Religious hatred

[ichi]

. . . Howver, at the federal level, the US criminal code was ammened: 18 USC Section 245, in 1968.

Section 245 might prohibit me from threatening the use of force, but it doesn't restrict my right to tell a person how I feel about them. Let's look at Section 245:

Summary:

The portion of Section 245 of Title 18 which is primarily enforced by the Criminal Section makes it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person's race, color, religion or national origin and because of his/her activity as one of the following:

A student at or applicant for admission to a public school or public college

A participant in a benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by a state or local government

An applicant for private or state employment; a private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in a labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through an employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall

A juror or prospective juror in state court

A traveler or user of a facility of interstate commerce or common carrier

A patron of a public accommodation or place of exhibition or entertainment, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas or stadiums.

This statute also prohibits wilful interference, by force or threat of force, with a person because he/she is or was participating in, or aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

So I don't see this as prohibiting hateful speech, only prohibiting hateful speech that intimidates by threatening useof force. Do you know of any case law where a person was prosecuted under 245?

I believe the most recent federal lesiglation was the 'Hate Crimes Sentancing Enhancement Act" of 1994.

This Act became section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It allows the addition of penalties to sentencing for Federal crimes if it can demonstrated that the victim was selected based on race, color, etc. I don't think this prohibits hateful speech.

In addition, 41 of 50 states have their own 'Hate Crimes' laws, which makes 'speech determined to be a threatening or offensive nature based on race, religion or ethnicity' unlawful, although there's a wide array of what happens to you should you be convicted.

The following was taken From this site

Are the free speech concerns of conservative Christians reasonable?

According to the People for the American Way, the answer is no. It is of paramount importance to realize that only crimes can become hate crimes. That is, some criminal act -- assault, murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, etc. must happen first. Only then can the crime be considered a criminal act.

* Can members of the clergy be charged on the basis of their sermons? No. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that a member of the clergy, or any other person for that matter, can preach, write, post on the Internet, state, or publish an attack on anyone or any group. As proof of this consider:

* The many conservative Christian web sites that attack Wiccans on the Internet with statements that are totally divorced from reality.

* The beliefs and teachings of the Creativity Movement (formerly called the World Church of the Creator), some of whose members allegedly murdered strangers because of their race.

* Religious sermons, particularly during the 1960s, which vilified African-Americans seeking equal rights.

* Decades of Anti-semitism on the radio, on television, in books, in sermons etc.

* In another case, the Virginia Supreme Court decided on 2001-NOV-2 that cross burning -- surely one of the most offensive form of speech -- was protected by the U.S. Constitution. The New York Times commented on the case: "The [Virginia] court said the First Amendment prohibits the government from "silencing speech on the basis of its content." The justices struck down a St. Paul ordinance making it a crime to engage in speech or behavior likely to arouse "anger or alarm" on the basis of "race, color, creed, religion or gender."

Several legal experts said yesterday they doubted that the Supreme Court would agree to review the Virginia case.

"The Supreme Court has largely said racist speech is speech, and it is difficult for states to single out racist speech for criminal prosecution," said Robert A. Schapiro, a constitutional law professor at Emory University in Atlanta...

A. E. Dick Howard, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia, said many courts had accepted the idea that even offensive communications are protected by the First Amendment.

"The thinking is," Mr. Howard said, "one man's offensive speech is somebody else's free expression."

If these individuals or groups have never been convicted of a crime, it is very doubtful that a clergyperson preaching a sermon of hate against gays and lesbians would ever be charged. Hate crimes legislation would in no way overrule the First Amendment.

* Can Christian clergy be "prosecuted for conspiracy or subjected to civil lawsuits"? No. Quoting the Liberty Council web site mentioned above: "A conspiracy requires that two or more people "reach an agreement to pursue an objective...in an unlawful manner." No conspiracy is present if a clergyperson preached hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality to a congregation, radio audience, or TV audience, and if someone listening to the sermon subsequently engaged in gay bashing. To be guilty of conspiracy, the perpetrator would have to engage in an agreement to commit a criminal act. For example, the individual would have to contact the clergyperson, explain that he/she was going to engage in gay bashing, and the clergyperson would have to agree with that course of action. In other words, the pastor, priest or minister would have to discuss and agree on committing a criminal act.

If there were some way to charge a clergyperson with conspiracy, then charges could be laid whether hate crimes legislation were in place or not. After all, a crime had been committed But, as explained above, there is no way to implicate a clergyperson unless they were directly involved in the planning of the crime. And if they were directly involved, they should be charged.

* Are hate laws effective? Jonathan Kozol's comment mentioned above: "We cannot rebuild society by legislative penalties for insensitive acts and utterances," bears no relationship to hate crimes legislation. Recall that such laws only kick in if a crime has been committed. "Insensitive acts and utterances" do not normally constitute a crime.

Maybe we can pick out a state or two and look at their specific hate crimes laws and determine if they restrict free speech, and if anyone has been prosecuted for hateful speech (as opposed to threatening/intimidating).

And this is just what's enshrined in law. Go read the Human Resources Policy manual for any major American company. Basically, if somebody chooses to be offended by what you say, you're on probation, facing possible firing.

Yes, corporate behavior is odd, but I was referring specifically to laws.

I'm not arguing against punishing somebody who burns a cross in their neighbor's yard, or paints a swaztika on a synagogue's doors. But there's already laws for dealing with these crimes. Hate Crimes statues are a measure towards though control, because they now bring the level of criminality to 'did the victim feel threatened or targeted', regardless of whether that was the intent of the criminal or not.

I don't want to argue about the propriety of hate crime laws, but simply to delve into the statement that laws prohibit me from saying bad things about Islam (or any other group).

If I say "god, you're a lush, slow down" to my buddy at the bar tonight after work, that may have been 1) innocent humor or 2) concern for an individual. But what if he's of Irish hertiage and takes that as an ethnic slur. What if he decides he was threatened by that remark... that I was hinting I might besmirch him back at work. Well, I'm up the creek without a paddle according to most Hate Crime statutes. Now, had I said "quit drinking you stupid mick, or I'll beat your ass", even without Hate Crimes laws, that's clearly communicating a verbal threat and I could be prosecuted.

I disagree completely. In what state is it illegal to call an Irishman a booze hound? Under what law?

ichi