Quote of the day, Liberal edition

[elfs]

As I was driving back from a school event late last night, I was flipping through the AM dial. Passing Mark Levin, Michael Savage, and James Dobson, I stopped at the one "liberal" channel. Randi Rhodes was talking about how the Republicans have tried to stall the defense appropriations bill because it contains a (unrelated to defense spending, and constitutionally dubious because it punishes thought and not action, but whatever) hate-crimes provision. In the midst of her "the Republicans hate gays more than they love troops" rant (probably true, but also, whatever), Rhodes played an audio clip from Representation Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) in which Gohmert did the usual song-and-dance about how "sexual orientation" means all sorts of things, many of which are criminal, and if we give civil rights to criminals where will it all end?

Rhode's reaction was priceless, though. "My God, what is it with these Republicans and their obsession with kinky sex? I'm starting to have respect for John Ensign, at least he had ordinary sex. Not with his spouse, but okay. It's like, you google for 'necrophilia' and 'bestiality' and you get more hits on Republican speeches than you do Japanese porn!"

I had to turn it off at that point or I was going to run off the road laughing.

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

*LOL*

[kengr]

constitutionally dubious because it punishes thought and not action

Please don't by into the Right's "big lie".

Hate *crime* laws (as opposed to the truly dubious ones against hate *speech*) punish *intent*.

And we've done *that* for centuries.

Intent is the difference between first and second degree murder, for example. And between them and "negligent homicide" and "manslaughter".

The exact same *actions* can get you a different crime solely based on *why* you acted that way. What you were thinking.

This is very *old* law. We are merely applying ancient and well understood legal principles to a situation they hadn't been used on before.

[(Anonymous)]

Hate crime laws don't punish intent, they punish motive. Completely different beast.

Number 127

[mouser.livejournal.com]

It's like, you google for 'necrophilia' and 'bestiality' and you get more hits on Republican speeches than you do Japanese porn!"

After trying it, I'm trying to decide if it's funny or tragic that it's true.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

That's just because you don't know the Japanese terms.

That's okay. I don't either.

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

And you're blessed not to know. o_O

[(Anonymous)]

Hate speech is a tricky thing in itself, there are such laws here in Britain and there are legitimate uses. They call it "incitement to racial hatred". If someone makes unfounded allegations then I think personally it is only right they should get stopped, because they are spreading misinformation. Misinformation is very bad indeed. The only alternative would be for national racial, LGBT or whatever organisations to sue for slander... again dubious because the slander is aimed at the group rather than the organisation.

Of course it has its problems, but for the above use I personally support the laws. I just feel they need to be kept in check as well, and not taken to extremes.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

(unrelated to defense spending, and constitutionally dubious because it punishes thought and not action, but whatever) hate-crimes provision.

To add to what someone else said: Hate-crime laws do not punish thought. Moreover, they don't really punish action when applied.

There are 2 tasks of all hate-crime laws. First, they plaster over holes in a broken judicial system. I read about the murderer of one gay man, a murderer acquitted by a jury with hosannas and hallelujahs. (Okay, so I'm being snarky. But he was found not-guilty on the grounds that G*d said it's ok to kill ho-mo-sekshals.) And that murder was only 10-15 years ago. Who knows how many more LGBT folk are being murdered with impunity.

So, we have a judicial system that routinely lets someone get away with murder merely because the victim was part of an unpopular group. Hate-crime legislation isn't the best way to fix this failure, but it's something.

Second: hate-crime legislation requires that bias-related crimes are counted. If someone is assaulted, mutilated, or killed for being part of a despised group, hate-crime legislation requires that it be tracked.

This has been, actually, one of the main drivers behind most local hate-crimes legislation. Nobody even knows how often fag-bashing occurs, because nobody's keeping track. Well, except for LGBT groups, but they can only do that after-the-fact, with poor accuracy.


Now, that said, I will disagree with hate-crimes laws that "go-overboard," that do waaaaaaaay more than what I describe above. Any such law is broken.

Additionally, I. Do. Not. Support passing the LGBT hate-crimes legislation by attaching it to a military bill, a bill that had to be passed. I don't agree with it when a Representative or Senator does this with pork, or funnelling tax dollars to churches, or anything else. So I cannot support it when it's done for a law that I do support.

Unlike the neocons and fundies, I won't change my principles when they become inconvenient.