[Peace-discuss] Hate crime bill vs. 1st Amendment

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Could Politically Incorrect Speakers Be Charged
	With Aiding and Abetting Hate Crimes?
	Jacob Sullum | October 15, 2009

On Tuesday I noted that, contrary to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assurances 
that the protections for First Amendment rights in the federal hate crime bill 
are stronger now than ever, the latest version (the one that will become law) 
omits language that the ACLU considered crucial. Hans Bader and Byron York, both 
in the Washington Examiner, point out another way in which the bill has become 
less freedom-friendly on the way to passage: The conference committee that 
resolved differences between the House and Senate versions dropped an amendment 
written by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) that said the bill should not be applied 
in a way that imposes a substantial burden on First Amendment freedoms "if such 
exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to 
plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of 
physical violence against another."

The bill now says that it's OK to impinge on people's First Amendment freedoms 
even if they are not conspiring to commit a violent crime or deliberately 
inciting one, as long as the burden "is in furtherance of a compelling 
governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that 
compelling governmental interest." In light of this more permissive language, 
Bader argues, the new law could be combined with the federal "aiding and 
abetting" statute to justify prosecuting people whose speech allegedly 
influenced others to commit hate crimes, even when that result was unintended. 
For example, a minister who inveighs against homosexuality could be prosecuted 
if a member of his congregation assaults gay people.

This is the sort of scenario cited by many conservative opponents of the hate 
crime bill. It never seemed very plausible to me, and I still think the courts 
would reject such cases on First Amendment grounds. But it's hard to see the 
purpose of the change highlighted by Bader and York unless it was meant to allow 
prosecutions that go beyond violent criminals to the people who allegedly shape 
their thinking.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/15/could-politically-incorrect-sp