About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Surprise! Breitbart, Big Government and Glenn Beck don't know what a "hate crime" is

December 01, 2009 11:40 am ET by Eric Boehlert

Yep, more Kenneth Gladney fiction from a right-wing crowd that simply will not stop making stuff up about a long-forgotten St. Louis incident that for some reason has been elevated into right-wing folklore, facts be damned. (For background see here, here, here, and here.)

But here's the latest: Breitbart and his "journalism" site Big Government, along with Glenn Beck and his trusty legal analyst Judge Napolitano, all suggest that hate crime charges ought to be brought against the union "thugs" who are charged with beating up Kenneth Gladney outside a town hall health care forum in August.

They're the same SEIU reps who last week were charged by St. Louis prosecutors with "misdemeanor ordinance violations," even though Breitbart and his fervent fiction writers had been claiming for months that Gladney had been savagely beaten and kicked and dragged around by the union "thugs" who were under direct orders from the White House to beat people up. (I kid you not.)

County officials didn't see it that way and instead slapped the SEIU union reps with very light charges. So now, Breitbart and company insist Gladney was the victim of a hate crime. Of course, nobody has been charged with that offense, but Big Government and Glenn Beck don't care because they have proof a hate crime was committed!

The proof? On that August night Gladney told police that one of the union reps, just prior to hitting him, said, "What kind of nigger are you"? (Gladney is black.)

According to Beck and Breitbart and Judge Napolitano, that means Gladney was the victim of a "hate crime." (See below.) After all, here's the legal definition that's most often used to describe the crime [emphasis added]:

A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.

In this case, the right-wing claim is that the union rep in question was prejudiced against Gladney's race.

A compelling case, right? Except here's the part the amateur Perry Mason's always leave out of their sudden (and previously well-hidden) desire to see hate crimes prosecuted: the union rep charged with hitting Gladney -- the same union rep who allegedly called Gladney a "nigger" -- is also black. His name is Elston McCowan.  

Meaning, Gladney, a black man, was allegedly punched by McCowan, a black man, and now Breitbart and Beck want prosecutors to file hate-crime charges because McCowan was prejudiced against Gladney's race; because  McCowan's assault was driven by his hatred of Gladney's race. That, despite the fact that Gladney and McCowan share the same race.

I'm no legal eagle, but I'm pretty sure I know why prosecutors didn't file hate crime charges in this case.

UPDATED: Breitbart sure does have a tough time trying to decipher the law.

UPDATED: Breitbart's star witness, a far-right ideologue who earlier told his Gladney tale on Breitbart's Big Government site, has now changed his story about what happened that night in St. Louis. Suddenly the witness did not see Gladney get punched in the face. Gee, think lawyers for the charged union reps will make a big deal about that when it's time to adjudicate the case?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jediknight65 (December 01, 2009 12:01 pm ET)
      6  
      boy these guys are really turning on the fear of unions....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (December 01, 2009 12:25 pm ET)
        5  
        These guys are afraid of a lot of things - and they want their readers/listeners/viewers to be afraid, too.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (December 01, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
        5  
        It's still amazing to me that the right wing machine has been able to fool so many working Americans into seeing unions as the bad guys. I meet people who enjoy lots of benefits that they wouldn't have were it not for unions, they complain about their employers (mostly based on the powerlessness they feel against them), and they'll still reflexively take the side of a corporation in any incident involving a union or its members.

        I mentioned this local incident on another thread, but I want to give credit to one right wing extremist for being honest about his view on hate crimes

        “It’s not a hate crime if you love doing it.” (quote from about halfway down pg. 3)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jediknight65 (December 01, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
          7  
          i am in a union myself and i love the protection they give me should i ever need to use it
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (December 01, 2009 2:00 pm ET)
          5  
          It's still amazing to me that the right wing machine has been able to fool so many working Americans into seeing unions as the bad guys

          Hey, don't you remember? If it wasn't for the union GM would not have had all of those "legacy" costs, which helped drive them into bankruptcy.

          Of course, that ignores the fact that there would not have been any "legacy" costs if GM had financed the pension and health care system when they were making money.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (December 01, 2009 12:32 pm ET)
      3  
      There's a difference between starting an assault because of a victim's race, ethnic origin or sexual preference, which is a hate crime, and mentioning a victim's race, ethnic origin or sexual preference during a fight that wasn't motivated by those same things.

      The witnesses aren't reliable here - they were reliable enough to get these guys charged after 3 months of witness interviews and video dissection by the DA's office. That's it. There was enough suspicion to charge them. That's it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (December 01, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
        3  
        Using the n-word is more than mentioning someones race. Unless you yourself are also of African descent.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (December 01, 2009 3:35 pm ET)
          4  
          Yes, but it STILL doesn't make it a hate crime.

          A hate crime is one that's MOTIVATED by the race, ethnic origin or sexual preference. Referencing that race, ethnic origin or sexual preference during a fight doesn't MAKE it a hate crime.

          I'm not sure why you didn't understand what I said the first time - hopefully this helped.

          The issue is the intent and motivation of the person who is assaulting another. Name calling during the assault isn't an indication that the name calling was the reason FOR the assault. Without that indication, it's not a hate crime.

          Granted, it's less offensive when a black person calls another black person the n word than if a white person does it. That fact doesn't affect whether or not it's a hate crime though.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Midnight Kevin (December 01, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
      3  
      Maybe Breitbart and Beck called each other up and said they needed more black followers, so they took this hate crime stance to show that they are for the black man.
      ------------------------------------
      The Midnight Review
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Conor Kendrick (December 01, 2009 2:03 pm ET)
      1  
      Watch for yourself.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBdbTVUeay8

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (December 01, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
        3  
        The only video evidence of the encounter only catches the very end of it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (December 01, 2009 6:54 pm ET)
          1  
          Napolitano states to Beck "You and I saw the tape of them kicking him." Which implies that there is either another video of the incident or that there is more on this video that has not been released. But, since FOX news has shown only this video to support the claim that Gladney was severly beaten, I doubt that there is anothher video or more of the incident on this video. I think, if there was more showing the "brutal beating" of Gladney, FOX would have already flooded their airwaves with it.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (December 01, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
        3  
        I remember when that video first surfaced, and it was described as very incriminating against the Union members. I watched it several times before I figured out who the supposed victim was. I would call it one of the most ineffective pieces of propaganda ever, except that more than a few right wingers posted it at this and other sites as evidence of union thuggery.

        I guess people see what they want to see.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.