Rep. Barrett Opposes Hate Crimes Bill

April 28, 2009

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 04
• 29
• 09
• Hate
• Crimes
• floor
• speech

[zoenzita]

well there goes our freedom of speech...for those who read this any other way I suggest you take off your rose colored liberal glasses and read it again..eventually the direction of this administration will adversely affect your freedoms too

[AnduinX]

Furthermore, how do you divine what another is thinking? Because somebody shouts out a derogatory term in anger does not imply that they believe what they said, some people shout things in anger that they otherwise would not have had they been level headed. Nobody knows what their motivation was but them, but our law claims too.

[AnduinX]

Yes, I absolutely believe that person should be punished to the same extent as somebody who kills somebody for their wallet, because I believe it is the freedom of every individual to think and say what they choose.

As for your point - your hypothetical wallet murderer has an effect on the community, perhaps larger than the racist murderer because he strikes terror into the hearts of more people. The effect a crime has on any community is subjective and cannot be measured.

[saridout]

this is only an expansion of already existing hate crime law to include orientation and gender identity, along with more funding for local investigations. if someone beats a jew to death while yelling "you dirty k*ke" at them, should that person be punished to the same extent as someone who kills someone for their wallet? all crimes aren't created equal. crimes against people for simply being who they are doesn't just hurt the victim, but also the community of people to which the victim belongs.

[AnduinX]

Do you not understand that there are already penalties for violent crimes?  What this does is enhance the penalty greatly for your thoughts. It IS thought crime legislation.

[AnduinX]

We already have punishment for violent acts, what this does is tag on extra penalties if you're deemed a 'hater'.

This is thought crime legislation, and it should not exist.

[unityrover]

BRAVO!

[unityrover]

Does it not give extra punishment for the reason behind the act, though? This is backwards dogmatic legislation, it is VERY BAD for the country.

[Alderon714]

Have you read HR 1913?

Go to Thomas(dot)loc(dot)gov type in HR 1913 and select bill number search, then read the darn thing.

BTW: 45 States already have laws against this type of crime. That is 45 out of 50 for the slow in the crowd. Therefore, there is NO NEED FOR FEDERAL MANDATES to overstep our 10th amendment with laws in place in the States.

Plus there is the cost at the FED level when this is purely a local level issue.

[thebanksinator]

Really Gresham? He's not a constitutional scholar, but he certainly doesn't properly read bills either! The bill only applies to violent acts... it does not prevent anyone from verbally expressing their disagreement with lifestyles, etc of others. Stop trying to use fear tactics on the state of South Carolina... my preacher is allowed to disagree with people, just not beat them.