ACLU, HRC At Odds Over Senate Version of Hate Crimes Bill

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Human Rights Campaign are apparently at odds over the Matthew Shepard Act, which was attached to the Defense Reauthorization Bill. According to several sources, the ACLU is objecting to the bill on the grounds that it may impact freedom of speech. On 17 July, an ACLU spokesperson issued a statement objecting to the Senate version of the hate crimes bill because it lacked strong language protecting freedom of speech. This, of course, recalls the various objections that many Conservative groups have to the hate crimes bill. While the ACLU may be more interested in protecting the rights of individuals, many of the Conservatives speaking out on this issue regard this as being more about preventing the bill from passing. In a statement offered to the Washington Blade, ACLU senior legal council Chris Anders stated, “Fierce protection of free speech rights has historically created the space for the improvement of civil rights protections. Unless amended to block evidence of speech and association not specifically related to a crime, the Senate hate crimes amendment could chill constitutionally protected speech and association.”

However, HRC Vice President David Smith issued the following statement regarding the bill, and in rebuttal to what Mr. Anders said:

“The Matthew Shepard Act applies to violent acts motivated by prejudice. Both the House version of the bill and the Senate version passed as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill contain explicit language protecting speech and association. Each version approaches the important matter of First Amendment protections differently, but both do it effectively. The Senate bill contains an explicit provision stating that the bill does not limit constitutionally-protected speech, expressive conduct, or activities. As demonstrated by Attorney General Eric Holder’s Senate testimony in support of this version of the bill, it withstands constitutional scrutiny and safeguards our civil rights.”

Four amendments were added to the Matthew Shepard Act. One of them, according to the HRC, was an attempt to derail the legislation by including the death penalty to the act. Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions of Alabama offered up three of the amendments. The first was the death penalty amendment, and it was countered with an amendment by Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts which limited when exactly the death penalty could be imposed. The last one that was germane to the actual bill involved the requirement that Attorney General Eric Holder create guidelines establishing “neutral and objective criteria for determining whether a crime was motivated by the status of the victim,” according to the HRC press release.

Of course, the Republicans on the Hill are already crowing over this division between the two trying to get some traction on the idea that even the ACLU says that the Matthew Shepard Act will violate freedom of speech. Of course, they are refusing to point out that they are not objecting to the bill itself, but to just the Senate’s version.

The final amendment regarded assault on service members and their families, and would create a new category of Federal crimes with regards to those assaults. Legislation following the Oklahoma City Bombing and in the PATRIOT Act established specific criminal penalties above and beyond the normal class of criminal offenses with regards to the Federal workforce.

According to their press release, the HRC opposes these amendments.

The funding for the F-22 was struck down during the session as well. The Pentagon’s position on this is that the F-22 was created for use in a war against the Soviet Union. Given that the USSR is no longer in existence, and even many countries such as Russia lack the military technology to keep up with the current American arsenal, the money that was going to the F-22 seemed wasteful. It was also a sticking point with President Obama. It was expected that Obama could have vetoed the bill, as he had threatened to do, if it came to him with the funding intact. The big impact may be in trying to find other work for the people who were making the planes.

Hate crimes bills are often attempts to ensure that justice is done. Too often defenses like the “panic defense” mean that individuals who murder or assault individuals get off with light sentences.