Hate Crimes – A Slippery Slope

A hate crime is defined by the FBI as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”

In other words, hate crimes are those motivated by prejudice or bias involving the categories outlined above.

While the first hate crime law dates back to post civil war time with the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to combat the growing number of racially motivated crimes being committed by the Reconstruction era Ku Klux Klan, the modern versions started with Congress in 1968. That year Congress made it a crime to use, or threaten to use, force to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin – or because the victim is participating in a federally protected activity, such as public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations, or helping another person to do so.

In 1968, Congress also made it a crime to use, or threaten to use, force to interfere with housing rights because of the victim’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Without denoting the details, the law was enhanced and expanded in 1988 to add familial status and disability. Again in 1996: defacing, damaging or destroying religious property. And 2009: gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

Five states — Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Wyoming — do not have hate crime laws.

While one can understand hating the hate described in the law, the slippery slope referred to in the title of this piece goes to motive.

Whenever a crime is committed and brought to court, the prosecutor tries to present a motive for the crime.

In the case of hate crimes, the motive is the crime.

Hate speech vs. free speech

There are no laws in this country making hate speech a crime. Technically, no legislative body has taken on free speech as outlined in the First Amendment.

Due to rights protected by that Amendment, a person can say just about anything he or she wants to another person or group. By itself, such speech is allowed to take place without penalty under the law.

For example, a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case ruled it was perfectly legal for Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan member in Ohio, to speak in favor of violence toward minorities as long as he was not directly encouraging people to engage in violence or other activities that were against the law. So, while the court did not deem his speech to have broken the law, a line was drawn between speech supporting or favoring violence and speech that which directly incites violence. The former is protected by law, but the latter is an actual crime.

You may also recall the 2011 case of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka for showing up at the funerals of gay people and others whose lifestyles the church vehemently opposes, taunting and ridiculing grieving loved ones at services and graveyards. Despite the public outcry for law enforcement to stop those activities, the Supreme Court ruled what church members were doing was protected by free speech.

Needless to say, hate speech and the legalities associated with it can be a hotly debated topic. Know that when a person’s speech that does not affect another person’s physical condition or personal property it is not punishable by law.

However, going back to the examples cited, the key is whether the speech threatens bodily harm and/or involves the encouragement of others to do so.

It’s another ‘slippery slope’ as to whether a person’s speech can constitute a hate crime – and is open to the nature and circumstance, as interpreted in a specific situation.

It is worth noting that individuals employed by the Federal Government are not allowed to use discriminatory speech against any members of a protected class. Therefore, any speech representing hostility or disdain for a member of a protected class, may not be illegal but may result in the dismissal of the employee making such statements.

Some activists have advocated for the creation of hate speech laws. Resistance to the adoption of such stems from a failure to clearly define what hate speech actually is. Proponents have been challenged to clearly separate hate speech from free speech without infringing on a person’s right to the latter. A single and solid definition of hate speech, which does not violate the First Amendment, continues to be difficult for courts to accept.

That goes for defamation and libel suits against postings on social media sites as well. Legal issues include:

• Can you identify the person(s) who defamed you?
• What are the chances of the person defaming you has enough assets to make it worth your while?
• Where do you file such a suit?

The Communications Decency Act largely exempts website social platform hosts and ISPs from most defamation-related liability.

What seems to be reality also seems to be contradictory. Free speech is a right. But if I’m thinking rationally, speech can also obviously be interpreted as a threat. And since a threat in certain instances is a hate crime, it can negate the free speech right.

At this point you’re probably as confused as I am about hate crimes and hate speech.

What we do know is social media platforms are used by people, especially what I call the social media mob, to destroy a person’s reputation and career – and that should not be allowed on unproven allegations.

From that perspective, the most important thing that needs attention is modifying social media platforms’ exemption from liability. Those ‘platform’ companies are using that exemption to support and negate political positions – and free speech. Throw in the latest activity by those companies – using “fact checkers” to delete free speech on the basis of what they determine to be ‘correct’ speech. That squelches discussion and debate.

The prosecution of hate crimes is a slippery legal slope when the motive becomes the crime.

Protecting free speech is of paramount importance regardless of what is said. And censuring speech needs to be illegal.

References:

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-makes-a-crime-a-hate-crime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crime-laws

https://thelawdictionary.org/article/the-legalities-of-hate-speech/

SPIDER Bites

Just a note re: the recent Supreme Court ruling on the new Texas abortion law. The written decision includes the following: “… this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.” Oops, maybe the media didn’t tell us that the court didn’t decide on the constitutionality of the law – it wasn’t asked to. The unique approach of the Texas law allows private citizens to sue clinics for up to $10K and includes no public enforcement of the law. The reported “Lightning Rod” on abortion it was not. From a legal perspective, the Texas law is far from final judgement.

Depending on who’s talking, last week the administration said there were between 100 and 200 US citizens left behind in Afghanistan. Frankly, I don’t think they have a clue. Meanwhile, President Biden’s approval rating on the withdrawal is 31%, and his overall rating dropped to 44% (from 51%) in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. He now wants a ‘greased’ path to citizenship for the 95,000 Afghans we flew out on cargo planes – without vetting. Oh, and the Taliban invited Russia, China and Iran to its inaugural ceremony yesterday (9/11) to formally celebrate its re-takeover of the country. The hits just keep on coming.

President Biden announced a series of sweeping ‘mandates’ last week re: COVID. Most of them related to getting more people vaccinated, suggesting the unvaccinated are putting the vaccinated at risk. He did not explain the logic for the latter. Seems to me if he’s implying the vaccinated are at risk, it doesn’t make much sense to get vaccinated – which obviously works at cross purposes with his mandates. This latest series of government intrusions will overwhelm the court system with suits regarding the power of government under our Constitution.

Why is the highest paid federal employee (note the ‘woke’ gender-neutral reference) rebuking college football fans but not major league baseball fans for spreading COVID by attending games without masks?

In visiting IDA flooded areas in the NE last week, our President used the trip to say IDA was caused by CO2 generated fossil fuels – and to push for passage of his “infrastructure” (Green New Deal) bill. ‘Follow the science,’ we’re told. Except, science and data do not support Biden’s contention. Everything gets “politically weaponized” these days it seems.

The latest JOLTS data shows 11 million jobs in the US remain unfilled. Meanwhile the Fed indicated economic growth “downshifted slightly” last month. Really? It’s one of those government-influenced enigmas as business activity is still being defined by inflation, worker shortages and supply bottlenecks.

Here’s today’s trivia. In 1928 and 1934 the US printed 60,000 $10,000 bills. There are 336 of those bills known to exist today – only 8 of the 1924 series – worth between $115,000 and $225,000, dependent on condition.