VETO SB 1234

 

The California Legislature, feigning concern to protect people, are actually wolves masquerading as sheep! They have now passed SB 1234, which will criminalize speech against homosexuality. Such speech will be classified as a "hate crime."

 

This means if your pastor is reading any of the passages in the Bible regarding homosexuality, he could be prosecuted. Let's flood the governor with calls asking him to veto SB 1234!

 

Sacramento office: 916 445 2841 (Dial "0" when you hear the message, and you will be connected to the staff in order to give your opinion.)

 

Los Angeles office: 213 897 0322

 

San Francisco office: 415 703 2218

 

San Diego office: 619 525 4641

 

Fresno office: 559 445 5295

 

Riverside office: 909 680 6860

 

You may also e-mail the governor at: governor@governor.ca.gov or visit Email the Governor

 

Fax: 916 445 4633

 

Sample letter:

 

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

 

The fate of the First Amendment in California rests on your shoulders. SB 1234, the expansion of "hate crimes" laws in our state, includes language that criminalizes speech rather than actions. If this bill becomes law, judicial interpretation could threaten the freedom of speech and religion in California.

 

I ask you to veto SB 1234.

hate speech is protected by the first amendment. the supreme court has upheld it. it is your freedom to hate or not hate anyone you choose.

So the one time the ACLU should protest they are nowhere to be found...irony lol

That's pretty darn gay...

 

Oops...

i guess eminem and beenie man records will be outlawed out there.

I guess Arnold is going to be prosecuted the next time he calls democrats GIRLIE MEN :lol .

I guess Arnold is going to be prosecuted the next time he calls democrats GIRLIE MEN :lol .

556795[/snapback]

:lol

This is unacceptable. I don't care how hateful or not hateful it can be, there is freedom of speech in this country.

VETO SB 1234

 

The California Legislature, feigning concern to protect people, are actually wolves masquerading as sheep! They have now passed SB 1234, which will criminalize speech against homosexuality. Such speech will be classified as a "hate crime."

 

This means if your pastor is reading any of the passages in the Bible regarding homosexuality, he could be prosecuted. Let's flood the governor with calls asking him to veto SB 1234!

 

Sacramento office: 916 445 2841 (Dial "0" when you hear the message, and you will be connected to the staff in order to give your opinion.)

 

Los Angeles office: 213 897 0322

 

San Francisco office: 415 703 2218

 

San Diego office: 619 525 4641

 

Fresno office: 559 445 5295

 

Riverside office: 909 680 6860

 

You may also e-mail the governor at: governor@governor.ca.gov or visit Email the Governor

 

Fax: 916 445 4633

 

Sample letter:

 

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

 

The fate of the First Amendment in California rests on your shoulders. SB 1234, the expansion of "hate crimes" laws in our state, includes language that criminalizes speech rather than actions. If this bill becomes law, judicial interpretation could threaten the freedom of speech and religion in California.

 

I ask you to veto SB 1234.

556083[/snapback]

 

Do you even have a source for this?

(j) Speech alone is not sufficient to support an action brought

pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), except upon a showing that the

speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group

of persons; and the person or group of persons against whom the

threat is directed reasonably fears that, because of the speech,

violence will be committed against them or their property and that

the person threatening violence had the apparent ability to carry out

the threat.

 

Well without reading all 22 pages....

 

First of all, reading a bible verse is not going to qualify here. If it's a Klan speech preaching to it's members about how they should burn blacks & jews, that"s another matter.

 

And secondly, there are already ways in which speech alone can get you into trouble; libel, slander, defamation, etc... so let's not pretend we have absolute freedom of speech.

My problem, and undoubtedly that of most complaining is the wording:

 

"...persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably fears..."

 

Who is to define what "reasonably" means?? That's a pretty subjective term.

Who defines what a "threat" is?? This too can be a very subjective term.

 

If you took two "victims" and measured their perception of "threat" and "reasonably" you are undoubtedly going to get two different responses.

 

If you have a "crime" that depends on response of the "victim" rather than the actions of the perp to be a "crime", that's pretty damn random IMO.? I'm sure some sharp constitutional lawyers could raise some pretty compelling equal protection arguments here.

 

Its really a superfluous bill - if something is definitive enough that a genuine threat exists, you've already technically generated an "assault" - a felony grade crime in most places (although its almost always bargained down to some sort of public nuisance or disordetly conduct type misdemenor charge if no battery ensues)

557609[/snapback]

 

Youve misinterpreted basic legal standard. The perception here must be objectivley reasonable. The plaintiff would have to show evidence of his reasonable fears. If someone said, Im gonna shake you down, one might be scared shitless. But if the perception of fear is not reasonable, the court or jury wont accept it. But if someone said, Im gonna blow your head off, showed the person a shotgun, and the person had a history of violence, that would be much more reasonable. Who decides this? Rational people. Its not as farfetched as you make it out to be. In fact its used in every facet of the law and used without much controversy. Im sure the people on this board could come to a close spectrum of agreement without your use of hyperbole.

 

 

And Id like to know what equal protection issues you see as being implicated. Can you be more detailed on that?

Supreme Court will crush this like a little bug if it ever reaches it. I give it two years.

 

And honestly, if there is going to be a law making anti-homosexual remarks a hate crime, why not make remarks towards any group (be it minority or majority) a hate crime as well?