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!