On the surface, the Cardinal View editorial, 'The constitution protects hate,' makes a reasonable case against the constitutionality of hate crime laws. While the editorial agrees that bigotry has no place in a university setting, the issue is whether or not hate crime statutes violate central tenets guarding civil liberties.
The claim is that hate crime laws 'afford minority populations special, un-equal rights under the law, a clear infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment.' This implies that the law protects minority groups but would deem inadmissible any crime committed by minorities against the white majority.
The irony here is that the constitutional legality of hate crime statutes is based on a case brought by a black man found guilty of hate against a white boy (Wisconsin v. Mitchell). This goes against a common misconception about hate statutes: that they are designed to please the whims of the 'politically correct minority groups' at the expense of everyone's civil liberties. Theoretically, if a group of violent gay delinquents decide to assault someone for being straight, the victim can use these same laws against them.
But what about the argument that hate crime laws are Orwellian, seeking to control thought since they're shifting the 'focus of a crime from intent to motive'?
It is important to realize that hate crime statutes are addendums to a criminal offense; a crime must first be committed for them to apply. While the media implies otherwise, the focus of the court is, in the case against the two freshmen, criminal damage to property and disorderly conduct. Focus has not 'shifted' and the statutes apply only during sentencing.
But by taking into account the motives of the perpetrator, isn't that legislating against thought? Why should someone thinking with prejudice be sentenced more severely than someone who might have been thinking about Kenny Chesney during the crime?
Nothing in the constitution blocks admission of motives as evidence, and cases like 'treason' examine them. How remorseful you are after the crime, whether you are a moron and continually rob banks after being caught four times illustrates your 'motives,' normally factored into any sentencing decisions. I would think most reasonable people would agree that this is not exactly thought policing.
Hate crime statutes are not legislation against the freedom to express hatred. They are only triggered in tandem with another crime. They are there because bigotry is a public safety issue, crimes that affect the safety of the larger community.
