FRC confused as to gaggings with which 'hate' bill deals
So since this legislation would simply work to curb bias-motivated violence, clearly they must be trying to depict a man who has been bound and gagged by an armed robber who has targeted him on the basis of his skin color, sexual orientation, or religion. Right? What else could it be? The legislation doesn't prevent anyone from speaking beliefs, so clearly that's not what they're going for. So yea -- It looks to us like they are showing a victim who will somehow benefit from these enhanced protections.
Wait, what's that you say? They actually ARE still working the fallacy that this legislation poses a threat to free speech, and so this image IS meant to convey a religious person who is no longer allowed to speak his anti-gay beliefs for fear they'll be carted off to jail? Oh. Well in that case: No need to gag this writer, as the religious right's deliberate attempts to misrepresent this legislation have done that ably enough!!
FRC is also blowing smoke as SCOTUS has already ruled on the constitutionality of hate crimes laws in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993). Its decision was unanimous and included 5 of the current Justices on the Court. If FRC wants to take the position that ALL hate crimes laws are unconstitutional I could at least respect their consistency, but in this case it would appear that as long as their axe isn't being gored and it involves gays it's a different matter.
For more on Wisconsin v. Mitchell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell
Posted by: John | May 4, 2007 6:32:34 AMcomments powered by Disqus