This seems to be a pretty emotional issue, especially amng Conservatives. But, it seems that the emotionalism on both sides of issues such as these sometimes creates a distorted picture of what is really going on and makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion. So, I am wondering what other moderates think of the "hate crimes bill" that passed the House today. Some Conservatives seem to think that it is the death knell of free speech in America. I haven't heard much from Liberals, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some who hope it will be the death knell of free speech.
Having read it, I don't see anything to be all that concerned about here, but I am interested in what other moderates think of this.
__________________ Please visit my blog (and comment) at To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." 2 Timothy 2:24 (NIV)
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27 (NIV)
"For Jesus, the question wasn't, how do I get into heaven? but how do I bring heaven here?" -- Rob Bell.
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Revelation 21:4 (NIV)
I think the accusation this bill will affect free speech issues at all is prevarication of the most cynically manipulative type.
Certainly, I agree with you that it is not a "free speech" issue. I also agree with you that those who treat it as a free speech issue tend to be on the cynical side of life. However, I am yet undecided whether is truly deliberate dihonesty for the purpose of manipulation or whether it is an honest misunderstanding fueled by a cynical worldview.
I suspect that the accusation started out as dishonsty. But, it seems that a fair number of people have come to sincerely believe that their right to express their opinions is at stake.
I am interested to see what other moderate Christians think about this.
__________________ Please visit my blog (and comment) at To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." 2 Timothy 2:24 (NIV)
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27 (NIV)
"For Jesus, the question wasn't, how do I get into heaven? but how do I bring heaven here?" -- Rob Bell.
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Revelation 21:4 (NIV)
Certainly, I agree with you that it is not a "free speech" issue. I also agree with you that those who treat it as a free speech issue tend to be on the cynical side of life. However, I am yet undecided whether is truly deliberate dihonesty for the purpose of manipulation or whether it is an honest misunderstanding fueled by a cynical worldview.
I suspect that the accusation started out as dishonsty. But, it seems that a fair number of people have come to sincerely believe that their right to express their opinions is at stake.
I don't see anything in the bill that restricts freedom of speech. It restricts "willfully causing bodily harm", but that's a good thing.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. No guilt of life, no fear of death This is the power of Christ in me
From life’s first cry to final breath
Jesus commands my destiny
No power of hell, no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
‘Til He returns or calls me home
Here in the power of Christ I’ll stand
HR 1913 (now S 909) does not criminalize speech, thought, or private doctrine. It doesn't even criminalize violent crimes of bias because those have been well-defined and criminal in this country since the 1960s.
What it does do is allow federal law enforcement agencies to support state prosecution of these crimes with resources and funding. It adds another four protected classes to the original four. It limits the maximum possible sentencing for these crimes such that the death penalty is not in play. And it loosens some restrictions on when a crime can be called a hate crime and treated as such.
That is all.
I don't mind if people object to these things because they are antifederalist, or because they don't like the idea of certain groups of people being singled out under any circumstances -- though when you find me someone who is consistent about that, let me know.
I do mind people misreading the law and teaching others to misread it. There are significant responsibilities associated with teaching and that is why not everyone should do it.
This seems to be a pretty emotional issue, especially amng Conservatives. But, it seems that the emotionalism on both sides of issues such as these sometimes creates a distorted picture of what is really going on and makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion. So, I am wondering what other moderates think of the "hate crimes bill" that passed the House today. Some Conservatives seem to think that it is the death knell of free speech in America. I haven't heard much from Liberals, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some who hope it will be the death knell of free speech.
Having read it, I don't see anything to be all that concerned about here, but I am interested in what other moderates think of this.
It's definitely not the "death knell" of free speech, but I understand the concerns of some conservatives that it could lead to legislation that punishes "hate speech." Regarding the specific issue of whether it is fair and beneficial to punish the same act of violence more severely if it is motivated by hatred for a particular group, on one hand, I don't think that the lives and well-being of minority groups are "worth more" than that of non-minorities (which is what some opponents of hate crime bills suggest the bill stands for). I do think that the motivation for a crime can be a factor in determining sentences. For example, second degree "in the heat of passion" murder has a lower sentence than first degree "premeditated" muder. Also, if an offender is motivated by hatred towards an entire group as opposed to a single individual, then that offender is more likely to become a recidivist because there are so many more victims to target and those victims need not do anything to provoke the offender--what the offender finds offensive is something inherent to the victim's group.
This seems to be a pretty emotional issue, especially amng Conservatives. But, it seems that the emotionalism on both sides of issues such as these sometimes creates a distorted picture of what is really going on and makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion. So, I am wondering what other moderates think of the "hate crimes bill" that passed the House today. Some Conservatives seem to think that it is the death knell of free speech in America. I haven't heard much from Liberals, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some who hope it will be the death knell of free speech.
Having read it, I don't see anything to be all that concerned about here, but I am interested in what other moderates think of this.
I do want to say for the record that while I have no problem with hate crime bills, I do oppose criminalizing hate speech or penalizing people for being politically incorrect. I do believe that freedom of speech is ultimately beneficial for everyone, and that even a racist has a greater chance of changing his viewpoints if he has a chance to air them out and discuss them with others. I highly recommend reading "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill--there is a section in that treatise on Freedom of Speech and Discussion.
Linear Mode
