Marijuana.com

Niteshift

"PHILADELPHIA -- A group of activists have been hauled into court for an unusual reason -- they are charged with hate crimes because they protested at a gay and lesbian rally.

Members of the Christian group Repent America face up to 47 years in prison for what the city of Philadelphia calls hate crimes. Four defendants are charged with ethnic intimidation and rioting -- among other things -- after preaching at a gay festival.

In October 2004, Michael Marcavage and four other members of Repent America were arrested for protesting at the annual Gay and Lesbian Festival in Center City.

An independent production company, Enough Said Productions, shot video of the altercations.

Marcavage said the video shows his First Amendment rights being violated when police would not let him preach the Bible and festival participants blocked the Christian groups' signs and blew whistles to drown them out.

"We believe that this is the first case in the nation where preaching the Bible has formed the evidentiary basis for a hate crime," said defense attorney Scott Shields.

"I'm not aware of whether this is the first time or not. We charge on each incident based on what occurred at each incident," said Assistant District Attorney Charles Ehrlich.

Ehrlich said that the protesters would not stay in their designated area and were using inflammatory language.

"They were trying to go into areas to disrupt things by what they were saying to people and getting into people's faces to try and cause a riot," Ehrlich said.

"There was no violence whatsoever. No one was physical in any manner whatsoever. The videotape proves that," Marcavage said.

NBC 10 found no sign of violence in the seven minutes of video on Repent America's Web site. Ehrlich said that it is video that is not on the Web site that is the problem.

"These people came to this festival and were telling people they were going to hell and that they were an abomination," Ehrlich said.

"No, we did not tell anyone to go to hell. We obviously have been doing this for quite some time. We know how to deal with individuals if they are getting upset. We don't go on to make them more angry," Marcavage said.

The group said it shouldn't have to fight for First Amendment rights in a city like Philadelphia.

"William Penn, the founder, he gave us freedom of speech. He made that a clear part of the lawmaking in this city, to guarantee a freedom of speech," said Mark Diener, one of the defendants.

Leaders of the gay and lesbian community said they support Repent America's rights to freedom of speech, but they said the group should not create a situation that provokes physical harm.

If the members are convicted of the hate crimes, it could affect how protests are conducted throughout the country."

http://www.nbc10.com/news/4077250/detail.html


Now let me say this.............. I have NO PROBLEM with them being arrested for blocking highways, failing to stay in designated areas etc. They need to follow the rules like anyone else. But the idea of charging someone with a federal hate crime is ludicrious.

The Klan can make speeches and not be charged for hate crimes. Muslims can make speeches that promote violence and not be charged with hate crimes. Black activists can claim the Holocaust never happened and that Jews are the root of all evil and not be charged with a hate crime. Liberal groups of all stripes can make speeches advocating the infringement of our rights to free speech, free religion, gun ownership or whatever and not be arrested for hate crimes. Why do I get the feeling that if this had been liberals protesting gun rights or school prayer, this wouldn't be in the federal courts as a "hate crime"?


Some of these people probably did deserve to get arrested for things like blocking the highway, but the idea of charging them with a hate crime for simple words, whether you agree with what they were saying or not, should bother people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

 

Higher Logic

Yeah that definately doesn't make sense. A "hate crime" to me (which honestly I don't think such a thing exists, because if I kill a white man it's not a hate crime, but suppose I kill a gay man it might be misconstrued as a hate crime, it's a crime either way, why attach "hate" to it) is blatantly targeting someone because of their ethnicity or race and causing physical damage to that person or that person's possessions.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

Niteshift

I honestly have mixed feelings on the hate crime legislations.

I can go with adding jail time if you beat the crap out of someone mainly because they are gay/black/Muslim/whatever, but cases like this are, in my not so humble opinion, abusive in nature.

Also, my observation has been that it's nearly impossible for a white person to be the victim of a hate crime. Perhaps not on paper, but in reality.

And adding "hate crime" to murders? Isn't murder about as hateful as you can get?

So I end up torn.......I can see some good aspects of hate crime legislations, but when I see gross misapplications like this, it makes me want to oppose them.

HappyMan

Sue, Litigate, raise hell!

(this site needs a dancing lawyer smilie)

__________________
Bla.

and

Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

Cassius

I disagree with all hate crime legislation. I definitely think this is a gross misapplication, as you put it NS, definitely, and it's ludicrous that they would be charged with that for simple speech. But I disagree with the whole idea of a "hate crime" anyway.

Well, I sort of take that back.

I can understand that it's worse that you beat someone up over something they can't change (like their skin color) than if you beat someone up over something they chose (like sleeping with your wife).

BUT

I don't think "hate crime" is at all an apt description. I bet the person who beat up his wife's boyfriend hated him more for what he did than someone who beat up a black person, or whatever. So why is the first a hate crime, and the second not a hate crime? The latter had just as much, if not more, hate associated with it.

Calling it a "hate crime" opens up the possibility of the "hate crime law" to be used in circumstances where it's not appropriate -- like this one -- just because the whole idea "hate crime" doesn't accurately convey WHY certain crimes, with identical execution but different motivation, should be punished differently. Calling it a hate crime is really just saying "a crime against a minority"... actually more accurately (based on how it's being used) "ANY crime against a minority" -- and THAT I completely, 100% disagree with.

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

 

Hiz Highness

I think the key here is the rioting charge. If these christians were getting into the faces of homosexuals, calling them abomonations, and then physically striking out at them I can see the grounds for a hate crime charge.

The leaving the designated area would be a crime, but I don't see where it would be a hate crime.

Later the article says the videotape shows no violence, which is countered by claims that the activity seen on the video is not what brought the charges.

Because you have this twisted idea that liberals get some kind of special treatment from the law?

If it was only words, then I agree. If there is no merit to the charges of rioting then this case should fail on the charges of hate crime. However, it's a little early to decide who's right, especially sice the article never explains where these charges of rioting came in. If these christians stormed out of their designated area and started yelling inflammatory remarks in people's faces and shoving them then I think the charge would be warranted.

The good christian man Fred Phelps has gone to funerals of AIDS victims for years with his "God Hates Fags" sign and never been convicted of a hate crime, so I suspect that these protestors may have done something a little more than exercised their free speech.

-HH

Niteshift

I think the key here is the rioting charge. If these christians were getting into the faces of homosexuals, calling them abomonations, and then physically striking out at them I can see the grounds for a hate crime charge.

Where do you see any mention of "physically striking"? This is an assumption on your part.

Perhaps you should look up the legal definition of "riot".

The leaving the designated area would be a crime, but I don't see where it would be a hate crime.

And I said I have no problem with them being charged with leaving the area. That charge, however, has been dropped.

Because you have this twisted idea that liberals get some kind of special treatment from the law?

If my idea is twisted, it's only because of the twisted applications I see and the twisted coverage I see.

If there is no merit to the charges of rioting then this case should fail on the charges of hate crime. However, it's a little early to decide who's right, especially sice the article never explains where these charges of rioting came in. If these christians stormed out of their designated area and started yelling inflammatory remarks in people's faces and shoving them then I think the charge would be warranted.

Again, I suggest you look up the statute regarding rioting. There is no requirement for physical violence.

But not only to you assume there was violence, you put it in bold print, leading the casual reader who is skimming to believe that this is factual, not merely a leap on your part.

As for "yelling inflammatory remarks in people's faces", that still should not matter as far as hate crime application goes.

The good christian man Fred Phelps has gone to funerals of AIDS victims for years with his "God Hates Fags" sign and never been convicted of a hate crime, so I suspect that these protestors may have done something a little more than exercised their free speech.

So he wasn't convicted? Do you not know that the same laws will be applied differently in different jurisdictions? Do you think he'd be more likely to be charged in a liberal city like Philly than in a conservative one?

Hiz Highness

Hence my use of the word 'if'. I don't know if you overlooked that word when you were reading, but check again, it is clearly used.

1) I didn't assume that there was violence, I clearly used the word 'if'.

2) You are (wrongly) assuming you know why I used bold type. I used it so later when you pull out your arguments based on symantecs (like ignoring my use of the word 'if') you wouldn't be able to misconstrue my point, which was put in bold type. Apparently I should have included 'if' in bold as well.

-HH

Niteshift

Here is the PA statute for rioting:

§ 5501. Riot.
A person is guilty of riot, a felony of the third degree, if he participates with two or more others in a course of disorderly conduct:


1)
with intent to commit or facilitate the commission of a felony or misdemeanor;

2) with intent to prevent or coerce official action; or

3)when the actor or any other participant to the knowledge of the actor uses or plans to use a firearm or other deadly weapon.



Disorderly conduct is:

5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:


1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
makes unreasonable noise;

2) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

3)creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.


As you can CLEARLY see, there is NO REQUIREMENT for phyical violence to fit the rioting criteria.

Under this vague criteria, if you and a friend "conspired" (planned) to march with signs down to city hall in Philly to smoke a joint in protest (commit a misdemeanor) and flip the bird to the cops (make an obsecen gesture),you could be charged with rioting.

So, want to stick with this idea that violence is required for it to be a riot charge?


Just for good measure, I'll throw in the FL statute on rioting:

870.03 Riots and routs.--If any persons unlawfully assembled demolish, pull down or destroy, or begin to demolish, pull down or destroy, any dwelling house or other building, or any ship or vessel, each of them shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree


Slightly different criteria, but again, NO REQUIREMENT OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.

Niteshift

Apparently I should have included 'if' in bold as well.

Perhaps you should put IF in bold and leave the rest normal........since the actual key is "if".

Instead, you boldened the parts that were assumption.......and you know as well as I do that some people will scan it, see "physical violence" and "striking" and assume that is what happened.