate crimes against the group known as human? Wait- we already have that- it is a crime.
All hate crimes do is split us into groups of “minorities”, all of whom then need special “protection” – this is racism straight up- people should be people, judged by the same laws, not “enhanced” by some liberal interpretation of who, in their minds, needs special protection.
It’s racism to defend all races, all religions, and all sexual orientation against hate or bias motivated crime? Right. I’m through discussing this with you since you’re level of debate is childlike and pathetic.
I don’t see it protecting all. Muslims will spew hatred and not be charged with hate crimes when they kill Jews (as has already happened).
On your reason #5, I would like to know how many people does it take to be classified as a hate crime? 5? 30?
six million? At what point can you delineate the difference? THAT is why this is ridiculous, Adam- Who decides? The oppressed minority? A crime is a crime. End of story.
There is no set formula for determination which is why like many parts of our law we revisit such decisions from time to time. It just makes matters worse when conservatives whine and cry and make up stories about how their freedom is being restricted.
What makes it easier is the statistical data on crime available each and every year which clearly shows large numbers of crimes against individuals based on race, religion or sexual orientation and not a lot of data to support for instance the idea that veterans are targeted by hate or bias based crimes.
Adam, who commits the most crime against blacks? Other blacks. It is obvious though, that if you look at crime and start breaking it down you will have crimes where one of the protected groups was a victim. However, how do you assign motivation. I can look at the relatively small numbers of white on black crime and get a raw number. How do you look at that and say it was a hate crime?
It is moronic. The gays who smacked down the little old lady, what were they guilty of? Geriatric hate or what? The fact is assault is against the law. Why not just prosecute that and be done with it.
Who cares why a person was motivated, even if you could determine that? They committed a crime and that is good enough to prosecute them.
Hate crime legislation is moronic. I am not worried about an infringement on my rights because I am going to say what I want any way and they can screw themselves. I don’t go around committing crimes so it is moot. The fact is though, this is feel good legislation and it will only apply to certain groups who will rebel one day.
Liberals feel that UNDERSTANDING a motive will give them closure, but some people are just evil, period. This legislation is “feel good” legislation, and has nothing to do with deterring a single crime. Not one. The mindset of people who want these enhancements is pretty much beyond me- if criminals are going to commit a crime, the “hate” is already built into the act of the crime, so pointing it out is infantile, just as are the excuses as to why someone committed a crime- ” my inner child is unfulfilled- I wanted a motorcycle, I deserve things because I am entitled”…. and on and on, ad NAUSEUM.
These people did not get their butts whupped when they were outer children, so here we are with people who should have been retro- actively aborted.
And then you have these activist judges who just have a compulsion to mother these poor misbegotten incomplete strings of DNA, and you have the perfect storm of Blame Everyone But The Defendant.
How stupid is that?
Adam, I feel so sorry for you. You are unde such deception and are too blind to see it. There will come the day that we have to say to you that “we told you so”.
Barbra:
Until you can offer logic, reason, or evidence to refute the things I’ve said then please just pretend somehow that I don’t exist. I’m not here to argue with you so there’s no need for you to keep talking down to me with your useless blather.
Barbara, rather.
Adam, you”re right, Hate crime is not an oxymoron- it is a redundancy, but the rest of the argument still applies- these punishments do not need enhancements, all that does is make liberals feel good that they “have protected” some perceived minority or some such. We are not in favor of ANY “special” class of people, I don’t care what their perceived deficiency might be. A crime is a crime is a crime. If we didn’t have so many limp, activist judges who like to get lax with the law, we wouldn’t have a problem, but these judges believe that it’s all about them, and they are looking for the next better thing, so they feel that if they make these moonbat decisions, they will get noticed.
All they SHOULD do is apply the law in a consistent fashion, and we have no need for “enhancements”.
Adam, your table of stats proves only one thing, hate is universal. So why must one group be preferred over any other. Hate is hate, and a crime is a crime.
To enhance a crime for any group just makes liberals feel good, but actually proves racism. It is not enough that the crime is a CRIME, now we have to make it SPECIAL. What a crock- just apply the law AS WRITTEN.
Our laws already afford adequate discrimination from accidental to intentional acts. For example, manslaughter as opposed to homicide. The added determination of a hate crime just forces the prosecution to include motive which is not something that has to be adjudicated in most cases. This is allowing a select group (if it doesn’t cover veterans – regardless of the number of crimes involved you are selecting out a group or groups) to make crimes against them somehow more criminal and afforded higher punishment than crimes committed against someone else. This is obviously unfair and unjust in and of itself if you are allowing one group to claim that crime against them has a higher penalty than crime against someone else of another group. It is a miscarriage of justice in and of itself to rank groups of people and the crimes against them in different categories. Equal protection under the law does not mean that if you are from a special interest group you get special protection – by definition these enhancements are singly out specific groups for harsher penalties. This only flies because it does not benefit the most hated group around – white, christian, and most likely men.