An article on the News and Record website goes after Rep. Virginia Foxx for what is perceived to be a violation of certain unwritten speech codes. According to the tenets of contemporary liberalism, violations in the particular subject area Foxx discussed are impermissible. So the offender must be pounced upon by the news media.
Some of us recall that, during the fall campaign, Kay Hagan did not merit coverage over her household's membership in a segregated country club years ago. That certainly did not merit prominent press attention, according to the standard of objectivity maintained at the local paper. Hagan's recent actions firing two African-American staffers did not garner much coverage, either.
Now, it is difficult to recall Rep. Foxx having received prominent print recognition for good things she has done, despite years of service. It is difficult to recall significant coverage examining the totality of her record.
Instead, we see the enforcement of speech codes. It is little wonder less people pay attention to newspapers nowadays.
Update: Doug Clark of the editorial department says Foxx was right on the substance of the matter-- that Shepard was not killed because he was gay-- but says she used a poor choice of words. Hardly justifies what the news section is trying to do to her.
The Matthew Shepard case is LIBERAL LEGEND and you can't go against liberal legend no matter how truthful you are.
Facts no longer matter, only feelings.
Truth is not important, only perception.
In today's political climate a Dem telling a lie is more believable than a Republican telling the truth. Or so the lib media would have us think, anyway.
God help us all, we've elected a group of 5th graders to run our country.
Posted by: jaycee | April 30, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Foxx trivialized a hate crime. This shouldn't be a liberal vs. conservative debate. Americans no longer tolerate attacks based on race... why should they accept crime targeting the gay community.
Posted by: jo | April 30, 2009 at 08:16 AM
Joe: I believe Foxx's comment was pretty off base. That being said, I agree with you about the rush to push her mistake to the front page.
Recently we were told by staffers from Sen. Burr's office that he has been crisscrossing the state to small towns and community events and sending out press releases on each one.
The staffer said they could not get one drop of ink to publicize his actions. Yet when he made a reflective comment about the financial crisis the media pushed that potential negative so fast that it was on every website in the country.
Foxx has admitted she misspoke and should likely apologize to Shepard's mother.
However, conservatives need to smarten up and carry themselves with more wisdom and dignity.
The structure exists for conservative activists to bypass the media pipeline and get information to the public.
Conservative, and especially Republican, leaders need to realize the atmosphere and not make it easy for the established media to dominate the signal:noise ratio with extreme negativity.
Posted by: Jeffrey Sykes | April 30, 2009 at 08:27 AM
Jaycee, the Matthew Shepherd killing became a rallying point for those advocating the gay political agenda. He was treated as a sacrificial lamb in service of a higher cause.
The N&R predictably has the story above the fold today on the front page. But this is a story that is utterly unimportant. The N&R has advocated the gay political agenda in its news pages and lifestyle pages for more than a decade; and this story is part of a pattern with respect to its own reporting, but also part of the pattern we see in the larger MSM.
Jo,the killing of Matthew Shepherd was a serious crime regardless of whether it was because he was gay. It deserved severe punishment regardless of whether it was because he was gay. I have not seen anyone tolerate this attack.
Some of us have a real problem with the entire concept of "hate crimes".
Posted by: Joe Guarino | April 30, 2009 at 08:34 AM
Jeff, I do not disagree with the overall thrust of your comments. I think, however, that the paper has predictably overblown the story because of the topic-- and because of the fact that Foxx is a conservative Republican. And I think that Foxx's comment was not nearly as egregious as the coverage would seem to suggest.
Sometimes, I think when the liberal media plays these autocratic games with speech codes, they need to be called on it. They are the agents of intolerance when they behave in this manner. They are the ones who are trying to chill free speech.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | April 30, 2009 at 08:54 AM
You sure do write about gays a lot.
Posted by: Roch101 | April 30, 2009 at 09:05 AM
"Some of us have a real problem with the entire concept of 'hate crimes'".
Labeling a crime as a "hate crime" is just a way to bang the drum and yell and scream louder for the particular worldview agenda theme that the "hate crime" theme revolves around.
Imagine how ridiculous it would be for us to call the recent attempts to deny free speech rights to conservative speakers at UNC a "hate crime" becuase the victims were singled out for their views.
It's clear that certain victims deserve "special consideration" from society that other victims do not. The determination on which group gets the "special consideration" is always determined by the amount of political advantage and manipulation the forces of the Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" set can muster to advance their sacred quest for power and control.
These actions are always taken without regard to the costs and damage inflicted on our country and our people.
Posted by: Bubba | April 30, 2009 at 09:14 AM
jo's comment shows us the problem with hate crime legislation. Simply, it takes away one's right to freedom of speech. Virginia Foxx did not speak hatefully about Matthew Shepard because he was gay. She expressed her opinion that his murder was not because of his sexual orientation, and that opinion was not baseless. So, if someone makes such a statement of opinion then we are to criminalize it? Are we to criminalize freedom of speech?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Hate crime legislation abridges freedom of speech, and Congress is prohibited from doing it by the First Amendment.
Speaking of Congress and hate crime legislation:
Jan LaRue
If House Democrats have their way, pedophiles will be included in the Hate Crime bill, but not veterans and pregnant women. Catholic League president Bill Donohue explains:
"The House of Representatives will vote this week, possibly tomorrow, on a hate crimes bill championed by gay groups that includes pedophiles under the rubric of sexual orientation. This is the ultimate confession: liberal Democrats think of pedophiles as indistinguishable from homosexuals."
Check out this link for the categories that were included and excluded from pending hate crime legislation:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp111&sid=cp111GKkxU&refer=&r_n=hr086.111&item=&sel=TOC_63847&
Posted by: Stormy | April 30, 2009 at 09:17 AM
Well, we can now predict that Doug Clark will also be ostracized for daring to expose the truth about a Liberal Legend with his cite of the facts surrounding this case, facts which support Rep. Foxx's statement.
Does it matter that Foxx spoke the truth? Not to the Dems/libs/mainstream media. They foisted a lie upon us and repeated it so many times that it's now believed to be fact and they'll defend their lies to the death. But, hey...it's what they do, isn't it?
Posted by: jaycee | April 30, 2009 at 09:42 AM
Bubba, Virginia Foxx, according to my understanding, has taken a fairly up-front leadership position with House Republicans debating bills on the floor of the House. That is, to some extent, a partisan exercise. I saw on YouTube a couple of months ago some eloquent comments she made advocating the pro-life cause.
And her comments, of course, were on the hate crime legislation just passed by the House. She was absolutely right to oppose this legislation. We have seen hate crimes laws used to chill free speech, for instance at churches, in various jurisdictions. And there is no substantive reason to have them. As Doug Clark indicated, Shepherd's killer was successfully prosecuted without a hate crimes law in place.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | April 30, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Jaycee, unfortunately, yes, in answer to your question, that IS what they do.
And thanks, Stormy, for providing that additional information.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | April 30, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Rep. Foxx certainly could've chosen her words more wisely. The word "hoax" came off as insensitive to this awful crime, which I'm sure was not her intent. In fact, she's already apologized for that.
But Joe, you are 100% correct about the News & Record. I can't remember the last time they wrote anything about Virginia Foxx.
Now, she makes one small verbal misstep, and she's all over the N&R. This non-issue becomes a major controversy. It's a total hatchet job, and you know it wouldn't happen if one of their darlings like Kay Hagan was involved instead of a Republican.
Posted by: just saying | April 30, 2009 at 10:15 AM
And I'm against so-called "hate crime" legislation. However, I am in favor of vigorous enforcement of existing criminal law, which is more than sufficient.
What happened to Matthew Shepard was a tragedy, regardless of the reason. But does it really make it worse if he was killed because he was gay than if he was killed for his wallet? Either way, it's awful.
On the other hand, don't "hate crime" laws tell the victims of "regular" crimes that they aren't as important? I think they do.
Posted by: just saying | April 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Thanks for the link, Joe. My main purpose in posting was to point readers to a well-researched 2004 report by ABC News ... which apparently had very little effect in changing the accepted narrative that Matthew Shepard was murdered because he's guy. Whatever anyone thinks about hate-crimes legislation, the ABC report tells me it would have been very difficult to convict Shepard's killers of a "hate crime." More facts point to the conclusion that two drugged-up losers killed him for his money, not because of his sexual orientation.
I certainly don't consider our news story to have been an attack on Rep. Foxx. It reports what she said and some reactions to it. In the long run, it may help shed light on the Shepard case.
Posted by: Doug Clark | April 30, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Sptieful second-graders is more like it, Jaycee.
Murder is murder. Hate is part of the equation.
Why does anyone spend money on that rag anymore?
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | April 30, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Doug is to be commended for his post on this matter, adding clarity. However, I disagree with his contention that the report was just that without an agenda. The report was cleverly worded, but it appeared to paint Foxx as a hateful conservative kook, as well as the residents of her district.
"Foxx’s district is rated one of the nation’s more conservative."
“She’s not going to have any blow-back there,” Comer said. “More than likely, there will be a lot of people who agree with her.” Most of the outrage over her remarks, Comer said, would be limited to the gay community."
Why is it necessary to mention that she and most of her district is conservative? Maybe to establish and reinforce that conservatives are basically hateful people? So, conservatives are well-known haters and bigots?
Posted by: Stormy | April 30, 2009 at 11:28 AM
The two men convicted of the Shepard murder are serving life sentences with no chance of parole and deservedly so. Jo, how exactly does that constitute acceptance of crime targeting the gay community? And while we are discussing "tolerance" it should be noted that Representative Foxx has been received multiple death threats and hate messages in the last 24 hours. I can guarantee you that there will be outcry from the press regarding this outburst of hatred and intolerance from the gay community, rather one can expect that they will enthusiastically fan the flames while sanctimoniously claiming the moral high ground. What a joke.
Posted by: Cal Harling | April 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM
" Simply, it takes away one's right to freedom of speech." -- Stormy
Huh? What are you talking about. It seems quite the contrary, that Foxx was perfectly free to say what she wanted. Furthermore, the bill in question contains a provision that specifically says it shall not be construed in a manner that intrudes on the First Amendment right of free speech.
Posted by: Roch101 | April 30, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Just saying, the rationale behind distinguishing hate as a motive for a crime (as opposed to, say, money) is the notion, agree or disagree, that a violent act perpetrated on an individual because of some characteristic extends beyond the immediate victim -- that it intimidates and terrorizes others who share those characteristics.
Posted by: Roch101 | April 30, 2009 at 11:51 AM
"....that a violent act perpetrated on an individual because of some characteristic extends beyond the immediate victim -- that it intimidates and terrorizes others who share those characteristics. "
Why are "hate crime" victims all members of a favored Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" affinity group, and are favored over other, less politically advantageous victims?
Why is it that "hate crime" publicity is always manipulated and exploited for further political, social, and economic control over society?
Why does a sizable portion of the Tank Media and Dilettante Lefty Pundit Corps become hysterical with outrage over imagined "hate crimes"?
Think of the N&R with it's out of control Wray coverage, the Jack Perdue crucifixion, and the out of control coverage of the non-existent "hate crime" fight at Guilford college several years ago.
Posted by: Bubba | April 30, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Just Waying, thanks for the comments.
Doug, thanks for the post you made over at your site (and also here). I think the question is one of news judgment. Was this truly a legitimate news story? Was it appropriate for it to receive such prominent placement-- both on the website, and in the paper? My opinion is that the answer to both those questions is "no"; and that the news judgment was primarily agenda-driven, or applied with a preconceived worldview.
Cal, thanks for your comments. If Congresswoman Foxx is receiving threats, that is an alarming development; and I hope law enforcement is getting involved.
Roch, I don't think the rationale you have verbalized regarding hate crime legislation justifies it. There is no reason to give selectively anointed groups unequal protection of the law.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | April 30, 2009 at 02:09 PM
"Selectively anointed." Nice. That kind of rhetoric might have some traction with the 21% bubbas, but it's meaningless beyond the ever shrinking echo chamber.
One might, for example, consider acknowledging when, where and why we already create different classes of crimes based on characteristics of the victim or the motives of the perpetrator and how this new legislation fits or does not fit with those traditions -- that would be a superior approach to fact-denying demagoguery.
Posted by: Roch101 | April 30, 2009 at 02:42 PM
"One might, for example, consider acknowledging when, where and why we already create different classes of crimes based on characteristics of the victim or the motives of the perpetrator and how this new legislation fits or does not fit with those traditions...."
One might-- if he/she/it had an a worldview agenda item to promote.
"....that would be a superior approach to fact-denying demagoguery."
Demogoguery! Regarding those who see through the smoke and mirrors of "hate crimes"!
Too funny!
Nothing more needs to be said, Roch. You win the prize for the most insipid piece of looney toon-ness yet on this subject.
Posted by: Bubba | April 30, 2009 at 03:21 PM
Roch, I don't think the existence of the classes of crime to which you refer obligate us or bind us to favor hate crimes legislation. I hope the Senate rejects it, but the Democrats can pass much of what it wants these days.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | April 30, 2009 at 03:31 PM
If these kids killed Matthew because he was gay, what should their punishment have been instead...? Should their punishment be tougher or more lenient based on whether they killed him because he was gay, or they killed him for cash...? That's what I don't get.
James Byrd is the best example of how ridiculous this type of legislation is - two of his murderes were EXECUTED, while the third was given life. How exactly should they have been prosecuted, since they were racists...? How do you hand down a worse punishment for a crime?
This area of discussion has been all about one thing, and that's creating a further "victimization" in our society. It's not about the crime itself, it's all about "WHY" they did it - like, why does the Taliban hate Americans. I'll be honest, I don't care why the Taliban hates Americans and I don't care that the three that killed James Byrd killed him because he was black....they ought to suffer the same punishment regardless of motive.
Posted by: Everest | April 30, 2009 at 04:02 PM
Latest FBI UCR stats on hate crimes:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm
"In 2007, 2,025 law enforcement agencies reported 7,624 hate crime incidents involving 9,006 offenses."
" Crimes against persons
Law enforcement reported 5,408 hate crime offenses as crimes against persons. By offense type:
47.4 percent were intimidation.
31.1 percent were simple assault.
20.6 percent were aggravated assault.
0.2 percent consisted of 9 murders and 2 forcible rapes."
WTF is intimidation? A mean stare ?
And finally..
"Sexual-orientation bias
In 2007, law enforcement agencies reported 1,460 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. Of these offenses:
59.2 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
24.8 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
12.6 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
1.8 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
1.6 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias"
Also in 2007 there were almost 17,000 murders reported.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
Posted by: Fred Gregory | April 30, 2009 at 04:49 PM
Twice now, in as many day, I find myself concurring with Everest -- I chalk it up to the strength of a reasoned argument versus... well, it's frequent substitutes.
I raised that very point, Everest, over at Ed Cone's blog asking how the punishment for the murderers of Matt Shepard would have been different under this new legislation. As far as I can tell, it wouldn't have been different at all. The killers got two life sentences each in Wyoming (although the prosecutor wanted death). The maximum punishment under the federal legislation would have been life.
This kind of argument on the facts is the way to reach beyond the echo chamber. Slogans and statements of opinion are just noise.
Posted by: Roch101 | April 30, 2009 at 05:18 PM
"WTF is intimidation?"
Really?
Do you honestly think, Fred, that the law should make no distinction between me burning a bag of poop on your front steps and burning a cross in your front yard?
Posted by: Roch101 | April 30, 2009 at 05:21 PM
I believe it was a hate crime. Supposedly Mr. Shepard made a pass on one of the killers inside the bar. They robbed and killed him. Why would they hang on a fence if this wasn't hate? Also, I believe they should be executed instead of life in prison.
Virginia Foxx is either stupid or insensitive. She gave the liberals the ammo to bring on this media outrage.
As Republicans, we either need to wake up and get an agenda. Obamba didn't win the election. We GAVE it to him.
Posted by: wayne | April 30, 2009 at 05:26 PM
Joe,
A little housekeeping. Lost in the shuffle, I missed an opportunity to repeat my concurrence with your evaluation of the N&R's bias in how they handled the Hagan's membership to a segregated club. In my opinion, that and the Foxx story are both front-page worthy -- that one was and the other buried is biased.
I'm still not clear on why you oppose this legislation though.
Posted by: Roch101 | April 30, 2009 at 05:58 PM
Everest, I agree with you. Part of the allure of victims crimes legislation is the victimization, which is an end unto itself in some circles.
Fred, those are impressive statistics. Of course, each incident would have to be analyzed to see whether it was properly described as a "hate crime". But it seems many of these are already prosecutable, except perhaps the nebulous category of "intimidation", whatever that means.
Roch, it is conceivable that hate crimes legislation could result in stiffer sentences for some assailants. The question is whether this is truly justified. Many of us think it is not for various reasons. It gives the victim of a "hate crime" greater protection than other victims of comparable crimes with insufficicient justification. The discernment of the intent of "hate" is oft fraught with difficulty and lack of clarity, as we have seen in the Shepard case. The mere idea of creating protected categories based on race, sexual preference, ethnicity or religion seems unwise to many of us when the crime is already prosecutable under other statutes-- which it nearly always is, in all likelihood. And as Bubba points out above, this is in part the granting of political favors to certain groups.
I agree with you about the non-reporting of Hagan's country club situation-- because this type of story had been reported a fair number of times by the media in the past. And even though there has apparently been an NAACP inquiry into her recent firing of two black staffers, it has not been prominently reported in the N&R as far as I know. Contrast that with the way David Wray was handled.
Wayne, people have done cruel, inhumane things to other people probably since the beginning of time. We cannot presume that the motive was "hate" just because of the nature of the crime against Shepard. It appears from ABC's reporting that the claim is questionable.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | April 30, 2009 at 09:02 PM
Joe,
I agree and disagree.
I too question the wisdom of giving the victims of hate crimes greater protection. If I get beat up, I want justice as much as the guy who gets beat up for a different reason. No doubt about that.
The argument that I've seen that makes some sense to me though is that the greater protection is not for the victim, but for those like him whom the hate is intended to intimidate -- that, if someone decides to kick the shit out of a Mormon because he hates Mormons, he is not just committing a crime against the individual he assaults, but is attempting to send a message of intimidation to all Mormons.
Were I disagree is on a matter of fact that you have wrong. The hate crime bill does not, as you perceive it, create "protected categories based on race, sexual preference, ethnicity or religion." It simply says that a crime motivated by one of those characteristics is a hate crime. Since we all have a race, sexual preference, ethnicity, gender and religion, the law applies equally to all of us. It no more creates a special category for homosexuals than it does for heterosexuals, but it does make it equally possible to prosecute a hate crime committed against someone because they are gay as it does to prosecute a hate crime committed against someone because they are straight.
Posted by: Roch101 | May 01, 2009 at 08:27 AM
Roch, with respect to your last paragraph, you are probably correct from a technical standpoint that "hate crimes" against all categories are covered. But we all know how the law will be enforced-- and that will have the effect of creating certain protected groups.
With respect to protection being afforded to the entire group intimidated, that concern is already covered by existing law. When the law is enforced maximally and criminals are maximally prosecuted, the larger group is afforded protection, regardless of whether we have a hate crime law. In fact, that is one of the main purposes of the criminal justice system.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | May 01, 2009 at 09:17 AM
In a republic with common law traditions crimes are not committed against individuals, per se, but against the peace and dignity of the State. That's why a criminal case is titled "State of NC vs. John Doe" or "United States vs. John Doe" and so forth.
To begin relegating individuals into small, selective subgroups for the purposes of legal prosecution or protection is a slippery slope, in my opinion. What's next in a liberal administration such as the one under which we currently suffer? Special left-wing blogger protection? Special pedophile protection? Special abortionist protection?
Justice wears a blindfold, and well it should. At one time in this country we DID tailor laws to protect/prosecute special groups...those were called Jim Crow laws and targeted minorities. I believe what we're seeing today is a reverse Jim Crow law movement...one meant to target the majority in deference to the minority. I believe that goes against the grain of the principles of democracy. I also believe this could open the door to abusive legislation regarding social issues, wages, gerrymandering, family rights, and the regulation of personal activities based on an arbitrary "designation" or label placed on a person by the currently liberal Obama administration.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of Obama's minions secretly wanted whites "punished" by a 3/5's law which would make minorities "more equal."
Posted by: jaycee | May 01, 2009 at 10:34 AM
"But we all know how the law will be enforced..." -- Joe
This, again, is one of those statements that will resonate with your kindred 21%, but it is useless as persuasion. The wink and a nod fear mongering has no influence beyond the echo chamber.
Your second point is more reasonable.
Posted by: Roch101 | May 01, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Off topic, but:
No doubt in my mind they brutalized the young man because he was gay. But, saying they killed a man because he made sexual advances towards him and he killed him in a fit of rage=life sentence. Killing a man during the commission of an armed robbery=death sentence. It would've been in their best interest to plead "rage" rather than robbery, if that is what really happened. Right?
Posted by: brandonB | May 01, 2009 at 11:19 AM
brandonB said:
"No doubt in my mind they brutalized the young man because he was gay."
What led you to that conclusion? What source did you use to gather information to form your opinion? Have you done any in-depth research into this or have you relied on the mainstream media for your information? Not jumping on you, but I'm always curious as to the reason people believe what they believe about hot-button issues.
Personally, I believe the ABC interview was probably closer to the truth than the defense put forth in the courtroom in an attempt to get most favorable treatment at trial. As has been pointed out, the defendants now have no real reason to lie, they've been convicted and aren't in court trying to escape with their lives by swaying jurors to a particular conclusion.
In my opinion, the defendants would have used any defense agreed upon by them and their attorney which gave them the best chance of favorable treatment. Defense attorneys are paid to get the best outcome for their clients, and some are very imaginative. There is no legal requirement that a defense be truthful, believable, or within the realm of possibility. Remember the Dan White case where it was argued that Twinkies led to his depression which led to his killing SanFran Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.
Posted by: jaycee | May 01, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Roch, I noticed you did not address whether my first point is true (which it likely is).
Brandon, I suppose that would depend on how the law is written in the individual state.
Jaycee, I agree with the first part of your comments. I certainly hope the latter part does not come to fruition.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | May 01, 2009 at 11:37 AM
"What led you to that conclusion?"
Uh, their courtroom testimony?
Posted by: Roch101 | May 01, 2009 at 11:51 AM
"Roch, I noticed you did not address whether my first point is true (which it likely is)."
Your first point was that "we all know how the law will be enforced." Since we do not all know how the law will be enforced, I will have to say that your first point is false.
Posted by: Roch101 | May 01, 2009 at 11:54 AM
It will be enforced primarily to "protect" members of the high-profile victim groups with which we have become quite familiar.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | May 01, 2009 at 12:21 PM
If you say so, Joe. I cannot really attest to the veracity of this particular prognostication in advance, all I can do is note that you have been pretty out of touch on a lot of other things.
Posted by: Roch101 | May 01, 2009 at 01:32 PM
What do you think, Fred? Poop? Cross? Same thing? Still befuddled by the meaning of intimidation?
Posted by: Roch101 | May 01, 2009 at 01:42 PM
What leads me to believe they killed him because he was gay is the brutality of it all. Sure it COULD be a coincidence but I don't think so. Roch points out their courtroom testimony as well. My point was that it was in their best interest to say they killed him because he was gay and the guy was previously traumatized by a gay sexual experience and killed him in a fit of rage. Had he said, "I killed this man while I was robbing him" he would've been put to death.
Posted by: brandonB | May 01, 2009 at 03:18 PM
I wonder what would happen in this scenario: I meet a woman at a bar, we hook up, head back to my place, begin to make love and I realize "hey, this isn't a woman"? And then I maybe yell some inappropriate slurs, maybe break a nose or black an eye? This scenario isn't all that far fetched because I've encountered a few men who weren't crossdressers, but actually lived as and looked like women.
I beat the man because he fooled me by dressing as a woman, so I assume it would qualify as a hate crime, right?
How about when two gay lovers, one masculine and one feminine assault each other and one calls the other a bad name and then their gay neighbor is offended?
What about when two black guys fight and one calls the other THAT word?
There is just to much BS that makes enforcing and interpreting this law a hassle. How about this, I propose that when a person is assaulted or intimidated, whether they are a man or woman or child, that the judge take into account the intensity and nature of the crime, the relationship between the parties, and the circumstances surrounding the event, and apply the law the same across the board. I know it sounds crazy but it's pretty darn simple and I think it deserves a shot, at least.
Posted by: brandonB | May 01, 2009 at 03:29 PM
One thing we can all agree on is that Foxx is Fugly!
Posted by: Osama | May 01, 2009 at 03:45 PM
Thanks for your response, brandonB. I was actually looking for a deeper explanation, such as the source from which you know about the brutality, the courtroom testimony, etc.
What I'm getting at here is that probably not one of us know anything about this from personal knowledge, we mostly get our information from the news media about events in which we're not personally involved or don't personally witness.
We wind up arguing about what the news media has led us to believe rather than the actual facts of an event. If the news characterization is something with which we agree, then we argue the news was correct. If not, we argue that it's flawed.
Posted by: jaycee | May 01, 2009 at 04:08 PM
Jaycee, you make a good point. "It was in the news" is not an indisputable argument. However, it is possible for us to discern truth. Some things are empirical, the sun was above the horizon before the accident or it wasn't. Some things take a little more effort, filtering, probing, questioning.. thinking -- like getting to the truth surrounding the Wray affair.
Posted by: Roch101 | May 01, 2009 at 04:26 PM
Agreed, Roch. (Ya just don't hear that very often, do ya?)
I wonder (and again I'm not bashing brandonB) whether he has any frame of reference for the reported characterization of brutality in the Shepard murder as compared to the level of brutality in other murders. Most of us only know what we read or hear about things such as this and draw conclusions based on the characterization rather than the actuality of the event.
What he (or us, for that matter) know about the court testimony is only what's been reported in the news, unless we have access to the recorded testimony and have read it. Is every news report factual and free from bias or interpretation? Don't bet your life on it. That's one reason jurors are cautioned not to read news account of trials on which they're sitting and take their evidence only from what's presented on the witness stand.
We need only refer to the characterization of Chief Wray's comments by Lorraine Ahearn versus the verbatim recollection of Chief Wray himself to see the distortion possible when we rely on others to inform us of events.
Posted by: jaycee | May 01, 2009 at 05:35 PM
"I was actually looking for a deeper explanation, such as the source from which you know about the brutality"
--The brutality is that they didnt take him out with a bullet to the head or heart. The coroner testified that he was beat to near death and died later. Although, I wasn't in the autopsy room or the courtroom so I can't know for sure, right? Hell, I don't even know if I'm awake and typing, or if this is all a dream. Maybe I'm a part of Joe Guarino's dream, and I don't even exist, right?
Posted by: brandonB | May 01, 2009 at 08:36 PM