Quote:
The plan, proposed by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, is "stealth legislation at its most devious," Pike has written in a campaign to alert people to the potential problems. He said people respond with, "This bill just wants federal power to prosecute bias-motivated violent crimes in the states – what's wrong with that?"
"There's plenty wrong with that!" he said. First, the Constitution does not grant federal government the "police state privilege" of being your local law enforcement. "Unless the government finds evidence of slavery in the states, jury tampering, voter fraud, or crimes involving interstate commerce (where jurisdiction is unclear), the Constitution's message to the federal government is blunt and emphatic: 'Butt out of local law enforcement!'"
"There's plenty wrong with that!" he said. First, the Constitution does not grant federal government the "police state privilege" of being your local law enforcement. "Unless the government finds evidence of slavery in the states, jury tampering, voter fraud, or crimes involving interstate commerce (where jurisdiction is unclear), the Constitution's message to the federal government is blunt and emphatic: 'Butt out of local law enforcement!'"
I want to preface the following by saying that I don't like "hate". Hating someone for something that is not hurting you is just stupid. "Hate" period is just stupid. Also, I think some of the arguments in the article are a bit silly, but you have to be a little over the top at times to point out the flaws in things.
I think the current, and previous batch of bills are pointless. They will either be enforced, and push the citizens of this country into another Civil War, or they won't be enforced, and will instead sit on the books for decades, doing nothing.
Attempting to jail or fine someone for speaking their opinion in public is fully against the First Amendment rights that we have in this country. One of the greatest freedoms we have is the ability to speak our feelings, even if they're contrary to the feelings of the majority of the population. This has been an argument for years that many in Congress itself has attempted to take away, and sadly, there have been some successes. The simple fact that we have the right to speak out against our leaders could be perceived as hate speach. That would imprision most of the nation.
I think more importantly, rather than our government attempt to silence "hate" and promote "tolerance", we should be working on this in our homes, IF we want to. There should be nothing manditory about loving, liking, or even tolerating, ANYONE. The moment you force tolerance, is the moment that you have given your lives as you known them away. You are now a ward of the state. You are not allowed to speak, much less think you own thoughts.
Can someone please explain what would make us different from England, pre-Revolutionary War, if we start to dictate through laws what people are "allowed" to say? Are we a better society than those who followed the Church of England, and claimed that there was no other way? At what point after we control speach do we start trying to control thought? It could be argued that we're already attempting to do that via public schools, and media outlets, which leave out critical facts, either through bias, or outright removal of them because they don't fit in our image of history.
I'm not expecting a lot of support in my idea, but for those that want such legislation on the books, think twice about the rights you want to give up for the sake of someone else's discomfort. At what point will you have to give up more because someone else takes offence to something else? How long before you wake up and realize that you've given up all of your rights? Oh ok, I admit the likelyhood of thought being outlawed in our lifetime is a bit much, but what about those of us that are parents, should a "hate crime" bill be passed, will our grandchildren be allowed to think for themselves?
