From
what I understand about the case, the 20-year-old defendant had
witnessed, via his webcam, his gay roommate kissing another man. He
tweeted about it and jokingly said he would invite others to view the
next encounter. In spite of some early rumors surrounding the case,
no videos of the act were made and certainly nothing was posted on
YouTube. The gay roommate, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide,
allegedly out of humiliation over the incident.
From
the article, a gay-activist attorney said of the verdict, “The
verdict today demonstrates that the jurors understood that bias
crimes do not require physical weapons like a knife in one's hands.”
Really? I don't think the jurors understood very much at all. The
article cites one law professor as saying, “The
jury appeared to find that Ravi's intentions were not out of hatred
or bias but the jurors believed Tyler Clementi perceived them as
such.”
Let's
set aside the “invasion of privacy” charge for a moment. What
exactly is bias intimidation? From this verdict, it doesn't need to
be a threat or even need to be intended to intimidate. It simply has to be
perceived as intimidating. Remember, we're not talking about the KKK
burning a cross in the front yard of a black family. In a case like
that, there is overt intimidation and the possibility of violence is
very real. In this case, no one threatened the gay student. They
merely teased him. More precisely, they didn't even tease him –
some people joked about him online. There was never any threat of
violence. The “victim” wasn't scared; he was humiliated.
Is
this really the precedent we want to set? If you make a joke about
someone – never intending to harm him – you could still go to
jail? Are gay people so thin skinned that we need to arrest people
who are perceived as “insensitive”?
Let's
apply this same standard to another demographic. Should we arrest
people who make jokes about blacks? Some liberals would say yes so
that doesn't work. Let me think... what other group might we use?
What about... oh, I don't know... let's say, Christians. If someone
makes insensitive remarks about Christians, is it a hate crime?
Let's
suppose for a moment, that some atheist blogger wrote a scathing
piece about Ken Ham and said hateful things like, “Millions of
people, including some of the most knowledgeable biologists in the
world, think just about every day that you are an airhead, an ass, a
birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a
cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a
crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a
dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-ass, a
dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a
fruitcake, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a
jackass, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a
loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a
mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a numbnuts, a numbskull,
a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam
artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a
thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and
much, much worse.”
Oh,
wait a minute, PZ Myers did write that about Ken Ham on his blog.
So, is this “bias intimidation”? Isn't Ken Ham being ridiculed because of his religious beliefs? Myers may not be intending to intimidate Ham but, according to this new standard, there need not be any threat of
violence. Mr. Ham only needs to feel humiliated. If Mr. Ham, in a
fit of depression and humiliation, should jump off the Brent Spence
bridge, PZ Myers would probably cheer. No liberal would think for a
minute that Myers should face 10 years in jail for his blatant
assault on Ham's religious beliefs.
Isn't
a person's religious views protected from hate speech or is protection
only reserved for a person's sexual orientation? For the record,
though, I believe the whole notion of “hate speech” or “hate
crimes” is misguided. We already have laws protecting people
against violence. What need is there to protect them against
ridicule? Sticks and stones, as they say. If I cried “hate
speech” every time someone tried to shame me for my religious
beliefs, half the cyber-world would be under arrest.
Once
again there is a glaring, double-standard in the liberals'
application of “rights.” They're not interested in equal
treatment of everyone. Tease a gay, go to jail. Ridicule a
Christian day after day for years, win the adoration of millions of
liberals everywhere. Have I mentioned before that liberals are
hypocrites?
No comments:
Post a Comment