![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mdehnersWhat’s the truth about hate crimes legislation?
It’s pretty simple. The federal hate crimes law doesn’t create something called a “thought” crime or somehow create “special rights” for a particular group of people. It strengthens law enforcement’s ability to fight violent crime – not vigorous debate, not sermons against homosexuality, not hateful speech, not the infamous “God hates fags” protesters, not the spreading of misinformation that thrives on constitutionally protected right-wing television, radio, and blogosphere.
Conservatives often say they want judges to focus on exactly what a law says. Well, here’s exactly what the law says:
"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."
Another section of the law makes it clear that federal courts could not rely on evidence of a person’s outlook or statements to convict someone of a hate crime unless those expressions were directly related to the commission of the violent crime in question:
“In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or association of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing the impeachment of a witness."
Could it be any clearer that this has nothing to do with silencing preachers or punishing thoughts, and everything to do with discouraging and prosecuting violent hate crimes?
What about the Religious Right’s horror stories?
Religious Right leaders tell stories that they say back up their claims that hate crimes legislation would threaten their ability to speak out against homosexuality, and that the law would soon lead to pastors being hauled off to jail. A lot of those stories revolve around incidents in other countries. So even if the Right is sticking to the facts regarding those incidents (given the track record, a big “if”), they don’t apply here. None of those countries has the powerful free speech protections that the First Amendment gives Americans – the same First Amendment protections that are strongly endorsed and affirmed by the hate crimes legislation and its supporters.
One story Religious Right leaders like to tell revolves around the arrest of some Repent America protestors at a Philadelphia gay pride rally. This incident has become the stuff of mythology on the right, in part due to ads produced by Repent America in 2007 featuring a couple of grandmothers who were supposedly arrested for sharing the Gospel. The way they tell it, it’s understandable that it would concern people. So it’s worth finding out what really happened.
The kernel of truth under the pile of propaganda is that a group of Repent America activists were in fact arrested while protesting Philadelphia’s OutFest, and a local prosecutor did charge them with violations of several laws, including the state’s hate crimes law. But none of those charges were for “sharing the gospel.” Repent America – and the religious and political leaders who tell the same story – don’t mention that the police in fact were careful to protect their right to protest. The court found that among other things the protesters “blocked access to vendors, and disobeyed direct orders from the police, who were trying to preserve order and keep the peace.”
The First Amendment allows equality advocates to rally, and allows those with a different point of view to protest. But it doesn’t mean that the protesters have the right to disrupt the rally or drown out its speakers. It is universally recognized that public safety officials can place reasonable “time, place, or manner” restrictions on people exercising their First Amendment rights in order to preserve public order and prevent one group from trampling another’s rights. The court, which noted that Repent America did not get a permit for its protest, found that the police applied the law reasonably when the bullhorn-wielding Repent America protesters refused a request to move to another location and instead sat down in the street.
It’s also important to note that the court ruled that the prosecutor’s decision to file charges under the hate crimes law was a misapplication of the law – and charges against the protesters were dismissed. The court affirmed that the hate crimes law did not apply to the protesters’ speech or even to their disruptive behavior and refusal to obey police requests. That’s not exactly the impression you’ll get from listening to Religious Right leaders. It’s also important to note that federal courts rejected Repent America’s claims that the city and Outfest organizers had violated their First Amendment rights.
The Bottom Line
Here’s the bottom line: don’t believe Religious Right leaders who say the hate crimes bill will be used to silence preachers, prosecute people for sharing their religious beliefs, or create a category of “thought crimes.” It’s not true, and their claims don’t hold up under any reasonable scrutiny. The law being considered by Congress has clear, explicit, and unambiguous language that affirms and protects First Amendment guarantees for free speech and religious liberty.
PS: As someone who has been at a few of the rallies in which the Fundinuts have complained over the yrs and in one where I was struck but the folks were let off to prevent a Fundie-hissy you'd think they'd be Ashamed of their Lying but like all JCI-faiths, Lying isn't Lying to a "Kaffir"....
Truth,
Pat
It’s pretty simple. The federal hate crimes law doesn’t create something called a “thought” crime or somehow create “special rights” for a particular group of people. It strengthens law enforcement’s ability to fight violent crime – not vigorous debate, not sermons against homosexuality, not hateful speech, not the infamous “God hates fags” protesters, not the spreading of misinformation that thrives on constitutionally protected right-wing television, radio, and blogosphere.
Conservatives often say they want judges to focus on exactly what a law says. Well, here’s exactly what the law says:
"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."
Another section of the law makes it clear that federal courts could not rely on evidence of a person’s outlook or statements to convict someone of a hate crime unless those expressions were directly related to the commission of the violent crime in question:
“In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or association of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing the impeachment of a witness."
Could it be any clearer that this has nothing to do with silencing preachers or punishing thoughts, and everything to do with discouraging and prosecuting violent hate crimes?
What about the Religious Right’s horror stories?
Religious Right leaders tell stories that they say back up their claims that hate crimes legislation would threaten their ability to speak out against homosexuality, and that the law would soon lead to pastors being hauled off to jail. A lot of those stories revolve around incidents in other countries. So even if the Right is sticking to the facts regarding those incidents (given the track record, a big “if”), they don’t apply here. None of those countries has the powerful free speech protections that the First Amendment gives Americans – the same First Amendment protections that are strongly endorsed and affirmed by the hate crimes legislation and its supporters.
One story Religious Right leaders like to tell revolves around the arrest of some Repent America protestors at a Philadelphia gay pride rally. This incident has become the stuff of mythology on the right, in part due to ads produced by Repent America in 2007 featuring a couple of grandmothers who were supposedly arrested for sharing the Gospel. The way they tell it, it’s understandable that it would concern people. So it’s worth finding out what really happened.
The kernel of truth under the pile of propaganda is that a group of Repent America activists were in fact arrested while protesting Philadelphia’s OutFest, and a local prosecutor did charge them with violations of several laws, including the state’s hate crimes law. But none of those charges were for “sharing the gospel.” Repent America – and the religious and political leaders who tell the same story – don’t mention that the police in fact were careful to protect their right to protest. The court found that among other things the protesters “blocked access to vendors, and disobeyed direct orders from the police, who were trying to preserve order and keep the peace.”
The First Amendment allows equality advocates to rally, and allows those with a different point of view to protest. But it doesn’t mean that the protesters have the right to disrupt the rally or drown out its speakers. It is universally recognized that public safety officials can place reasonable “time, place, or manner” restrictions on people exercising their First Amendment rights in order to preserve public order and prevent one group from trampling another’s rights. The court, which noted that Repent America did not get a permit for its protest, found that the police applied the law reasonably when the bullhorn-wielding Repent America protesters refused a request to move to another location and instead sat down in the street.
It’s also important to note that the court ruled that the prosecutor’s decision to file charges under the hate crimes law was a misapplication of the law – and charges against the protesters were dismissed. The court affirmed that the hate crimes law did not apply to the protesters’ speech or even to their disruptive behavior and refusal to obey police requests. That’s not exactly the impression you’ll get from listening to Religious Right leaders. It’s also important to note that federal courts rejected Repent America’s claims that the city and Outfest organizers had violated their First Amendment rights.
The Bottom Line
Here’s the bottom line: don’t believe Religious Right leaders who say the hate crimes bill will be used to silence preachers, prosecute people for sharing their religious beliefs, or create a category of “thought crimes.” It’s not true, and their claims don’t hold up under any reasonable scrutiny. The law being considered by Congress has clear, explicit, and unambiguous language that affirms and protects First Amendment guarantees for free speech and religious liberty.
PS: As someone who has been at a few of the rallies in which the Fundinuts have complained over the yrs and in one where I was struck but the folks were let off to prevent a Fundie-hissy you'd think they'd be Ashamed of their Lying but like all JCI-faiths, Lying isn't Lying to a "Kaffir"....
Truth,
Pat
