Discussion needed on H.R. 1913 ... Hate Speech

[MDK]

Rather than some knee-jerk ad hominem, you might want to read the article. This does appear to be a lie someone started. The bill does not address hate speech, but hate crime and specifies two criteria, that it is a felony and that it is violent.

pnewton,
Rather than making some false claim, please seek to be Catholic, honoring the eighth commandment about bearing false witness. I have explained my comment further, so that those who didn’t understand, could understand… and so backed up my comment, as it was truthful. To summarize, there was nothing wrong in what I said, as it was truthful. The point went beyond this thread, and was more important, and so would appreciate the consideration of decency, as it was not ad hominem. I had believed that you had a better propensity to understand than this, and that you knew better.

 

[MDK]

Okay, you are entitled to that opinion. But it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the claim of this thread: that HR 1913 is about hate speech.

Thank you for acknowledging the freedom of will given to each and every one of us. However, it’s not simply an opinion, as explained to you, but is based on Christ’s true Church, which has never taught error. All one has to do is objectively apply the truth to the situation, and therefore I wrote truthfully.

I think what you guys fail to see is that it lays the foundations for protection of immoral behaviors as though legitimate, and is in reality pushing aside of truth. It is embracing the darkness into our legal system once again. The prudent person with eyes open will look around at the context of this, and see how it fits into the larger picture.

0bama is doing his dead level best to replace God with government, a la Marxism. Has he done it yet? No, but his efforts are very clear and is marching in that direction. So, those who promote all sorts of evil, as though it were good, currently have friends in high legislative and executive places… although, very low moral places.

Does it not concern you that the champion of this bill is Barney Frank, who is openly sodomitic, and both a promoter of evils and legislator?

Concerns with this bill are well founded. Do you really think Satan makes his ugliness apparent when foisting his agenda and deceiving? Or, rather is evil sometimes in the form of a beautiful woman for a man to cheat on his wife? The devil tries to appear as an angel of light, and so would be able to deceive.

Yes, with eyes wide shut, people say that it is not problematic when creating legal protection for immoral behaviors giving these equal footing with God given characteristics such as race, skin color, a person’s real gender. It’s absolutely a step in the wrong direction. It’s based on lies and deception, just like Roe v Wade. Yet, we see the mentality and other laws since Roe v Wade became law. One would have to be willfully blind not to see this. The one who loves these immoral laws and court decisions and their ripple effects, was a liar and murderer from the start.

There is no legitimate reason for this bill. Check who is behind this bill, and see where it is going. In other countries where these foundations have been laid, pastors and lay Christians have been jailed by proclaiming the Christian truth, which of course assumes one truly knows Christian truth to begin with, and not some distortion thereof.

I oppose this bill, as it is completely and totally unnecessary, and sanctions as though God-given, the behaviors that Catholicism teaches are gravely immoral, and lays the groundwork for muting the Christian influence and God’s morality in our Country. As a Catholic, the laws must be in line with God’s laws, else our laws are immoral. There is no justice in immoral law. If we want peace, we must work for justice. Where is the social justice of immoral laws?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not by any definition I have ever heard. While you are right about mental anguish, legally bodily harm is used to specify harm to ones body. I would think that the modifiers of fire, explosive devices, firearms, would make this clear.

Another thing about this bill is that it does not create new laws, but rather is a funding bill. The only reason any definitions are given are to clarify the guidelines of the grant process.

It is, indeed, a funding bill which provides federal funds to aid prosecution of hate crimes.

“Mental/physical” cases, as distinguished from “Mental/Mental” or “Physical/Mental” cases are cases in which mental stress causes a physical harm, and there are a lot of those in various areas of the law. Take for example a robber who puts a storekeeper in fear so that he has a heart attack and dies. That robber is going to be prosecuted under the “Felony Murder” statues, notwithstanding that he didn’t shoot or even touch the storekeeper. I’m not saying the statues dealing with hate crimes WILL be applied in that manner, only that some of the COULD be. The language allows for it.

Personally, I am leery of all hate crime legislation. Murder is murder. Assault is assault. A murderer is no more or less guilty if he kills a person because of, e.g., the person’s color than if, e.g., he hates the person out of jealousy or simply wants to steal his money.

I am leery of the potential that if, say, a person gets into a fight in a bar and has, at some time or other in his life, made some kind of insulting remark about homosexuals or Mexicans or whatever, that could come back to be used to enhance (or at least threaten) additional penalties for it being a “hate crime”. So, when you get right down to it, hate crimes are essentially speech crimes. Say something negative about some group and you’re already halfway there.

 

[MDK]

It is, indeed, a funding bill which provides federal funds to aid prosecution of hate crimes.

“Mental/physical” cases, as distinguished from “Mental/Mental” or “Physical/Mental” cases are cases in which mental stress causes a physical harm, and there are a lot of those in various areas of the law. Take for example a robber who puts a storekeeper in fear so that he has a heart attack and dies. That robber is going to be prosecuted under the “Felony Murder” statues, notwithstanding that he didn’t shoot or even touch the storekeeper. I’m not saying the statues dealing with hate crimes WILL be applied in that manner, only that some of the COULD be. The language allows for it.

Personally, I am leery of all hate crime legislation. Murder is murder. Assault is assault. A murderer is no more or less guilty if he kills a person because of, e.g., the person’s color than if, e.g., he hates the person out of jealousy or simply wants to steal his money.

I am leery of the potential that if, say, a person gets into a fight in a bar and has, at some time or other in his life, made some kind of insulting remark about homosexuals or Mexicans or whatever, that could come back to be used to enhance (or at least threaten) additional penalties for it being a “hate crime”. So, when you get right down to it, hate crimes are essentially speech crimes. Say something negative about some group and you’re already halfway there.

We must ask anyway, how many crimes are done out of love? The problem is fear itself, and this legislation does no justice to the situation.

 

[b_ulmen]

the bill combined with USC Title 18, Sec 2 has the potential for punishing anyone who speaks out against (insert hot-topic here).

 

[b_ulmen]

HR 1913 uses USC 18 sec 16 for definition of crime of violence:

USC Title 18, section 16 defines crime of violence: (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

HR 1913 uses definition for hate crime from Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Enforcement Act’:
(1) HATE CRIME- The term hate crime’ means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or homeless status of any person

USC 18 sec 2 also defines the principals as: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

Combine that with the way the laws are currently used re: hate crimes, there is a very real potential for Christians who speak out against homosexulaity or whatever, to be persecuted.

 

[adrift]

Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today:

“The idea of being prosecuted for reading Scripture may seem delirious, but it is just as crazy to think it couldn’t happen. Consider the facts. When this bill was being considered in 2007, Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas asked Alabama Rep. Art Davis (his amendment is in the bill) the following question: ‘If a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and a woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?’ Davis, who supports the bill, replied, ‘No.’

“In other words, if a deranged person hears a priest, minister or rabbi quote Leviticus 18:22, ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination,’ and he then proceeds to assault a homosexual at a gay event—telling the arresting officer he was just following through on what he heard in his house of worship—the clergyman could arguably be charged with a hate crime. The very prospect of something like this happening should be enough to make any reasonable person wonder what is going on.

“The problem in general with hate crimes legislation is that it invites the government to probe way beyond motive. And in instances like this, it trespasses on free speech and religious liberty. This is a road no defender of liberty should ever want to go down.”

 

[pnewton]

pnewton,
Rather than making some false claim, please seek to be Catholic, honoring the eighth commandment about bearing false witness.

Could you try posting without personal attacks? Ad hominem attacks are prohibited here. I am Catholic. I honor all commandments. I am not bearing false witness.

Are we never to question rumors? I followed every link so far trying tto find out where this bill addresses speech and no one has quoted the bill as to where this happens.

 

[pnewton]

Take for example a robber who puts a storekeeper in fear so that he has a heart attack and dies.

Thank you for clarifying. Good analogy.

Personally, I am leery of all hate crime legislation. Murder is murder. Assault is assault.

I said earlier I do not like this bill. This is why. I do not think federal money should go toward helping some victims and not others.

 

[pnewton]

HR 1913 uses USC 18 sec 16 for definition of crime of violence:

USC Title 18, section 16 defines crime of violence: (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

HR 1913 uses definition for hate crime from Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Enforcement Act’:
(1) HATE CRIME- The term hate crime’ means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or homeless status of any person

USC 18 sec 2 also defines the principals as: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

Combine that with the way the laws are currently used re: hate crimes, there is a very real potential for Christians who speak out against homosexulaity or whatever, to be persecuted.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. That is the answer I was looking for. No one on the links speaking out against the bill mentioned this.

 

[MDK]

Could you try posting without personal attacks? Ad hominem attacks are prohibited here. I am Catholic. I honor all commandments. I am not bearing false witness.

Are we never to question rumors? I followed every link so far trying tto find out where this bill addresses speech and no one has quoted the bill as to where this happens.

Please… Once again, there was not a personal attack by myself, although you seem to willingly invent accusations of such from pretty thin air. If you accuse one of such, and there is none, that would be false witness. I forgave you, but let’s please not call it something it was not (and what it was not was an ad hominem/personal attack), else we never learn for future events. The learning would be in the form of being able to separate admonishment of behaviors from personal attacks… and there is quite a clear difference.

That is a false objection as well. We are to study things and see how they may affect us. The mere idea of looking at the line in the sand, saying “they haven’t crossed it yet” is of really little help here in the context of what is happening. There are certainly issues and concerns that were evident from the beginning.

 

[b_ulmen]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. That is the answer I was looking for. No one on the links speaking out against the bill mentioned this.

nothing the federal government does is ever as innocent as it may first appear. well, that may be a tad restrictive, but generally speaking I think it holds true.

So Mr Conyers may be correct in that HR 1913 doe not infringe upon any speech; however, when combined with other USC sections and current interpretation of laws, it very may well lead to such infringements. Not that the govt IS doing something wrong, but that the door is wide open for it to do so.

Consider this, the POSSIBILITY exists that a Christian pastor preaches about the evils of abortion. Some person hears this and decides to intimidate an abortion doctor (not physical contact, but mere intimidation). Said doctor fears for his well being, the perp is charged with a hate crime, mentions during the police debrief that his pastor spoke against abortion. Now the pastor is in potential trouble, the church loses it’s tax exempt status, the church heads towards bankruptcy due to the newly introduced financial hardship. Church closes. One less source of pro-life supporters. One less source of folks who believe in power higher than federal govt.

far fetched? I don’t think so. debatable on the possibility of becoming a reality? sure. but the potential is there for abuse. Similar argument could be made with PATRIOT Act, but I think thats in another thread.

 

[Al_Masetti]

There may be a vote tomorrow according to some emails today.

 

[Dale_M]

HR 1913 uses USC 18 sec 16 for definition of crime of violence:

USC Title 18, section 16 defines crime of violence: (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

HR 1913 uses definition for hate crime from Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Enforcement Act’:
(1) HATE CRIME- The term hate crime’ means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or homeless status of any person

USC 18 sec 2 also defines the principals as: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

Combine that with the way the laws are currently used re: hate crimes, there is a very real potential for Christians who speak out against homosexulaity or whatever, to be persecuted.

I’m sorry but the evidence you cite doesn’t support your conclusion. Hate crimes are violent crimes (and apparently some property crimes) to which an an additional charge is added. Simply saying you disapprove of someone is not an act of violence nor does it destroy property.

 

[MDK]

I’m sorry but the evidence you cite doesn’t support your conclusion. Hate crimes are violent crimes (and apparently some property crimes) to which an an additional charge is added. Simply saying you disapprove of someone is not an act of violence nor does it destroy property.

Unfortunately, I don’t think you get the gist of the concerns. For starters, it’s not a court case, but is for people to use their noggins appropriately to understand. In that regard, no one who understands truth and desires the Truth would fall away from Catholicism.

 

[b_ulmen]

I’m sorry but the evidence you cite doesn’t support your conclusion. Hate crimes are violent crimes (and apparently some property crimes) to which an an additional charge is added. Simply saying you disapprove of someone is not an act of violence nor does it destroy property.

re-read what makes the principals. it could be read to imply that a pastor speaking against homosexulaity or gay marriage is “inducing”.

 

[Dale_M]

re-read what makes the principals. it could be read to imply that a pastor speaking against homosexulaity or gay marriage is “inducing”.

I suppose some folks could read just about anything into any bill that isn’t actually present in the text. But such imaginative readings are unlikely to be realistic.

 

[MDK]

I suppose some folks could read just about anything into any bill that isn’t actually present in the text. But such imaginative readings are unlikely to be realistic.

With the liberal judges on the bench willing to promote their version of social agenda, and aggressive anti-Catholic people appointed by 0bama and the culture he creates where this is not only acceptable but appropriate, what makes anyone with even a little common sense think it can’t happen or that it won’t? It’s those ignorant of true freedoms and who lack proper formation of conscience that concern me… among them are 0bama, anti-Catholics, and fallen away Catholics whose pride and disobedience to our Lord are evidence of no commitment to the Truth.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Opponents of this bill have had 40 years to raise constitutional objections to such laws, and in 40 years, they have never been used to suppress free speech. Anti-semitic and racist groups continue to be able to espouse their noxious views. Opponents should have no fear that they too could continue to call for the deaths of Blacks, Jews or Gays with equal impunity under this law. They’re just not allowed to actually kill them.

Apart from those who just don’t realise that such laws have been in existence since 1969 without any of the problems they are so hysterically fearful about ever having occurred, there are those people who are very obviously lying, openly and blatantly, out of pure homophobia. They wish to continue to be able to commit violent acts against Gays and escape prosecution, because the local Sheriff or District Attorney is of like mind. Just as used to happen when Blacks were victims, 50 years ago.

As for First Amendment issues, the proposed law contains the following words:

’Nothing in 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.’

That’s pretty darned clear. The people who say that this muzzles free speech don’t mention this bit, as it totally undermines their case. Worse, it shows them not just to be in favour of spoken bigotry, because that’s still allowed, no, they want to have the continuing right to commit violent acts against minorities they disapprove of, and not be prosecuted because the local DAs agree with them. Or, as is often the case, lack the funds to prosecute. This bill is called the ‘Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act’ for a reason, it provides resources in such cases so small towns don’t bankrupt themselves pursuing such cases.

Or is it anyone’s contention that no-one dare speak a word against Catholicism, because that’s covered under similar existing laws? That any such anti-Catholic rhetoric, from the pulpit or the press is suppressed?

Didn’t think so.

My advice to someone on how to answer criticisms of this bill from those who don’t believe that there’s a problem, only a danger, no matter how far-fetched:

If you want to convince them that he needs to re-visit his opinions, then show him the figures for bias crimes collected by the FBI (which under the Hate Crime Statistics Act 1990 exclude trans people), and the comparable National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs statistics, which do include anti-Trans violence.

e.g.

FBI figures 2007 - 5 murders of gays for being gay, 1,460 total.

NCAVP figures 2007 - 5 murders of gays for being gay, 16 murders of trans for being trans, 2,430 total (an increase of 24% over 2006 vs a decrease for all other categories)

FBI 2007 figures for crimes based on the victim’s religion, a protected class: 1,477, of which 1,010 were against Jews, and only 65 against Catholics… (and no murders in this category).

Show him that according to the NCAVP, there were 215 recorded incidents of police misconduct against GLBT people.

That Law enforcement and police accounted for 8% of the 2550 total offenders against GLBT victims for 2007, the 4th largest offender category.

Bring to his attention the Duanna Johnson case - the video of her being held down and beaten using brass knuckles in an unprovoked attack in a Memphis police station - and her murder weeks later, so she was unable to testify.

Show him that there’s a need for this legislation - so hate crimes against trans people are no longer ignored in the FBI statistics, if no other effect.

Give him the proof - the URLs such as ncavp.org/common/document_files/Reports/2007HVReportFINAL.pdf and fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_04.htm so he can verify for himself that you’re not purveying the usual Leftist snake-oil, that the problem is genuine, and not the usual faux-problem beloved of the Moonbats.

 

[Toughguy]

The bill here says this:

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act–

(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

US Code section 16, title 18 says this:

TITLE 18–CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

                         PART I--CRIMES

                  CHAPTER 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 16. Crime of violence defined

The term ``crime of violence'' means--
    (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, **or 
threatened use of physical force against the person or property of 
another**, or
    (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, 
**involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person 
or property of another may be used in the course of committing the 
offense.**

Further in this bill:

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, **the Attorney General may provide **technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that–

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

The term ``crime of violence’’ means–
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person or property of
another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature,
involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person
or property of another may be used in the course of committing the
offense.

And considering that the government in Canada now “inspects” some Churchs for hate, it is logical to consider that that can happen here in the US. Why is it logical? Ideology knows no boundries.