Posted on 04/29/2009 3:27:28 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
Ok - I’ll send the D’s who “represent” me more “hate” mail!
Y’know, we can go on endlessly. I’m sure Miss California felt persecuted and denied a fair judgement from ‘Hilton’ for her beliefs.
Risking it all with that prediction, eh??!!! Yes, it’s a given.
This took a little while. The definition of “hate crime” was referenced by inclusion of a US Code paragraph, which does not itself define “hate crime”, but refernces it somewhere else...
Eventually I found this:
SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.
(a) DEFINITION- In this section, `hate crime’ means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.
(b) SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT- Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes. In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other guidelines, avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense, and take into account any mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions.
I also noticed the word “perceived” in the law. Scary stuff. I used to love America.
But a prosecutor could argue that hurt feelings, the damaged emotional well being of the person offended could be considered a real physical injury.
At any rate, it's a slippery slope, and a dangerous step in that direction at the very least.
Thanks Nathan,
Here is what I gather from the following sections, including what you shared with me. It seems that the motivation is as everyone is saying, but I don’t see in the language that it is that speaking against homosexuals is a crime unless it leads to violence. But my wife did say that some are hoping the Senate version will still have protections for speech, say, for preachers.
Thanks again.
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.
Perhaps if we keep ‘em guessing on our “percieved” orientation??? It’s a world gone mad....
Good thing I don’t live in Mass., because I really hate obami the commie.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
R’s Voting ‘Aye’
Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) - Has a pretty large gay constituency
Mike Coffman (CO-6) - The one who replaced Tancredo; big surprise
Michael Castle (DE-AL)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18) - Has a pretty large gay constituency
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
Mark Kirk (IL-10) - No surprise there
Judy Biggert (IL-13)
Ahn Cao (LA-2) - The one who replaced “Cold Cash”
Bill Cassidy (LA-6) - This one is a big surprise
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2)
Leonard Lance (NJ-7)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)
Greg Walden (OR-2) - This one is also a big surprise
Jim Gerlach (PA-6)
Charlie Dent (PA-15) - The one who replaced Pat Toomey
Todd Platts (PA-19)
Dave Reichert (WA-8)
I don't know what every state, local or tribal jurisdiction considers or includes under the term "hate crime". I would assume the worst in some.
“Can perez hilton be proscuted for hate speech about Miss California??”
Read the bill. It has nothing to do with speech.
It’s all about assaults and murders against unprotected people (normal people) having lowered penalties when the equal crime against a “protected person” gets not only stiffer penalties, but enhanced funding for prosecuting the case.
You can still say what you want, at least as far as this bill goes.
a) DEFINITION[1]- In this section, `hate crime’ means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person. SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.
Query: Does the following provision denominating certain religions as being “racial” apply only to the Jewish and Muslim Religions? The word “certain” is not inclusive and would allow for example the exclusion under its protection of “Catholics” of which there are Two Billion worldwide from all national origins who came to the U.S. Obviously at the time the Bill of Rights came into existence Protestantism was not considered to be a racial group.
The following appears on the bill in question:
(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races’. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Note:
CRS Report for Congress Order Code RL33099
Most state hate crimes laws are similar to a model proposed by the Anti-Defamation League which covers not only anti-Semitic crimes,
Sali troubles me. I know some pretty prominent Republicans in CDA who voted for Minnick last time. They disliked Sali that much! I’ve heard that there are 3 or 4 other Republicans who will seek that seat, but I don’t know anything about them.
Idaho Republican Party Executive Director Sid Smith said that the top potential challengers are state Sen. John McGee, state Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and, if he opts for a rematch, Sali.
Do you know anything about either of these two other guys?
“It might pay for all of us to claim we are as queer as three-dollar bills to get “special” treatment.”
lol That’s a fine idea!
Under this law, you’d have to get your attacker to admit he singled you out because you’re queer, though.
If you are straight as John Wayne, though, and your attacker calls you queer (and somehow someone can prove that’s the motive), then this bill kicks in because he perceived you as queer (or transgendered, or a coprophiliac- hey if he yells Eat S , that might work).
If the guy with the cricket bat merely bashes you without saying anything or reveals his inner thought at the time, it would be difficult to prove- unless maybe you’re wearing a tutu.
That's not entirely true. It depends what the state, local or tribal jurisdiction includes under the term "hate crime".
A "physical injury" can result from verbal attacks/abuse. That's already been proven in the courts.
“I also noticed the word “perceived” in the law.”
It means that if the person assaulting you is doing it because he PERCEIVES that you are a homosexual or transgendered or love vacuum cleaners, the law kicks in even if you’re normal.
I don’t think the enhancements will ever be used in that case, but that’s what it says.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.