Thought Crime

 In George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four the Thought Police hunt down and punish people who commit thought crimes i.e., they have beliefs or ideas that the state condemns. Traditionally in the United States, speech, even offensive speech, has been protected and only actions have been subject to prosecution. With the passage of hate crime legislation this is changing and freedom is in danger.

Washington State Senate bill 5952, signed by the governor in April, adds “gender expression or identity” to the list of protected classes of people. Just in case you are wondering, yes, it was and remains illegal under a host of other laws to threaten someone, damage their property or physically injure anyone. So, what does this law do? Hate crime laws establish a special class of victim and limits free speech.

Equal Protection

The United States was founded under the principle that all men are created equal. In those early years we did not live up to even that limited principle. Over the years we came to understand that and expanded our vision of equality to include woman and minorities, but equality was always the goal.

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. While we have not always lived up to that principle either, it should always remain the standard we strive to achieve. However, hate crime legislation says that in America some individuals are more equal than others. They have, by right of who they are, more legal protection than another person. For many years blacks and other minorities felt the sting of such inequality, but recently we as a people have made great strides towards equality.

Allow me to illustrate why hate crime legislation is a leap backwards. Let us say that we have two men, Joe and Fred, sitting in a bar downing a few beers. They begin to talk about sports and, after a few more beers, start arguing. Joe calls Fred a “homo,” not because he knows anything about him, but because he is drunk. The argument escalates and blows are exchanged. No one is seriously hurt, but the bartender has called the police. The police arrest them both and charge them with the misdemeanor offense of disturbing the peace. Normally both would be released, but not in this case. Fred, a well known homosexual, tells the police that Joe called him a homo and claims the whole incident was caused by “homophobia,” due to his sexual orientation. Fred, now the victim, will go home. Joe will spend that night, and many more, in jail charged with a felon hate crime. Joe must now hire a lawyer and attempt to defend his liberty because of a word that, in his beer induced haze, he may not even remember.

           Just as the creatures of George Orwell’s other dystopian novel, Animal Farm, read on the barn wall, "All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others,” in this country we now have people who are more equal than others. In the land of, “all men are created equal,” shouldn’t it be enough to say that no one may be threatened, no one’s property may be harmed and no one may be injured?

           Freedom of Speech

           Another problem with hate crime law is that it limits free speech. In the future Joe will be very careful what he says to others and probably never utter the word “homo” again. That might be a good thing and I can hear some readers saying, “Why would we want hateful speech in this country?” We don’t, but even more than that we should not want the federal government or unelected bureaucrats deciding what is or is not hateful speech.

           A host of liberal individuals and interest groups have stated that the federal hate crimes bill is only intended for the prosecution of bias-motivated violent crimes. However, when Congressman Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, offered amendments that would provide protection for religious expression they were quickly rejected. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) only adds to my fear when she states that, "We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts.” In Canada, Britain, Australia and other countries such laws have been used to silence Christian teaching and protect Muslim extremists.

           People like Joe may pose a danger to individuals, but that danger can be handled by the courts under existing law. Joe poses no danger to our society, but restricting freedom of speech endangers the very foundations of our country. Laws that make beliefs and ideas a crime fundamentally change the principles that our founding fathers risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to establish. The blood of patriots has for generations protected these freedoms. I beg my fellow citizens not sacrifice them on the altar of political correctness.