Hate crime arrest for anti-homosexual publication (in the US!)

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by StockRanger, May 31, 2007.

  1. You'd think something as Orwellian as this could only happen in a place like Canada, with its legacy of monarchial rule, but this month, in the "Land of Lincoln," our Bill of Rights was shredded by the Illinois state's attorney and a circuit judge, leaving a 16-year-old girl in leg-chains -- for publishing a flier critical of homosexuals!



    Teen sent home in hate-flier incident

    Student will be strictly monitored

    By Carolyn Starks
    Chicago Tribune | May 30, 2007
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/northwest/chi-hatecrime_30may30,1,7640443.story

    A teenage girl charged with a felony hate crime for making fliers with derogatory statements about homosexuality and distributing them at a Crystal Lake high school was released from a juvenile detention center Wednesday but will remain strictly monitored.

    The 16-year-old student, whose ankles were shackled in court, cried after McHenry County Circuit Judge Michael Chmiel said she could return home to her mother, who sat beside her during the juvenile court hearing. "I want phone calls and Internet usage fully monitored," Chmiel said. "Everything and anything your mom tells you to do, you have to do."

    Chmiel told the girl not to have any contact with Crystal Lake South High School, which suspended her after the incident. She also was ordered to get counseling and to attend a drug- and alcohol-assessment program.

    The girl and another 16-year-old female student were arrested by Crystal Lake police about 1:45 p.m. May 11 after they distributed about 40 fliers in the high school's student parking lot.

    The fliers had a photograph of two males kissing and included inflammatory words, authorities said. Both males attend the school and one of them was identified in the photo. One of the alleged victims was in court with his mother. Both declined to comment.

    The girls were charged with a hate crime because the fliers were meant "to incite a breach of peace or cause injury to the person or persons the message was directed against." said Thomas Carroll, McHenry County first assistant state's attorney.

    The girl released to her mother on Wednesday was held in a juvenile detention facility after her arrest because the judge was concerned about nearly a dozen run-ins with police and an unstable home life.

    However, prosecutors agreed she could return home with strict monitoring.

    Chmiel asked the mother if she agreed to help control her daughter, who was ordered to wear a monitoring device on her ankle while at home. "We will not be having anyone to our house," the mother told the judge. "No friends will be over. I will make sure [she] stays in the house and restrict her phone calls and that type of thing."

    If convicted, penalties could range from probation to a 30-day sentence in the Kane County Juvenile Detention Facility.

    The girl's attorney, Matthew Haiduk, said he plans to seek dismissal of the charges because her written words "are protected speech under the 1st Amendment."

    "I don't think there was any risk of harm ... or a threat of harm," he added.

    Assistant State's Atty. Robert Windon said "we do not feel this type of behavior is what the 1st Amendment protects."

    Ed Yohnka, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said that without seeing the flier, it is difficult to know whether it was threatening. "It is clear to us the school has a right to punish a student for distributing fliers on school grounds absent any permission to do so ... but that wasn't the tool that was used here," Yohnka said. "Instead there was this immediate jump to a criminal charge. ... One hopes there would be other ways to deal with these things on campus other than the inclusion of a police officer."

    ***
     
  2. Not enough facts to make a clear judgment, but ask yourself this. If the girls had been distributing something critical of Christians, do you think they would have been arrested? If they had distributed something critical of students driving SUVs because they were causing global warming? Very doubtful.

    The girl needs some top notch legal assistance to sue the school and prosecutors for violating her First Amendment rights. I predict she will get it, as there are plenty of attorneys around who love this type of case. If they win, the defendants by statute are required to pay hefty attorneys' fees.
     
  3. This comment is pretty funny, considering that Canada has been much more progressive than the U.S. in terms of fighting institutionalized discrimination against gays. I think it's pretty clear that Canada is a more progressive country than the U.S. There's no talk up here of repealing the laws which protect a woman's right to choose the fate of her own body, for example.

    The U.S. used to be a great country, the greatest in the world, and still is in many ways, but the statement that Canada is more Orwellian that the U.S. is either disingenuous or just plain stupid.

    When I see comments like this, I always wonder where these people come up with this stuff. Do they just make it up and hope it's right?
     
  4. hughb

    hughb

    I'll change the topic from "free" speech to "complete" speech for a moment.

    Notice that no one mentions what that flier says. Speech that incites violence is NOT protected by our constitution, it never has. That story deliberately omits the text because the flier that girl distributed is not protected by our constitution.

    How about a little "complete" speech? Let's see if anybody here who bothered to wallow in self-righteous indignation will allow themselves to be bothered with seeing what that girl actually said.

    Also - notice that there is no mention of the authenticity of the photo of two kissing males. Could it have been a photoshopped image of someone she is trying to defame? Maybe an ex-boyfriend?
     
  5. jem

    jem

    Since we do not really know the facts here let me pick up on your ridiculous comments.

    To control peoples thoughts and speech with criminal sanctions - you find that progressive. Progressing towards Lenninism?

    and now you are upset that the U.S. is preventing the barbaric torture and killing of children after they are partially outside a womens body

    You do not even realize you are anti human rights and anti free speech and anti the individual.

    It is the height of irony - that you can call yourself progressive when responding to a post about Orwell.

    The tricks played on you by your society are the exact tricks about which Orwell wrote. You are the societal drone.

    It is stunning that you can be in favor of controlling speech with criminal sanctions and be in favor of the murder of children as they are being born - yet still label yourself progressive.


    Orwell must be rollling over in his grave.
     

  6. Thanks for posting. Damn straight.
     
  7. jsl50a

    jsl50a

    Yeah. That's right. Doesn't the Bible tell us not to take persecution sitting down? "Turn the other cheek... that way you can get full rotation on your spinning back-kick, whereby thine enemies will be smited." Or something like that. I don't really remember... Sunday School was so long ago.

    Crap... you're whole religion is based on matyrdom. You're supposed to celebrate your persecutions. Quit whining and be masochistic like your Jesus and your Paul tell you.
     
  8. That's what you get when a 16-year-old Christian pamphleteer meets a Chmiel. These people are beyond the law when it comes down to bashing Christian morality.
     
  9. I presume your aware of the actions of the RCMP, in secret profiling, monitoring and dossier keeping of just such things up until the 70's. Of course you might be right, technically.
     
  10. I think you misinterpreted what he meant. Canada is notorious for PC laws suppressing free speech, including criminalizing criticism of homosexual conduct. In the US we still find that sort of restriction a bit shocking. Free speech and all that, not to mention rleigious freedom.
     
    #10     Jun 1, 2007