The first article is here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/house-passes-hate-crimes-bill/
The second article is here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/social-conservatives-blast-hate-crime-saying-limit-free-speech/
FIRST ARTICLE - CNN Political Ticker
April 29, 2009
House passes hate crimes bill
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday expanding federal protection against hate crimes to disability, gender, and
sexual orientation.
The bill, which was approved by a margin of 249-175, passed in a sharply-divided partisan vote. An overwhelming majority of Democrats supported the measure, while most Republicans were opposed.
The proposal, which now moves to the Senate for further consideration, is one of the most sensitive civil rights issues to come before the Congress in years. Currently, federal law covers only a person's race, religion, or national origin.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would also expand federal protection against hate crimes to acts committed under any circumstance, as opposed to acts committed only when an individual is engaged in certain federally-designated activities, such as voting.
Known as the Matthew Shepard Act, the measure would allow the attorney general to issue grants to cities and states for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.
Shepard was a gay student at the University of Wyoming who died in 1998 after being attacked because of his sexual orientation.
The bill has received support from a range of civil rights and law enforcement groups, who argue that is a necessary addition to civil rights protections first issued over forty years ago.
"Hate crimes tear the fabric of our society … because they target an entire community or group of people, not just the individual victim, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Florida, said during the debate on the House floor.
"The fact of the matter is hate crimes happen every day, and we should not wait for another Matthew Shepard to ensure justice."
Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, argued in a written statement that the legislation is necessary "because hate crimes are such a unique offense. They are an attack not just on individuals but an attempt to terrorize and demoralize entire communities."
Some conservative opponents of the bill, however, argued that the bill violated traditional American conceptions of equal justice by establishing specially protected groups of citizens.
"Regardless of whether a person is white, black, handicapped, healthy, old, sick, young, homosexual, heterosexual, a veteran, a police officer, (or) a senior… Whatever the case is, they deserve equal protection under the law," Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona, said.
"That is the foundational premise of this nation and this legislation moves us all directly away from that. … Whenever we begin to divide ourselves into groups and afford one group more protection than another, we necessarily diminish the protection and equality of all the remaining groups."
Other opponents warned that the legislation would undermine freedom of thought and expression.
"If this bill becomes law, it will have a chilling effect on many law-abiding Americans' freedom of expression," Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, said.
It "will start us down the road towards a public square that is less robust, more restrictive, and that will squelch our cherished constitutional right to free speech. … We should not live and legislate in fear of bankrupt ideas."
Besides, Foxx asked, is "there such a thing as non-hateful violent crime?"
Supporters of the bill replied by claiming that there is, in fact, a distinction.
"Hate crimes are different from other types of crimes because the perpetrator targets a certain type of person based upon physical or other personal attributes," Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Florida said.
These "crimes are a purposeful, violent, and dangerous manifestation of prejudice. … (They are) not only a problem for victims, but also for our communities and neighborhoods."
SECOND ARTICLE - FOX News
April 30, 2009
Social Conservatives Blast Hate-Crime Bill, Saying It Will Limit Free Speech
Social conservatives say their right to free speech will be jeopardized if hate crimes legislation now headed to the Senate becomes law.
A Senate hate crimes bill that would extend federal protection to gay and transgender victims is rousing the ire of social conservatives who say their right to free speech will be jeopardized if it becomes law.
"In and of itself this law can be applied to speech. The nature of assault -- putting someone in fear of their safety -- what will that mean for someone preaching against homosexuality?" said Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Council, a law firm that works on religious freedom cases.
"It elevates homosexuality to the same protective category as race. It's all part of the radical homosexual anarchist agenda," Staver said.
For much of the last decade gay rights activists have been fighting for inclusion within the federal hate crimes law, which places greater penalties on crimes that are committed based on race, ethnicity and religion. Social conservatives, including former President George W. Bush, have fought the legislation on the grounds it could be used to prosecute religious groups who say homosexuality is morally wrong.
But with Democrats now controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, gay rights activists are confident the law will pass and President Obama will sign it. The bill passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 249-175.
"This is one of the most supportive environments we've had," said Thomas Howard, Jr., programs director for the Matthew Shepard Foundation, an advocacy group named for the gay University of Wyoming student whose 1998 murder became a rallying point for homosexuals.
"The issue is when someone is targeted as a direct result of who they are. This isn't about telling people what they can and can not say."
Frederick Lawrence, a law professor at George Washington University, said there is nothing within the language of the hate crimes bill that would allow for the prosecution of individuals who simply speak out against a particular sexual or ethnic group.
"The only language that would be criminalized is language that would be meet the requirements of conspiracy or solicitation or direct incitement," he said. "Sharing opinions on things, even opinions others consider discriminatory, can not be criminalized."
But that is doing little to calm conservative bloggers, who are outraged by the possibility that a suspect acquitted of a crime in state court can be retried in federal court if the case becomes categorized as a hate crime.
"That is true and it's not unique to the hate crimes arena," said Lawrence. "There is an exception to double jeopardy called the dual sovereignty doctrine. But the Department of Justice has a very strict set of regulations when they can retry someone."
During the debate on the House floor Wednesday, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., angered gay rights activists by claiming Shepard was murdered in a robbery, and not because he was gay.
"(The) hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills," Foxx said.
The congresswoman later apologized, calling the word hoax "a poor choice of words," according to The Associated Press.
In 2004 the ABC television news program 20/20 ran a story in which Shepard's murderers said they killed the 21-year-old for drugs and money in a robbery gone wrong, and not because he was gay -- contradicting the testimony of some witnesses at his murder trial.
The piece went on to portray Shepard as a troubled individual and included an interview with a Wyoming police detective who said he believed the murder was not based on Shepard's sexual orientation.
"It's something we hear quite a bit," Howard said. "I'd like to ask (Foxx) if she has read the trial transcript. Certain individuals completely changed their stories."
-----
What do you think about these articles individually and in comparison? Did either seem biased? How do you feel about the source? Did it present the issue effectively?
Thanks,
Sofie
Obviously Fox News has a bias, but that second article did seem to be very pro-republican. The phrase "But with Democrats now controlling both houses of Congress and the White House," seems to be suggesting that its a democrats conspiracy to pass pro-homosexual legislation. Also, the title and first three paragraphs all mention freedom of speech and how this will limit it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sahar. The Fox News article was extremely biased, its views being right-leaning. In particular, the quotes they chose contained very strong diction against American values (i.e. 'radical' and 'anarchist'). The earlier article seemed biased in the sense that it spent more time reviewing democrat's statements than republicans, but the article itself is clearly centered in diction and nature. Like Sahar claims, the second article puts the reader in the position of the other -- "Now that democrats control both..." The articles depicts democrats as on the offensive and the republicans on the defense. The kicker to the article also leaves the impression that what the republicans are defending is actually American values themselves. This clearly meant to put a bad image on the democratic party and a democrat supported bill.
ReplyDeleteI think the articles expresses ideas and views of the induviduals very clearly. Though, at parts, more reasons should be given for why certain decisions were made.
ReplyDeleteI think the first article (CNN) takes a more factual and balanced approach and tries to discuss the issues from both points of view in a non-emotive way. The second article conveys a sense of outrage and the tone is more emotive.This can be seen even in the titles of the articles.
ReplyDeleteThe first article swings to the port (with references to 3 pro arguments and 2 con), while the second article lists to the starboard (with references to 3 con and 2 pro arguments).
ReplyDeleteThe second article is somewhat disengenuous in that it introduces a con argument in the second paragraph after only one short introductory paragraph, thereby relying on readers' habit of forming an opinion early on and not bothering to read to the end of the article.
Neither article can stand alone. Together they provide an introduction to the issues, but certainly not enough information to allow readers to form an educated opinion.
<3
ReplyDelete