Yep! If you voice opposition to gay rights or gays, and someone in government deems that an "assault" you may have broken federal law.

They (i.e. Holder) "says" this will ONLY be applied to physical assaults. But I have to ask, "Why wasn't that written into the law?

Clearly, a violent physical assault should be prosecuted. But it could right now, without the need for another law. Concerned citizens believe this will allow the Obama administration to go after conservatives who oppose gay rights. They believe that administration will deem that objection "assaults" and apply the law.

Do you trust the government, when it comes to vague laws, that could have been written without that vagueness?

quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

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.

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.

When Holder has to "say"

quote:

Attorney general says it will be used only to prosecute violence

Notice how he didn't say, "the bill can't be used...". There is a CLEAR implication that it's only by "choice" that they won't prosecute speech. If there were protections in the bill, against going after speech, there would be no need for that comment.

How long do you think it will be, before the feds goes after someone for mere speech?

Main Entry: 1as·sault
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈsȯlt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English assaut, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *assaltus, from assalire
Date: 14th century
1 a : a violent physical or verbal attack

It's only a matter of time before the thought police can fine, and or arrest someone for speaking their mind on any subject relating to homosexuality.

Political correctness is threatening Freedom of Speech in this country greater than at anytime I can remember.

We have turned a corner and I don't think that there will be any turning back to any semblance of sanity.

TP

Not sure about other states but ****esota already has laws that pretty much do cover that. All it takes is someone to find you saying being ***** is wrong as offensive and psycologicaly damging and they can file charges on you.

"A fifth degree assault is a misdemeanor if it is a first offense punishable by up to a 90 days in jail and/or a $1000 fine. A fifth degree assault may be charged if a person

1)commits an action or statement with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or
2)intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another.

Assault charges are typically considered to be physical abuse; however, emotional, psychological, and verbal abuse are included in these charges."

The bill has to be made more clear, assault is a vocal threat and battery is to carry out the threat hence assault and battery. they better clearify the meaning of assault, in law books today assault is a verble threat.


such as the United States, assault may refer only to the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force.[1][2]

the United States, battery is the crime that represents the unlawful physical contact

unless they are talking aggravated assault

To me,it actually looks like it could work both ways.It says nothing about h o m o s,just your "sexual identity".My sexual identity is hetero,so a h o m o could be charged with a felony for farking with me,right??Either way,we do not need any more laws on assault,there are plenty on the books right now.

during my first marriage i was arrested for assault, i threatened to do harm, but didn't touch her. they should clearify the law

This is just the tip of a scary iceberg... I don't want to think about what just might be coming.

quote:

The bill has to be made more clear,

It's a done deal. The bill is headed to Obama for signature. They snuck one past us on a "promise" they won't abuse the vague wording.

PS: Technically it wasn't a "promise". It was more of a wishy-washy statement by Holder.

quote:

Originally posted by ipscone:
Yep! If you voice opposition to gay rights or gays, and someone in government deems that an "assault" you may have broken federal law.

They (i.e. Holder) "says" this will ONLY be applied to physical assaults. But I have to ask, "Why wasn't that written into the law?

Clearly, a violent physical assault should be prosecuted. But it could right now, without the need for another law. Concerned citizens believe this will allow the Obama administration to go after conservatives who oppose gay rights. They believe that administration will deem that objection "assaults" and apply the law.

Do you trust the government, when it comes to vague laws, that could have been written without that vagueness?

quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

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.

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.

When Holder has to "say"

quote:

Attorney general says it will be used only to prosecute violence

Notice how he didn't say, "the bill can't be used...". There is a CLEAR implication that it's only by "choice" that they won't prosecute speech. If there were protections in the bill, against going after speech, there would be no need for that comment.

How long do you think it will be, before the feds goes after someone for mere speech?

Main Entry: 1as·sault
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈsȯlt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English assaut, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *assaltus, from assalire
Date: 14th century
1 a : a violent physical or verbal attack

But you trust the government not to abuse the Patriot Act?

quote:

But you trust the government not to abuse the Patriot Act?

How did they do that Thorin? Are you using the NY Times, etc. as your reference? Sounds like it.

quote:

Originally posted by FJ_2:

quote:

But you trust the government not to abuse the Patriot Act?

How did they do that Thorin? Are you using the NY Times, etc. as your reference? Sounds like it.

No, I read the Patriot Act. It is extremely vague. Legitimate protests can be construed as terrorist activity the way it is currently worded. Is that an extereme interpretation? Yup, but no more so than saying that disagreeing with a gay can be construed as assault.

My question still stands; why would you be okay with one bill that is far too vague but be fine with another too vague bill?

quote:

Originally posted by Sarge7174:
To me,it actually looks like it could work both ways.It says nothing about h o m o s,just your "sexual identity".My sexual identity is hetero,so a h o m o could be charged with a felony for farking with me,right??Either way,we do not need any more laws on assault,there are plenty on the books right now.

Probably not. It's like the ethnic intimidation statutes that went into effect here in PA about twenty years ago.... it's supposed to be a crime to use a racial epithet in a manner meant to intimidate someone.

So, when a former colleague of mine tacked on a charge of ethnic intimidation after an arrestee repeatedly called him a "cracker mother %&(k@r" while threatening to get him and his family later on, the first thing the DA's office did was drop that charge. Apparently caucasians can't be ethnically intimidated, and I'm sure this new law will be the same, hetero doesn't count. Neither do Christian Conservative Gun-owning Veterans

If these laws protect the homosexuals and blacks,who in the hell is standing up for the rights of caucasion heterosexuals??A law is a farking law,to apply to EVERYONE,not a select few.This really pizzes me off.

quote:

who in the hell is standing up for the rights of caucasion heterosexuals??

No one.... at least that appears to be the case

quote:

Yep! If you voice opposition to gay rights or gays, and someone in government deems that an "assault" you may have broken federal law.

They (i.e. Holder) "says" this will ONLY be applied to physical assaults. But I have to ask, "Why wasn't that written into the law?

If you had bothered to read what the bill actually says, you would know that it did.

SEC. 4707. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
-`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
`(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.
`(b) Certification Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that--
`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or
`(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
`(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.
`(c) Definitions- In this section--
`(1) the term `bodily injury' has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;
`(2) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
`(3) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title;
`(4) the term `gender identity' means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics; and
`(5) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
`(d) Statute of Limitations-
`(1) OFFENSES NOT RESULTING IN DEATH- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.
`(2) DEATH RESULTING OFFENSES- An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`249. Hate crime acts.'.

SEC. 4710. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

For purposes of construing this division and the amendments made by this division the following shall apply:
(1) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow a court, in any criminal trial for an offense described under this division or an amendment made by this division, in the absence of a stipulation by the parties, to admit evidence of speech, beliefs, association, group membership, or expressive conduct unless that evidence is relevant and admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this division is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.
(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This division applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of a victim.
(3) CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nor shall anything in this division, or an amendment made by this division, be construed or applied in a manner that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, or association, unless the Government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to--
(A) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or
(B) incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.
(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.
(5) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(6) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

quote:

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

quote:

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--

quote:

`(c) Definitions- In this section--

`(1) the term `bodily injury' has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim

please check the above website after your daily "Conservative Robots-action NOW! e-mail alert" floods your inbox telling you to post the contents of said e-mail here....

you might be surprised in issues involving legislation.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FormerEmbassyMarine,