Hate law expansion sought to make prosecutions easier

[flashl]

Advocates set to push changes through Legislature

BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF • FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU CHIEF • July 24, 2008

LANSING -- Michigan's hate crime law would expand to include intimidation of gays and lesbians and people with disabilities, and would make hanging a noose or burning a cross specific property crimes, under changes urged by civil rights groups, legislators and law enforcement officials Wednesday.

Those changes will be on a fast track in the House beginning in August, said Rep. Paul Condino, D-Southfield, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He said Wednesday that he would introduce a bill to strengthen the state's ethnic intimidation law.

The hate crime law changes will be debated during the Legislature's lame duck session between the November election and the end of the year.

Condino said the Democrats, who hold the majority in the House, are solidly behind the plan along with a number of Republicans.

[bhbwl]

1. What's the bill say about hate speech?

Seems like it's only a bandaid unless we get to the deeper issue of how people's minds get filled with sick racist anti-glbt conservative hate speech in the first place. Colleges tried to stamp out hateful and offensive speech like shrub's and rush's, but the repukes whined and ran to their mommies and intimidated them into backing down.

Until we address the real issue, nothing will change.

[JonQ]

2. You think "hate speech" should be punishable under state/federal law?

Sounds like a horrible idea. Hate speech will be defined as anything the government decides it doesn't want people saying. Can you imagine how that might possible backfire very quickly?

Free speech for all means exactly that, free speech for everyone.

People should be very nervous when anyone comes along with the idea of limiting our freedoms;but it's ok, it's not for you, only for those guys over there, you know, those guys that no one likes. That's how it starts, but I guarantee that's not how it'll end.

[bhbwl]

3. You think it's okay for the radical right to smear Obama and his family on the covers of magazines?

Conservatives have proven time and again that all they do when they are given the right to free speech is to abuse it. Rights come coupled with responsibilities, and the radical right has abdicated its responsibilities by doing nothing but spew divisive hate speech against those not like them.

If it's that important for racist homophobic conservatives to be able to oppress the poor, minorities, the GLBT community and undocumented Americans among many, many others, so be it. Leave the Constitution alone.

Still, unlike conservatives, I'm willing to compromise. There are other avenues to stop this madness.

For instance, we could keep within the letter of the Constitution by:

1) The Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of speech; it says nothing about state constitutions, which allows state leaders to establish and tailor guidelines that protect the communities in their own states.

2) Leave that aside, but remove immunity from individual and class-action lawsuits. The aggrieved party/ies would have to prove damages (only too easy where the likes of limbaugh are concerned), and the defendant gets the all the rights of civil litigants.

Societies like Germany and the UK have commonsense legislation that aims to protect the rights of everyone, not just the ruling classes. They're compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; which unlike OUR Constitution, protects the human rights of ALL peoples, not just those in power. There's much to admire in their example. I don't see what's wrong in taking a fresh look at the way other societies do it.

But to take your point that hate speech would be defined as anything the government says it is, I'd respond by saying that it's our commensurate duty to make sure the repukes are put out of power and STAY out of power for good. That's our duty anyway.

[JonQ]

4. You're right

only people on our side of the political spectrum should be granted rights. Clearly when the constitution laid out rights for all they really meant only for certain people, based on politics.

I mean, why would they want to guarantee the right to unpopular speech? If it's unpopular then it is wrong, and that is a matter of fact.

Just like all those annoying extremists who thought slavery wasn't such a great thing, and really pissed off the rest of the population when complaining about it, they didn't deserve the right to free speech. And those angry extremist women who thought their gender was entitled to vote, very much in contrast to what the majority of the population thought, they should have simply been thrown in jail and ignored.

Yep, true freedom means freedom from ever having to hear something you disagree with.

[JonQ]

5. and as to this . . .

"But to take your point that hate speech would be defined as anything the government says it is, I'd respond by saying that it's our commensurate duty to make sure the repukes are put out of power and STAY out of power for good. That's our duty anyway."

Yeah, how's that gone so far?


Fact is that given enough time it's pretty much guaranteed that we'll get a government that you won't agree with. I think that is obvious enough.

Now ask yourself, do you really want to give that government the right to regulate what you can and cannot say? Who is currently in office? Do you think he should have the power to declare what is and what is not "hate speech"? No? There's the problem with your idea.

[bhbwl]

6. This election cycle will be a step in the right direction...

With Obama in the Oval Office and a Democratic majority in both houses (some are predicting supermajorities), maybe this is the time for the change we all look for.

Going back to the rights/responsibilities point I made earlier, I still submit that most of what you listed--abolitionists, suffrage workers, the working poor, and so on--wouldn't have been problems in the first place if it weren't for the radical repukes standing in the way of progress.

Liberty is not license. The repukes have been on the wrong side of history for more than a century. They haven't earned any rights; rather, in each case you cite, they've been instrumental in standing in the way of them. Democrats value everyone's freedom; repukes only value theirs and take it away from others. They've been telling people what they can and cannot say since their founding.

[JonQ]

7. So are you willing to promise

that from 2008 and for as long as this country lasts (hopefully a while) that A) the democrats will always be in power and B) they will always be saintly?

I don't trust politicians to do what's right for the most part, I don't care what letter they have after their name. Which is why I'm leery of giving any politician this much power. And even if the guy you're rooting for today really is on the up and up, can you be sure that his successor will? And his successor, and so on ad infinitum?

I can't be sure of that, and neither could the bright people who framed our constitution, which is why they put limits in place. Absolute limits that stop even the most eager would-be despot from getting too big of a head. And granted these laws are not guarantees, they can't necessarily stop every abuse by government. But tearing them down won't stop the abuse either, and will in fact make it far more likely, certain even.

You may trust our government to always do what is right from now until the end of time, just don't expect the rest of us to fall in line.

[bhbwl]

8. Isn't that our job as voters?

To make sure a) and b) happen?

I can't promise it because we can't trust the electorate to make the right choice all the time. That's why it's so important to vote wisely. Thankfully this year it's an easy choice. I don't see McCain taking any states, thank goodness.

[JonQ]

9. So going by past history this would be a bad idea

And no, it's not our job as voters to determine everyones rights for the next few years. That would be an absolute democracy, where 51%+ of the voters can do whatever it pleases with the other 49%. So your rights at any moment hinge essentially on how popular you are. We don't live in such a society, and be grateful for that.

We have guaranteed rights, which are very undemocratic in that they aren't affected by majority opinion. And they apply equally to everyone. Even people you dislike. I don't care for neo-nazis, or klansmen, but guess what? They have the right to march and speak. The same rights that protect them protect you. And as long as people that are despised by 99% of the population are free to enjoy their rights as US citizens then the rest of us can sleep easy, because we know the system is working. Once they start weeding out people that don't fit the majority view then you should start worrying.


Are you so sure that your views, all of them, are in line with what the majority feels are appropriate? They'd better be because under your style of government the moment you go against the majority you are going to lose.

I don't want a society like that. Do you?

[bhbwl]

10. The needs of the many...

...outweigh the needs of the few.

All I know--and all I need to know--is that I have faith in Obama.

[JonQ]

11. The needs of the many to what?

Never be offended? Sorry, that doesn't outweigh the needs of the few to have their constitutionally guaranteed rights protected. Free speech is in the constitution, it's one of the most basic tenets of our society. The right to never be allowed to see something that might make you angry? Nope, that's not guaranteed anywhere.

And saying that all you know, all you need, is faith in one person to lead you however he chooses, well that's a little frightening. No American should say that it's enough to simply have faith in any one politician. And yes, obama, despite the rhetoric is still a politician, not some messiah that we should blindly follow without daring to criticize (blasphemy!) or think critically about.

Leave the blind faith stuff to the fundies, and think rationally. Everyone has flaws, even your heroes, recognize them and you'll be much better off.

[bhbwl]

12. Obama...messiah...

I know codewords when I see them.

You've just told me everything I need to know about you now.

Thanks for the conversation, but we're done.

[JonQ]

13. Right and I know everything about you

you aren't a fan of the first amendment, you base your ideology on faith (your words) and you don't accept defeat gracefully.

BTW, the messiah bit was in direct response to your laughable claim that all you needed was faith in your candidate, nothing more.