Confused and Concerned about Hate Crime Legislation

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social groups, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability etc. President Obama today is signing a new Hate Crimes Bill that received final approval from the Senate on Oct. 22nd to legislation already passed by the House that expands federal hate-crimes statutes to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Once the bill becomes law the Department of Justice will have broader authority to investigate and prosecute violent crimes "motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim." However, social conservatives are arguing that this piece of legislation will stifle free speech, especially by religious leaders who "preach the Gospel" as they have learned it without fear of persecution.

This can pose a problem since Americans sure do love those First Amendment rights. I have a couple of statements and concerns about this bill and its potential to possibly put people in jail for a thought, intention, or prejudice. These intangible things, as bad as they may be are currently not arrestable offenses. This is what I do not understand. Hate crime at the end of the day is still a crime no matter how it is labeled. I'm not saying that it does not matter the reasoning behind why the crime was committed, but in a court of law at the end of the day it comes down to you either committing the crime or not. The act of murdering someone is a crime; whether your reasoning behind committing the crime was rooted in hate or prejudice. If you look at this definition of "hate crime" after the bill is signed the act of doing harm to someone is not the only offense you will be prosecuted for, but the thought behind the act will be weighed probably in the sentencing phase.

It is interesting to me that with all this said politicians don't deem gang related violence as "hate crimes." I guarantee they hate each other based on some form of prejudice, bias, racial grouping, neighborhood grouping, etc. Potentially, this law will give the Justice Department the teeth to investigate the wild or timid rantings of any individual that says anything controversial about another group of people bases on the categories listed above. However, like most laws they will be discriminatory in their application. Example: The lower class individual who "thinks" and voices his/her opinion passionately on a group of people will have a file and a potential offense that can and probably will be prosecuted in a court, while a Senator or Congressman who among his/her friend voices their opinion about those "Towelheads infiltrating America" or even going back to my previous blog with that woman in East Cobb raving about "The Muslims breeding at an increase rate to take over America." I would bet you the last two individuals most likely would not even be taken into consideration unless someone seriously pushed for it, but that first guy or girl is SOL.

I think it will be interesting when individuals actually start getting prosecuted under this new law because they are going to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where there is are already a number of cases like Near v. Minnesota and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul that combat these infringement on "prior restraint and fighting words that may or may not incite an immediate breach of peace" both were ruled unconstitutional.

I think if we just continue to enforce the current laws on the books to their full extent we will be successful in keeping dangerous people (prejudice, crazy, or not) in jail without having to infringe upon the right of the rest of the nation.

Tell me what you think about the new law and how it will be applied to various people and its potential effects on Free Speech in America.

Propaganda, When is it for the Public Good or Not?

Last week in class we watched clips about the Power of Propaganda. We saw a 1935 film called "Triumph of the Will" by Leni Riefenstahl about Nazi Germany in addition to a film made between 1942-1945 by the United States government during WWII called "Why We fight." Both films enhanced their agendas by appealing to the common emotions of oppression and the will to survive that oppression in order to accomplish what their governments deemed a common goal shared by its people. The reason I bring this topic up is because I just got back from watching Michael Moore's new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story." Even though he along with various critics call it a documentary, in essence it is still propaganda. This is the first and only Michael Moore movie I have ever watched so I was not quite sure what to expect. It did however have the same tones of the propaganda pieces that I've mentioned above, only this piece was not done by a government agency. That last sentence might not mean much to the average everyday individual but to me it adds a different element to how a piece of propaganda can be viewed. Propaganda is commonly defined as "communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position." With the selective use of facts and how they are presented a particular agency or individual can influence an audience to produce an emotional and/or rational response to what is presented to them. What I am trying to find out is, is any propaganda ever good for the public? If it is or is not, when are those times? As we all know at this point in time our economy along with that of many others is deteriorating at a rapid rate. It is unstable, unregulated, and unmanageable (in its current state). With all personal feelings aside I think Mr. Moore's film was propaganda that was necessary for the public good. Why, you might ask. Well here is my explanation. So many times I have witnessed people from all walks of life who tend not to care about their fellow man's situation until it starts to personally impact them. This is what was going on at the beginning of the economic crash. Individuals watched as people lost their homes, jobs, and lives and said, "Damn, that's a shame," and then either changed the channel or went on their merry way. What they at the time failed to realize was that the domino effect just had not hit their households yet. Then the "Damn, that's a shame," turned in to a "WTF America?" And that's putting it nicely. Just like the "Why We Fight" film called for Americans to stand up and fight for a cause that directly impacts their ability to survive in a world, Mr. Moore's film in my opinion does the same. The only difference is our issue does not lie on foreign shores, but within the boundaries of our states, cities, and towns. Like I said before, put all personal feelings aside.

Many politicians do not like people that disagree with them and especially don't like being called on their mistakes. And common practice to combat people like that is to personally attack their character. This kind of "interview" or "debate" is commonly practiced in the media by various organizations. Before there were news stations, or radio stations, there were people who understand clearly when they were being taken advantage of, and instead of passing it off as "someone else's problem" they stood together, responsible for the well-being of each other. They knew that if something effects one, it will effect them all. As I mentioned before, the first two films mentioned were more military related concerning war efforts. Well here is a perspective for you. I have been to war twice in my 24 years on this Earth so I would say I know one when I see one. Let me give you a gist.

War=complete chaos+death+homelessness+loss of businesses+crushed economy+angry/oppressed people fighting against something "they" deem unjust+stress+distrust+agony+depression...and the list goes on. These things happen before, during, and after a war and they are happening in this country now. Don't misunderstand my blog. This is a call for awareness not a revolution. But if one is necessary so be it.

So why are we so reluctant to take into consideration propaganda from everyday American citizens (not just Michael Moore), but we take government propaganda and run with it? Well, the politicians and the media have more money. They run adds every hour on the hour to influence a particular response from viewers. Hold on now, we have the Internet! We don't have to pay ANYTHING to post on YouTube and a couple other websites. So what is the hold up? The hold up is your house of cards hasn't fallen yet. It doesn't concern you yet. Right? Wrong Again!

I am fortunate to see America through a foreign pair of eyes in addition to some American ones (Thanks Vision Works). Coming to this country years ago, I would never expect it to be in the present position it is in. All nations go through various forms of turmoil so I can't throw any stones, but when we and our politicians know exactly what the problem is and use media relations to skate around these issues I am past frustrated. Uncle Sam can feed its military and citizens enough propaganda to run up the bills, but when someone uses it to address the reasons we have the bills in the first place it's looked down upon, hidden, or totally discarded.

With our media as it is today, is any propaganda that is currently shown on television, by radio, or newspaper in the best interest of the citizenry? If so, where is it and how do you know if there is not an underlying agenda to once again line someone else's pockets with your hard earned money?

P.S. Still confused somewhat about derivatives.

Oh, one last thing. Here is some government propaganda for you below.

Who fact checks SNL?

The forever controversial and comedic Saturday Night Live recently produced a skit with President Obama and his list of things he promised but had not yet accomplished. CNN and FOX news have gone back and forth on what was said on the show. The SNL claims that President Obama in his first 9 months of his presidency has "Accomplished Nothing," has sent a firestorm of tweets, blogs, and random comments flooding the Internet and media channels. The following was shown on the list: Close Guantanamo Bay (Not Done), Out of Iraq (Not Done), Make Improvements in War In Afghanistan (Worse), Health care Reform (Hell No), Global Warming (Not Done), Immigration reform, etc. CNN in addition to a couple of other partisan and non-partisan outlets actually decided to fact check SNL. That seems to be a first. Now, depending on what channel you watch SNL was either right or wrong, but the media giants have cast the illusion that SNL speaks for the masses. When special interest groups, politicians, and the media start using comedic performances as a policy reference or societal gauge, then I believe we have a greater issue. That SNL skit coverage was a blatant form of "intotainment" and "dramatization" by various mediums to cover a controversial situation without having to do the skit themselves. The ability to sensationalize a television show and give it credibility by fact checking it shows that the bureaucratic nature of the mass media is to piggy back on substantiated and/or unsubstantiated claims made by various outlets in hopes that it will result in a ratings increase.