Gay rights activist and author Wayne Besen comments on a newly launched exgay ad campaign (ad in PDF format):
The “ex-gay” ministries launched a new, misleading ad campaign today that mocks hate crime victims. It ran in the Orlando Sentinel, The Indianapolis Star, The Nevada Appeal, and Roll Call to harass senators concerned about stopping hate violence.
The ad features four “ex-gays” and reads:
“Hate Crime Laws Say We Were More Valuable As Homosexuals Than We Are Now As Former Homosexuals.”
This abusive ad is disgusting and vomit-worthy – and I must say, I’ve never used those two adjectives in the same sentence before. But to exploit hate crimes as a sneaky backdoor way to promote an “ex-gay” message is just vile and shows a lack of character.
It is also false advertising. Hate crimes laws are important because they give law enforcement the tools they need to solve such awful crimes. Furthermore, they do not pit one group against another since all Americans are covered. For example, hate crime legislation covers real or perceived “sexual orientation.” This means gay, straight or bisexual.
Exodus lobbyist Randy Thomas says the exgay ads join a broader ad campaign that has reached seven newspapers thus far.
Hate-crime laws enhance punishment of crimes based on a perpetrator’s intent to harm an entire class of persons. The legislation at issue would add sexual orientation as a class, along with traits that are inborn (race) and chosen (religion).
The ads, however, fail to disclose that the legislation protects heterosexuals and bisexuals. The ads also decline to say clearly whether the sponsors oppose existing law covering hate crimes based upon the victim’s perceived race or religion.
To support the claim that hate-crime law is fundamentally biased, the ads cite apples and oranges: they compare cases in which a violent crime was committed because the victim was gay, to crimes that did not target the victim’s perceived heterosexuality.
Other ads (PDF) [removed or relocated by Randy Thomas from his blog but archived elsewhere] target specific U.S. senators, claim again that hate-crime laws offer unequal protection, and blame hate-crime laws for the arrest of Repent America activists after they disrupted Philadelphia’s Outfest and disobeyed police in October 2004.
Repent America is a Philadelphia-area group that disrupts government meetings and public events and commits illegal public acts requiring arrest in order to publicize its concerns. One of the Repent America founder’s goals is a fundamentalist federal government that makes homosexuality punishable by execution according to Biblical law. (Previous XGW coverage.) The ads fail to disclose Repent America’s intentionally illegal disruption of public events, and fail to indicate what, if any, illegal actions were committed by gay demonstrators at recent exgay and antigay events.
The ad campaign was paid for by the American Family Association and signed by numerous religious-right political organizations. The exgay ads do not name the four pictured individuals for whom the ad claims to speak; Thomas simply refers to them as “friends,” and the ad suggests that they are anonymous “former homosexuals” — a political label that is also left undefined.
Taken together, the ads confuse readers about the legislation; muddy important distinctions that separate hate crime, civil disruption, and free speech; and undermine effective public dialogue about free speech and violent crime.
Here’s what confuses me about the ex-gay take on hate crimes legislation. The proposed legislation doesn’t specifically protect LGBT people, does it?
Theoretically, if you assaulted any of the people in the ad for being ex-gay, or heterosexual, the assault could be prosecuted as a hate crime, right?
That said, I’ve never felt comfortable with that “special circumstance” type of hate crime legislation. To my mind, if I assault you because I don’t like your sexual orientation, or I assault you because you’re walking your dog and I don’t like dogs, or I assault you because you remind me of my home economics teacher, it’s the same crime.
Well Kurt, it isn’t the same crime. Studies show the damage to the victim isn’t the same. A victim of a hate crime see this as an attack on their identity, they guy walking the dog doesn’t. Hate crimes also instill a community fear that non-biased crimes tend not to do.
I hear these comments from people all the time, but if you really studied up on the effects of hate crimes on the community and the victim, you would see they are not the same crime.
Try visiting hatecrime.org or this link
https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_crimes.html
This is a red herring. If a crime is committed against someone because he (or she, and I’m not going to continue with that) is–or is perceived to be–homosexual that is a bias crime. If a crime is committed against someone because he is–or is perceived to be–heterosexual, that is also a bias crime.
If a person commits a crime against an ex-gay person because he is–or is perceived to be–a homosexual, that is a bias crime. Similarly, if a person commits a crime against an ex-gay person because he is–or is perceived to be–heterosexual, that is also a bias crime.
On the other hand if a person commits a crime against an ex-gay person–or a homosexual, for that matter–merely because he happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, that is not a bias crime.
Well said Raj, spoken like a true lawyer. 😉
The point opponents seem to miss is that hate crime legislation doesn’t just protect minority groups. It protects everyone. For example, the FBI reported that:
— There were 829 Anti-White incidents, consisting of 998 offenses against 1027 victims reported in 2004.
— There were 38 anti-protestant incidents, consisting of 43 offenses against 68 victims reported in 2004.
— There were 33 anti-heterosexual incidents, consisting of 35 offenses against 36 victims in 2004.
See Table 1 (page 9), Hate Crime Statistics, 2004.
https://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf (PDF File: 1.4MB)
Jim, I’ve been discussing bias crimes issues on a number of Internet venues for a number of years, and it took me a while to figure that out. The important issue is that it is correct.
I’m not going to argue here and now whether or not there should be bias crimes laws–I’ve argued it both ways in other Internet venues, too. I’ll merely point out that, as long as “religion” is a protected category under bias crimes laws (which it is), it is somewhat hypocritical of conservative christians to oppose sexual orientation as a protected category. Conservative christians are the primary opponents to addition of sexual orientation to existing bias crimes laws.
I agree Raj.
A better approach for this conservatives would be to call for the repeal of ALL hate crimes laws instead of complaining about adding another catagory.
I’d believe their “equal protection” meme much more if they were ready to fall on their own swords to achieve it.
Scott, I would agree with you, but it’s not going to happen any time soon. Being practical, I’m not going to take a lot of time arguing the issue.
Being practical, I’m also not going to spend a lot of time discussing issues of whether the state should get out of regulating marriage. It isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Moreover, what do the anti-same-sex marriage people–most of whom want “establishments of religion” in the US control marriage–have to say about the Unitarian-Universalists–most of whom support same-sex marriage, or the MCC, which probably also supports SSM?
I took the time to break apart the ad by segments if anyone would like to read it……It is own my site.
“Hate Crime Laws Say We Were More Valuable As Homosexuals Than We Are Now As Former Homosexuals.”
If they would like to discuss “tacit” or “implied statements”, perhaps we could talk about the silent statement their opposition makes: namely, that they would very much like to be legally free to persecute groups based on sexual orientation. It’s like the debate over torture on capital hill. <tacit>"Ummm…we’d still kind of like to be able to degrade these prisoners…can we allow that?"</tacit>
I am infuriated at the hypocrisy of religious people who oppose sexual orientation but not religion as protected categories for bias crimes. And then to wrap that in another thick layer of hypocrisy by saying sexual orientation shouldn’t be included because its a choice – a choice just like religion! Those are the kind of people I’m going to look down upon. Exodus is turning reality on its head with its usual bold faced lies. Gays need to be protected from bias crimes because the society Exodus wants and has maintainted values gays less, not more, than heterosexuals (or “former” gays). That’s why they don’t care that sexual orientation protects heterosexuals and “exgays” too – they aren’t under threat because society values them (not gays) more! Exodus is a black mark cast on reasonable Christian faith, truth and fairness.
To be fair, many conservatives oppose all hate crimes laws rather than just the gay protections. Some do so for principled reasons because they truly believe that harsher punishment for thoughts or beliefs is a scary place to go.
While I understand that some crimes are against groups rather than individuals, and that the victims extend beyond the actual person harmed, I still am uncomfortable with hate crime laws (other than tracking – which I support). I respect those who favor them but these laws bother me and I doubt I would vote for increased sentensing if given a choice. However, that being said, if they are to exist they should not cover other attributes and exclude one of the most frequent groups attacked based on their identity.
However, some conservative oppose hate crime laws because they are bigots. I’d like to assume the best, but I doubt that it is an accident that the picture they use on one of their ads is of a white guy being put in a patrol truck by a black cop.
In any case “Hate Crime Laws Say We Were More Valuable As Homosexuals Than We Are Now As Former Homosexuals.” is a lie. Crimes against ex-gays as a group would be prosecuted exactly the same as crimes against gays. It amazes me that they can sleep at night. They must never read their Bible because the prohibition of lying is EVERYWHERE in the text.
When I think of hate-crime legislation or anti-discrimination laws, I think of the following:
1) There is a small criminal element, holding to a very immature faith, that believes they are justified by Biblical laws in attacking homosexuals–even obligated! In general, Christians do not fall in this category and have nothing to fear from hate-crime legislation, which they would never conceivably break; however, for those who hold it as god’s law to kill certain sinners, we need civil legislation that specifically counters this aberration. It is not enough to say “murder is illegal”, because they think the Bible gives them special license in the case of homosexuals.
2) I think of the horrors of Nazism, and the need to make it clear that our government will never tolerate such violence based on dislike of other classes of people.
3) I also think of school-yard bullies who delight to torment anyone weaker than they are or different from them. It is not enough to say, “behave”, or to say “everyone has the same rights and protections under the law.” The truth is, these kinds of attacks come upon minority groups that are by nature weaker under the law. Take for example, the case of Matthew Limon in Kansas, a mentally disabled young man being unduly hounded by the law because his crime was gay not straight …or African-Americans in the past who simply did not get the same treatment when they sought justice in court….or homosexuals in some scary Southern state who might need additional legal precedent just to get normal justice from prejudiced judges or juries. Unfortunately, we have to make many specific prohibitions that adults think are redundant or are just common sense and don’t need to be stated. We do this because the childish mind will always try to get away with things when things are not stated absolutely. The THREAT of harsher punishment is the only way we have to force people to treat minority groups fairly.
I’d like to think the law works, but it often doesn’t. (The Matthew Limon case, though not relevant to this forum is a perfect case of this, in my opinion.)
It’s human nature to want to have and eat one’s cake, so it does not surprise me that anti-gay Christian fundies want the law to represent their views and punish those who don’t obey, that they want hate-crimes statutes to protect their kind, but not those who they deem less worthy. No, that doesn’t surprise at all. It does disgust, however. Infuriated only describes a small fraction of the way this makes me feel (then again, that’s old news, isn’t it?).
“Hate crimes also instill a community fear that non-biased crimes tend not to do.”
True, but someone targeting people at random would instill fear in ~everyone~ in a community. So using that logic, random murderers/bashers who scare ~everyone~ in a community should get even harsher penalties than someone just targeting gays.
And what evidence is there that increasing penalties for crimes which ~already~ have high penalties will deter anyone? The idea that we can solve any peoblem by just throwing people in jail for longer and longer periods is a very conservative one and it’s interesting to see liberals picking it up.
Government fails to solve crime , and what do people want? More government. How about taking a self-defense class or carrying a handgun?
What evidence out there says that laws to give harsher sentence to those who kill a police officer on duty should get a higher crime. We are in the same ball park here. What evidence is there any punishment reduces crimes committed?
Hate crimes send a message to the general public that this is not okay. It is not okay to beat people, rob, people or destroy property based on ones religion, sex, race, sexual orientation, or disability. They do in fact prevent crime because they send the messages this is NOT okay to do. Sometimes it is not about preventing individual crime as much as it is sending a message to people in a community this crime is not Okay. Unfortunately hate crimes are like a gay to people that commit them. Ask any black man who has walk down the street in a white southern town at night. Ask any gay guy who has ever been alone in a very hostile straight enviroment. (me).
I am the “survivor” of a severe gay bashing when I was 20 years old. I was beaten so badly my parents didn’t recognize me whgen they arrived at the hospital. My head was too swollen and my face was bruised up, my own parents didn’t recognize my face. I was out cold for three days with swelling and bruising on my brain and skull. I had money on me, about $60. They didn’t take it, there intenet was to hurt a gay guy. My attackers were out to “gay bash” that night. It was a game to get a gay and beat the *rap out of em. It wasn’t an assualt, which is how it would have been charged had they been caught. For assult they would have gotten community service, maybe probation. Under a hate crime law, they would serve 5 to 10. WHich do you think was more appropriate?
Mark,
Good questions.
The ads could have asked them, too; unfortunately, the sponsors appear disinterested in educating voters and promoting rational thought.
I support hate crime laws against classes of people and yes, the LBGT community is part of that. I know this is going to offend the believers amongst us, but I believe legislation should also target hateful rhetoric and harrassment from fundamentalist christians against our community. I don’t buy that it is biblical freedom of speech. That, to me, is bullcrap. The following organizations, in fact, should be up on hate crime charges: American Family Association, Traditional Values Coalition, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, The Roman Catholic Church, The Southern Baptist Church, Westboro Baptist Church, Christian Coalition of Canada, Lifesite, Agape Press, amongst many, many others. These organizations and the people who lead and represent them, are nothing but bigoted bullies, using religion as a disguise. They promote nothing but exclusiveness and hate. That to me, must stop and making it illegal, will stem the influence that these people have made in politics and have affected our lives directly, which they do not have the right to do. Religious freedom and free speech my behind. I know I’m going to get disagreement on this, but my opinion is non swayable on this issue. 🙂
Timothy, here I disagree with Tim W. I do not think this type of speech should be illegal. I do however feel that this sort of speech is not something I can readily sort out from their general religious outlook. So I tend to find it integral to the religion as a whole, viewed over a long period of time. Which probably comes across as Christian bashing to you.
Dalea, I’m referring to speech that crosses that line from religious freedom to blatant hate mongering: ” all gays are child molesters”, “gays are inherently disordered”, “AIDS kills fags dead” “fags are disease spreading scum”. All of these statements come from these loving christian people. That, is what I am referring to. Face it this type of rhetoric is the root cause of many hate crimes against us and until this travesty is addressed, hate crimes will continue to flourish and increase. I stand firm on my previous statements.
Also, remember that this is exactly the type of rhetoric that was the root of the holocaust, when society became convinced that Jewish people were not worthy of living. More recently, in Africa, and still occuring to this day, when people are grouped and demonized. Gay people are being murdered and executed around the world due to speech and printed material that is “legal” in the US. So no, I do not support the “right” of these relgious groups to get away with this, and it is time for this to stop!
Timothy:
To be fair, many conservatives oppose all hate crimes laws rather than just the gay protections.
Some conservatives/libertarians say that they oppose all hate crimes laws, but I have seen few of them actively trying to repeal the laws. There’s more than a bit of a difference. When they actually get out there and try to get the laws repealed I’ll believe them. Until then, no.
TimW
“I believe legislation should also target hateful rhetoric and harrassment from fundamentalist christians against our community”
I think you have labeled this wrong. You mean you support “thought crime legislation”, not “hate crime legislation”. Your position, as argued, is totalitarian and very frightening. Your basic premise is that there should be no free speech for speech that you dislike. History’s dictators agreed with you.
“Also, remember that this is exactly the type of rhetoric that was the root of the holocaust”
Yes, precisely. It was the claim that anti-fascist speech by Jews and other opponents of Hitler “must stop. And making it illegal, will stem the influence that these people have made in politics and have affected our lives directly”. Hence the brownshirts who went out and “stopped” the dissenting speech.
As is often said “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight for your right to say it”. I hope some day you adopt a similar position. Until then, I’ll disagree with your totalitarian position, but fight for your right to say it.
🙂
Dale,
“Which probably comes across as Christian bashing to you.”
Dale, I don’t mind that you dislike Christianity or cannot sort out extremism from otherwise. That’s your take on the world and that’s fine. I can respect that and even understand where it comes from.
But when every posting from you, regardless of the subject of the string, seems only to serve the purpose of saying “and that’s why I hate Christianity” it makes you seem obsessive and, frankly, like a nut.
To be taken seriously, you have to contribute to the conversation. Otherwise you will eventually just be ignored, regardless of how provacatively you post.
I was really disturbed by the ad for a couple of reasons. First, let me say, I am not a fan of hate crime legislation. While I understand the intent, motive is hard to prove, and so legislating against hate crimes are hard to do. However, we know that hate crimes are directed at entire groups. The ad disturbs me because it pits two crimes against each other. Both crimes are horrific–but the Matthew Shepard crime is considered an act against a community. The Jesse crime is not (I love how this is held up constantly as something all homosexuals are doing against straights). They also pit two different situations against each other in the protests. While I do not care for hate crime laws, I don’t understand why the anti-gay groups cannot see that sometimes people are targeted because of who they are and the community they belong to. Also, there is a subtle indication that all groups that have pertaining hate crime legislation are somehow seen as superior to others in the eyes of the law (blacks, etc.).
The models look like a Boston Legal ad.
Timothy, I don’t see my statements as totalitarian in nature at all. I am voicing objection to a real problem in our society and that problem is going beyond simply objecting to a person or group of persons and entering the dangerious territory of inciting hatred and violence towards that person or group. It is more than just “thoughts” as you put it. Thoughts translate into actions. Are you happy with being labelled a “child molester” and such statements as “AIDS kills fags dead”? As I said earlier, there is a fine line between freedom of speech and incitement to hatred. That is my point. I am not against free speech or speech that I “dislike” and I would appreciate not having words put into my mouth, thank you. I am against speech, written or verbal, that incites hatred and violence. That is my point. I feel it is wrong and has no place in our society. I do agree with you on one point though, how does one determine that “fine line”.
TimW,
Sorry if I seemed harsh in my disagreement and, you’re right, it isn’t fair to put words in your mouth.
But, for all your protestation, it is difficult to observe how you are “not against free speech or speech that I “dislike””.
You reiterated that you oppose free speech that advocates violence. But you define violence very very differently than I. Your “violence” includes “hateful rhetoric and harrassment from fundamentalist christians against our community” and “exclusiveness and hate”.
And yet I imagine that anyone who considered themselves conservative Christians would look at your post and see hateful rhetoric. Against them.
Let’s take it practical…
We could ban offensive speech. But many many people will find OUR speech offensive, violent, and threatening to their community. And the only way to make sure that the truly offensive speech (theirs, of course!!) remains banned while ours is protected is…
Think about it. What’s the next step?
This direction only leads to oppression and totalitarianism.
I encourage you to stop and reconsider.
Tim W at December 13, 2005 10:36 PM
I missed this.
I believe that you are mixing two things. In the US “hate crime” laws (I prefer to refer to them as “bias crime” laws) pretty much just serve to add an extra penalty to a predicate (existing crime) if the victim is, or is perceived to be, a member of a particular class–race, national origin, religion, sex, or in a few cases sexual orientation. One does not violate a bias crime law merely by holding the bias, and it is unlikely that one would be charged with a violation merely by speaking out.
I say “unlikely” because I can see one circumstance in which someone might be charged, and I will illustrate it from laws in other countries. Some countries have laws against speech that is considered “incitement” against members of society for particular characteristics. I believe that Canada has such laws, and I know that Germany does (Volksverhetzung). The German government applied the Volksverhetzung laws against a small right-wing party (the NPD) a couple of years ago when they campagned against the gay mayor Wovereit during the mayoral election. The German government has a low level of tolerance for incitement in view of their Nazi past. Andere Laender, andere Sitten–other countries, other practices.
Timothy, I want to clarify that I live in an entirely different country than you so my opinions also are reflective of my country’s culture as are yours. In Canada, hate speech is a crime and the type of speech that incites hatred and prejudice is illegal. Unlike the United States. Are you aware that certain racist and homphobe American rap artists are banned from Canada? Are you also aware that the Phelps clan is also banned here as well? Since there are a few controls over hate speech, our problems with heterosexism and blatant racism are not as serious as the United States. Do you not see the difference between free speech and speech that leads to criminal acts? Is that not what the KKK is all about? See my point?
Offensive speech is the most important thing in my life, rights, and America. If people want to offend me, so be it. That is their right. I want that right to. Someone said the other day that they believe in free speech but sometimes it goes too far. Free speech never goes too far.
Aaron at December 14, 2005 12:15 AM
Free speech never goes too far.
Aaron, let’s start from the Nazi party rallies in Nuernberg in the 1920s and 1930s and work back from there. Do you really want to say that “free speech never goes too far”?
Moreover I will remind you of the Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda such as Die Ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew) from the mid 1930s. https://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml Free speech never goes too far? I really doubt that.
Raj, while I agree that it is disgusting, free speech means that I can protest that offensive speech.
I teach creative writing, English, and film. I show parts of Nazi propoganda to show what has happened in the past, how film has been used to hurt. I show black face clips and anti-gay crap, but I also have the right to say how disgusting it is in class.
I think it is important to be able to speak out against offensive speech, but it is important to know it exists.
Germany shut down free speech and look what happened. My fear is always that if one speech is limited, who determines that? Why can’t the society hear speech and determine its positive or negative value? Maybe I am too optomistic, but I believe that with free speech, it will lead to a more reasoned society. The gay community relies on free speech–without it, I do not know how many people would be on our side.
But I can understand why some would not want certain speech, but I believe free speech is more appropriate in the end. BTW, I teach 400 students a semester–there are always those who do not know what the Holocaust is. That scares me–that is why all speech should be out there and teaching.
Mark said:
And what evidence is there that increasing penalties for crimes which ~already~ have high penalties will deter anyone? The idea that we can solve any peoblem by just throwing people in jail for longer and longer periods is a very conservative one and it’s interesting to see liberals picking it up.
Absolutely and that last part has astounded me – especially concerning the related free speech issue. These are all very hard-right ideals and the left has been the persistent force in opposition for many years. How the defenders of personal rights and freedoms have fallen to this state baffles me.
Keyboy1969 said:
Hate crimes send a message to the general public that this is not okay. It is not okay to beat people, rob, people or destroy property based on ones religion, sex, race, sexual orientation, or disability.
You could have stopped at “property”. I’ve always had trepidations over the idea of “hate crime” laws. And for the record, I had no idea there were such laws separately established for victims who were members of a particular faith. I have listened to arguments for these with an open mind because so many people seem sincerely convinced of their worth. However, I tend to think it would be better to abolish them all, rather than add more. Keyboy, it’s already “not ok” to do those things you listed, no matter the motivation. To impose a harsher penalty for what the person did because the motivation was hatred or prejudice feels like trying to force changes in thought by playing around with the law. And I think these laws get passed more often that not because lawmakers are made to feel like they are somehow bigots themselves if they simply disagree with the validity of the idea. Then ends simply don’t justify the means here, as they rarely do.
TimW said:
…but my opinion is non swayable on this issue. 🙂
That pretty much negates any effort to debate it with you then 😉
Timothy Said:
Yes, precisely. It was the claim that anti-fascist speech by Jews and other opponents of Hitler “must stop. And making it illegal, will stem the influence that these people have made in politics and have affected our lives directly”. Hence the brownshirts who went out and “stopped” the dissenting speech.
It’s interesting how we have landed on this issue again – it must be an important one to many (good). Let’s be even more direct – free speech did not give Hitler power nor allow the Holocaust. If anything, the lack of it was a large factor, but there was so much more. Hate crime and hate speech laws would not have prevented any of this. Most of what Hitler did was illegal in one way or another, and mostly felonious. That didn’t stop him from doing it. However, throughout our history, whenever free thought and expression has been infringed upon, society suffered. And I’m sure in some of those cases there were laudable reasons for the restrictions – at least in the beginning. You can’t force people to think OR speak differently. They have to do that on their own or the cure becomes worse than the illness.
TimW said:
I feel it is wrong and has no place in our society.
Then speak out against it, while you still have that right. There are few perfect solutions where human interaction is involved. But in the sentiment of Winston Churchill, free speech is the worst solution, except all others – and we have ample proof of that in our history books.
Raj said:
let’s start from the Nazi party rallies in Nuernberg in the 1920s and 1930s
Even during much of that time speaking out against the Nazi party was a dangerous thing to do. Free speech was not the villain here, and to say so is to seriously misrepresent history. There was no free speech or thought; both were imposed by force.
Posted by: Aaron at December 14, 2005 01:30 AM
I’m flying with you 100%
David
I knew that my earlier post was going to cause some disagreement, but I have not seen an explanation as to why hate filled statements made against our community are acceptable. Free speech aside, do we believe it is right or wrong to use rhetoric to incite hatred and violence that lead to crimes motivated by an extreme distaste for a person or group of people. I apologize if I did not make it clear that my intent was to point that out. Is that not the goal of hate crimes legislation? And David, I have strong opinions, just like you, neither of us are right and neither of us are wrong, but I love a good debate anytime.:)
Free Speech laws do not protect all speech. You cannot yell fire in a crowded public place. You cannot incite others to committ a crime. You not publically slander others.
This whole notion that all speech is free speech is very inaccurate.
I also remind folks, that while people do have the right to free speech, the first ammendment doesn’t gaurantee anyone the right to be paid or profit from one’s speech. With that in mind, condisder boycotting things like Straight Talk Radio, or any other group who decides they like to use lies and flawed studies to spread hate.
Aaron at December 14, 2005 01:30 AM
OK, let’s work backward from there.
Raj, while I agree that it is disgusting, free speech means that I can protest that offensive speech.
The problem that you have is, can anyone hear your protests? You can protest until you are blue in the face, but unless anyone can hear you, your protests mean virtually nothing.
I have, over the last 10 years or so, posted on various conservative/libertarian web sites that the control by the Federal Communications Commission of the broadcast spectrum is a violation of the 1st amendment’s speech and press provisions. Nobody has countered that. But the FCC continues to allocate spectrum to their buddies.
You can protest, but nobody can hear your protests.
Germany shut down free speech and look what happened.
Just as GWBush is trying to do.
I teach 400 students a semester–there are always those who do not know what the Holocaust is.
Indeed. And, while you are teaching them about the Holocaust in Europe, be sure to teach them about the Rape of Nanking, which occured in 1937-38. The war in Asia had been going on since 1933. I only ran across the Rape of Nanking in the last few years–American education is very Euro-centric. Thank goodness for the Internet.
Keyboy1969 at December 14, 2005 09:21 AM
Free Speech laws do not protect all speech. You cannot yell fire in a crowded public place.
Just to let you know, this “you cannot yell fire in a crowded place” had nothing to do with yelling fire or a crowded place. The case related to a sedition act that had been passed during WWI, another war in which the US had no particular interest. The case involved draft resistors durring WWI.
Schenck vs. US https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0249_0047_ZO.html
Another indication that the 1st amendment is largely meaningless.
Thanks Keyboy, not all speech is so-called free speech, that is the point I have been making through this thread. I would like to see some of the posters answer the question, ought we accept hate speech against our community that we know full well is intended to drum up hatred and contempt for gay people. Thus, increasing the incidence of gay bashings? I totally disagree that the crap coming from various religious groups constitutes religious freedom as they often spew. Raj, you are also bang on that W’s idea of free speech is only that which praises and agrees with his heinous policies. Thanks for pointing that out.
ReasonAble at December 14, 2005 02:03 AM
Let’s get something straight. When people (particularly conservative christians who are already covered by bias crime legislation) rise up and demand repeal, I’ll pay attention. I haven’t seen any who have. Quite the contrary: virtually any time an incident is committed against a church, the Jerry Falwells and Diamond Pat Robertsons of the world trumpet “hate crime! hate crime!”
If the Falwells and Robertsons and Bennetts of the world were leading a charge to have federal laws banning adultery, second marriages and divorces, and bans on addicts and child abusers to marry, I would say they were firmly committed to socially organizing our laws and enforcement around and against THESE distinct sins that destroy families and children.
But no…all these so called ‘family’ advocate groups are virtually exclusively putting their money and political influence against gay people.
Who do not exist at the expense of anyone else.
By and large….fundies open mouth and insert foot and won’t get their agenda right because it’s the wrong target they are aiming at.
Their Biblically inspired speech concerns a phantom enemy. Their speech is shrill and strident and specific.
But ask them what the world would be like if all the gay people disappeared in an hour or tomorrow.
Then what?
Who would the next target of their speech be?
Then how would the heterosexuals in question handle the Biblical bull’s eye on THEIR backs?
Tim W, you said “I’m referring to speech that crosses that line from religious freedom to blatant hate mongering: ” all gays are child molesters”, “gays are inherently disordered”, “AIDS kills fags dead” “fags are disease spreading scum”… In Canada, hate speech is a crime and the type of speech that incites hatred and prejudice is illegal. Unlike the United States. Are you aware that certain racist and homphobe American rap artists are banned from Canada? Are you also aware that the Phelps clan is also banned here as well?”
Tim, my understanding from reading the Canadian hate crimes laws is that none of the examples you mentioned would be considered hate crimes. The law is very specific and only punishes speech that directly calls for killing or injuring people in a protected class. Fred Phelps and the homophobe rap artists you mentioned were banned from performing routines that included specific incitements to violence against gays or murder of gays. Canadian law does not ban speech that “incites hatred and prejudice”. I believe the Canadian hate speech law is a good balance, but from what I’ve seen nothing by the American “Family” Association, “Focus on the Family”, Concerned Women for America, Traditional Values Coalition, Exodus, etc. would be considered criminal speech under Canadian law.
TimW,
“I have not seen an explanation as to why hate filled statements made against our community are acceptable.”
There is a difference between acceptable and legal. Lets hope that distinction continues to remain. There are many things I don’t find acceptable, but I tolerate them or avoid them.
The far right and the far left both seek to make illegal that which they find unacceptable. For example, Tim, you would make illegal any harsh and hateful criticism of gay people. James Dobson would make illegal consensual sex between gay people.
I oppose both efforts.
Just as a wake up call: if we went out and took a poll and asked “should gay sex be illegal?” and “should criticizing gay people be illegal?”, I’m sure you recognize that (while most would say no to both) more folks would illegalize you than would defend you.
Freedom comes with a price tag. And that price tag is tolerance of those who don’t like you.
I do not believe that GWBush has a sense of freedom of speech, so I would not use him as any type of example Raj.
As far as the Rape of Nanking, it is not something I would deal with generally in a film class when talking about propoganda, but I have discussed it, and it is something that is frequently discussed around here on campus. I do agree people in the US are ethnocentric and Eurocentric, but as a teacher, I do my best to make students aware that we are. I am usually more successful than not at that.
As far as protest goes, early this year a group of Republicans posted really nasty anti-gay posters around my campus. The posters were cruel, inaccurate, and stupid. Some people talked about kicking them off campus. I did not, but I, and others, protested what they said. The Republicans in some ways had louder voices–they were screamers. In the end, most people found their ideas disgusting and disturbing. Their leader left and the Republican group fell apart because of this whole issue. Sometimes the quietest voices can be the most powerful.
When I lived in France, there were hate speech laws, but I also saw that Nationalists were much more popular because they came across as persecuted by the law. Here, NeoNazis are seen as stupid and a joke–they have free speech, but they are seen as ridiculous. I did not feel the hate speech laws really helped.
I once talked with a group of communists, and I was turned off completely when I was told that the state should control all art and speech that the state does not agree with. To me that is more disturbing than almost anything.
I question whether it is valid to assign particular ideologies to “liberals” or “conservatives”. That seems to be an unfortunate case of stereotyping. Our two-party system is deeply flawed and our society is desperately polarized, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t or shouldn’t be many perspectives that fall outside some “standard”. I myself am an unholy blend of deeply conservative and flamingly liberal viewpoints. I like to think it’s part of my charm. 🙂
I guess I agree that there may be no evidence that increasing penalties will deter criminals from acts that are already prohibited. Yet we accept that there may be variance in the level of punishment imposed among different acts of the same crime because of circumstance. Crimes against minority groups have been the source of our country’s greatest wounds. We barely survived the outlawing of slavery, which is one of the most heinous abuses of another human being in my opinion. Our attempts at improving the level of African-American equality in society since then have required debate and legislation of the highest order, and we have still not reached a full level of equality. It seems right to me that bias crimes be recognized as significantly more serious than crimes without such motivation–just as we recognize various kinds of murder and impose different penalties.
Criminals acting under bias seem (to me) to think that they are justified in their actions…even that they have the support of segments of society that share their bias. This is a significantly more heinous act than, for example, involuntary manslaughter, or a crime of passion. It is an issue of premeditation that should absolutely be considered when making judgment.
Once again, it is not enough to say that minority groups will receive equal justice under the law just because it technically covers all equally and should be applied equally. The fact is, it will not be applied equally unless we at every juncture reiterate and insist upon equal treatment. This means, in my opinion, the addition of inclusive legal language, and when necessary the imposition of harsher penalties.
Much of this discussion has turned to “hate-speech” which I consider to be a in a different class than the “hate-crime” legislation that the ex-gay advertisements deplore. Hate-speech, I would think, falls into the category of “endangerment” and would put a group of people or individuals at a greater risk of being victimized by violent crime. For example: “They deserve to die!”, “I think they should all be executed!”, or “They’re evil and must be eliminated!” Again, there are mitigating factors. I think it depends on what kind of audience the speaker has. If these kinds of statement are made to large groups, then it seems clear that it could cause a significant increase of dangerous attitudes which does indeed make people feel endangered–and quiet probably puts them in greater danger. This kind of speech is vastly different from “protest speech”. Protests do not endanger people, though they may “disturb the peace,” and no one has the right under the law to do that. Civil protest is a tradition which I venerate, but I accept that there may be consequences. Being arrested and jailed for disturbing the peace in protest of things to which we object is not a “right”, but a great tradition. Violent protest, of course, is a different matter. I can’t approve of violent protest. Either way, I think it is reasonable to expect legal penalties should we decide to make rowdy display at any group’s legal (however objectionable) activities. Protest sometimes comes with a price-tag.
Jay, you said it – “Criminals acting under bias seem (to me) to think that they are justified in their actions…even that they have the support of segments of society that share their bias. This is a significantly more heinous act than, for example, involuntary manslaughter, or a crime of passion. It is an issue of premeditation that should absolutely be considered when making judgment.”
There is no evidence that higher penalties for premeditated of murder discourages premeditated murder either but no one is “concerned” about doing that, or considers that legislating punishment for a “thought crime” (exactly the same sort of thought crime people say hate crime legislation creates). Sorry I confused the issue between hate crime and hate speech. All this stuff is on a continuum to me and ultimately the same thing.
This has been an interesting thread. Timothy, I want you to know that I do see your point in regards to freedom of speech. It is very difficult to draw the line at what is considered hatred and what is merely opinion. However, I do disagree in regards to the legalities of hateful rhetoric against us from many religious groups, that is how I view it. How ought these lies and rhetoric be dealt with when we know that it does drum up contempt for us as people? How do you think the masses in the US came out to vote against our right to marry when, at the end of the day, it was none of their business whatsoever? I do hold the so-called “family values” groups responsible for this. Randi, I do view the activities of those groups I mentioned as hate- oriented activities (that’s my freedom of speech opinion:)). It certainly is not love. I agree totally that Canada has achieved a good balance on this stuff and it has helped keep it at bay somewhat better than in the US. Anyway, interesting thread folks, it takes differing points of view to point out the truth behind an issue.
TimW said:
And David, I have strong opinions, just like you, neither of us are right and neither of us are wrong, but I love a good debate anytime.:)
You’re absolutely right, and I’m glad to debate in good faith with you anytime 🙂 I was making a somewhat tongue and cheek comment about your declaration.
Raj said:
Another indication that the 1st amendment is largely meaningless.
You gather from Schenck vs. US that the 1st amendment is meaningless? I’ve noticed that you like to make those shocking one line pronouncements (for effect I assume), but that one is really nonsense. And to respond to Keyboy who posted the reference, the only thing worse than that decision is using it to justify restricting free speech in the future.
Let’s get something straight. When people (particularly conservative christians who are already covered by bias crime legislation) rise up and demand repeal, I’ll pay attention. I haven’t seen any who have. Quite the contrary: virtually any time an incident is committed against a church, the Jerry Falwells and Diamond Pat Robertsons of the world trumpet “hate crime! hate crime!”
I’m confused as to where this comment fits but if you are referencing my belief that abolishing all existing hate crime law would be best, I don’t see how other’s inaction or your attentiveness factors in. I made a statement of my own opinion on the matter.
Posted by: Timothy at December 14, 2005 12:44 PM
Excellent! All things that are socially unacceptable should not necessarily be made illegal. I agree 100% with your entire post there.
Posted by: Aaron at December 14, 2005 01:48 PM
Great real world examples of what we are discussing. And I agree, I don’t see how what George Bush does or doesn’t think about free speech has anything to do with the issue.
Jay said:
Criminals acting under bias seem (to me) to think that they are justified in their actions…even that they have the support of segments of society that share their bias. This is a significantly more heinous act than, for example, involuntary manslaughter, or a crime of passion. It is an issue of premeditation that should absolutely be considered when making judgment.
I would tend to agree that these factors should be considered when determining the degree of the crime, in this instance manslaughter vs murder. But this has always been the case, it does not require the crime to be reclassified as a hate crime. If it is established that the killer hated Asians for example, then the prosecution could use this as a factor in determining a motive and therefore perhaps premeditation as well if the victim was Asian.
If these kinds of statement are made to large groups, then it seems clear that it could cause a significant increase of dangerous attitudes which does indeed make people feel endangered–and quiet probably puts them in greater danger.
This may be a fundamental point. In this case, the speech is protected but the actions of the group, should they become violent, are not. The difference in our thinking here might be that you are placing responsibility on the speaker while I place responsibility on those who listen and act violently. Much as we may want to arrogantly scoff about it, people are not sheep – we hold them responsible for their actions. If we were to place the responsibility on the speaker, then we are treating citizens as children which is much more suitable to a totalitarian ideology. In addition, it opens up a million shades of gray in determining at what point the speech was sufficiently “violent” enough to have caused the violent action, or at what point the perpetrator was just acting on their own emotional baggage. No, I don’t see this as a viable place to go at all.
Protest sometimes comes with a price-tag.
Agreed, but usually that price is related to how the manor and method of the protest break other laws (trespass, disturbing the peace, etc), not the content of the speech.
Response to Raj about the Rape of Nanking:
I wouldn’t deny that the history traditionally taught in lower school levels is somewhat “Eurocentric” (though I’m not sure that holds true today) but I learned about the Rape of Nanking and it’s place in history so long ago I can’t remember when.
My own brief response to all the comments about “conservative hate speech” against gays and the like is this: The influence these groups hold is directly related to how many people currently agree or identify, in whole or in part, to what they are saying. A Nazi spokesman, as someone pointed out, is not taken seriously today and he has all the same freedom of speech as James Dobson, et al. We go out of our way to provide a forum for these people (Nazis, white supremists, etc) when they want it, just as we do any other group. The solution is not to tell people what they can and cannot say – no matter how hurtful – but to continue our efforts as society evolves until people shout them off the stage for themselves. These organizations are not the cause of negative opinions against gays, they thrive off people who already hold them to one degree or another. Aim your efforts to the masses.
David
Mark at December 13, 2005 07:50 PM
And what evidence is there that increasing penalties for crimes which ~already~ have high penalties will deter anyone?
Two points, One, most predicate crimes that have bias crime enhancements do not “already” have high penalties.
Two, penalties that may be assessed against actions generally reflect the society’s revulsion against the action. When certain actions against members of certain groups–christians, because they are christian for example–but similar actions against members of other groups–gays, because they are or are perceived to be gay–that more than suggests that the society assesses actions against christians (because they are christian) are to be treated more severely than actions against gay people.
Actually, a third point. I repeat, if and when conservatives (including conservative christians) actually push for repeal of all bias crime enhancements, I’ll sit up and listen. But, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for them to.
David:
Anonymous at December 15, 2005 12:05 AM
The solution is not to tell people what they can and cannot say – no matter how hurtful – but to continue our efforts as society evolves until people shout them off the stage for themselves.
Actually, a large part of the solution is to ignore them. The only reason that the American Nazi Party got so much press resulting from their march in Skokie IL a number of years ago was the ferocity of the counterdemonstration. If people had just ignored the Nazies, the press probably wouldn’t have even bothered covering the melee–er–march.
That won’t work with all extremists–it probably wouldn’t work for the Southern CCC, the Council of Concerned Citizens (white supremisists)–but it would work with some.
BTW, you should check your “Name” box before posting. If it is empty, your post will come up with Anonymous in the name line.
Raj said:
Actually, a large part of the solution is to ignore them.
Agreed.
BTW, you should check your “Name” box before posting. If it is empty, your post will come up with Anonymous in the name line.
Argh! Thanks.
David
It’s been interesting to watch this…But perhaps some perspective…from an older fart, if I may…The National Socialists (Nazi) never won a popular vote in Germany. They gained ENOUGH votes to start working on people.They convinced some. Bribed others. Threatened others. Killed others. They “negotiated” with people long enough to gain complete power — and then they obliterated them.They created fear, and then promised a solution to that fear. They were the cause, and claimed to be the resolution. And Neville Chamberlain thought he could “negotiate”.If I’m not being presumptuous, please understand Raj et al from this history. When he is talking about “offensive speech”, understand what that once caused when every other voice was silenced.Fine ideals, as such, will never put bread on people’s plates. I implore you not to rely on the ?th Amendment — FIGHT FOR IT!!!
David I’m a little confused by your statement:
“The solution is not to tell people what they can and cannot say – no matter how hurtful – but to continue our efforts as society evolves until people shout them off the stage for themselves.”
You don’t want to tell people what they can and cannot say, but you want others to shout them off the stage? Isn’t shouting them off the stage telling them what they can and cannot say?
[I realize this thread is aging, but I find the topic compelling, and continue to learn about myself as I ponder these things]
David said:
Yes…but I don’t feel that this addresses this point: judges and juries (especially those predisposed against particular groups) will not consider this factor unless it is made plain via federal legislation that they should legally consider it. In fact, people that dislike homosexuals will only consider factors that suit their prejudice. As an example again, I urge you to examine the case of Matthew Limon in KS. You will see that because his crime was male on male, he was treated very differently than if it had been male on female (due to an unequal “Romeo & Juliet” law that only covered male on female transgressions), and his disability, which I consider the most noteworthy anti-discrimination issue, was used by judges in the appellate ruling against him rather than as a mitigating factor. The then present un-inclusive legal language specifically allowed the activation of harsher sentencing against him than would have been the case with specific inclusive language. This illustrates how the law as stated influences rulings. I only bring his case up in this forum as an example of how prejudiced ruling bodies will treat some groups differently or ignore them, if for no other reason than it is politically expedient to do so. I realize it is neither a hate-crime nor ex-gay situation…it just shows how prejudice affects local rulings. In a conservative state where they may follow public opinion, they may even ignore obvious mitigating circumstances (Limon’s mental disability) in order to make a political statement (“no to gays!”).
If you prefer a more topical, but hypothetical example, consider this: Two men in a rural area of very conservative population beat and kill a cowboy on the side of a lonely stretch of highway. They had seen him around town and followed him after he left a bar…whatever… The facts presented show that they killed him only because they thought he was a homosexual. Without specific legislation that allows prosecutors to require the consideration of the “hate-crime” aspect, these men are given minimum sentences. No aggravating aspects are considered at all. Most people in the rural community hate gays anyway, and the injustice of a minimum sentence stands as ruled. The severity of the crime is not taken into account because the law does not specifically make it clear that it is to be considered more heinous.
If you do not feel there is any reason to consider such a crime more severe, then we disagree on a completely different point than the necessity for hate-crime legislation…we disagree on what qualifies the level of “heinousness”. I will plainly state that to kill someone for no other reason than you hate “that kind of folk” is more heinous than many other different kinds of killings…not that murder is in any way acceptable…this kind is just more reprehensible. The victim has done nothing personally to the killer to earn his wrath, the killer gains no profit from his crime, and all that remains is the most deviant and disgusting kind of satisfaction in ending another human being’s life. The naked brutality of that act is, in my opinion, deserving of harsher punishment.
In my opinion, it behooves us as a society to clearly state in our legal code all aspects as we recognize them that should influence the judging of crimes. Anti-gay groups do not want sexual orientation to be included in hate-crime legislation, because they are quite happy to continue encouraging the hatred and marginalization of homosexuals. We must not yield! I would rather have redundant legal code than leave them any opportunity to darken justice with their hatred.
Read the (now overturned) appellate court ruling against Matthew Limon. I think it is fascinating in how the jurists used the available legal codes and precedents to make an obvious prejudicial ruling (as noted by the dissenting judge). https://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2004/20040130/85898.htm
Well, I think the important thing to keep in mind is that even those of us who don’t like the idea of “special circumstance” hate crimes legislation think that the “MORE VALUABLE as homosexuals” ad campaign is complete bullshit.
Apparently the ex-gays behind this ad campaign believe it is ok to completely lie (8th Commandment) in order to achieve their goals.
Posted by: Jay at December 15, 2005 07:44 PM
Jay, your comments on this are interesting and make some sense to me. I will study the case you cited and think about it. If I gave the impression that my mind is made up on this matter, it isn’t. What you cite reminds me of similar Federal crime law enacted to counter the lack of justice going on in (mostly) Southern jurisdictions during the 50’s and 60’s (and some would say up to the present) concerning crimes against blacks. Thanks for the food for thought.
Kurt said:
Well, I think the important thing to keep in mind is that even those of us who don’t like the idea of “special circumstance” hate crimes legislation think that the “MORE VALUABLE as homosexuals” ad campaign is complete bullshit.
Without a doubt, and probably a fitting close to this interesting thread.
David
Sorry, I missed this comment and thought I should reply to clarify.
Randi said:
David I’m a little confused by your statement:
“The solution is not to tell people what they can and cannot say – no matter how hurtful – but to continue our efforts as society evolves until people shout them off the stage for themselves.”
You don’t want to tell people what they can and cannot say, but you want others to shout them off the stage? Isn’t shouting them off the stage telling them what they can and cannot say?
I thought about that verbiage before I submitted but was too tired to reword it 🙁 While I was being somewhat figurative when I said “shout them off stage”, what I was arguing against here was making what they say illegal. But even if taken literally, shouting someone down may be uncivil, but it’s not the same as using the force of law to shut them up. I hope that helps.
David
grantdale at December 15, 2005 10:20 AM
This is kinda/sorta correct, but it is incomplete.
One, in the last free election in Germany, the Nazi party won a plurality of the vote (some 44%). They formed a coalition government (which was not unusual in Germany then, or even today) with a small right-wing party, which had acquired 8% of the vote. 44% and 8% is 52%. Since the Nazi party had won the plurality of the vote, the president, von Hindenburg, was required to allow them to try to form a government, which they did. As an analog, in the recent election, the president was required to allow CDU’s Andrea Merkel–whose party won a plurality with only 35% of the vote–to try to form a government, and she did, a “grand coalition” with the SPD. It is probably an unstable government–I would predict another election within a year.
Two, it was not unusual for other upstart political parties to have the Nazi analogs to the SturmAbteilung (SA, the brownshirts). Streetfighting among the various gangs was quite common in the 1920s. It was largely the result of an attempted coup in the early 1920s by communists imported from Russia, the miss-management of the Treaty of Versailles, and other things.
Three, Neville Chamberlain would never have to had to negotiate if Britain had joined France in opposing the Nazi’s re-occupation of the Rheinland in 1936. Hitler, against all of the advice of his senior military, chose to re-occupy the Rheinland, against the advice of the senior brass of the Wehrmacht (the army). This was in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles. The French asked for Britain’s help in opposing this action. The British government turned a deaf ear. If the British and French could have conspired to eject Hitler from the Rheinland, WWII in the European theater probably never would have occurred. Of course, it had been occurring in the Pacific theater since….1933.
Four, the idea in the US that they would be insulated from the war(s)–the war in Europe, the war in North Africa, and the war in the Pacific–was idiotic in the extreme. The Allies in Europe had the Russians who largely defeated the Nazis. My father was a bomber pilot going up from North Africa through Italy. But it was largely the three-front war, the Russians from the east, the Amis&Brits through Italy from the South, and finally D-day from the west, that defeated the Nazis.
The Americans–and the Australians–almost lost the war in the Pacific. Fortunately for us, they did not. The battle at Midway was the turning point in that theater. Up untill then, it was nip-and-tuck.