The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is controversial, due to the fact that some people believe it will limit their freedom of speech or thought. Reading over the act, I don't understand this argument, as it seems to focus on violence. The act states, " (1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--" Do you see anything in this act that may inhibit our freedom of speech or thought? I don't. Perhaps they are worried that a pastor may be held liable for saying that homosexuality is against G-d, and then someone in the congregation kills a homosexual, and blames it on the pastor? Here's the viewpoint, I'm talking about: I don't see how a Pastor would be convicted for saying G-d is against homosexuality under this Act, but if he went out and physically attacked someone because he was homosexual, that would be a different story. I'm against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act 2009 because it doesn't make sense to me. Isn't any physical attack a hate crime? Do you think this could lead to limiting freedom of speech? What do you think of this Act?
Is there a need for a new law? Can't existing laws handle any hate crimes? There is speculation that the real purpose of this law is to suppress freedom of speech. If another law is really needed, let them debate the law openly first.
We already have assault and battery laws. Circumstances related to motive shouldn't require a new law IMO. More to the point of your question, Rebecca, see here: http://www.tjcenter.org/ArtOnTrial/ozzy.html Nothing will prevent the public or the government from suing (or harassing/threatening with legal suits) over a hate crime law in the hypothetical fashion you proposed. Whether such a suit would be successful is a different question. A preacher's sermon would not fall under the same "figurative expression" ideal as poetry/music/art, so perhaps there is some legitimacy to the concern.
It sounds rather similar to here in the UK. Very few changes to laws are properly debated in Parliament anymore. They are just changed at will.
Congress really needs to stop trying to do all these law things that they have been doing lately. They are starting to go outside of the constitutional mandate..... About this law, I think its worthless. There are already laws on the books addressing hate crimes. I don't think this will limit free speech anymore than its already limited tbh.