An apology from The Rascal

In a post here last Thursday, The Rascal expressed support for legislation that would expand the federal hate-crime law to cover sexual orientation and criticized those who oppose the measure.

I was wrong.

In my eagerness to denounce homophobes and religious zealots, I somehow forgot that I'm at least a little uncomfortable with so-called hate-crime laws. Such measures, it seems to me, can come too close to punishing thought or to trampling free-speech rights.

My proper philosophical bearings have returned upon reading about a case in nearby McHenry County, Ill., where two teenage girls from Crystal Lake have been charged with hate-crime felonies for distributing fliers bearing a photo of two boys kissing and what police said were "words of an inflammatory nature" against homosexuality.

Something is missing here, it occurs to me. Hate-crime laws are supposed to provide for extra penalties in cases where underlying offenses against people or property are motivated by bias on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc. But in the Crysal Lake case, I see nothing in the news accounts (here and here) about any underlying offense.

Aside from the so-called hate crimes, the defendants also are charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing police. But where's the underlying crime? Is hate the underlying crime? Can hate be outlawed under our Constitution?

Writing for Brittanica.com, encyclopedist and author Robert McHenry (no relation to the county -- heh, heh) raises a few troubling points about hate crimes, points I would do well to remember the next time I write about this subject.

Meanwhile, I hope the American Civil Liberties Union comes to the aid of the defendants in the Crystal Lake case.