Christian broadcasters are warned about legislative threats

Source: AP

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Christian broadcasters are being warned they could face prosecution if a proposed hate crimes measure is signed into law by the next president.

At the National Religious Broadcasters convention, NRB president Frank Wright said that under a measure that Senator John McCain helped defeat last year, it could become a hate crime to say that homosexual behavior is sinful or that non-Christian religions are false.

Wright also warned about efforts by some in Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which once required broadcasters to offer free air time for opposing viewpoints. He said that could force Christian stations to balance their Gospel broadcasts with anti-Christian views.

President Bush is to address the convention on Tuesday.



Read more: http://www.tampabays10.com/news/national/article.aspx?storyid=75759

I also hope those hypocrites are waking up at night, screaming in fear.

But then, I seem to be one of a shrinking number of people who still believes in the constitution.

Also, what I believe, or hear from the pulpit, is nobody's business.

They were prosecuted for hate speech. Of course, they are an extreme example, but on a larger level, isn't there a direct link between ideology and policy as far as mass media goes, since the media is a corporation that is in bed with the government?

I wish I could answer your question, but I've never heard of Radio Rwanda before.

W.W.J.T.

Who would Jesus threaten.

Try a little love - Christ would...

religion being threatened, same Republicans hated the message of peace and love. peace be with you all.

and you don't believe in 'hate crimes'? Or their punishment?

"You can not regulate sinfulness." You better. Explain.

Does it influence law? YES!!

Do you or don't you support religious sects bashing gays and other religions?

Do you or don't you support the punishment of 'hate crimes' against gays???

I just need to know what side of the fence you're on here.

Are the restrictions against sinning void?

one can not support what a bigot SAYS while fully supporting their right to say it.

this article says they fear that this law will criminalize speech that is currently legal in the US

we are about the last country on earth that does not criminalize hate SPEECH. france, england, canada, etc. do

we have more free speech. that means more free speech for bigots, too

bigots suck. bigots talking shite sucks

but i 100% support their right to say it, and would totally oppose any law (that would hopefully be judged unconstitutional) that attempted to criminalize OPINION.

directly threatening somebody is criminal.

however, stating your opinion, no matter how vile, is not

what is and isn't threats is a somewhat contentious issue (refer to case law on the nuremberg files case for instance - website that listed abortion dr's names, with dripping blood, and their personal info iirc was deemed free speech, even though the feds tried to go after it via RICO).

Broadcasters do, and they can be challenged, if they are thought to be harmful of public interest.

could be held responsible for their words.

but A} -- it wouldn't be likely.

and B} it would happen because it was some how proven they incited someone to violence -- which is of course against the law -- but with hate crimes you could then begin to make a connection.

but i repeat -- it isn't likely.

That is how the Southern Poverty Law Center got Metzger. He was judged to be just as responsible for the death of Seraw as the Portland skinheads. They took Metzger's money.

It would be great if they could do the same thing to some of the wealthy televangelists. If they incite violence against gays with their constant preaching of hatred, take their money.

in this country. .. there is just something so satanic about that designation.

Looking at the long history of Christianity, it doesn't much surprise me.

but shouldn't we be concerned that the government is trying to enact legislation that makes certain speech criminalized?

All hate crimes legislation requires and actual CRIME to be committed first. It is merely increasing the penalty associated with crimes that are also designed to intimidate due to hate of a group. I.e., you assault someone, and there is a punishment. You assault "non-christians" because you hate them, and the punishment is greater.

Simple and not at all limiting speech.

"As defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person or property motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, gender, sexual preference, or disability. The offense is considered a hate crime whether or not the offender's perception of the victim as a member or supporter of a protected group is correct."<21>

In the United States federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. As of October 2007, Congress is considering the Matthew Shepard Act (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007), legislation that would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#_note-12

"Debate over hate crime laws Penalty-enhancement hate crime laws are traditionally justified on the grounds that, in Chief Justice Rehnquist's words, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).



=====

Without any moral conflict over freedom of speech on this issue, true liberal progressives know which 'side' we are on.
Are you not with us?

-d

It seems that "stopping bigotry" is as effective an excuse for subverting the Constitution as "stopping terra" or "protecting the children." I don't doubt that this religious broadcasters' association would lie about the contents of this law, but unless someone is directly calling for a crime to be committed ("You must kill Elton John in the name of Jeezus, I know one of you out there in TV land has the courage to do it") there is no way you can constitutionally muzzle them. I have no taste for religion and loathe televangelists, but once you condone the government cracking down on them, you're 9/10ths of the way to a ban on "terrorist speech."

If so, then you must think Chief Justice Rehnquist is also a fascist!

You stated: "but unless someone is directly calling for a crime to be committed."

That's the problem, some of these hate-filled churches actually do!!

It only imposes stiffer penalties for crimes where hate is an aggravating factor. Rehnquist didn't say anything about banning speech. The quote in the OP article says that calling homosexuality a sin or saying non-Christian religions are false could be criminalized. IF (and that's a big if) that is true, the proposed law is unconstitutional in the extreme.

I haven't heard of many televangelists calling for violent crimes to be committed; their chief interest is in fleecing their flock and thus they don't want to say things that could lead to real liability. They do often say that being gay is a sin and that non-believers are going to hell, and while I despise those viewpoints I'll defend their right to express them.

I became overly attached to the phrase: "inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims."

Hate speech inflicts emotional harm.

You realize this is a touchy point with me. No, I am not gay, but my extended family is so religiously biased they do not believe that gay HIV patients should be helped. Knowing that their religious icons preach this hate makes my blood boil.

So now, you want to call me another name?

Is part of Rehnquist's rationale for imposing stiffer penalties on crimes where hate is an aggravating factor. There is no law on the books that criminalizes the act of inflicting emotional harm in and of itself, and Rehnquist makes no reference to such a law. Do you think there should be laws against inflicting emotional harm on people? Because that would open the door to a police state nightmare.

<--- proud former aclu-employee here, now returned to school.

Jeeeeeees! what else do you want?!
You're full of compassion yourself, aren't ya?!
:yoiks:

After all, if we don't actually act on it, then it's just speech, isn't it? Why is it okay for Americans to advocate the assassination of foreign leaders, but not their own?

If you don't think it's acceptable to advocate assassination or other violent acts, then obviously you believe that it's okay to have some restrictions on "free speech".

Absolutely.
Thank you for being one of the (few) voices of reason when it comes to free speech on DU.

It does not mean saying that the bible says homosexuality is a sin, which it does. You don't have to agree with it, and I don't.

nt

so I guess he knows for sure now. or not.

didn't hear anything about that?

it whether he got told by his preacher or not. I'm not comfortable with more restrictions on speech either, as you say, it's a very short signing statement away from declaring other speech as criminal.

..which is the definition of fascism?

Sorry... they are slimey scumballs, but I'm getting irked at the constant misuse of the word fascism to define everyone that is bad.

I know what you're referring to, but just to tidy up your point, you should state who 'they' are.

:evilgrin:

if they were required to pay taxes like any other scam artist.

They want equal time for their unprovable fantasy of ID!

What the hell type of religion is it that thinks hate crime legislation would cripple their freedom?

Do they advocate murdering gays, jews, and pagans from their pulpit?

Is this what freedom of religion has come to - the freedom to advocate criminal violence?

"Christian broadcasters are being warned they could face prosecution if a proposed hate crimes measure is signed into law":evilfrown:

That's too much!:rofl:

How Godly of them, who would Jesus hate?:rofl:

rather as if they're expecting the next prez not to be a religious zealot / republican. I love that. :)

Yep, these people think their hate is totally justified. Such hypocrites!

It will take more than another generation of time and legislation to stop this hate speech in some fundamentalist churches.

Mcain because he already shot it down.

Religion: The other politics of fear.
The hatred, predation and aversion to knowledge inherent in these knuckle dragging groups far outweigh any good they could possibly do.

get rid of the FIVE FREAKIN' GOD CHANNELS on my cable, pretty please????

. . .the NFL Channel and Ovation. I get two, the cable get back 5. Everybody's happy.

The Professor

...and I don't mean the Urban Dictionary slang for marijuana.

it's because they fear a "fair and balanced" response to the RW noise machine.

My understanding of the fairness doctrine is that it regulates political advertising and political speech (like o'reilly, Air America, insannity, michael weiner, stephanie miller) that goes on the air.

It doesn't regulate religious speech.
I can have a network that talks about the blessings of the Christian God, Allah, Yahweh, the Spaghetti Monster or the great Sweet Potato if I want.
I'm not required to give equal time to another religious point-of-view.

As far as I know that's always been how the 'Fairness Doctrine' worked.

We had religious programming years ago that never included other faiths.

programming like Bishop Sheen --- !!! -- didn't balance that out with providing airtime for
atheists ---

Fairness Doctrine stood for more than 60 years, I believe . . .


BUT one very interesting thing did happen with C-Span in regard to religion when they
presented Madalyn Murray O'Hair for about an hour --- two years in a row, if I recall correctly.
She was very impressive and I think garnered a lot of positive interest.
Not something you ever see on TV -- she was taboo.

At any rate, a few years later she was killed --- possibly for money --- and her son and granddaughter with her!

It could have been strictly money . . . but my feeling has always been that the "god" myth is, indeed, a very fragile one and can't stand much challenge.

per political speech/programming.

I don't think it means that there has to be a balance in everything - or imagine 1 hour "Car Talk" to be balanced by... "Junk that old car and buy New talk" (as in what would be the balance to Car Talk?) or 1 hour "Technology Today" balanced by ?? "Ludites Unite!" ??

This is just the first step (via using ignorance and fear) to try to ensure that the broadcasters will be willing and able to gin up the rhetoric to make sure that their listeners go to the polls and vote for McCain.

I think we have to ask ourselves; how many conservative radio or television talkshows are there compared to liberal talkshows? There's a reason for that and reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be a good first step. Fox news would absolutely hate to see the Fairness Doctrine come back in to play. (Isn't that reason enough?) :evilgrin:

He wants his Sky News channel to be a partisan propaganda outlet like Fox noise, but British law prevents that. Sky News is actually a fairly well-regarded news outlet, which drives Rupe nuts. He hates being associated with something respectable.

Also nobody's point of view was suppressed as a result of the Fairness Doctrine. Newscasts were supposed to clearly delimit what was news versus what was commentary, and commentary had to give opponents a chance for rebuttle.

This was very common on newscasts when I was growing up.

We had the fairness doctrine before, and oddly right wingers were still able to peddle their snake oil, and evangelical snake-handlers could have their broadcasts.

These people aren't worried about being excluded from the airwaves - they are concerned that their opponents might be included. In their vocabulary, having another point of view is the same as censorship

homosexuals, which --- let's not kid ourselves --- encourages loonies to go out and bash gays.

"President Bush is to address the convention on Tuesday."


Okay that explains it. Nevermind the first amendment. These people have never heard of the US Constitution.

But then they wouldn't have anything to rant and rave about...

That is what's wrong with that particular "version" of Christianity, Christians666.com...

They truly believe the only way to salvation is through hate and denial of earthly pleasure...

oh, save my soul! This is good, good, good!!!! yahooey!!!!

:kick:
:kick:
:kick:

...and they can go back to bashing on the ACLU.

Anyway, they are being warned by the NRB, not by any credible source. It is spin to distort the truth about what the measure would really do.

It would not stop anyone from saying that the bible says homosexuality is a sin. It would affect someone someone on the radio saying it is great that x 16 year old gets beaten to death for being gay, and people should do that more often. That's the difference.

this seems obviously like a republican attempt at creating a wedge issue. i doubt the law does what he claims.

there is no way such a law would ever pass congress.

clearly, any speech that incites violence needs to be regulated, but merely saying that something is sinful does not necessarily incite violence, as odious as it is.

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

You can't advocate the assassination of political leaders.

You can't advocate murder, rape, or violence against other people.

You can't commit libel or slander.

The First Amendment is not absolute.

Hate speech is WRONG, and leads to violence. Preaching that homosexuality is a sin has led to thousands of years of bigotry against gays. Promoting racial hatred has led to some of the most horrific hate crimes in history.

It's about fucking time we started reigning this crap in.

n/t

they DO preach hate daily. with impunity. and it needs to stop.

:grr:

I care when they start advocating for legislative changes in law.

They're free to hate "teh gay" all they want, they just don't get to force it on others through LAWS and RESTRICTIONS on PERSONAL freedoms.

The Religious Reich have been putting out similar scare tactics for years. Snopes has a whole bunch of them, all debunked. Oh, and teh Fairness Doctrine didn't work that way last time either.

stations. Opposing viewpoints had to do with political and editorial speech on news and public affairs programs.

"Oooooh...don't back a Democrat! They'll pass all that librul legislation and then You'll be guilty of hate crimes and have to put pagans and Muslims on your stations right after The 700 Club!"