“The only way in which this is a free speech issue is this, and I think it’s what much2learn is getting at: punishment of vandalism by the government (and that includes public universities) must be " content neutral”. In other words you are supposed to get the same punishment for writing “Go Blue” in an act of vandalism at a church as some sort of anti-Semitic (I’m Jewish so I’m using that as an example and I’m going to assume for a minute this isn’t a threat. ) words. And writing on a wall is of course speaking.
I don’t believe this is accurate. Can the lawyers please comment?
In 2014, here in Illinois, a man came and defaced our synagogue, writing slurs on the property, destroying windows, etc. He was charged with a hate crime. It wasn’t “content neutral.” It was a worse punishment than if he had written “Go Cubs!” on the buildings. Whether that should be that way or not I suppose is a different topic, but right now that’s what it is in Illinois.
I find it a little odd that when something is vandalism, people are arguing free speech. I mean, you don’t have the right to come paint anything on my garage door even if it’s “PG is the greatest person on the entire planet.”
@Pizzagirl. I am a lawyer and have litigated many first Amendment issues. As I said of course you can punish someone for vandalism. But free speech comes into it in that the punishment is supposed to be the same no matter the content of the speech so long as the speech isn’t a threat or other non protected speech. See mu UMich example.
As I also said Hate Speech laws ARE used today to charge people in a non content neutral way but many legal scholars believe those laws are unconstitutional and thus if the perpetrator fought their conviction they might have those charges thrown out. Most people don’t fight them. The guy at your synagogue might not have. However some do and There are several lower court cases that have thrown out these laws. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issues definitively.
However The U.S. Supreme Court has been called upon to examine the constitutionality of at least one hate-crime laws. In 1992 the Court struck down a St. Paul, Minnesota, ordinance on the ground that it violated the First Amendment (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 [1992]). In R.A.V. several juvenile defendants were tried and convicted after they allegedly assembled a crude, wooden cross and set it on fire in the yard of an African-American family in St. Paul. The teenagers were arrested and charged under St. Paul’s Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance (Minn. Legis. Code § 292.02). Under the ordinance, a person who placed “on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika” and who had reason to know that the display would arouse anger or alarm in others based on “race, color, creed, religion or gender” was guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Suoreme Court ruled this was too broad and content based and fond that they couldn’t be convicted because of the First Anendment. The issue they haven’t decided is the exact boundaries of all Hate Crimes laws which are all written a little differently.
Somehow I doubt they would have been accepted into NW in the first place if their admissions essays said, “Boy I can’t wait to vandalize your chapel!”
Expel them. I don’t know why it’s even a question. They committed felony vandalism in a place of worship with potential hate crime implications. Give their spots to two deserving waitlist students who don’t have turds for brains and who understand you don’t do crap like this.
“In 2014, here in Illinois, a man came and defaced our synagogue, writing slurs on the property, destroying windows, etc. He was charged with a hate crime.”
In this case, PG, it sounds like there is more evidence than a spray painted word that this person is trying to harass Jews. First he is writing hateful words about Jews in a Synogogue, which adds credibility. Second, it sounds like there was more property destruction than just paint. Third, I surmise that some of the writing may have been threatening.
If he only spray-painted in the Synagogue with “Irish people are stupid”, I think that is just vandalism, however offensive it may be to Irish people.
Once an actual threat is made, things change. If he broke into the Irish community center, destroyed significant property and wrote on the walls that he intends to harm Irish people, then I think it is a hate crime.
Again, I am not defending these students. They committed a crime, and deserve to be punished.
I just think the hate crime charge should not be added lightly. That type of behavior could get hate crime legislation overturned, and I think hate crime laws provide important protections.
“Again, I am not defending these students. They committed a crime, and deserve to be punished.
I just think the hate crime charge should not be added lightly. That type of behavior could get hate crime legislation overturned, and I think hate crime laws provide important protections.”
I wish you had said this in the first place. It’s a much clearer statement of what you were trying to get at.
@Pizzagirl I think that I failed to make it clear enough in post #29 that I agree with the vandalism charge, but if they didn’t make a threat to a group, they should be protected from a hate crime charge by free speech protections.
In post #29 I wrote:
" It is spray paint vandalism, and while the words are offensive, it is free speech. I don’t see this as a hate crime because no one was hurt, and they didn’t make any explicit threats as far as I can tell. If an insult can be a hate crime, then Trump would be in jail."
I tried again in post #70:
"@Pizzagirl “I don’t get your free speech argument. It’s not free speech for me to paint something on your wall.”… “They could have painted “Go U Northwestern” and it’s still vandalism.”
I agree with you. My comment about free speech was in reference to the hate crime charge. I support hate crime legislation, but I see this as an abuse of that legislation, based on what I know so far."
I think I knew what I meant, but failed to communicate it effectively. I assumed this was lost in translation because, based on what you (PG) have written on other threads, I think that we agree that there is a clear difference between drunk college students being idiots, and a serious hate crime that is intended to threaten, intimidate, and disrupt a particular community.
I’m not so sure where this supposed “clear difference” is. One person could think the chapel desecration is “drunk boys being boys” while another person who is Jewish or Muslim would (correctly, IMHO) feel that such graffiti in a sacred space is evidence of anti-Semitism or anti-Islamic hatred.
The boys should be expelled for being idiots and damaging University property, first. The hate speech part of it can be put aside for that decision.
I have a feeling that these 2 boys should and will be punished for a long time by other universities/employers/people in the community who do not care to associate with the opinions they painted in the chapel.
In many jurisdictions bias-motivation is charged separately and used as a sentencing enhancement. IOW, a person is charged with the underlying crime, and also the hate crime part, which is often not easy to prove. Additionally, the person needs to first be found guilty of the underlying crime. Also, I don’t think “drunk college students being idiots” get a pass. They are adults and should be treated accordingly. The fact that they are in college or drunk doesn’t mean they are somehow less criminally liable.
@GnocchiB “I’m not so sure where this supposed “clear difference” is. One person could think the chapel desecration is “drunk boys being boys” while another person who is Jewish or Muslim would (correctly, IMHO) feel that such graffiti in a sacred space is evidence of anti-Semitism or anti-Islamic hatred.”
If they really hate Jews or Muslims, why would they spray paint a chapel instead of a Synagogue or Mosque?
Were their words only disparaging (e.g., “Irish R stoopid”) or did they convey a serious threat? (e.g., “I intend to kill Irish people”)
Did they destroy a lot of property or primarily just spray paint words?
Example: In some states, assault can include threats or threatening behavior against others
If a politician suggests that protestors should be punched, and that he will cover their legal fees, it may be possible, in certain circumstances and jurisdictions, to charge that politician with assault. If that politician has also asserted that Muslims should not be allowed into the country and stated that illegal Mexicans are “murderers”, “drug dealers”, and “rapists”, can a hate crime charge be tacked on to the assault charge? Why or why not?
I don’t think so. I think this is free speech, even if it is loathsome.
@Lionsmum “I don’t think “drunk college students being idiots” get a pass. They are adults and should be treated accordingly. The fact that they are in college or drunk doesn’t mean they are somehow less criminally liable.”
Again with the straw man. No they don’t get a pass. Yes, this is vandalism. However, if unpopular words alone can warrant adding a hate crime charge to any minor crime, then we no longer have free speech in America. To me that is simply not acceptable. Additionally, it makes a joke out of serious legislation intended to protect people from people who are really dangerous.
Perhaps @hunt or @hanna can comment on this? They are much more smarter and writorically gifted.
@Much2learn It’s not a straw man argument --you were the one who said we could all agree there was a clear difference between the drunk college kids and other people. I disagree. And FWIW, I never said this was a hate crime or warranted a bias enhancement. I don’t know the situation well enough nor do I know Illinois law. And how on earth do you know the people who did this are not “really dangerous”? Because they were in college? Drunk? You seem to assume that these perpetrators are merely pranksters. I don’t see that based on the facts so far. And since you are a lawyer, I assume you know that vandalism is not always a “minor crime.” Vandalism can certainly be charged as a felony in most jurisdictions if the damage is high enough.
@LionsMum “And how on earth do you know the people who did this are not “really dangerous”?”
I don’t. It may be that they are really dangerous and should be charged with a hate crime, as more facts are known. All I have asserted is that spray painting disparaging (but not threatening) words on the wall should not be adequate to charge someone with a hate crime. There needs to be more evidence that the person has an intent to be harmful or disrupt a community.
I am saying that if we are going to charge disparaging, but non-threatening, words that we just don’t like with hate crimes, then the first amendment is dead.
Now, purely for the sake of argument…lets assume that the two students did what they did because they are opposed to Trump and thought Trump supporters would be blamed. If so, this is no longer a hate crime.
Based on what’s reported to be on the tape and reports they admitted their participation, they committed vandalism. However, lets avoid convicting them of a hate crime until we know more.
This is the story I was referring to upthread at our synagogue in 2014. This was charged as a hate crime in Illinois. Granted, this guy had an arsenal of weapons and thus was considered to have posed a greater danger, but the content of the vandalism wasn’t appreciably different - spray painting slurs on a building.