Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
undergroundpanther (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-03-09 03:04 AMOriginal message Hate crime prevention act.. (the fundies are gonna hate it)The Hate Crimes Prevention Act which has passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin is now facing hearings in the Senate. There are already similar hate crime laws in place, however, this bill imposes much stronger federal enforcement.....blahblahblah......
ccharles000 (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-03-09 03:08 AMResponse to Original message 1. thanks for posting this panther
undergroundpanther (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-03-09 03:30 AMResponse to Reply #1 2. you are welcome Just found it. Thought it was interesting,yet kinda disturbing too. If it is used the wrong way it could be horrible, but on the other hand it could also be used to silence bigots,and bible thumping assholes that justify their own bullying bullshit behind religion,and it could shut up most bullies,racists ,sexists and gay bashers,and it could be a death knell for faux news,and asshole talk show hosts like Rush, finally.
RandomThoughts (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-03-09 03:47 AMResponse to Original message 3. It will require alot of interpretation to decide what is an intent, or what is hostile And will it be applied uniformly across all groups?Bush's run up for war was hate speech.Advocating for positions that allow for economic or social forces to hurt someone would be hate speech.It is such a broad definition, and includes individual interpretation. So juries will have to figure what someones intent was. If it was used equally, that might be possible, but will it be used only on certain issues?What about poets that have their poetry misinterpreted. What about someone that makes a movie with violence in it? what about a book? what about a search engine that points to mean thoughts? what about a negative campaign ad? what about comedian's jokes? What about a history lesson that teaches different points of view for learning? What about soldiers deployed in a battle? What about police officers that use intimidation to subdue a perp? What about judges that comment on a criminal before sentencing? What about media that sets a cultural norm that then makes social actions happen that hurt people? What about a sports player that comments on another player? What about TV shows that speak of much of society as violent or terrible? What about legislation that creates economically hostile situations for many people in society? What about bosses that threaten starvation by saying a person may be fired for something? What about CEOs that instruct bosses to be tough on employees to meet economic goals?What about laws that threaten to put people in jail for 2 years based on what someone else might think they said?Who gets to decide when it is a crime, when it is thought provoking, satire, or commentary?What if someone makes a claim a person is thinking wrong for reasons of racism or social choices or other reasons, because they don't want to face that it is their actions that are commented on, not some stereotype. What if they use it as an excuse to stop valid comments on peoples actions?And more importantly, why are we even discussing prosecuting hate speech, when we have war criminals still not prosecuted, and we have economic criminals causing suffering to millions.
JustinL (326 posts) Fri Jul-03-09 05:59 AMResponse to Original message 5. that text is NOT from the Hate Crimes Prevention Act It's from HR 1966, the "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act". HR 1966 has not passed; the last action was a referral to a House subcommittee.The "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009", HR 1913, does not contain any similar text.
I find it funny that UGP is the very thing she accuses everyone else of being.
