CNN's Feyerick advances charge that hate crimes bill could ban speech
SUMMARY: CNN's Deborah Feyerick reported the charge from "some lawmakers and religious groups" that the hate crimes bill "could be used to criminalize conservative speech on abortion or homosexuality." But she did not note that the bill specifically states, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs."
During the June 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, correspondent Deborah Feyerick reported that "[s]ome lawmakers and religious groups are concerned" that a hate crimes bill Attorney General Eric Holder is "pushing" "could be used to criminalize conservative speech on abortion or homosexuality." But Feyerick did not note that, as Holder made clear, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act specifically states: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs" The bill also states: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities ... including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration." Furthermore, while Feyerick noted that Attorney General Eric Holder was "pushing" for passage of the bill, she did not note that in testimony that day, Holder specifically disputed the assertion that the bill could "criminalize ... speech."
In prepared testimony for the Senate Judiciary Committee's June 25 hearing on the bill, Holder stated:
Some have expressed concern that this bill could possibly infringe on First Amendment rights. The Department has studied the bill and we are confident that nothing in it would criminalize any expressive conduct or association. Section 249 could be used only to investigate or prosecute discriminatory acts of violence causing bodily injury (or attempts to commit such violent acts) and thus could never be used to investigate or prosecute mere association or expressions of beliefs, no matter how offensive those beliefs might be. Simply put, bias-motivated violence is not protected speech.
Similarly, when the bill was introduced in the Senate, one of the bill's 44 co-sponsors, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), stated:
LEAHY: [I]t does not target pure speech, however offensive or disagreeable. The Constitution does not permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because we disagree with it. To paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought that we hate. I am devoted to that principle, and I am confident that this bill does not contradict it.
From Section 10 of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, as introduced in the Senate:
(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.
(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.
(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.
From the June 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
FEYERICK: Attorney General Eric Holder's pushing for a new hate crimes law, allowing the federal government to prosecute violence based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability. It would also allow the federal government to help state and local authorities prosecute hate crimes. It's already a federal crime to attack someone because of their race, creed, or color. Some lawmakers and religious groups are concerned the law could be used to criminalize conservative speech on abortion or homosexuality -- Wolf.
A "hate crimes bill" does exactly the opposite of what its advocates wish to accomplish.
Sincerely,
Rush Limpaugh
Translation: Republican Politicians and Evangelical Nutbags are lying about this to scare the drooling knuckledraggers in the Republican base who are too stupid or lazy to read the law for themselves.
They're openly lying about this to scare their wingnut followers into thinking that hate speech, which appears to be one of their primary means of communication, is coverd by this, and they want to be free to scream their bigotry from the mountaintops. Of course, even with the law, they could continue to do so, but they seem to be afraid anyway.
I am always a bit surprised by this; despite their claims to the contrary, their arguments are so transparently bigoted that I would think they would be ashamed to so blatantly spew hatred, but I guess that's just naive. Hatred is a reichwing value. They happily preach about "values" while ignoring their own hypocrisy.
As if those are the only two bogeymen we ever hear about from conservatives. Feyerick's really putting her "liberal spin" on the summation of conservative rhetoric.
It's not that they fear that they won't be able to mock gays openly, because they know they will always be able to do that.
It's the fear that by making them an enumerated member of the Hate Crimes could get them closer to...dare I say... Civil Liberties. No.. say it ain't so, says the close minded wingnuts.
The same laws that allowed inter-racial marriages, may one day allow Gay Marriage...
After way too long. Does anyone think 9 wise minority women would have taken so long to decide the constitution says you can marry someone of another race?
Or it's a neat and tidy case of proclaiming that they have a right to discriminate and someone's discriminating against them by taking it away. They know everyone is all about personal freedom, so if they dress it up like that, maybe they can get the dumbest of those people on their side.
You know, maybe the conservatives are screaming oppression and discrimination on their side because there was so much of it toward the left in the Bush administration, they were starting to feel left out.
Ya know... ya got a good point there. They are afraid they may be called to account.
They won't, not by this law, we just have to keep doing it on our own.
By conservative think he had a right to do that, and he should not have been punished for it.