Wednesday, Jly 21, 1993 - The Mdgan Dy Summer Weekly-5
VIEWPOINT
Michigan should pass hate-crime legislation
By MARC SPINDELMAN
Ruling unanimously in Wisconsin v.Mitchell,
theU.S.SupremeCourtlastmonthupheldagainst
constitutionalattackaWisconsinlawwhich"pro-
vided increased sentences for violent crimes
motivated by bias." In doing so, the U.S. High
Court brushed aside a ruling of the Wisconsin
SupremeCourtthathadinvalidatedthesamelaw
on First Amendment grounds.
Thehate crimes statute atissuein theMitchell
case increases the maximum penalties a judge
may impose where a crime has been perpetrated
against a victim or against property "because of
[the]race,religion, color, disability,sexualorien-
tation, national origin or ancestry" of the victim
or the owner of the property damaged by the
crime.
The U.S. and Wisconsin Supreme Courts
reached different results in the case, in part,
because they chose different ways tocharacterize
exactly what the hate crimes statute does. The
Wisconsin Supreme Court portrayed the law as a
violation of free speech, claiming that defen-
dants' sentences would be enhanced because of
the words they spoke, or the views that they
expressed. It was not dispositive of the issue for
the Wisconsin court that the wordsorviews could
giveevidenceofadefendant'smotiveincommit-
ting a crime. The issue for the Wisconsin court
seemed clear: The First Amendment prohibits
punishing anindividual simply forwhatthe "leg-
islature has deemed to be offensive thought."
For its part, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected
the view that hate crimes sentencing enhance-
ments "punish" defendants for the content of
their speech. In making its ruling, the Supreme
Court focused its attention on whether a judge,
during the sentencing phase of a trial, may prop-
erly consider a defendant's prior speech as evi-
dence of the motive he had when he committed
the crime. The Court ruled that even though the
general principle "that a defendant's abstract
beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, may
notbe takenintoconsideration"retained itsvital-
ity, the principle was not absolute. "The Consti-
tution," wrote the Court, "does not erect aper se
barrier to the admission of evidence concerning
one's beliefs and associations at sentencing sim-
ply because those beliefs and associations are
protected by the First Amendment." The Court
then concluded it was not a violation of the First
Amendment to use a defendant's prior speech to
ascertain the presence (or lack) of discriminatory
motive. The assessment of motive, reasoned the
Court,baseduponanindividual's "speech"isnot
an evaluation of the speech, as such, but rather is
"permissible content-neutral regulation of con-
duct."Indismissingthepetitioner'sFirstAmend-
ment challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote
that "the statute in this case is aimed at conduct
unprotectedby the First Amendment." The U.S.
Supreme Court, unlike its Wisconsin state coun-
terpart, found the Wisconsin hate crimes law
proscribed conduct but not speech.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its
ruling in this case, many believed (despite the
Wisconsin Supreme Courtruling)thathatecrimes
legislation, properly drafted, did not violate the
First Amendment. Though some individuals ex-
pressed a concern that hate crimes laws violated
adefendant's free speech rights, few of even the
most ardent First Amendment absolutists, in-
cluding representatives of the ACLU, took this
position. To sum up what many thought about
hate crimes laws before the U.S. Supreme Court
ruling last month in Mitchell, I quote from the
eminent constitutional law scholar, Prof.
Lawrence Tribe: "The First Amendment's com-
mitment to a society in which government may
never target particular disfavored views or topics
for special punishment hardly entails a commit-
menttoasocietyinwhichgovernmentisindiffer-
ent to the special evil of attacks motivated by
hatred or bias basedonrace, religionnationality,
ethnicity, gender,orsexualorientation."Tosome
extent, therefore, the U.S. High Court's decision
in Mitchell simply confirmed what many had
believed for quite some time.
Federal hate crime legislation is currently
pending before Congress. The Mitchell ruling
should reassure supporters of the pending legis-
lation that it faces no unforeseen First Amend-
ment obstacles, and that hate crime laws do not
inhibit and punish the exercise of free speech
rights. Despite these reassurances, of the entire
Michigan delegation to the U.S. House of Repre-
sentatives only Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.) can
claim to be a sponsor or a co-sponsor of the
federal hate crimes legislation. One hopes that
this does not mean that those who represent the
state of Michigan in Congress do not intend to
give their support (and votes) to this important
piece of legislation.
Spindelman's column appears every other
week on the Opinion Page.
LETTERS
Music free Ann Arbor?
To the Daily:
"Welcome to Ann Arbor, now go home"
Iread with astonishmenttheatesteffortof the
bureaucrats to "manage" any spontaneous cre-
ativity that might get out of hand during the Art
Fairs, by banning unscheduled ad unplanned
streetmusic.The Observer ArtFairGuidereports
thatallstreetmusicianswillbe toldto"moveon"
by the police if they have not been so lucky as to
sign up for certain scheduled and controlled spots
and times, far in advance of the fairs. The powers
that be claim that artists and merchants need to be
"placated" from "disruption" by street perform-
ers. I find this hard to believe. If one or two artists
" had expressed negative feelings lately, would the
chancebeundoubtedlysnappedupbythewaiting
bureaucrats?
Along with many other Ann Arbor musician
friends, I did the "street musicians" thing innu-
merable times during Art Fairs, and never once
did wehear anything negative to our being there.
Artists wouldcomeup to our groups, singing and
playing in the heat and dust, and thank us for
staying by their booths and thus advertising them.
One offered to buy us lemonade if we would stay
put. Fairgoers tossed money, flowers, notes of
thanks, sketches and requests for songs into our
guitar cases. A smiling artist once dropped in a
ceramicnecklace.Theyappl
smiled and photographed. I
was part of the magic of the
In 1988, The Ann Arbor]
reported, "Many impromptL
acts add to the festivities ...
Daily wrote, "But the most
free-lancers ... actual live mi
sors or schedules, by people
they want to ..." And yet, t
policeofficerstellanextraor
of scat singers to "move on,
grass near the Diag to a sma
tive listeners. They were no
were not amplified, and wer
the guides were talking abo
In Washington D.C. in1
arrested for playing a guitari
Circle. A few dayslaterpeo
"sing-in," guitarists came fr
park was full of music, and
We know what followe
ible musical innovation wa
the people lead, the leade
music becomes a crime, yot
whole scene is indeed hea
racks at K-Mart. "Welcome
go home!"
auded,calledthanks,
always thought this
fairs.
News ArtFairGuide
Government wastes money
To the Daily and President Clinton:
u concerts and street Is it yet time now to solve some few of those
"and The Michigan problems you proposed to solve during your epic
refreshing of all are campaign? Imagine how much taxes a middle
usic ... without spon- income family could save if they were notpaying
playing just because for expensive foreign petrochemical energy re-
hat same year, I saw sources or nuclear powered hair dryers.
dinarilytalentedtrio Aspresident, you could decide to make pub-
as they sang on the licly available from outof the vaults of the N.S.A.
ll group of apprecia- the suppressed research notes and records of N.
at "blocking traffic," Tesla. The same sourcewould also provide docu-
e, I thought,just what mentation of the Bio-Physics and energy experi-
ut. ments of W. Reich.
the '60s, a man was A number of researchers, purged during the
in the park at Dupont so-called "McCarthy Era" of the 1950's, includ-
ple staged agigantic ing the above mentioned individuals as well as
om everywhere, the otherlessmainline personssuch as CharlesPogue
the ban was lifted. and Otto Bessler demonstrated solar "free en-
d-an era of incred- ergy" systems, extended fuel mileage systems
s abhorring. "When and other meaningful technological innovations
rs follow." If street yet these developments were withheld and the
u can believe that the scientists censured and/or imprisoned to serve
ded straight for the profit motive and mortal greed personified in
e to Ann Arbor; now these modern times by gubberment [sic] and the
oil, utillity and automobile industries.
Mary S. Roth More recently, landmark developments by
the Japanese in an extensive research program
Ann Arbor Resident aboard the MIR space station has lead to a break-
through in photo-electronics using Au as the
primary rare earth component ina ceramic ele-
ment. The possibilities that would become avail-
able if this technology were revealed rather than
withheld for economic advantage are compa-
rable only to the depths of moral degeneracy in
our own American gubberment that knows the
detail of this technology but continues to enforce
the censures and suppression of these develop-
ments in the face of economic and environmental
holocaust.
That the regular withholding of a scientific
advances has been successfully orchestrated by
gubberment and the "big business" for well over
half a century may be seen by some as a remark-
able achievement of modern exploitative eco-
nomic expediency. On the other hand, it might
also be seen that itis time to end the"energy wars"
now. Another example is the energy resource
demonstrated in project KIWI (Nevada during
the mid 1950s) which could conceivably power
industry cheaply, cleanly and efficiently with the
sun in our country andabroad yet its development
is left to private interests in Pretoria while the
public remains perplexedby an official policy of
ignoranceincompetencyandintimidationintheir
fields of influence and responsibility barely less
than demonstratively criminal intent. This tech-
nology could makethe nuclear power travesty an
unfortunate footnote in history by the turn of the
century. This country has the information.Will it
continuetobewithheld? Itsuptoyou"WildBill"
Will YOU let the status quo lie or will you
decide to use the information you possess. If so,
how so? The decision is, for now, yours. Will
hand waving and pork-politics-as-usual have its
sway or will you do something useful for a
change?
A.H. Petris
America NOW!