Trascript vs. 'transcript' -- Part 2
So you remember earlier this week when we showed you a de-facto "transcript" that was being passed around by the Traditional Values Coalition, and then we compared that with the WILDLY different official House Judiciary Committee transcript? Well, we now ask you to consider these words from the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins (highlighting our own):
If anyone doubts that the ultimate goal of legislation like H.R. 1592 is to stifle free speech, especially the speech of Christians, then consider these chilling words from supporter Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) during the debate today: "Sadly this bill does not go after speech."
Mr. McGOVERN: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides much needed support for local law enforcement agencies in the fight against violent hate crimes. That's why so many law enforcement agencies all across the country are enthusiastically supporting this legislation. That's why 31 State Attorney Generals, including the Republican Attorney General from the State of Washington, supports this bill.
Victims have reported an average of 191,000 hate crime incidents annually since the year 2000. Seventy-three percent of Americans support strengthening hate crimes laws.
This bill, as I said, is endorsed by virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country. The legislation is also supported by President George H.W. Bush's Attorney General, Dick Thornburg. This legislation is virtually identical to the version approved by a bipartisan majority in the Republican-led 109th Congress.
Hate crimes affect more than one individual, Mr. Speaker. It is committed with the intention of terrorizing a group of people or an entire community.
Now, we've heard arguments from some on the other side that this bill somehow violates the first amendment. In fact, the measure includes an explicit statement that the bill may not be interpreted as limiting first amendment protections language that is based on the existing Washington State hate crime statute. The provision only applies when a person's conduct, not thought or speech, is being punished.
Mr. Speaker, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the claim that a hate crime law is a law against thoughts. The Supreme Court recognized in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that it is common to take motive into account in criminal law.
So to those of my colleagues who are worried about protecting bigoted speech, they can stop worrying because this bill, sadly, will not affect that kind of speech.
Hey, "pro-family" movement: If you're going to use quotation marks, make sure you are actually quoting someone!!!!!!!!! Rep. McGovern is not saying he wishes for the free speech of Christians to be stifled. And in fact, he's making a good case that it couldn't be stifled even if he DID want it to be!
From looking at this and the rest of Rep. McGovern's words from yesterday, what we presume he's expressing is a wish that this sort of measure WOULD curb "bigoted speech," as such is unnecessary and non-productive to society! But he never said the word "Christian," or mentioned prayer that considers gays to be out of step with God's plan. He said "bigoted speech." What he seems to be talking about are truly, non-debatably bigoted words like "die f*g!"
It's actually a bit telling that Mr. Perkins (or his ghost writer) would make the leap and apply McGovern's words to the sort of speech dispensed by "pro-family" groups against gays and homosexuality in general. Is it that FRC nows consider their own speech "bigoted"?
**EARLIER FALSIFIED TRANSCRIPT: TVC: The least truthful member of our opposition? [G-A-Y]
comments powered by Disqus