Hate Crime Laws

Richard Cohen doesn't seem to think them a good idea. Of course he is using specific examples to argue against a broad law. Kind of like saying that teaching kids "i before e..." is useless by pointing out the word "weird." I may not entirely disagree, but specifics are a bad way to determine the efficacy of a general rule/law.

In terms of killings and assault/battery, hate crimes probably don't do a whole hell of a lot. But think about someone burning a cross or painting a racial epithet on someone's sidewalk/door. That, in the absence of its terror inducing effect on a particular group of people, is a rather mild crime (provided the fire doesn't get out of hand). It's vandalism, maybe trespassing, and may not cause any noteworthy physical damage...and it is terrifying. Of course this is a specific as well. So let's back out.

We have freedom of speech (and of thought) even when that speech is hateful. But we also have a grant of fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When any action (including speech) infringes upon another's fundamental rights, it becomes illegal. Hate crimes that are confined in such a way so that the crime cannot be expected to have a broad affect on other's fundamental rights, should not be prosecuted as such.

There are actions, however, that do not break any laws yet which by their nature are intended to deny (generally through fear) others' their right to the pursuit of happiness if not their right to liberty. This is true of various white supremacist groups along with others, like anti-abortion protesters.

The conflict between freedom of speech and all Americans' fundamental rights is not so easy to overcome as to hurl out an example or two and say that they show how bad an idea hate crime laws are.