Let me share part of what I think concerns reasonable people who look at that kind of legislation. In Sweden today, it is illegal to quote from certain parts of the Bible. Literally illegal. So pastors can get put in jail for quoting from the Bible. On some college campuses, thought, you know, regulations have said to students you can’t think out loud whatever you want to say. The act of thinking it becomes a crime, the act of saying it. It’s very dangerous to go down a road that says you can’t have an honest debate about an issue, because we have now decided we’re protecting one group of people.
[Gingrich then goes on to describe the free-speech horrors in Europe and Canada because they don't have a First Amendment.]
... So I think that’s why you see people who are really worried by George Orwell’s 1984, and the very real danger that as the state starts to regulate what you are allowed to say, suddenly you could find yourself literally censored or in danger of going to jail, if you said the politically incorrect thing.
I'm going to jump around when dealing with this. Newt Gingrich doesn't know what the word "reasonable" means, so all his talk about "reasonable people" is empty. This is a guy, after all, who blamed the Columbine shootings on "liberals". Now, the business about this Pentecostal from Sweden I had not heard about. The first thing I found was this, a web page that reports the story without links, without any references whatsoever.
I typed "Ake Green" into Yahoo (you know, having the name helped), and most of the sites listed are conservative. However, Wikipedia does have an article on the case, and among other things, Gingrich is just plain wrong about "reading the Bible". It isn't illegal to "read the Bible". The guy was arrested and originally convicted for preaching a sermon that attacked sexual minorities. So, Gingrich is wrong. Also, Gingrich failed to mention that Pastor Green's conviction was overturned by the Swedish Supreme Court because, under treaty obligations, Sweden must recognize the freedom of conscience and speech (wow, who knew that international law and treaties, if ratified, actually became law? oh, right, that's in our Constitution, too . . .). One aspect that the Wiki article highlights is that Fred Phelps actually has a monument to this guy. So that leads me to wonder where, exactly, Newt Gingrich is getting his information. Also, since the whole controversy is moot - the guy's sentence was overturned, and it isn't about reading the Bible anyway - I think this kind of debunks the whole "You can't even read the Bible in Sweden!!!" rant.
Gingrich then gets all confused over the difference between thought and speech. Untangling this particular mess would take far too long, but suffice it to say that if Gingrich really believes that thought and speech are the same thing, he needs to go back and take a philosophy class. Sheesh.
Finally, it should probably not need to be said, but the bill does not deal with speech. Rather it deals with the motivations for committing crimes. Targeting someone and committing a violent act against them precisely because one believes the intended victim is gay, or is African-American, or whatever, does not attack thought, or speech, or being Christian. It recognizes that some crimes have their genesis in bigotry and hatred. Bigotry and hatred aren't the targets; only the violent acts that ensue from bigotry and hatred. I can write an article that calls for overthrowing the government of the US and no one can do anything about it, legally. If I actually attempt to overthrow the government, however, that's a crime.
Likewise, I can sit around and rant about niggers and spicks and hooknosed shyster Jew bankers running the world; I can insist that all fags are going to hell and that the US might just sink along with it because we are all gay now anyway (the Fred Phelps theology). The worst that can happen is I might lose a few friends. On the other hand, if there is sufficient evidence that shows that I targeted an individual as a potential victim of a violent act precisely because that person was black, or Hispanic, or Jewish - that's a hate crime.
So, while I fully expect Gingrich to be quoted and cited by all the sages on the right as a source for "debate" on the Hate Crimes bill, I thought it might be nice to subject it to a reality test. Of course, as usual, reality won.
