Did anyone watch that hate crime special on MTV?

[andygirl]

I didn't. I just didn't have the strength to, I suppose.

I remember when Matt Shepard died. I manage this email list for gay teenagers- we run ages 13-25. The vast majority are closeted; we've got a lot more minors than any other age. It's just the time for support, I guess. He was all we talked about for weeks. Nobody has the market on fear and paranoia more than closeted gay teenagers.

I remember how the fear felt. That whole idea that ran through all of our heads, of the heads of our parents. I remember telling my mom "No, not me. Couldn't happen to me." And it's not like I run around worrying about being the victim of smear the queer. There have been times, however, when things have been a little dodgy. I realize it's stupid, but it's something that's just... there.

It's funny how he was just gay. I mean, everyone is complex and unique, and in the end he was just gay.

I hope that if I get myself killed I'll be remembered as more than just a skirt chaser.

Did anyone watch? Thoughts? Comments?

[Shadowfox]

I watched it for a few minutes. One of the little stories involved a woman who sued her ex-husband for hate crimes, claiming that he abused her specifically because she was a woman, therefore making it a hate crime. The judge agreed with her too. It didn't say if the guy ended up in jail, but I found myself silently cheering for that woman anyway. She couldn't get the guy convicted for beating or raping her, but she was able to get him convicted of a hate crime, which is a felony.

[Homer]

My roommate wanted to watch it, so we watched the beginning, but it was so painfully bad that we had to change the channel.

Was it different stories, then? We only watched the first one until the guy came out of the police station and started making out with the chick.

--Tim

[super_head]

... my wife and I watched part of it. First, it was hard to believe that MTV is aiming to be the last bastion of human civility, but there you go. While I firmly agree with the anti-discrimination stance of the program we watched, I find I don't agree with hate-crimes legislation at all. I refuse to punish thoughts, only actions, and hate-crimes laws go beyond that measure. Anyway... it was a decent effort I suppose, from what I saw, although they seemed rather heavy-handed in their "hate crime laws are a super good thing" department.

[THespos]

I just saw a little of it. Way to go, MTV (not).

<sarcasm>
Let's take the already incompetent juries in America and turn them into thought police. What a great idea.
</sarcasm>

I think that what happened to Matthew Shepard (sp?) sucks. I think that the people who did it should be punished. Send 'em to jail for life or give 'em the chair. But this whole notion that we should probe into the minds of the people who engage in hate crimes and punish them more because the crime was motivated by unpopular beliefs is silly to me.

Just watch this hate crime thing get completely out of control. Minorites killing "majorities" (sorry, can't think of a better word here) will get out of jail in 6-10 years and will walk the streets again, while anyone killing a member of a minority group will rot in jail forever because of the population's liberal guilt.

When is MTV going to stop with this liberal agenda thing and start playing some music videos already? It's 3:45 AM and I can't even see a video. Used to be that you could avoid all of MTV's politics and actually catch a video if you watched really late. Now, I guess it's 24 hours of political issues. Maybe I can catch the next Matthew Sweet video on CSPAN?

[Doobieous]

When is MTV going to stop with this liberal agenda thing and start playing some music videos already? It's 3:45 AM and I can't even see a video. Used to be that you could avoid all of MTV's politics and actually catch a video if you watched really late. Now, I guess it's 24 hours of political issues. Maybe I can catch the next Matthew Sweet video on CSPAN? [/B]


I'll leave your other comments for some of the more eloquent posters. However, would you cut it with the "liberal agenda" crap? It seems like when a conservative dislikes politics they disagree with it's branded "liberal agenda". MTV can do what they damn well please, and i think you really could benefit from the stores they've been presenting. If you had actually watched, you might have actually learned something.

But then i'm just another one of those gay people who complain too much because I could possibly get beaten to death, or assaulted because someone "strongly" disagrees with my sexual orientation. I'll go back to the closet and hide, just so you wont have to hear of my "Liberal agenda".

[THespos]

Oh, come on, Doobieous. I'm not trying to start up the whole "liberal bias in the media" argument. My point is that MTV stands for Music Television and that the whole channel has been dominated by, among other thinks like silly "real-life" shows, politics and attempts to influence the minds of the people who watch. I'm more pissed about the lack of music videos than I am about anything else.

And yes, I did watch a bit more after I posted. I still disagree that we need more "hate crime" legislation. Do you trust the juries of America to get inside the minds of criminals and determine their ultimate motivations for crimes? Even if that's possible, do you think that someone who killed a gay person should be punished more severely than someone who killed a person randomly? What will happen to "equal protection" if we keep going in this direction?

I'm not even going to address your last paragraph.

[Duke]

I'm also wondering about MTV's motivation for running this special, though not from any idea that they have some sort of "liberal agenda." More than one news organisation has pointed out the paradox of MTV championing anti-hate crime legislation while playing homophobic and sexist videos (Eminem is just the latest example, there have been homophobic and sexist metal and rap videos on nearly as long as MTV has been around).

It's a great stand for MTV to forego advertising revenue to draw attention to injustice, but it might have been wise for them to put their own house in order first.

[Patty O'Furniture]

I'm also wondering about MTV's motivation for running this special

I didn't see the program but according to CNN, MTV said that 90%+ (don't remember the exact number but it was over 90%) of their viewers identified "hate crimes" as a major issue affecting their generation.

[lurkernomore]

re: liberal agenda

Note: MTV had coverage of Clinton's inuagurations. Not Bush. Note: the 2 Democrat inaugurations, not the Republican.

re:hate crimes.

I care about what happens more than why. Matthew Sheperd's killers were facing a possible death sentence fro murder while committing a felony. Is hate crime legislation going to make the penalty HARDER? Tacks on the electric chair? Lethal injections with a dull needle?

I am now sitting in a room with a black woman and 2 white guys. If I go berserk and shoot her, should I protect myself against possible hate crime prosecution by shooting them too? Some of the zealots seem to think a "majority" shooting a minority is automatically a hate crime.

[Alzarian]

Are you talking about the first Bush innauguration not being covered by MTV? If so, I don't really think it's fair to hold that lack of coverage against MTV, since perhaps it was only in 1993 that that tradition was started. It'll be interesting to see if they cover GWB's innauguration, and if they don't, then I'd say you have a case.

I'm still very much annoyed that MTV chose to complete last year's "Rock the Vote" campaign by showing the final episode of The Real World on Election Night. That was irresponsible programming, if MTV truly had wanted to get their audience excited about politics.

And as for Hate Crime Legislation?

Maybe I'm just confused, but aren't most murders, by definition hate crimes? I fail to see the necessity for a new set of laws to define which murders are worse than others. Dead is dead. Murder is murder. Maybe someone can help me understand why current laws making murder a punishable offense aren't sufficient...

[Duke]

At the expense of being labeled hyper-cynical, I thought I should add to my last post. I forgot to mention MTV's own not-so-clean past in race relations. According to Dave Marsh and James Shepard in The New Book of Rock Lists, when MTV was started they refused to play videos by black artists, claiming that those clips "might offend their target audience." The top management even refused to play Michael Jackson's "Beat It"--that's right, folks, the policy extended even this far. The only reason Jackson got airplay at all was because the president of CBS Records, Jackson's label at the time, threatened to pull all his other artists from MTV unless "Beat It" got played. It still took an unaccountably long time for black artists to be fully accepted by MTV--I know, strange considering the success of rap music on the channel, but completely true.

If MTV wants to seriously present itself as a defender of minority rights, it's got to admit its own past and present failings. Else there will be more, deserved, cynicism from me and others.

[lurkernomore]

Originally posted by Alzarian
Are you talking about the first Bush innauguration not being covered by MTV? If so, I don't really think it's fair to hold that lack of coverage against MTV, since perhaps it was only in 1993 that that tradition was started. It'll be interesting to see if they cover GWB's innauguration, and if they don't, then I'd say you have a case.


No, I meant Clinton's 2. MTV has said they will not be having an inaug party this time. One of their employess reportedly, upon being asked why, said "Because he's not a Democrat." Possibly apocryphal, but also possibly true, as they are not doing one this time.

[Saint Zero]

I have to agree it's funny that MTV is trying to have it's cake and eat it too. I've seen people talk about the trouble they had getting them to show black artists, and even rap videos.

Simply put, they are being hypocritical. You can't exhort your followers to avoid "Hate Crimes" only to then have the world premeier of Eminem's newest video.

[andygirl]

I think part of it is that MTV has distinct elements of a social institution... but at it's heart, it's a corporation. They'll do lip service to homophobia, but Eminem is going to earn them a lot more money.

Is it MTV's obligation to be anything except a corporation? I'm not sure.

On another note... the best explanation I ever got of what a hate crime is went something like this.

Okay, say you're a random Protestant white guy and you kill someone who happens to be Jewish in the course of a robbery, that is not a hate crime. We already differentiate between intent in the law- the difference between first, second, third degree murder, manslaughter... they have to do with various levels of intent. That is, if I kill someone in a fit of rage, that would be prosecuted differently than if I plotted out something far in advance.

Now, say I specificaly went out to kill a Jewish guy because I hate Jews. Say I wrote "die kike die" by his body.

Most importantly, say I did it to specifically cause fear within the Jewish community.

Hate crimes are a matter of intent, I think. Just my two cents.

[iampunha]

I wanted to watch. I drove to my college campus to find a tv with cable on it to watch the show.

After driving around for 45 minutes and finding televisions t hat were inaccessible or being used for something else, I went home dejected. But I don't know that I would have been able to watch the entire thing without leaving.

[InternetLegend]

It would also be a hate crime if someone targeted a white man for being white or a man. For instance, Valerie Solanis could conceivably have been charged with a hate crime for trying to kill Andy Warhol, since she advocated violence against men simply because they're men.

The problem is that some people are much more likely to be the targets of violence simply because of who they are. I'm not convinced that making it more illegal to harm people if you're doing it because of who they are is a real solution, and I'm generally against laws being enacted simply to "send a message." It would be a lot more effective if society did more than pay just lip service to the idea that everyone should be allowed to live free of harrassment, but since a significant part of society very obviously thinks that gays (or Jews, or blacks, or whatever group they were brought up to think of as sub-human) shouldn't even exist, much less live next door, I don't see that happening soon. Federal hate-crimes laws, like federal civil-rights laws, could be a way to bring some justice when local jurisdictions refuse to do it themselves. Unfortunately, we don't know if that's going to really change the way things are now.

In other words, I don't know the answer. And since I gave up on MTV long ago, I didn't realize the show was on until I saw this thread.

[Duke]

Originally posted by andygirl
I think part of it is that MTV has distinct elements of a social institution... but at it's heart, it's a corporation. They'll do lip service to homophobia, but Eminem is going to earn them a lot more money.

Is it MTV's obligation to be anything except a corporation?

Maybe not, but if it's going to act like a corporation, then it can't pretend it's a "disinterested" social institution. Saint Zero hit the nail on the head: MTV can't have it both ways.

[Freudian Slit]

I don't know...I really don't like MTV as you guys may have noticed from other posts of mine. Its like they're saying "look at us, we can cover real issues too!" Its painfully obvious, is all. They do a movie about an "important issue" then do a whole special after it. Like with their other movie Jailbait (which i did watch, :)), and then the whole teen sex spiel. Its like they're trying too hard and its definitely not sincere.

They are, as you guys have mentioned, a corporation, and it just doesn't feel real. Its like they're making this movie to make themselves look open minded when in reality they're a hypocritical channel (i.e., not playing black artists in the eighties, playing Eminem videos).

I didn't watch the movie, not just b/c of all that...mainly because I have absolutely no time for TV this week. I thought about tuning in but really couldn't...

[Aglarond]

Originally posted by andygirl
Now, say I specificaly went out to kill a Jewish guy because I hate Jews. Say I wrote "die kike die" by his body.

Most importantly, say I did it to specifically cause fear within the Jewish community.

Hate crimes are a matter of intent, I think. Just my two cents.

A man sleeps with my wife. Now, say I specifically went out to kill this man because I hate men who sleep with my wife. Say I wrote "die adulterer die" by his body.

Most importantly, say I did it to specifically cause fear amongst those that wish to sleep with my wife.

I sure as hell intended to kill this guy. But it's not a hate crime.


Here's an article that talks about my biggest hate crime peave(sp?), the fact that it so often doesn't work both ways. http://frontpagemag.com/dh/1998/dh10-26-98.htm Yes. I know it's from a very biased source. I don't care.

[Just A Girl]

It's interesting you brought this up, because we discussed this in my sociology class today.

I did watch a goood bit of the show both last night and this afternoon. I am absolutely sickened by hate and discrimination of any kind, so I found the accounts very upsetting. I think that by using the shock value of the stories, MTV was simply trying to show viewers that, even though it may not happen in the suburbian whitebred communities that many kids are accustomed to, it is still a huge problem.

For those of you who feel that it is hypocritical of MTV to play artists like Eminem, and then follow it up with a "hate" special, please remember that MTV is only, when you come down to it, a corporation. Corporations seek to thrive and make money, and in the entertainment industry, the only way to do that is to appeal to a broad range of viewers. MTV targets a teenage to young adult audience, and with such a broad target they must appeal to all musical genres as well as address issues which affect persons in this age category.

It's well-known that the majority of the entertainment industry is liberal - it's not likely there's much anyone can do about that. MTV is obviously one of the most liberal networks, and while I don't agree with the blatant misrepresentation of Bush, I must point out that if the entertainment world, in general, was conservative (this exludes news stations), then you probably wouldn't have most of the television programs that are aired. Do you honestly think that if a staunch right-winger controlled MTV networks, that anyone would be able to watch half the videos we have now? The awards shows, the movies, Beavis and Butthead? I don't agree with bias in the news, but MTV, whether you like it or not, has every right to convey whatever belief they want within reason. It's cable; you don't have to watch it.

Finally, my take on hate crime legislation. I totally agree with it in intent. I think that a crime is automatically made more severe if it's done solely because of hate or discrimination of any kind. However, I don't think that the judicial system has the capacity to determine the intent behind a crime when it is more ambiguous. Like, if a white man assaults a black man because the black man has had an adulterous affair with his wife, does it constitute a hate crime? In my opinion, no. But what if, in the same scenario, the white man yells racial epithets at the man while beating him? Is it right to persecute this man more severely simply because he yells racial slurs in a fit of rage? Again, I think no, because the original provocation was the affair, not the skin color. However, the black man could take advantage of the system and throw a hate charge along with assault and battery, which would make the sentence more harsh. In such a controversy, our judicial system would be criticized either way and, in turn, the validity of a hate crime charge would be questioned again and again. However, I think that if they can find a way to prevent such a scenario from happening all the time, then these legislations would be a tremendous effort towards a more peaceful society (in that respect at least).

We also talked about patterns in hate crimes, such as age groups, economic situations, etc...but that's all from me for now. :D

[Zyada]

Aglarond, the problem with your example is that the victim was chosen because of what he did, not because of what he was.

We have a choice in what we do. We don’t have a choice in our ethnic heritage, our sex or our sexuality. There are people who will argue with me that sexuality is a choice, but I ask (assuming you are a hetero man) could you choose to make love to a man just as happily as you choose to make love to a woman? My sexuality is not a choice for me, I doubt it is for you.

In your example, the only person being victimized was the person you murdered. (and any other men who screwed your wife, but jeez dude, if there was more than one, you’re blaming the wrong person). No other person would feel threatened by your actions. If you went to jail for 5 years, then got out, the chance that you would kill again would be almost non-existant.

If a person murders someone because of their race or sexual orientation, then everyone of that race or sexuality is affected adversely. If this person gets out in 5 years, they will be even more likely to kill someone (because frankly, the scum that do this do not take responsibility for their own behavior)

Yes, the laws will be applied unevenly and unfairly. Guess what? We’re human If you want to remove every law that is applied unfairly, you would have to remove every single friggin’ law from the books. Because every law has been applied unevenly, and many have been used to harass different groups. Police officers are human,judges are human, juries are human, lawyers are human and lawmakers are human, and each person involved in the law is affected by their needs, their prejudices and their emotions, no matter how hard he or she tries to do otherwise.

I would prefer to see hate crimes apply only to those crimes where the hatred is advertised (“Die, kike, Die”) because not only is an whole group of people being victimized, but the crime will encourage others holding the same prejudices, no matter what the law does. That there will be an attempt to apply it where it does not hold true is tragic, but because we are human, this type of tragedy will always be with us.

[andygirl]

Aglarond, I'd just like to echo what Zyada said.

If someone opened a pit thread about me because I was acting like a twit, that would be just fine. If they did it because I'm gay, I'd hope the teeming millions would collectively help me rip him a new one.

They're not equal situations- one is based on action, the other on self.

I'd be interested to hear what someone more versed in the law would have to say about "fuzzy hate crimes."

[Saint Zero]

Is is possible we will "Cry Wolf" one to many times, and people won't care? I can see this happening already in some places, where every time Jackson or Sharpton gets on their $3.95 per minute soapbox people just shake their heads and ignore it.

Not everything is a hate crime, and by using it too much, you cheapen true crimes of hate.

[Guinastasia]

First off, andygirl, I doubt anyone around here would remember you as just a skirt chaser. More like your crazy sense of humor and your love of Buffy.

Anyhoo, I didn't see this one, but I DO remember seeing a STV from a long time ago-there was a gay student in there who sued his school for not stopping harassment. In fact, one teacher told him that he had to expect it if he was going to be openly gay. Hello? If I were a teacher, I wouldn't care WHAT the reason was-I hate bullies with a passion. I hate people who treat other people like crap for any reason. And the way the teachers just dismissed it because the kid was gay-what the hell? He's a HUMAN BEING.
Aren't we all? Isn't that what matters?

Of course, I don't watch MTV anymore. It just disgusts me how they spout off about STopping the Violence while sucking Eminem's dick.

[mrblue92]

I guess I have a bit of a problem with the term "hate crime". Exactly how many "love crimes" do we prosecute? Offhand, I can think of couple, but things like assisted suicide are a whole other debate. it seems to me that if someone mugs you, he does it because he hates you. You have money that he wants, and so he's willing to threaten your life and possibly kill you for it. Granted, in a racially motived or homophobic crime, the hate is generally more acute. Perhaps a more accurate term would be "bigotry crime", but I'm into semantics with this so I'll digress.

Yes, the laws will be applied unevenly and unfairly. Guess what? We’re human If you want to remove every law that is applied unfairly, you would have to remove every single friggin’ law from the books. Nice strawman ya got there....

I think equal protection does need to be applied (and I wonder if SCOTUS has ever ruled on the Constitutionality of hate crimes laws based on that or double jeopardy). You simply can't say, "Well, all laws can be applied unfairly, so unfair laws are OK." In order to improve the justice system, it is necessary to promote fairness, regardless of whether or not it is an attainable goal. Throwing up your hands and conceding to unfairness should not be an option.

IMHO, hate crimes as written can promote unfairness. They can also promote fairness in the cases where federal courts will enforce laws that local courts ignore, but seemingly at the expense of the Constitutional protections of the accused. I know people are hesitant to amend the Constitution, but we almost need a "federal judical review" in the case of local criminal trials gone wrong. We sort of have that now, but it sometimes seems like a band-aid fix for a gaping wound. Of course, I can see a whole mess of problems an amendment like that would generate...

Maybe I should just shut up now.

[Aglarond]

OK. I'll admit that my example was a poor one. I won't try to defend it. A couple of things still bother me, though.

a) If an African American kills me while yelling 'Kill whitey', he will not be charged with a hate crime. He will simply be charged with murder and will be out in around 15-20 years(guessing). If I kill an African American while yelling 'Kill blacky', not only will every news agency in the country jump all over it, but I could face life in prison.

b) Aren't all men considered equal. Yes, I know that this country has a history of not practicing what it preached. I'm referring to slavery and other such atrocities. Shouldn't the focus of this country be to strive toward the goal of equality? I personally believe that we should all have the exact same rights and abide by the exact same laws regadless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It seems to me that things such as hate crime legislation take us back a step. It seems hypocritical to me to say that you want equal rights, but then want special treatment under the law. I sure don't want special treatment. We often see that picture of the scales of justice. It sounds like you're trying to tip them a little.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. :D