We The People . . .
By Leonard Lippert, Chou Her, & Joe Ellis
????????????????????????????????? OR?
??????????????????????????????? picture courtesy of KKK

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedoms of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

Fourteenth Amendment:
...No state shell make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities or citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hate Crime:
A hate crime is defined as any illegal act that is committed to an individual based solely or partially upon his or her race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or country of origin.
?

??? After reading the previous three sections, can it really be said that these two Amendments can co - exist with our existing hate crime laws?
??? Is it a violation of our rights as US citizens to be told that we can be punished for the way we think, or for actions that we base on those thoughts?
??? Is it a violation of our right to equal protection that these laws seem to protect some groups, while leaving others out?
??? These are some very hot topics when it comes to the debate over hate crime laws in the US.? In the following sections, some issues will be discussed to hopefully help you the people decide.

??????????????????????????????????????? First Amendment Issues

??? The United States Supreme Court has decided two major cases dealing hate crimes laws.? In both cases, the decision was based on the First Amendment.? The first cases was RAV v St Paul Minnesota.? In June of 1990, Robert A. Viktora was arrested for burning a cross in the front yard of the only black family in the neighborhood.? He was convicted under St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance that banned the display of any symbol "including but not limited to a burning cross or Nazi swastika, [that] arouses anger, alarm, or resentment in others n the basis of race, color creed, religion, or gender."? After the cases was overturned, then reversed in the Minnesota court system, it was heard in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.? The court reversed the conviction on RAV in the Minnesota court on the grounds that the law was too broad in its language.? It was The Courts reasoning that this law could only apply to fighting words, and not actions.? The part of the case that The Court really had a problem with that dealt with the First Amendment was they felt that St. Paul had no right to ban cross burning on the basis of racial bias.? Justice Scalia basically said that the only purpose of the St Paul statute was to show the city's disdain for these types of actions.? The most important part of the decision was the part of the ruling that stated St. Paul had no right to ban acts based on racist bias.
??? This case makes a strong argument for those against hate crime laws.? Here, The Court is saying that it is unconstitutional for the state to make a law which punishes one for their thoughts, in this case, the bias thoughts of RAV and his friends.? If one was to argue that hate crime laws punish thoughts and go against what is the fabric of our First Amendment rights , they can point to The Courts decision and opinions in this case.
?
??? The second major U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with hate crime laws was State of Wisconsin v Todd Mitchell.? In October of 1989 Mitchell, a young black man , was with a group of his friends and they were leaving the movie theater after watching Mississippi Burning.? In that movie, members of the Ku Klux Klan killed a black man.? After walking out of the theater, Mitchell asked his friends if they wanted to "move on some white people."? About that time, a 14 year old white boy walked by and Mitchell said "You all want to fuck somebody up?? There goes a white boy!? Go get him!"? Mitchell's friends then proceeded to catch the boy and beat him so severely, that he went into a coma.? Although Mitchell never touched the boy, he was convicted of aggravated battery and sentenced to two years in prision.? Under Wisconsin's Penalty Enhancement Statute, Mitchell received an additional two years added to his sentence.? Wisconsin's statute provided an enhancement for crimes that were committed due to the selection of the victim based on "the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry of that person."? Mitchell appealed his enhanced sentence to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which reversed it citing the decision in the RAV case.? the state of Wisconsin then appealed the reversal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
??? The Court reversed Wisconsin's reversal and held that the enhancement law was constitutional.? The Court ruled that there was difference between the RAV case and this one.? In this case, Justice Rehnquist ruled that the enhancement law was constitutional because it punished conduct, and not speech.? In Mitchell's case, he chose his victim based on race, not just due to a racial bias.
??? the difference although The Court found in favor of the Hate Crime laws in this case, it can still be argued by some that Mitchell's decision to beat up a white boy was based on his thoughts, and should be protected under the RAV decision.? Who's right?? That is for each and their own to decide.

????????????????????????????????? Fourteenth Amendment Issues
??? The Fourteenth Amendment was written to guarantee us equal protection, from the government.? The question is, does the creation of? hate crime laws endanger this right?? It can be argued that it does.
??? In the case of Mitchell, do you think if the Mitchell and his friends beat up Mitchell's grandmother in the exact same fashion as they did that boy that they would of received that same puishment?? The answer to that question is no.? He just would of been convicted of the aggravated battery charge and gotten the two years.? Since it was a white guy they assaulted, he got an additional two years.? Is that right?? Does that mean that Mitchell's grandmother is any less of a person?? Does that mean that his grandmother receives less protection that the young white boy from the government?? To many they would say yes, she does get less protection.
??? In the wording of hate crime laws, it seem that there is always someone who can get left out.? Someone who the language lets slip through the cracks.? It seems to make a lot of sense, but many people have tried to use this as their defense, but all of them have failed.? It has been such a bad defense, that I could no find a case that made it as far as the U.S. Supreme Court based on this argument.
??? People who belong to groups that preach about hate seem to be unequally protected by hate crime laws, but not in the way that one might think.? In this case, they are prosecuted unequally than other groups.? For example, if a known skinhead ran over a black man with his car, he would quite possibly be charged with a hate crime.? Even if in all reality he ran the guy over by accident, with the present hate crime laws, and the view that people have about skin heads, due in part mostly to the hype around the hate crime laws, he would be charged, and even convicted of a higher offense.? I don't think that this was the purpose of the hate crime laws, but unfortunately that is the way that it is.
?
?
?
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? This picture courtesy of? www.kkk.com

How Other Countries Deal with issues in Hate Crimes and Speech

Germany:
In Germany the government is extremely harsh on those who would commit crimes such acts of hate.? Germany has banned the use of and the display of any symbols that would be associated with hate groups.

Canada:
Canada is similar to the United States when it comes issues of hate crimes and hate speeches, however it doesn't go as far as the US in protecting hate speeches.

Japan and other Eastern Pacific Ocean Countries:
When it comes to the acceptance of hate speeches and hate crimes the countries of the eastern pacific ocean are among the very top in not accepting such behavior.? Though these countries have varying degrees of punishment for those who would commit such acts, the most common punishment is through the use of physical torture and punishment.

China:
In China the country has many laws against the hate crimes and hate speeches.? There is however the unofficial policy, which most if not all chinese people know of, is that if you do anything that causes the government any problems, then the Chinese army will come and kidnap you in the middle of the night.? After being kidnapped, you're either sent to a hard labor for practically life or you're put to death.??
?

Sources:
canada.justice.gc.ca/Orientation/Reforme/Haien/hate_en_43.html
United States Constitution
Winters, Paul.? Hate Crimes.? San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996
www.kkk.com
www.qflags.com
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
?