|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2007 : 23:26:00
|
I came across this article in the Chicago Sun-Times and instantly felt a bit alarmed. http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/515207,CST-EDT-edit18b.article Certainly this article makes it sound as if this new bill would create legal consequences for mere speech, which is protected by the Constitution. (My emphasis below in bold) Gays are going to hell -- that's what some ministers have been preaching and want to keep on preaching. But a proposed hate crimes law would stop them from saying so -- at least that's what several believe so firmly that they took out an ad in USA Today to warn churchgoers that the law would curb their religious speech.
Arch-conservative ministers complain that their denunciation of homosexuality is mischaracterized by gay-rights activists as hate speech.
But if religious speech is construed as hate speech under the terms of this proposed law -- the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 -- ministers may be thwarted, says Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of the 3,000-member Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md.
That's why Jackson and more than 30 other black ministers around the country signed a full-page ad that ran July 11 in USA Today protesting the hate crimes bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 3, awaiting discussion by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Jackson says if parishioners commit a hate crime upon hearing their minister's admonitions, those ministers could be held liable. |
Even hateful speech is protected by the Constitution. It is only actual crimes committed and motivated by certain biases that are addressed by hate crime law. Is Congress overstepping its bounds with this new bill?
So I got curious and looked more into it, finding this article: http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/08/19/breaking-down-myths-of-the-matthew-shepard-bill/
which includes a quote and link to the over 300 transcript of the conversation about the bill: | The bill's co-sponsor and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) opened the discussion and said: “And if I may begin the discussion on this, I would like to point out that 1592 offers federal protection in conjunction with states and local officials for victims of hate crimes targeted because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability……H.R. 1592 provides critical assistance to state and local enforcement agencies. It amends current law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, biased-motivated crimes. The bill, however, only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech, religious expression or writing in any way. The bill applies only to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech, religious expression or writing in any way.” |
I'm rather persuaded by the fact that the ACLU even approved this bill. I think much of the media coverage of this bill is misguided and subtly spreading mis-information about what the bill would actually do.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2007 : 01:06:52 [Permalink]
|
I think this is borderline. It will surely be challenged in court if it passes.
Free speech has limits, the obvious ones are stuff like yelling fire in a crowded room. The less obvious, and less clear cut, ones are things like this.
It will be interesting to watch.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2007 : 05:19:05 [Permalink]
|
In reading the text of the bill , there is nothing in there that could construe a sermon as hate speech. The bill is more about violent acts of hate and the support the fed can give local enforcement.
Section 8 makes it clear that it will not and shall not be used to prohibit free speech, if I read it correctly
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution. |
The only way that this could include speech were if a precedent was set by a Supreme Court decision. By its current make up, that precedent will not be set.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2007 : 05:56:47 [Permalink]
|
| Just so you know, Rubicon, Thomas.gov doesn't permit linking to the text of bills. It's a real pain in the butt that way. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2007 : 06:19:40 [Permalink]
|
 Expletive!
Ok, I went to wikipedia and saw how they did it. Hopefully this works. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2007 : 15:47:44 [Permalink]
|
| We have 'hate crime' laws in Canada that have been used to stifle free speech. Look up "Ernst Zundel" for one example. He was a repugnant neo-nazi, but rather than using intelligent debate to counter him he was simply silenced. It's a coward's way out. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2007 : 16:30:19 [Permalink]
|
Rat, according to wikipedia's entry on "Ernst Zundel", after his conviction, the law used against him was ruled unconstitutional, and the ruling overturned. It seems from this article that the manner in which is was "silenced" was actually that he was unable to obtain Canadian citizenship, ended up back in Germany. He was then arrested under German law for inciting racial hatred.
In Canada... | The accused was charged with spreading false news contrary to s. 181 of the Criminal Code, which provides that "[e]very one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment . . ." |
http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/expression/r_zundel.html Again, section 181 was eventually ruled unconstitutional. | Justice McLachlin, writing for the Court, found that section 181 violated section 2(b) of the Charter. She noted that section 2(b) protects all expression of a non-violent form, and as such, the content itself is largely irrelevant. The protection provided by the Charter includes expression of minority beliefs even where the majority may find it false. The imposition of imprisonment for expression has a severely limiting effect on freedom, beyond reason. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Zundel |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2007 : 19:09:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I came across this article in the Chicago Sun-Times and instantly felt a bit alarmed. http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/515207,CST-EDT-edit18b.article Certainly this article makes it sound as if this new bill would create legal consequences for mere speech, which is protected by the Constitution. (My emphasis below in bold) Gays are going to hell -- that's what some ministers have been preaching and want to keep on preaching. But a proposed hate crimes law would stop them from saying so -- at least that's what several believe so firmly that they took out an ad in USA Today to warn churchgoers that the law would curb their religious speech.
Arch-conservative ministers complain that their denunciation of homosexuality is mischaracterized by gay-rights activists as hate speech.
But if religious speech is construed as hate speech under the terms of this proposed law -- the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 -- ministers may be thwarted, says Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of the 3,000-member Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md.
That's why Jackson and more than 30 other black ministers around the country signed a full-page ad that ran July 11 in USA Today protesting the hate crimes bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 3, awaiting discussion by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Jackson says if parishioners commit a hate crime upon hearing their minister's admonitions, those ministers could be held liable. |
Even hateful speech is protected by the Constitution. It is only actual crimes committed and motivated by certain biases that are addressed by hate crime law. Is Congress overstepping its bounds with this new bill?
So I got curious and looked more into it, finding this article: http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/08/19/breaking-down-myths-of-the-matthew-shepard-bill/
which includes a quote and link to the over 300 transcript of the conversation about the bill: | The bill's co-sponsor and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) opened the discussion and said: “And if I may begin the discussion on this, I would like to point out that 1592 offers federal protection in conjunction with states and local officials for victims of hate crimes targeted because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability……H.R. 1592 provides critical assistance to state and local enforcement agencies. It amends current law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, biased-motivated crimes. The bill, however, only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech, religious expression or writing in any way. The bill applies only to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech, religious expression or writing in any way.” |
I'm rather persuaded by the fact that the ACLU even approved this bill. I think much of the media coverage of this bill is misguided and subtly spreading mis-information about what the bill would actually do.
|
Smear campaign by the AFA.
There is nothing in the legislation that says you can't speak out against homosexuality. There is a great deal in there about adding sexual orientation to the list of protected groups. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 11:01:54 [Permalink]
|
Society should never make any thoughts illegal.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 12:12:17 [Permalink]
|
"hate crimes"... I hate assholes, is that a crime?
Seriously though.... I hate the it is looked at in this way.....
My view, for those who are interested:
Making something more illegal then it already is is assenine, adn a waste of resources. If they are a true scumbag, kill them or remove them from society, whether they are a hateful scumbag or not. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 12:17:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
"hate crimes"... I hate assholes, is that a crime?
Seriously though.... I hate the it is looked at in this way.....
My view, for those who are interested:
Making something more illegal then it already is is assenine, adn a waste of resources. If they are a true scumbag, kill them or remove them from society, whether they are a hateful scumbag or not.
|
I agree, why should it matter why someone committed a crime against another?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 15:51:55 [Permalink]
|
OT wrote: | Making something more illegal then it already is is assenine, adn a waste of resources. If they are a true scumbag, kill them or remove them from society, whether they are a hateful scumbag or not. |
Making something "more illegal" (in other words - increasing the harshness of consequences for a particular crime) is not inherently asinine. It all depends on whether said laws work to reduce harm without creating new harm.
Jerome wrote: | Society should never make any thoughts illegal. |
I agree, and thankfully there are no such laws in the USA. | I agree, why should it matter why someone committed a crime against another? |
Motivations and mindsets have always played a role in sentencing. The difference with hate crime law is that it is written into the law rather that left solely up to the discretion of a judge.
Guys, rather than arguing against this based on abstract philosophical principles, why not explain how the law is potentially harmful in real life application? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 16:03:41 [Permalink]
|
White House.gov
This executive order prevents one from thinking about disputing Americas effort in the Iraq war.
| I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people |
| (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: |
| (B)undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people |
So, if the executive branch deems that you were thinking about disrupting Americas effort in Iraq you will lose your property.
This is nothing more than a thought crime.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 17:28:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This executive order prevents one from thinking about disputing Americas effort in the Iraq war. |
We've already dealth with that executive order, and it does no such thing, unless "an act of violence" is the same thing as "thinking about disputing." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2007 : 17:57:09 [Permalink]
|
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; |
This is who the act applies to; notice the bolding. If the executive believes that someone may (they are thinking and talking or writing about) commit violence this order applies.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
H.R. 1592 - restricting free speech or not?
