The expanded federal hate crimes law now goes to President Obama's desk. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill.

President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure.

The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.

"Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile," said Judy Shepard, board president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation named for her son. "Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families."

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hate.crimes/index.html

Will this be abused?  Will it make people think twice about hitting someone else only because of their race, or sexual orientation?

Me personally, I see prosecutors and attorneys having a field day with this.

 [ send green star]

if this covers religious orientation as well.

 [ send green star]

The thing is, laws like this present a slippery slope.  There are so many different forms of discrimination.  Where do you draw the line?  

 [ send green star]

I have no problem with a law like this. Hate crimes are like terrorism. There punishment should be greater. I think it will be hard to prove motivation, but if its clear, more power to the prosecutor.

 [ send green star]

I remember one time talking to a committee in a state capital. An assemblyman from my district had informed me about the game playing done in these committees so I never forgot that even to this very day. While it looks like a good show to the public that' exactly what something like this is intended to do. Like this assemblyman told me, these bills are feathers in the chair person's cap. "Hey everybody, look what I accomplished!"

I mean is something like this even necessary when we already have so many laws that don't seem to be enforced already? People are going to hate this or that and then to make laws against hating this or that seems ignorant. Our own past president stirred up hate against others enough to have us invade another country and I sure can't see where anybody has ever tried to make stuff like that be brought into the judicial system. Can any of you?

 [ send green star]

Where do you draw the line, though, D-Dog?  Pretty soon so many different groups are going to be wanting preferential treatment, such a law probably wouldn't even be viable any more and would get tossed out. 

 [ send green star]

There seems to be laws already existing for this.

I mean, who beats up another because of 'love'?

Is not a 'hate crime' really an effort to depersonalize?

So, it should be individuals protected against being dehumanized into a {thought off inferior} group.

Seeming to protect 'groups' only creates more resentment and misunderstanding, possibly exasperating the issue and problem.

 [ send green star]

Is it my imagination when just in these groups I see political party choices displaying what I see as hate for one another as with words they give the same beatings the gay young man that lost his life with had received? I just got done reading some articles about the mideast affairs and to me I see our US destabilizing in order to control which I see similar to hate crimes. Where is the clear definition of hate crimes when governments can create situations about differences that lead to many killings or is it just pure BS worded for gays and race? Here's a pacifier people. That should keep em distracted for a while so other dastardly things are being done to benefit those that bought our government. Of course how many paid attention to this being attached to a $680 billion defense budget bill. Sort overrides that in our minds, doesn't it?

 [ send green star]

under the federal hate crime law just like any other minority group. 

I see nothing wrong with that. 

As for this buggery ...

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.

Speech is not assault, at least not legally (and, maybe, not yet?).  Maybe those "religious groups" need to be more worred about priests and pederasty. 

(edited to italicize quoted text)

 [ send green star]

Yeah Uno, it would stand to reason that certain people in the US don't understand the First Amendment.   

I agree with the rest of your point as well. 

 [ send green star]

Does that mean it's more important to protect gays than look at going farther in debt with the $680 billion defense authorization bill when people in this country lost their jobs, homes, states lost finances for their budgets and overall destabilization of our own country? Our vice president was just in Poland assuring them they wouldn't desert the US allies as the missile defense system is going through in a different manner now. So is there anybody, reading this,capable of offering an explanation in how to justify the US going deeper in debt to arm other countries is less important than the gay rights issue?  I'm wondering how can we become an ally of our own government so instead of putting us deeper in debt we as human beings could be offered some consideration in our own United States!!!!!!! 

 [ send green star]

Frankly, yes.  If you find it necessary to "choose" between a human rights issue and a money issue, the human rights issue will win my favor. 

 [ send green star]

I don't get the concept of literal overkill.  I think it's inherently abstract.  But I digress.

The point of a hate crime designation as an aggravator of another crime is to create a bigger penalty for a person who basically tells the community that he has a motive to attack not just his victim, but an entire group.  The motive for the murder of Matthew Sheppard meant that ALL gays and lesbians in that part of Wyoming were in danger of being similarly murdered, which causes terror in the community.  This is certainly a greater crime than murder for other reasons.  If it was personal, the killer has no motive to kill anyone else.  If it was robbery, the killer is still a danger to others, but randomly, not predictably.

Look at this from the perspective of law enforcement/public safety, if it helps.  They are much more concerned with people who display motive for recidivism, and need a legal tool to lock those more dangerous people up for longer periods of time. 

From the perspective of the gay community in this case, they need to know that someone who threatens them all will be held more accountable to the law as a result.  That gives them peace of mind, because they sue as hell hope that when Flava asks Will it make people think twice about hitting someone else only because of their race, or sexual orientation?  the answer will be Yes.

 [ send green star]

In my opinion, if we can't recognize that human rights aren't a primary societal concern, then the "betterment of the whole society " suffers. 

Also, If society is so tunnel-visioned as to be able to focus on only one issue at a time, then we also suffer as a society. 

I would also opine that if our government is unable to multi-task, then we are, indeed, fukked. 

(edited for typos ... )

 [ send green star]

... human rights "are" a primary concern ...

 [ send green star]

HUMAN BEINGS ARE A PRIMARY CONCERN

 [ send green star]

Are gay people not human beings? 

 [ send green star]

As of yesterday, I made an oath to only punch white hetero males...    If they piss me off enough, of course... 

 [ send green star]

This is attached to a $680 billion defense authorization bill which diverts your attention to a subject irrelevant to going deeper in debt for purposes that will do more damage to human beings. The gay issue and race issue have absolutely no importance in my mind because I am at peace with those issues and how I deal with them. To get involved in a discussion is only playing into government's con job of society's ignorance which there is an abundance of.

I see life as a relationship that we have with one another and compare society to a family. In my line of reasoning my own relationships are typical of our society's relationships meaning they failed. Instead of dwelling on airing gripes about how others were wrong and how I was wronged I searched for reasons I made wrong choices in establishing wrong relationships. One main thing in successful relationships is giving up control. That is what I watch for in any kind of involvement with others. 'Control' or to be 'controlling' shows insecurity to me and it spells trouble with any involvement with other human beings. In order for any human being to give up control it takes earning of trust. I see zero trust in our society nor any sign we're capable of earning that trust from one another or others in the world. I see us (the U as insecure trying to intimidate which can only produce negative results. 

We all are in a relationship with one another and that is not exclusive to just this country. It's a relationship with everybody in the world. In this article the $650 billion loses importance and meaningless issues take on importance which to me is to control society. That's insecurity which has been perfected by our US government on all levels. So who's really the problem here, the controllers or the ones enabling the controlling??????

 [ send green star]

I can understand that you have your own priorities, personalized to your opinions. 

But the article isn't speaking to you, personally.  It's about protecting a group of humans from hate-inspired assault based on their minority status.  It does not "take away" from the issue of bloated defense spending.  It's just a different issue ... obviously one on which you place little importance. 

I get that. 

 [ send green star]

that this is a discussion group on Hot Debates & Shocking Topics.  And that is what is intended to be discussed/debated here. 

If you don't place any importance on the topic, I suggest you start your own ... or maybe even start whole group based on what YOU think is important and should be exclusively discussed. 

 [ send green star]

The door swings two ways!

 [ send green star]

I'm of the opinion that any violent crime could and should be considered one of 'hatred'.  If this is about violence against a particular sect of humanity, wouldn't that be applicable to anybody affected?  We all are part of some group of people, at some time in our lives, whether it's a community-based organization, religious group, gender-ideal, or social-network (literally, you could go on with this list of wranglings)

But to commit a violent act upon another being (and why not include animals here, too...really?) for the sole purpose of inflicting harm or fear, one is really hating on that other being for some reason, and that being is most certainly a member of some group who could see the violent act as a threat to the group as a whole.

I think what was done to Shepard was hideous on so many levels, inexcusable and sick.  The people responsible were ignorant and violent criminals who should be removed from society.  But to make that crime any more important than that of a child, elderly person, mother, brother, father or friend, simply because of his sexual orientation, I feel is what's being done by this type of instituted law.  It also opens the door for more segregation, as the hate-crime fire may very well become fueled and abused by those out to benefit financially from the suffering of others.

I may be way off, but I totally believe in human rights, not rights for some, more for others and even more for some elite group due to whatever they may have or how they may behave. 

 [ send green star]

How come it's so easy for opinions to be shared about this subject where government tells how they are resolving hate crimes yet there is total blindness to the $680 billion spent for defense which is running our country further in debt and making the US look like those that attacked the gay young man, to the rest of the world? I mean our country is killing people out of hate and destroying itself, especially financially, without any regard to human life.

My biggest issue about this is that we refuse to look at ourselves to understand the reasons people hate us or just hate at all. For myself I can see no reason that anybody can not have the right to hate me as it's just a human emotion that the only thing I can do anything about is make a choice in how I deal with that hatred.  I am having a hard time understanding how only opinions are shared in this subject where there doesn't seem to be any regard for the whole of society and human race around the world. I strongly feel that way because of lack of considering how $680 billion could be better used for our own country's benefit rather than endless wars.

 [ send green star]