|
|
|
|
|
|
Hate Crimes
Virginia v. Black (2003): The question at issue in this case is Virginia's cross burning law. The statute outlaws the use of a burning cross as a means of threatening another person, but not for other purposes. ADL argues that a cross burning statute does not run afoul of the First Amendment if it punishes only criminal behavior such as intimidation and that the government has the clear power to outlaw serious threats of violence as criminal conduct is not immune from punishment merely because it is disguised as expressive activity.
R.A.V. v. St. Paul (505 U.S. 377 (1992))
This case concerned a local bias-motivated criminal ordinance which prohibited the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender." A local teenager was charged under this ordinance after allegedly burning a cross on a black family's lawn. ADL's brief argued that the ordinance was constitutional. The brief stated that punishing hate crimes advances clear and compelling public policy and that a municipality may properly prohibit cross burning when that act constitutes a bias-motivated personal attack. Further, ADL asserted that the ordinance prohibited only conduct which constituted fighting words or which incited imminent lawless action. As so construed, the ordinance was neither overbroad nor vague. The Court, however, held in a 9-0 opinion that the ordinance was overly broad and impermissibly content-based in violation of the Free Speech Clause.
PDF 174 kb
State of Wisconsin v. Mitchell (508 U.S. 476 (1993)): The question at issue in this case was whether or not hate crime legislation, which authorizes increased penalties for bias-motivated crimes, violates the First Amendment. In its brief, ADL successfully maintained that these laws do not impermissibly penalize thought or speech, but rather punish a particularly egregious and socially unconscionable type of conduct.
|
|
|
|
|
E-Mail This Report
