Exactly what free speech does hate crimes legislation take away? These AFA nuts are unbelievable...

[marmar]

Do they considering beating a gay person to death free speech?.... Good Gawd I'm sick of these assholes. :grr:



from the AFA:

House passes 'thought crimes' bill 237 to 180
Jeff Johnson
OneNewsNow.com
May 3, 2007


The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would punish offenders more severely if a criminal assault or murder could be proven to have been motivated by the attackers alleged hatred for the victim because of the victim's "sexual orientation," though that term is not defined in the legislation.

A news release from the Family Research Council (FRC) called the legislation "a direct violation of the 14th Amendment which affords equal protection under the law."

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee agreed.

"Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all," Smith said. "Under this bill justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim."

FRC says the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007," H.R. 1592, which passed by a vote of 237 to 180, would, "grant certain victims of crimes allegedly motivated by bias greater protection than other victims of violence.

"Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims is unconstitutional," said Tony Perkins, FRC president. "The actions of a majority of the House today undermine the promise of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

"This legislation creates second-class victims and a legal system of 'separate and unequal,'" he added.

The Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee defended the bill.

"It does not impinge on public speech or writing in any way," Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)argued.

But Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the true intent of the bill was "to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality." If you read the Bible in a certain way, he told his broadcast listeners, "you may be guilty of committing a 'thought crime.'"

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) explained his opposition to the bill in a news release issued just after the vote was taken.

"The law should not distinguish between victims or levy higher penalties based on a criminal's supposed motive," Wilson wrote. "Our legal system was founded on the principle that justice is blind. It is our duty to uphold this standard."

But the South Carolina Republican also echoed Dobson's concerns.

"ertain provisions of this bill would inhibit the free practice of religion and compromise First Amendment rights," Wilson explained. "For these reasons, I could not support this legislation."

Twenty-five Republicans crossed party lines to support the bill. Fourteen Democrats did the same to oppose it.

The White House issued a "Statement of Administration Policy" shortly before the vote indicating that President Bush might veto the legislation, if it passes the Senate and is sent to his desk.

"The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics such as race, color, religion, or national origin," the statement said. "However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

The statement goes on to explain that the acts covered by the legislation are already illegal under the laws of all 50 states and that states have had no difficulty prosecuting such crimes. In addition, the White House notes that many states impose penalties for these crimes that are more severe than those proposed in the bill.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/house_passes_thought_crimes_bi.php

[youngdem]

1. There are already crimes on the books for every instance

Hate crimes are thought crimes and are corrosive to civil liberties and free speech without doing anything to affect personal safety of bigotry.

Hate crimes won't be enforced anymore than the current laws are. The focus should be on education, mental health care and funding better enforcement of existing laws.

Hate crimes attempt to determine someone's thoughts. Impossible to prove, and impossible to refute.

A well intended but STUPID idea.

After all, what more can you possibly do to someone who beats someone to death? They are already facing life imprisonment or death. What more could you possibly want?

[marmar]

2. A hate crime sends a special message to a given community....

So the punishment needs to send a special message to any would-be commiter of a hate crime.

[scrinmaster]

3. That it's ok to beat up someone like yourself,

But if you do it to someone different to yourself, your ass is toast?

[marmar]

5. But a hate crime is not committed against someone "like yourself."

The difference is the raison d'etre for the crime. As such, it needs a special punishment in my opinion, because it would not have happened otherwise.

[Occulus]

6. Hmm. Someone isn't a member of one of these targeted groups, I'd say.

But when crimes like these make you afraid to go out in public, it tends to change your perspective on things.

"After all, what more can you possibly do to someone who beats someone to death? They are already facing life imprisonment or death. What more could you possibly want?"

Try NOT basing things on the very obvious assumption that the TARGET of the hate crime will see justice in any measure. Did you know, there are some areas where getting gaybashed will get you harassed by the police when you report it? Did you know that, if the penalties aren't automatic and statutory, some judges will let gaybashers off with a slap on the wrist because they agree with what the basher did?

I don't think you've put very much time into this, actually. You do seem to be a very much aware of the point of view of people who would do such crimes, though, and the victims- gay people, you know, people like me- eh, not so much.

I want a newer and heavier book to throw at these people because generally Americans don't like people like myself (I can show you proof in some state Constitutions if you like, or stats on military discharges, perhaps), and if people see others "getting away with" crimes against people like me, the incidence of those crimes will increase as surely as the sun rises each morning.

Thanks for trying to throw me under the bus, though. Now go off and hang your head in shame for the fact that someone had to explain these things to you.

[youngdem]

7. You're an ass. Thanks for all of the assumptions. You showed yourself to be quite an idiot.

For someone who belongs to an impaired class, you sure act like an asshole wasp.

I am NOT wrong. Special rights for certain people is ALWAYS wrong. Laws exist for the underlying behavior. Use them.

Do you REALLY think that you are going to change the behavior of homophobic cops with such a law by the way? If so, you are an even bigger moran than I thought.

Also, your insinuation that I don't support hate crimes bills because I am a bigot is also a nice touch.

I am not throwing you under the bus, by protecting my rights and trying to stop a useless law. I am protecting you, but you are too ignorant and simple to understand that.

Welcome to my ignore list. First one on it.

[madeline_con]

4. Dobson would need to HAVE a thought before

it could be considered a crime!