Once more into the anti-gay right's magical projection machine, wherein everything they claim is being done to them, they are lying about, but worse, is being done BY them or other people, to others.
When you hear the unhinged religious right talk about "thoughtcrime", they are referring once again to the specter of something that does not exist -- legitimate prosecution based on political speech in the United States.
However, the U.S. DOES have thoughtcrime law, as defined by the religious right itself.
It is contained within the U.S. Military's UCMJ code popularly known as DADT.
Origins and use of the word "thoughtcrime":
The term was first coined in George Orwell's 1984 novel, to refer to "finding and eliminating members of society with the mere thought of challenging authority".
However, as used in early 21st century political discourse, the right has appropriated this word and used it to refer to criminal punishment of "hate speech", to wit:
Adding "sexual orientation" to thought crimes legislation gives one set of crime victims a higher level of protection than it gives to people like you and me.
-Tony Perkins, refer to previous link.
So let's deconstruct the elements of this made up compound word -- "thought" and "crime". Speech is more than mere thought, and the right wishes to raise the specter of speech being suppressed or punished in violation of the First Amendment with regard to hate crimes.
Most people stop here in that the U.S. code regarding hate crimes does not punish speech, but punishes specific actions deemed by the code to be motivated by hate.
But this is also misuse of the word "thoughtcrime" as it was coined in its original context. Clearly, Orwell's 1984 posited a society by which the mere thought of challenging authority (not committing crimes against innocent civilians) was punishable. A variety of means and methods were used to detect such "thoughts".
The far religious right is thus twisting the meaning of "thoughtcrime" as it occurred in the Orwellian construct -- heh, whoever thought that the far right in America would twist Orwell to suit its own ends? But I digress. It twists the meaning of thoughtcrime in two distinct ways:
- "Speech". Speech is more than thought. One can think a thing and not say it. And as depicted in Orwell's novel, the oppressive government was clearly trying to claim it could detect subversive thought, and
- "Crime". The hate crimes laws on the books in the United States do not make it a criminal act to say a thing, only to do a thing.
Having said that, let us examine the religious right's reinterpretation of "thoughtcrime", by attempting a definition,
The idea that the government would punish, as criminal, political or social speech of any kind based on the thoughts of the speaker, especially in the context of disapproving of an identifiable group's characteristics, behaviors or mere existence, presumed or real.
As this is a good faith effort to interpret the right's novel definition of "thoughtcrime" as it is used in practice, let us take this redefinition and run with it.
Clearly, the right fears having its ability to disapprove of particular social groups curtailed by means of the government. It so fears this that it is willing to lie, and claim that such laws as are on the books, such as hate crimes legislation, which punishes behavior, is a slippery slope to punishing thought as exemplified by any speaker.
So, where in the U.S. code might such laws exist?
The only example that I know of is the military's DADT policy.
This exists in Title 10 of the U.S. code which states:
That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
-emphasis mine
So, we have element 1 of the religious right's redefinition of "thoughtcrime" - speech. One need only state that one is homosexual or bisexual, in order to be punished by removal from military duty under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. No homosexual activity or "behavior" must be found or observed in order for an individual in the armed forces to violate this code.
But, is a member of the armed services violating the DADT policy a "crime" either in definition or in practice?
I would state that, in practice, violating DADT is treated as a criminal act, resting on these lines of evidence:
- Prosecution
The military, when forced or when it wishes, uses the court martial procedure to remove an individual from service, when the DADT policy is violated or is suspected to have been violated.
Greer and other gay rights attorneys say Article 125 continues to be used against gay service members by military investigators who threaten to prosecute gay service members for sodomy, often forcing them to acknowledge their sexual orientation and agree to a discharge. Legal experts also note that Article 125 is the basis for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — a policy that holds that gays in the military who identify themselves would, in effect, be admitting they violate Article 125.
(Note: this same article also says that "military authorities have largely abandoned the enforcement of Article 125 against gay service members discovered to have engaged in consensual sodomy". But what is important is not that the military has "largely" abandoned this practice. What matters definitionally is that they can and still do threaten and do it, according to the books.)
Finally, make no mistake, a court martial is, in the dictionary sense of the word, a prosecution.
a. the institution and carrying on of legal proceedings against a person.
Courts martial, as practiced under the military code, consist of a prosecution and a defense similar to civilian trials.
Ergo, we have this: Violation of the DADT code, by an individual serving in the U.S. armed forces, can be prosecuted in a court martial, and made to plead "innocent" or "guilty".
Seems like a crime to me.
But, wait, we have the next element,
- Punishment.
Individuals who are found guilty of violating the DADT policy are investigated, possibly prosecuted and removed from service (that is, fired from their jobs).
This punishment can be very public and further meets the definition of a criminal punishment by intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Finally,
- Law
Reference the above mentioned Title 10, section 654 of the U.S. Code. Individuals are clearly referenced as violating the policy not merely by committing an act, but also by having a "propensity":
(f) Definitions.— In this section:
(1) The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.
(2) The term “bisexual” means a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.
(3) The term “homosexual act” means—
(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).
-emphasis mine
So, there you have it. Individuals can be investigated, prosecuted, and punished, by removal from the U.S. armed forces, for saying things or having a "propensity". This is defined in the U.S. Code.
The treatment of such individuals from start to finish has all the trappings of how the government treats an individual who has committed a crime: Investigation, prosecution and punishment.
Whereas the religious right has redefined "thoughtcrime" from its original context, in inaccurately making "thoughtcrime" cover speech, in contravention to its original derivation and context (and in the process screaming chicken little over something that just isn't so!) , the U.S. code has real thoughtcrime in terms of an individual having a mere "propensity".