From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: soc.rights.human,misc.legal,alt.activism
Subject: Re: ADL/Hate Crime Laws
Date: 28 Jul 92 0:30:3 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems

The Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) hate crimes
statutes have been denounced as an ``Orwellian'' attack on
the free speech protections of the First Amendment, by a
Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. In its decision, issued
June 23, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a
Minnesota hate crime statute, the Wisconsin ruling
undercuts the legal support for the ``sentencing
enhancement'' provisions of the ADL-sponsored statutes
which are now on the books in 48 other states. The only
element of the ADL program left unchallenged is the
federal ``Hate Crime Statistics Act,'' which should be
scrutinized by Congress in light of this ruling. 
   The Wisconsin case, {State of Wisconsin v. Todd
Mitchell,} involved a black youth who led a gang which
attacked a white teenager, beat him unconscious, and stole
his tennis shoes. Ironically, the attack was precipitated
by a heated discussion among the youths about the movie
``Mississippi Burning''--an inflammatory and fraudulent
propaganda piece produced on behalf of the ADL by
Hollywood to support the hate crimes statutes. Todd
Mitchell, one of the older members of the group, asked the
others, ``Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white
people?'' Upon sighting the victim, Mitchell urged, ``You
all want to f-- somebody up? There goes a white boy; go
get him.'' 
   The state charged and convicted Mitchell of
aggravated battery, a felony which carried a maximum
sentence of two years. The jury found that Mitchell had
selected his victim because of his race, thereby being
guilty of committing a ``hate crime'' which increased the
potential maximum sentence from two to seven years. The
circuit court and the appeals court denied Mitchell's
request for relief, and the issue brought before the State
Supreme Court was the constitutionality of the sentencing
enhancement provisions themselves. 

          - ADL schemes create thought crimes -
   The Wisconsin law is based on the ADL model statute,
which provides for increased penalties for crimes already
punishable by law. Despite the fact that in some cases the
enhanced punishments can transform a misdemeanor (such as
simple battery) into a felony, the ADL claims the statutes
do not create new crimes, but merely use a sentencing
procedure to punish bigotry. 
   Chief Justice Heffernan, writing for the majority,
ripped this argument to ribbons. First of all, he said,
``The hate crimes statute violates the First Amendment
directly by punishing what the legislature has deemed to
be offensive thought and violates the First Amendment
indirectly by chilling free speech.'' He pointed out that
``in any assault upon an individual there is a selection of
the victim'' and that is part of the underlying offense,
the ``intent'' in committing the crime. The inherent problem
with the hate crimes statutes is that they specifically
target the ``motive'' or thought behind the selection, and
do so in a subjective, and even political fashion. 
   The seemingly plausible defense of the statutes
raised by the ADL and the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force (the other main sponsor of these laws), asserts that
the statutes are the same thing as the anti-discrimination
features of civil rights laws. The ADL, an openly racist
organization, drapes these laws with the mantle of the
civil rights movement. 
   Justice Heffernan correctly points out that
``discrimination and bigotry are not the same thing'' and
can't be treated legally as if they were. In
anti-discrimination statutes, for example, it is a
discriminatory {act} which is prohibited. Additionally, he
points out, ``there is a difference between the civil
penalties [of] anti-discrimination statutes and the
criminal penalties imposed by the hate crimes law.... It
is the objective conduct taken in respect to the victim
which is redressed (not punished) by those
[anti-discrimination] statutes, not the actor's motives.'' 
   Heffernan continues: ``The hate crimes statute does
not punish the underlying criminal act, it punishes the
defendant's motive for acting. Taking the dissent's
explanation that the statute is concerned with the
`decision' of the defendant, it is clear that the hate
crimes statute creates nothing more than a thought crime.
Apparently that dissent is comfortable with such an
Orwellian notion; we are not.'' 
   In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a hate
crime ordinance passed by the city of St. Paul, Minnesota.
That ordinance banned conduct which ``arouses anger, alarm,
or resentment in others on the basis of race, color,
creed, religion or gender.'' The court ruled that the
historic protections of the First Amendment, which has
been interpreted to allow for the punishment of especially
inflammatory or provocative speech, would be nullified if
legislatures are allowed to selectively punish only
certain classes of ``fighting words'' based upon the content
of the expression, i.e., ``bias-motivated'' hatred. 
   This problem plagues the sentencing enhancement
provisions of hate crime laws in general. The chilling
effect on free speech cast by the hate crimes statutes is
dangerously broad, the court notes. In effect, every
personal association, every book ever read, every speech
ever given or listened to by anyone charged with one of
the underlying offenses, could be introduced as evidence
that he or she held ``bigoted'' views and was acting upon
them while committing the offense. 

From Executive Intelligence Review V19, #30.

----
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com

Newsgroups: soc.rights.human,misc.legal,alt.activism