10 Years After Matthew Shepard and Media Still Can't Get It Right

You can follow Karl on Twitter and Facebook.

Ten years ago, a gay University of Wyoming student was picked up at a bar by two young men, driven out to the middle of nowhere, pistol-whipped, tortured, robbed, tied to a fence and left for dead. Eighteen hours later he was found -- still alive but comatose -- by a bicyclist, who at first thought the seemingly lifeless body, its face completely covered in blood except for the skin-colored trails left by tears, was a "scarecrow."

At the time of the brutal attack that resulted in Matthew Shepard's death six days later, I was working as finance director for then-Rep. Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican with a staunchly anti-gay voting record.

Back then I'd never told a soul that I was gay. The attack did more than frighten me; it knocked the wind out of me. Raised in Los Angeles but now living in rural Iowa, I was concerned that should my secret ever be found out, I would face a fate similar to that of Shepard. The response from those around me within the conservative movement -- that Shepard was a "fag," that he shouldn't have flirted with the defendants, that he would burn in hell for his sexual orientation -- only sent me deeper into the closet.

During the ensuing trial of Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, the prosecutor argued that the defendants had played gay in order to gain Shepard's trust. Their girlfriends even testified under oath that Henderson and McKinney had planned in advance to rob a gay man. Ultimately, for kidnapping, robbing and murdering Shepard, Henderson and McKinney were each given two consecutive life sentences. Henderson avoided the death penalty in exchange for his guilty plea, and McKinney at the behest of Shepard's parents upon his conviction.

In the years that followed, I would slowly come to grips with my sexuality. I came out to friends and family. I abandoned the conservative movement in search of greener, less hateful pastures. I embraced hope and rejected fear. The country was changing right alongside me as public attitudes toward gay and lesbian Americans steadily improved throughout the decade.

For all the progress, though, debate over enhancing the current federal hate crimes law by including gay, lesbian, and transgender people among its protected classes rages on -- race, color, religion and national origin have been protected for years.

How can it be that 10 years after Shepard's brutal, bias-motivated murder we still find ourselves caught up in the same tired debate?

Witness Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina. During a debate over hate crimes legislation that recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives, she said : "The hate crimes bill was named for [Shepard], but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills." Foxx's "hoax" comment was made in an effort to bolster her apparent belief that Shepard's murder was the result of a robbery gone wrong. Where on Earth could she have come up with such an idea?

Enter ABC's 20/20. In 2004 the long-running network newsmagazine aired a special on the Wyoming hate crime that, as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) put it at the time, attempted to "undermine the notion that anti-gay bias contributed to" the murder.

Most damning of all, GLAAD noted that "20/20's piece relies heavily on the perceived credibility of Aaron McKinney, who is now claiming to have lied about the role anti-gay bias played in his decision to target and kill Shepard," and that McKinney's girlfriend "now claims she made up the story about McKinney's homophobic rage against Shepard," which she testified to at McKinney's trial.

Among other things, GLAAD also found that 20/20 had ignored "several important sources and pieces of information." There was "no discussion of the details of Aaron McKinney's confession to the police, where anti-gay bias [was] central to his characterization," "[n]o mention of the plea bargain that spared McKinney's life," and no mention of the provision of that plea bargain barring McKinney and his attorneys from discussing the case with the media.

Long before finding its way into Foxx's "hoax" remarks on the House floor, 20/20's report provided fodder for those opposed to an expanded federal hate crimes law.

Perhaps fearing a hate crimes bill that protects gay, lesbian, and transgender people will soon be enacted -- thanks to a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and the president -- many media conservatives have seen fit to maliciously attack the legislation, just as 20/20 twisted and misreported the events surrounding Shepard's death.

During a recent broadcast of his top-rated cable program, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said of the hate crimes bill, which not only adds gay, lesbian, and transgender people to the list of protected classes but the disabled as well, "[Y]ou could make an argument that a pedophile has a disease, and because the disease is there, he's a target or she's a target." O'Reilly later added that pedophiles could be included because "[d]isability is included. They have a mental disability." He's wrong. Pedophilia is not considered a "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; in fact, the ADA specifically excludes pedophilia. Bringing up "pedophilia" during discussion of gay and lesbian issues is old hat for those opposed to full equality for the LGBT community.

O'Reilly wasn't alone pushing this line of attack at Fox News. Sean Hannity, Bill Hemmer, and The Fox Nation website all advanced the false claim that House Democrats voted to "protect" or "defend" pedophiles. On-screen text along the bottom of the screen on Fox quite literally read, "HOUSE DEMS VOTE TO PROTECT PEDOPHILES, BUT NOT VETERANS."

When they weren't spouting off nonsense about pedophiles being protected in the legislation, they were busy pushing the false notion that passage of the bill would somehow suppress religious thought or speech. During a segment on Fox News' America's Newsroom, correspondent Molly Henneberg reported without question that religious groups are concerned that "they may be prosecuted for their religious beliefs if they believe that homosexuality is a sin, that it could gag ministers who preach that, or even if a church may not want to marry a gay couple. There is concern that they could face lawsuits as well."

Let us be clear: The assertion that this legislation would allow individuals or groups to "be prosecuted for their religious beliefs" is patently false. Section 8 of the bill unambiguously states that "[n]othing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the Constitution" -- which, of course, includes the First Amendment's right to free speech and exercise of religion.

Reporters, hosts, anchors, and pundits -- indeed, all Americans -- are free to feel and speak as they wish about the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. It's their right, even if they aren't being honest. Unfortunately, too many have chosen to use this freedom with complete disregard for the facts.

Fox News and those who parrot its brand of deceptive reporting on this issue have been left behind by an America that continues its centuries-long march toward increased equality.

How frightened they must be.

Karl Frisch is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary.

Comments

[josephRoehl]

There should be included in the legislation a role for the Justice Department to sue to seize the finances and properties of the hate-mongers. Hate speech which incites violence and dehumanization of gays...and all bullying, should have consequences to the perpetrators' pocketbooks as well as publicity about themselves and compensation to victims and their families should also be added. It's time for some real teeth to stop HATE.
Freedom of speech should never have allowed religious zealots to harm, harrass, or abuse nonbelievers. By sanctioning the expansion of religion into American politics, the Constitution was turned into a useful rag for those who profit by spreading hate and fear. Enough! Try Justice Marshall who said no one has the right to cry 'fire' when their is none, simply to panic the populace.

[josephRoehl]

sorry, spelling....last word previous post "evolve"

[josephRoehl]

Never forget Matthew Shepard! My own experience goest back 25 yrs ago when I was writing letters to editors and commenting on local radio in Texas that gay equal rights for our families was guaranteed in the Constitution.
I was living in Austin, Tx at the time so thought myself relatively safe, but my place of residence was stoned, my dog and cat poisoned and then my place was burned down.....and not one word was said, nor one thing done to protect me nor to compensate me, and I was made to know that I was not welcome in the state of my birthrights, so thankfully my father who'd served in WWII in the S. Pacific, helped me flee to New Zealand where I lobbied for equal gay rights, and helped get the rules changed.
I hope and pray America starts living up to its creed....that all are created equal and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of their own happiness. Come on, stop the haters, it's time to evole.

[JohnJames]

I'm gay but all things considered, and I've considered this matter for a while, hate crime legislation IS a morass and should probably be done away with entirely. But that's unlikely to happen. Religion and race are already on the books and principled conservatives (there are a few) show no stomach for that battle. It seems to me that any fair minded person can understand that gays suspect homophobia is at play when the addition of sexual orientation provokes a firestorm of opposition and sudden apprehension of "thought crimes" while no effort is made to do away with the other categories. Gays don't want special treatment and they don't want the perception of receiving special treatment either and , stupidly, that's what it inevitably amounts to because we ourselves don't assault people for being straight - we just don't. Either show the same enthusiasm for abolishing this legislation altogether or be fair and add sexual orientation.

[Palemoon]

Mr. Frisch, I suppose the first question I must ask is the obvious one about the most incredulous part of your post. Why, oh why, would you ever have worked for a Republican and apparently were a Republican yourself? Why do that know that knowing full well that Republicans hated anyone in the LGBT community since the 1970's and were very public about it? I do not understand your motives there.

But I guess the way the rest of the article is worded gives me part of the answer, the inability to take a stand on something. I don't remember if I ever saw that 20/20 report or not, so I can't pass judgement whether it had an anti-gay bias as you imply, but don't say directly. Nor did you offer up any proof.

Also, what areas you did dive into, you were pretty lackluster. For example, the Fox News deliberate lying about the story and the bill. Why don't you just make a stand and call it for what it is? It's PROPAGANDA. To say, in your own words that it was merely "deceptive reporting" tells me that you are actually defending Fox and trying to lessen the impact of their story.

[Totto]

Matthew Shepard suffered severe brain stem damage due to a fracture from the back of his head to his right ear. His injuries were too severe for doctors to operate. Kristin Price (McKinney's girlfriend) and McKinney's long-time friend, Tom O'Connor, stated their belief that McKinney was bisexual. O'Connor stated that he and McKinney had sex in the past..

The focus and intensity of the vicious attack on Matthew Shepard demonstrates the ferocity of McKinney's and O'Connor's self-hatred. In a society where so many are ambivalent about all forms of sexuality and their own orientation specifically, laws must protect potential victims. Matthew was killed because he was gay and the attackers used that violence to eradicate their hatred of their own sexual activity.

[billygore2000]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment I think the first great thing in life boys discover is other boys. They make friends, are socialized, learn to love. And when puberty hits, a lot more goes on among boys than boys-become-adult men want to remember or acknowledge, that is, those who become attracted to girls.

[confidance government]

Hate Crimes Legislation only reinforces the notion that people need to divided and treated unequally. as the author points out, the two "men" who were responsible for this act were tried in a court of law and sentenced by their peers; justice was served with the existing laws.
I understand the motivation to rid the world of bigotry and prejuidice, but frankly I find that ths type of legislation is conterproductive as it enshrines seperate standards for punishment based on the race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim and and the perpetrator.
For this, while I share the author's disgust at those that have used under-handed tactics trying to prevent this legislation, I nevertheless must state my opposition and remind him that some Americans oppose this legislation based on the deeply held belief that equality in law is sacrosanct, not because they endorse the prejuidices it is designed to combat.

[Bruupo]

It is genuinely refreshing to read a well stated, principled opinion in opposition to the bill.

It's unfortunate that it stands out so much amidst the sea of regurgitated, demonstrably false talking points from so many others opposed to it.

[Rrhain]

Except it completely misses the point behind hate crimes legislation. It is more than simply enhanced penalties. It also allows the federal justice system to become involved should the local authorities be part of the problem. If a bias crime is perpetrated and the people charged with enforcing the law don't do anything about it because they, too, are infected with this bias, how can there be any justice? Hate crimes legislation allows the feds to step in.

The "divided and treated unequally" comment indicates the author doesn't understand gradations of crime. By this logic, there is no such thing as first-degree murder compared to second-degree murder or manslaughter. They are all the same, they should all be treated the same, and reckless endangerment should be treated the same as pre-meditation.

Hate crimes are not just about the individual who was attacked. It is about terrorising those who fall into that group. When your next-door neighbor is killed by his ex, there is no connection to anybody else since the crime was personal by the perpetrator against the victim. When your next-door neighbor is killed because of his connection to a class of people, it is generalized to the whole class and is thus a more significant crime.

Would you be happier if these laws were called "anti-terrorism" laws?

[MajorKong]

I disagree.

The hate crimes laws speak to motive. Just as we consider motive in a "standard" murder trial.

[billygore2000]

It would be wonderful if the principles of law, and laws, were sacrosanct. They aren't. The king is not above the law: I believe this took some struggle in England to establish. Yet George W. and Cheney got away with it, with the help of the electorate. I would like it if your ideals ruled, but they don't. Even in 2009, there are gay men who live every day afraid of being found out, not to mention something hateful.

[adoantarel]

I'm a gay man, and I actually agree that adding to the sentences of people who commit hate crimes is inappropriate. The focus of hate crimes legislation should be on the powers of law enforcement.

The real worry with hate crimes isn't putting people in prison for another year, it's that the local law enforcement may be biased and thus not pursue the crimes. Imagine a black man lynched in the deep south and a good ole boy sheriff who says, "There just isn't enough evidence." There needs to be federal provisions for the FBI or the justice department to step in, investigate, and prosecute under such sorry and unjust circumstances. That's the real importance of hate crimes legislation.

[billygore2000]

You comment that you "actually agree that adding the sentences of people who commit hate crimes is inappropriate" Hey, guy, the question is of justice for someone like Matt who was pistol whipped and left to die for hours and hours and hours, crucified on a barbed-wire fence.

[Aramingo]

It is refreshing to hear a cogent defense of the opposition to hate crime legislation. The only response I would have is that a hate crime is essentially a terrorist act against a group that singles out individuals as examples. Do you think gays in Wyoming weren't terrified after that poor kids murder?
Or how about balcks in Texas after that guy was dragged behind a pick up truck?

To me, that is the difference between "normal" and "hate" crimes

[paisleyface]

Oh, all this time, effort and money spent on such nonsense. There are ethnic people selling nickle bags or marijuana out there. What could be more terrifying? Please people, focus!

[love2lindy]

re: "How frightened they must be."

Call me stupid, but what exactly ARE they frightened of? How insecure must they be to be this scared of gays, or asians, or hispanics, or whoever else they consider "other." What in the world do they think any of these groups can actually do to disrupt their lives.

I just don't get it.

[essbird]

Many of the most rabid are frightened of themselves, of the "demon" lurking within. Rev. Ted Haggard is a good example. Here is part of the confession letter he wrote to his congregation:

"In a letter read to members of his New Life Church on Sunday, Haggard said he is 'a deceiver and a liar.' Haggard apologized to his congregation in the letter and asked for their forgiveness.

"'There is part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life,' Haggard said in the letter read by the Rev. Larry Stockstill, a member of the board of overseers of New Life Church."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/haggard.allegations/index.html

[billygore2000]

Nice read. I suppose every gay man, anywhere, shuddered from the fearful thought, That could have been me, when the news of the brutal murder of Matt broke. I can't bear to think of how he suffered.

[SonofLiberty1]

Billy,

It could have happened to anyone, gay or straight is just an excuse for behaving badly.

[billygore2000]

No. It happened to Matt. Because he was gay. . .

[JohnJames]

Anyone who's perceived or known to be gay is at a vastly greater risk. Yes, heterosexuals are beaten and killed but not because they're heterosexual. Gay men in this country live with the knowledge that simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which can mean nothing more than walking down the street in their own neighborhood minding their own business, can result in an assault. It is a kind of terrorism because it's impersonal and can come out of nowhere at any moment. Heterosexual men don't live with that - not because they're heterosexual, anyway. I myself live in both worlds, so to speak, because I'm a gay man who's stereotypically masculine who's never perceived to be gay ( though I don't ever hold hands with my boyfriend in public, either ). But I have gay friends I'd never take to a local blue collar bar I sometimes frequent, though it's perfectly safe for straights, late in the evening. Just their being themselves causing no one any trouble could provoke violence.

[essbird]

And here we have the issue: Many are convinced it's just bad behavior. It's not. It's motivated by hate. Bad behavior is sticking someone up to get drug money. White-hot hate motivates you to seek out an object of your hate and macerate them to a pulp and hang them on a fence. Or chain them to the back of your pickup and drag them until their skin is flayed off. Don't you get the difference?

[MrsFonebone]

I'll support these as hate crimes when women are included--the women who are preyed upon only because they are women, who are tortured and murdered--it's just another news story, and if the women survive, the perpetrators get very short sentences.

[denisew]

Women should be included in hate crimes legislation.

Some men use their superior physical strength to torture and kill women because women are an easy target, they cannot fight back against their attackers.

I look at these men and wonder why they didn't try to torture a man of equal size and strength, and the answer is clear, they pick on women because of their lack of ability to fight back.

It seems like business as usual when we read of men killing women "for sport" , we don't even bat an eyelash.

[The Ghost]

Women are a protected class already.

[VoteforPedro]

Women already have more than their fair share of protections. Just look at domestic violence laws. All a woman has to do is call 911 and report that her husband looked at her the wrong way and he's taken away in handcuffs. Look at child custody laws too.

You need to stop swallowing the propaganda from the Church of Eternal Victimhood (aka femi nism).

[BeltwayInsider]

This whole nonsense of the conservative press and conservative religious groups continuing to blur the distinction between church marriage and civil marriage has got to end.

I was raised as a Catholic. I don't think I was even ten years old when it was explained to me that the Catholic church does not marry anyone who was previously divorced. Period. And that there were certain other criteria that had to be met before a couple could marry within the Catholic church. I was crystal clear on the difference between a church marriage and a civil marriage. And, to boot, I never considered myself a terribly bright or gifted child in any way, shape or form. This is simply not a difficult concept to grasp.

It's my understanding that even some members of Congress remain unclear about the distinction between a church marriage and a civil marriage.

[BeltwayInsider]

BTW, my remark is in regard to the following point in the blog:

'During a segment on Fox News' America's Newsroom, correspondent Molly Henneberg reported without question that religious groups are concerned that "they may be prosecuted for their religious beliefs if they believe that homosexuality is a sin, that it could gag ministers who preach that, or even if a church may not want to marry a gay couple.'

I mean, if after how many decades of liberal divorce laws in America, the Catholic church remains under no pressure to marry people who have previously divorced, can any rational person think that churches will somehow come under pressure to marry same sex couples?

[SonofLiberty1]

Technically, if it can be shown that a marriage was not valid, if there was really no intent to have children, that marriage can be annulled.

[SonofLiberty1]

Beltway,

The fact is that everyone in America, must first obtain a "Marriage License" before they can be legally married by a Judge or Cleric.

For most of us, that is only the first step, because we are religious and we are married by a Cleric.

[xdevildawg4u]

You might want to check your facts there SonofLiberty.

The latest stats show that more people are now married in civil ceremonies than religious ones.

[SonofLiberty1]

I never believed in hate crimes..heck if it's a crime it's a crime right.
What those idiots did to young Matthew Sheppard was horrendous...

But there is another name for it...

Bullying period.

Hate crime legislation doesn't stop bullying. Doesn't matter a damn bit what reasons they give...
The real unamed reason is that they are sick individuals that do these things...being different or gay is just an excuse.

On the other hand there is always the idea of self preservation.
Why not just try to fit in?

Most of us learn that lesson too.

[BeltwayInsider]

"But there is another name for it..."

Yes, there is. And that other name is terrorism.

The ultimate intention of what is characterized as a hate crime is not to inflect pain or harm to an individual, it is to terrorize an entire community.

[essbird]

"Fit in?' Are you of the party of personal freedom? What is personal freedom if not the freedom to be who you are as long as you don't hurt others? Is personal freedom only about whether the government restricts you? How about the freedom to walk down the street without getting beat up for how you look or walk? If you're a Republican or a Libertarian and all about "freedom," you should be a vocal supporter of hate crimes legislation.

[essbird]

Sorry - my comment was @ SonofLiberty1

[BeltwayInsider]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that people "fit in" so they don't get bullied?

If so, I believe that's one of the primary reasons why we need hate crime legislation. No one should be subjected to bullying because of anyone's bigoted world view. I mean, really. I don't think a straight couple should have to consider restraining themselves from holding hands when they pass through a predominantly gay neighborhood because the neighborhood is notorious for straight-bashing incidents. That doesn't sound like the America we want.

[SonofLiberty1]

Children are sent to school with the intent that school administrators and teachers will take care of the students, sadly, that seems to be a lost intent.

In elementary school you don't know how to fit in but as you get older you learn some coping mechanisms.

All the same, bullying should be something that never happens.

However, when you become an adult, even if you are a young adult, you should have realized a few things.....

Now, I'm not gay, so I really can't say what that is like but in the real world most of us are not gay.

But some things are common sense or used to be common sense still apply.

There are some things that are very private but I guess some folks like to be so totally open...I have no idea why.

Some of these things come under the title of "Manners" but it seems like some of us
just never got that message.

[SonofLiberty1]

Beltway...

It's called "Self Preservation".

Look at it in a different way...

You like baseball but you work with people who aren't into baseball.
So what do you do?

You don't talk baseball with them now do you?

And you find friends who enjoy talking about it.

Kind of the same thing

[xdevildawg4u]

"Just fit in?"

Typical conservative "BLAME THE VICTIM" first.

[imperator prime]

"Why not just try to fit in?"

Tell you what: you try going to a gay bar some night and 'just try fitting in.' Do whatever it takes to conceal the fact that you're straight-- no matter how uncomfortable or distasteful or unnatural it might feel to you as a hetero trying to pass for homo. Then try doing that all day, every day, for the rest of your life. Or at least just when you're not in the privacy of your own home; just 'closet' yourself as a heterosexual any time that you're in public. Because for a gay person to "just fit in" to a whole big wide world that's mostly straight, that would be more or less an analogue.

Once you've conducted that little experiment, then you can come back and talk about how it's no big deal to fake your orientation for the sake of conformity.

A just society extolling 'freedom, liberty and equality' doesn't answer the question of "how do we stop harassment and intimidation and bullying and prejudice and bigotry" with "well everyone should stop being 'different' and all try being the same."

Of course, if you'd *rather* be a Borg, we can take up a collection for a Saturn V rocket to strap you to and fire you off into deep space.

[lisakaz2]

Thanks for your post. And good for you to be yourself and stop hiding.

[M1]

Great Article. Thank you.