What is Digg?512 Comments
- inactive, on 11/12/2007, -20/+276Sorry for the comment abuse, but before this discussion goes any further, I think it's important that diggers know what kind of speech is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment (because alot of you are going to harp the old "ZOMG free speech! free speech! argument).
1)Defamation: Defamation consists of a publication of a statement of alleged fact which is false and which harms the reputation of another person.
2)Causing panic: The classic example of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment, because it causes panic, is falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
3)Fighting words: The First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
4)Incitement to crime: It is a crime to incite someone else to commit a crime
5)Sedition: The advocacy of unlawful conduct against the government or the violent overthrow of the government.
6) Obscenity:Although much debated, this standard remains the law of the land, and elements of this language have been included in both the authorizing legislation for the National Endowment for the Arts (20 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) and the Communications Decency Act (4) prohibiting "obscenity" and "indecency" on the Internet.
7)Offense:Although rejected by American courts, left open is the possibility that the plaintiffs might have a claim if "they had to confront the exhibition daily, . . . the exhibition was visible in the course of their normal routine, or . . . their usual driving or walking routes took them through or past the exhibition."
8)Establishment of Religion: Some speech is restricted because it constitutes the establishment of religion, which is itself prohibited by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.")
So please, I'm begging you, please please please understand that YOU CANNOT LEGALLY SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT TO AND EXPECT THE GOVERNMENT TO BACK YOU UP VIA THE CONSTITUTION.
Carry on. - raymondmarble, on 10/12/2007, -46/+214@sonofdy1,
That is not the case. I can understand the idea that hate crime legislation is unnecessary and/or redundant, but this particular legislation specifically doesn't address verbal assaults or name calling. You can say whatever you want about gays.
This is the first time ever that the ACLU has supported hate crime legislation, but they felt that every piece of legislation that had come before had infringed, or had the possibility of infringing on, free speech.
Again, I can understand being against the legislation, but not for this reason. They specifically addressed this reason.
I think a good explanation is here:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Security&CONTENTID=36518&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
Here's the text of the bill; if I'm wrong, show me where:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1592_ih.xml - ArmyOfFun, on 10/12/2007, -34/+174"Actualy it would federalise hate crimes and make it illegal to say anything bad about gays."
This isn't true. Here's what I just posted in another thread about this bill:
Thought crimes aren't an issue here, in fact, that sort of evidence is strictly forbidden by this bill. From Sec 7.d: "In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense." So you can say you want all gay people to die, but that speech is protected unless you actually go out and try to make it happen. - mikeneilson, on 10/12/2007, -72/+193I can't get behind any hate crime legislation, so I am with the Prez on this one.
Making it *more* illegal to commit a crime against one person vs. another based on race, religion, etc defeats the purpose entirely. - waluum, on 10/12/2007, -179/+273I agree. This is a bold and positive move to protect out constitutional rights on the part of the President. I commend him for it.
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -7/+78I've never understood why sedition is on that list when it is specifically recommended, when necessary, in the Declaration of Independence.
- evilregis, on 10/12/2007, -31/+100@waluum, when did Bush start giving a ***** about constitutional rights?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -55/+113I never thought I'd say this but Bush is doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. A crime is a crime and there should be no additional punishment based on the motives for the crime. That is outlawing thought, and is 100% wholly unconstitutional.
Free speech doesn't extend to speech designed to incite violence. So this non-sense that it's a violation of free speech is utter *****.
But of course the media will spin it like "ZOMG Bush says it's okay to KILL GAY PEOPLE!!111!!11!eleventyone!1!!" - sonofdy1, on 10/12/2007, -203/+259Actualy it would federalise hate crimes and make it illegal to say anything bad about gays.
Its thought crime legislation. - Reclinatron, on 10/12/2007, -18/+61@kchambers
"Because non-white, gay muslims deserve more justice than elderly white veterans right?"
Current legislation already protects people from being attacked based on race, color, national origin and religion.
So, if in your example in someone attacked the elderly white veteran, because they were white, current legislation would allow the federal government to help in that investigation. This legislation is simply trying to extend that protection to GLBT. The only change this bill would make is to extend protections that already exist for other groups. Why don't you take the time to read the bill instead of spreading lies.
Previously posted by raymondmarble:
full text of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1592_ih.xml
information on the bill:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Security&CONTENTID=36518&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm - KidAirbag, on 10/12/2007, -14/+52I am against hate crime legislation in principle but if hate crimes do exist, they should include GLBT. It's all or nothing.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -28/+65This bill needs to die a horrible death. Hate crimes should be ruled unconstitutional as quickly as possible. There are so many things wrong with those laws. It is racist, sexist, homophobic, all of them. Killing someone of your own race should be no different in defintion of crime and punishment than someone of another race, sex, orientation, religion, etc. All hate crime legislation is doing is making our laws specific to race, sex, etc.
On top of that, it's not a federal issue. We continue to give way too much power to the federal government (or they are taking it) - ArmyOfFun, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40"So murdering a gay man would now be worse than murdering a straight white man."
This particular bill doesn't increase any penalties relating to "hate crimes". Regardless, intent is the key. If the gay man was killed because he was gay and the white man was killed because he was white (or even straight or both) they'd both be hate crimes. This isn't reverse discrimination although I concede, in practice it may well be. I don't know.
"Murder is a hate crime regardless so why is this even required?"
The only persuasive argument I've seen is given in the bill (Sec 2.2 and 2.5). Basically, if you attack someone because they belong to a specific group, you've also (negatively) affected that group. In any crime, those directly connected to the victim will be affected. If the crime is motivated due to hatred of a group, everyone in that group is affected, not just those with a direct connection to the victim. Since the effects are farther reaching, it makes sense to me that the crime would be considered more severe. - Lennalf, on 10/12/2007, -14/+40To those of you debating whether a hate crime law will impede your Consitutional rights, the *actual text* of the bill reads:
"Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person—
i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if
1) death results from the offense; or
2) the offense includes kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill."
So, if you believe that your Constitutional rights include physically harming other people because you don't like the way they look, then you'd be right. If you feel it is within your Constitutional rights to curb-stomp gays, then you'd be right. But you're not.
Look, you can still hate gays and express hateful opinions if you want to be an ass-hat; there's nothing this law can do about that. But if you go out and smack some "faggy-looking" kid around with a crowbar, then this law makes that a more serious crime than usual. It makes the sentencing harsher, but only in the event that you do something that would already be considered a serious crime in the first place.
Maybe you should read the bill before passing judgment. And for you conservatives saying, "way to go Bush!," please realize he's not going against "hate crimes" as a fundamental concept. He's just refusing gays the protection offered by the concept. He's not about your rights; he's about appeasing the anti-gay crowd. - fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30Defamation isn't a criminal offense in the United States, it's a civil offense. The difference is that you can't be jailed for it, only sued over it.
Creating a panic isn't really a free speech issue, as it involves taking an action while knowing full well that said action would cause others material harm.
Fighting words is a subset of the above. However, they are only illegal if they actually result in harm.
Sedition isn't illegal in the United States, as Sedition doesn't constrain itself to violence. Sedition is opposition to the government, which would include people protesting any current policies. Advocating violence, again, falls under the above.
Obscenity is very poorly defined, and often claims of it fail to survive challenges in court.
Offense: You said yourself that it's been all but completely rejected by American law.
Establishment of Religion: This does NOT apply to individuals, just the government. Since the government doesn't get the protections listed in the bill of rights, this is a total non-issue.
While IANAL, American law isn't the same as the law in other countries, and we DO enjoy more freedom of speech than most countries. While this is changing for the worse, it's not quite how you portrayed it. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31@LonesomeFrightner: So the President deserves points for not completely trampling the first amendment? Upholding the constitution is a basic job requirement -- I just wish he'd do it more, or maybe even all the time.
- weeeezzll, on 10/12/2007, -24/+45Hate crimes laws are a load a *****. If you commit a violent act against someone then you need to be prosecuted for the crime committed and not for the way you felt while doing it. Judges are capable of taking into account that your a bigoted racist and making sure that you get no leniency when it comes to sentencing. Hate sucks, but it's not a crime.
- cincylogistics, on 10/12/2007, -19/+36I am saddened that I had to sit here and vote down some comments about this article. I agree Punishing someone for Speaking Hate or Thinking Hate is wrong. We as Americans have First Amendment Rights to speak freely and think whatever. This bill on the other hand has been introduced to protect innocent people and punish the wicked After a hate crime has been committed. And It happens to protect homosexuals, which many other Hate Crime Laws do not protect. With that said I think it implies a lot about the writer of the article, the people who were quoted in the article, and the diggers here who support the article. It says something clear to me, that you / and probably they are homophobic. It's my opinion (everyone has one) but to me it's that plain and clear. You hide behind first amendment rights as if that's what you stand for. But step back and read between the lines, all it is is homophobic, trashy commentary. I love this site, but I hate the fact I had to sit and Vote Down comments that are homophobic. I don't think the diggers should go to jail or be punished more extreme for homophobic comments (unless you commit a hate crime after saying them), I think you just need to sit back and think about what you are saying. You argue for freedom for all, but what you are doing is supporting the Lack of Protection for a minority in this country. All I will do is say, Shame. Shame on you for not growing up. You come across as a bunch of kids.
- matthewmok, on 10/12/2007, -61/+77It should receive a veto...about time he does something useful.
- moosetoga, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18chrismgtis
"If I were to kill an African American because he or she is an African American I should face the same penalties that I would face if I murdered a caucasian to steal his wallet."
I disagree. Consider the victims of these two different crimes:
After the murder for money, the victims are the deceased, his/her family and friends, employer, etc. It's a horrible crime, but the list of victims essentially ends there.
After the racially-motivated murder, the victims include all of the above, AND the African American community in the area who must now consider the possibility that the same thing could happen to them. This murder occurred because the victim was black, and they're black, so no matter how you look at it, they're going to be afraid. You might not be able to understand that, and being a straight white married male I sure as hell am not going to claim that I can ever fully understand it, but I can at least understand why one crime is worse than the other. BOTH crimes are deplorable, but one is worse because there are more victims, and more damage to society. - iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Are you people really this dense? (apparently so given the comments, and how each are rated up/down, in contrast to your OPINION). If you kill your wife, who you just found ***** your neighbor, it's a "crime of passion" - which has a different set of punishments, than as if you killed your neighbor just because he/she farted, and you planned it for weeks. You'll get off a whole lot less, well, because it was a crime of passion. So, by having those two situations, you can see how people who actually use more than 5% of their brain, stem off and create yet other categories of crime. You dense people are putting it on the victim, it's more about WHY the crime was committed, more so than the victim. It's not about the dead non-gay guy getting better "rights" than the dead gay gay, it's about the murder and WHY he/she committed the crime. Each and every situation is different. If you have people with anger problems killing people because they are angry, you give them xxx years, or death. If you have people killing people because they have mental problems, you put them in a mental institution, if you have them killing people because they are black, you give them the xxx years or death for that crime. It's about fitting the punishment and investigation, to the crime, nothing more or less, so get off your high-horse and read a little.
- tslag, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21@directedition:
Of course your intent matters. WTF do you think the difference between 1st & 2nd degree murder is?
Oh ***** it, I give up - FortyCaliber, on 10/12/2007, -32/+45THe fact of the matter is that this isn't a federal matter. If a particular state wants to make homosexual hate-crime laws, so be it. THe National Government should not be worrying about this. On this matter I agree with the president's decision regardless of why he decided it.
By the by... if there is no national law for murder... why would there be one for this?
Remember state rights... Ron Paul '08 - republicker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14i thought crime was illegal.
- stevenvh, on 10/12/2007, -38/+51@salgat:
"I am against Homosexuality" and "this isn't to say that I advocate homosexuality, just the right to choose to be a homosexual".
1. Is that like "I'm against air", or more like "I'm against earthquakes"?
2. Both statements indicate you don't know ***** about (*****)sexuality. You don't *choose* your sexual orientation, just like you don't choose the color of your eyes. Better crawl back into your hole in the ground. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+26"Current legislation already protects people from being attacked based on race, color, national origin and religion."
But if the person said they attacked them based on the money they wanted to steal, then that's okay right? So if you're going to kick the ***** out of someone, you have to make sure they're the same color as you?
Feckin' retarded. - thaldex, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@ bananapatch
"Are you arguing that if, presently, I beat the ***** out of a gay person for no reason other than that they're gay, I won't be punished?"
Many people who "beat the ***** out of a gay person for no reason other than that they're gay" are given lighter sentences than those who committed a similar crime for a different motive. They tell the judge that they "felt threatened" or that the victim "came onto [them]" or the like. Admittedly, the conviction rate is rising, but many straight male judges will still under-prosecute offenders who murder/assault male homosexual (or even perceived homosexual) victims as compared to other victims. - olik, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19@sonofdy1
You are just wrong. RTFA!
"H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon ..." It does not criminalize speech. It doesn't even criminalize speech that inadvertently, or even negligently/foreseeably, results in bodily injury to a protected class - it has to "WILLFULLY" cause the injury. If you don't know what the law is don't make wild accusations about its purpose or effect.
That said, I am generally against federalization of pure criminal laws. - directedition, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Indeed! Hate crime legislation is redundant and pointless in my view. But it does bring out the true bigotry in our friends in Washington. What Bush is saying is that he thinks gays are less of a human being than others.
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@LonesomeFighter
He did not KEEP that right. It is not his to take away what he does not grant. We are born with our rights and no politico can take them away nor did politicos grant us our rights. I (and you and all) still and always will retain the rights we are born with regardless whether mere men choose to infringe upon or support those rights. - mythicflux, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17@sonofdy1
1. Is that like "I'm against air", or more like "I'm against earthquakes"?
2. Both statements indicate you don't know ***** about (*****)sexuality. You don't *choose* your sexual orientation, just like you don't choose the color of your eyes. Better crawl back into your hole in the ground.
Wow, and here I *actually* read salgat's post and realized that you had bothered to read his post and *actually* bothered to attempt to comprehend it you might have noticed something. Salgat's post is an example of what we need in this country. People who have a position but who don't try to force that position on others. You may not agree with his views on homosexuality, but it's not like he's trying to make you.
In closing, READ THE SECOND SENTENCE IN HIS COMMENT BEFORE YOU ATTACK HIM:
Salgat said:
"They can do what they want in their own personal lives, and I'll support that right even if it is against my faith(this isn't to say that I advocate homosexuality, just the right to choose to be a homosexual)."
Notes: I do not support his position regarding homosexuality being a choice, but damn these "liberals" who just want to attack people with an opinion they consider to be backwards. These hypocritical views being the greatest example of irony I can find. - Maarek, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Actually the U.S. justice system is built around the concept that the reason for committing the crime should be the major factor in the punishment for the crime. Hence we have things like degrees of murder, concepts of premeditation, and "intent" that determine what the punishment for a crime is. Hate for someones race, religion, or sexual orientation (all covered under this bill) being a reason for a crime should be punished to a greater degree . This legislation is not aimed at crime committed against certain individuals but rather at crime committed specifically because they are a member of that group.
When someone commits a crime against Americans based solely on them being Americans with the intent to cause fear we call it Terrorism (and it is punished much more harshly). How is this any different? - kindaslow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"Murder is murder regardless of whether it was over drugs, money, or because someone was black, white, gay, or straight. All murder should be punished equally regardless of the motive"
The idea that all killings are the same and should be punished equally goes against common sense.
Should a reckless driver who kills a family receive the same sentence as a serial killer who has murdered the same number of victims? Of Course not.
If we are going to have hate crime laws on the books why not cover everyone equally? - keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -38/+48what would bush know about free speech?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+23Think about this. What if a gay guy killed a straight guy because he hates straight guys. We would have to have "Straight Rights" laws. Pretty stupid eh? If you kill someone you should get charged with murder. Period.
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Good.
Murder is already illegal.
Beating up people is already illegal.
No one should get extra time in jail because they committed a crime against someone in some special group.
Our justice system is supposed to see everyone as equal under the law. "Hate crimes" legislation undermines that. - iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@chrismgtis - WRONG
You're wrong, and can't see the forest because of the trees. There are already different types of murder, man slaughter, etc. Different types for different situations. Different punishments too. So, there are already laws to protect those who were murdered based on being a certain religion, based on being a certain race, now there is one being introduced on being a certain sexual orientation. Either you support the existing laws, and hate gays yourself, or you should be protesting all the existing laws, which you don't seen to be fond of. You are the definition of a hypocrite. - moosetoga, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"The only persuasive argument I've seen is given in the bill (Sec 2.2 and 2.5). Basically, if you attack someone because they belong to a specific group, you've also (negatively) affected that group. In any crime, those directly connected to the victim will be affected. If the crime is motivated due to hatred of a group, everyone in that group is affected, not just those with a direct connection to the victim. Since the effects are farther reaching, it makes sense to me that the crime would be considered more severe."
Clearest explanation here of why hate crime legislation exists. Bears repeating. - Pedwidget, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10So if a gay person gets beat up for being gay and at the same time your mother gets beat up for driving too slow, the gay beater deserves more punishment?
MIND BOGGLINGLY STUPID - moosetoga, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11catalysis
"Why should someone be punished MORE for being heterosexual? Why should someone be punished based on their sexual preference? Maybe you are heterophobic."
You're missing the point. We already have laws in place that punish people more severely for attacking people based on their race, religion, etc., which is how it should be. Why? Because if I go out and kill a black man because he's black, in so doing I strike fear into the hearts of other members of the black community that the same thing will happen to them. My crime will have negatively affected more people than if I killed the same black man because I wanted to steal his car. Both crimes are horrible, both will be punished severely, but the hate crime will be punished even more severely because of the damage it does to a community or subset of a community.
The only thing this law would do would be to add sexual orientation to the list, along with race, religion, and so on. If you have a problem with that, then please explain why. - Lennalf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"Would that be a hate crime against wives who have sex with their neighbors?"
Obviously not. A "hate crime" is defined as something that involves an *inherent characteristic* over which the person has no ability to change. Race, national origin, gender, disability, and now possibly sexual orientation. This law is specifically targeting acts of violence that are motivated by racism, sexism, and homophobia. This law would allow the feds to come in when these crimes occur, because quite frankly there are many states who don't give a ***** about crimes who happen against certain types of people. "Oh, another ***** got shot? Good riddance." "Oh, he was a fag? Well let's investigate this pretty white woman instead."
A white guy can still kill a black dude and it won't be considered a "hate crime" unless there is a reasonable case that gender/race/etc. played a part in the motivation of the murder. That's right in the text of the bill.
Anybody who tells you that hate crimes are assessed purely on the *existence* of a difference in, say, skin color, has (a) NOT read the text of the bill, (b) has been taking South Park way too seriously.
You can still argue that "hate crime" laws are institutionalizing racism/sexism/homophobia etc., and I am likely to agree with you on that note; a crime is a crime. But if you are going to criticize the bill, at least criticize it based on relevant grounds. - jefferyt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17Isn't most violent crime hate crime? Doesn't the article also mention that this does nothing to state laws. Only federal laws? Leaving the power at the state level rather than the federal level. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Some how I don't see why killing (or any other action that is already illegal) someone of a different race or sexual preference than myself should be have any stiffer penalties. Guilty of murder is guilty of murder. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I find it interesting that everyone's take on this is that it would be protecting homosexuals. The assumption is that homosexuals are at a greater risk of attack than heterosexuals, if you're only measuring based on sexual preference. If homosexuals *are* at greater risk - as seems to be the consensus - then affording hate crime status based on sexual preference would help *balance the risk,* and make people of any sexual orientation more equal with one another.
But we don't want to do that.
I just hope all the ***** come out and start beating up straight people. Not a hate crime! - jobenly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@skyshock
"I never thought I'd say this but Bush is doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons."
Actually, the reasons given by the administrations were the reasons you gave. There is nothing in the article about free speech. The word speech doesn't even appear in the article. The first amendment references are given by administration officials.
The reasons for the administration vetoing the bill are as follows:
-The crimes in question are already illegal.
-Making hate crime a federal crime doesn't make sense. Leave it up to the state and local governments. - joshlrogers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@omgwtfroflmaox2:
While I agree with almost everything there are two flaws in your statement.
Sedition: I believe you are in reference to a bill passed in 1918 called the Sedition Act. It was upheld originally in the supreme court in Schenck v. United States (1919) but was later repealed in 1921 and all people who were charged under it were let free and charges dismissed. This was deemed anti constitutional as this is what our country was founded on is sedition. You could also be referring to the Smith act enacted in 1940 and this was originally enacted because of the scare of communist groups in America but the Smith Act only prohibits violent acts of overthrow any convictions that were made otherwise were subsequently dismissed. This just means we can't execute officers of the government or storm in there with militia, but we can attempt to overthrow the government peacefully by essentially not recognizing the government as our country did with Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/freespeech.html
http://1stam.umn.edu/main/historic/Smith1940.htm
Establishment of Religion: I believe you may be confused on the word establishment. It says the government will make no laws in regards to establishment of religion. What that means it essentially they are not going to make laws limiting you to be a Catholic and nothing else. Establishment of religion refers to the Catholic Establishment or Baptist Establishment or Buddhist establishment and so on. It is the separation of church and state essentially. You can create your own religious establishment any day, you could go out tomorrow and start preaching in public about the church of digg and Kevin Rose is the true savior. They couldn't do anything about that..
Anyways your comment was correct I just wanted to clarify a few things... - darthJon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13why do gays deserve special laws? the answer is they don't, they are not a special class, they just want to be. a person is a person and a crime is a crime, special crimes against special people builds resentment
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -16/+23to commit violence against someone just because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation is different than crimes of passion or profit. to kill someone you don't know only because they are different than yourself should be punished more severely than if that person had slept with your wife. i fully support hate crimes prosecution, assuming that part of the motive can be proven. this bill is just extending that to homosexuals. unless you feel it's ok to randomly beat up or kill homosexuals, there is no reason to not support this bill.
- kiyyik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9All right, let's see what we've got here. Everybody's kicking up a fuss over legislation that's been in effect for years just because a couple of demographic categories are being added onto it. Straight white males the 'net over are apparently ***** their pants because gays will be getting 'special rights' and be 'protected' and on and on and on.
Well, BOO ***** HOO.
Let me tell you boys something. We live in a world where violence against GBLT people isn't taken nearly as seriously as it should be. Time was when going out and beatin' up queers was a perfectly fine way of spending a Saturday night. Yeah, things have got better, but not that much. If you're queer, yes, you are more likely to have some ***** come down on you. If you're transgender, like me, it's practically a sure bet that sooner or later someone's gonna try to ***** you over. And nobody gives a *****. Go to the police? HA! They're not gonna take you seriously. Half the time they find an excuse and lock you away yourself. In the men's jail. And not alone. I've got too many friends this ***** has happened to. Hasn't happened to me yet, but I don't kid myself.
So yeah, special rights. Let me tell you about special rights. For us, being able to walk down the street hand in hand without getting mutters and glares is a special right. Being able to travel at night without being dragged into an alley and have the ***** beat out of us is a special right. For Matthew Sheppard and Gwen Aroujo, *breathing* was a ***** special right. Crimes against us are only just starting to be pursued with any degree of seriousness, and even still, it's ohhh so easy to say "gay panic" or some such ***** and waltz out of there with a token sentence. That's how it is. I figure if this legislation goes through, then the usual sentencing in crimes against GBLTs + hate crime enhancements should about equal what you'd get for doing the same thing to a straight person.
As for the "free speech" *****--yeah. George Bush, champion of free speech. Please. There's nothing in the legislation about that--in fact, it *explicitly protects speech*. Read the damn thing--it was specifically for acts of physical violence ONLY. Anyone tells you otherwise is ignorant, lying, or both. So yeah, you can continue to hate us. *****.
But I gotta say, this whole thing has been a REAL education. I generally think of this site as being a group of generally intelligent and well-educated people (if a little fratboyesque), but holy *****. A lot of people showed themselves out for who they really are on this number. Well, fine. I just hope you never undergo what we have to go through, although I reckon for a lot of ya it'd be the only way you'd ever get any empathy in the situation. In the meantime, stop getting your politics from ***** South Park.
There, I've said my piece. Bury and be damned.
K
"Do you think homosexuals are revolting? YOU BET YOUR SWEET ASS WE ARE."
--early Gay Liberation Front pamphlet - Neploxo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This does not punish thought. This extends an existing law that punishes acting on certain thoughts to cover acting on certain other kinds of thoughts. The argument that murder is murder doesn't hold water. We already have different classifications for different types of murder, manslaughter, voluntary, involuntary, negligent, etc. YES, I absolutely believe there are different kinds of violent crime. If someone beats the ***** out of a guy because he raped their sister, I think that the punishment should be less than for someone who beats the ***** out of a guy because he's black. If someone is running around shooting people because he thinks they're gay (even though they may not be), he deserves harsher punishment than someone who got bad medicine from his pharmacist and did the same thing. It is NOT the thought, it's the combination of thought and action.
Laws are meant to protect society and this kind of law protects society by discouraging specific kinds of behavior that are most harmful to society. Finally, if you want to eliminate ALL laws that punish thought, that would include all the ones against child pornography as well as I think others like insider trading. - danarama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I don't ever recall choosing to be straight.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 506 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is