Maybe I’m dense, but what the heck does this story from Vermont TV station WCAX mean?
A Burlington [man] is charged with a hate crime for using racial epithets to insult people of color. It’s the first case involving interracial hatred in Chittenden County since Vermont’s hate crime law took effect.
The suspect is charged with disorderly conduct as a hate crime for allegedly targeting his African-born neighbors– especially a 9-year-old girl– with death threats and racial insults.
But the suspect claims there was no crime at all because his speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Is he charged for the racial epithets? That’s free speech. Or is he charged for death threats? That may or may not be free speech.
Police records show the Somalis had complained for several years that he targeted them with hateful name-calling but no criminal charges were filed until last fall.
That’s when police say Cannon targeted 9-year-old Nahima Sheck Mohammed and her family with an intensified series of death threats and racial slurs. The prosecutor says it’s a hate crime.
WHAT is a hate crime? The death threats or the racial slurs? Does Vermont’s hate crime law include speech? If so, and if this disgusting low-life guy is being prosecuted for his speech, then he’s right to challenge the law and I hope it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Even convicted felons (this guy is one) are not deprived of their speech rights.
As for the death threats, the law varies from state to state. Some consider death threats protected speech, others a crime under various statutes.
But the whole idea of hate crime laws is wrong. These laws always specify privileged groups, and those who commit a crime against them can be prosecuted on two counts — the crime itself, and the motive of hate. A very bad thing. I’d rather see an upstanding citizen be the one to challenge such a law, but then upstanding citizens rarely issue death threats.