Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
286185949
label
Supreme Court - "Hate Crimes"
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
286185949
contentType
document
title
Supreme Court - "Hate Crimes"
citationUrl
identifierLocal
07346-021
collections
Records of the White House Office of Policy Development (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Bobby Charles' Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
286185949
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
407667cd0fa19bbc
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
1998-0095-F
1998-0095-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection: George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Policy Development, White House Office of
Series:
Charles, Bobby, Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
07346
Folder ID Number:
07346-021
Folder Title:
Supreme Court - "Hate Crimes"
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
17
17
5
2
UPI
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Supreme Court strikes down 'hate crime' statutes
By GREG HENDERSON
WASHINGTON (UPI) - The Supreme Court Monday said "hate crime"
statutes that outlaw cross-burning and other expressive action if they
are aimed at angering minorities violate the First Amendment's freedom
of speech protection.
The court, by a 9-0 vote, struck down a 1989 St. Paul, Minn., law
that made it a misdemeanor to engage in bias-motivated disorderly
conduct by speech or action that might arouse "anger, alarm or
resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or
gender."
It also implicates similar laws in dozens of towns, and a type of
legislation that has split the civil rights community.
The case involved a 17-year-old white male prosecuted under the act
for burning a cross in the yard of a black family.
The teen's lawyers said while burning a cross in someone's yard may
violate trespassing and even assault laws, the hate-crimes ordinance is
unconstitutional because it targets motivation - not action.
A district court agreed, but the Minnesota supreme court said the
statute could be "narrowly interpreted" to cover only those actions
not protected by the First Amendment.
Minnesota's highest court said burning a cross in public symbolized
"virulent notions of racial supremacy," and that the statute could be
narrowed to outlaw only "expressive conduct that amounts to 'fighting
words, or conduct "directed to inciting or producing immminent
lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The Supreme Court Monday said even such a narrowing construction does
not allow the law to pass constitutional muster. "We conclude that,
even as narrowly construed by the Minnesota Supreme Court, the ordinance
is facially unconstitutional,' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the
high court. "Although the phrase in the ordinance, 'arouse anger, alarm
or resentment in others,' has been limited by the Minnesota Supreme
Court's construction to reach only those symbols or displays that amount
to 'fighting words,' the remaining unmodified terms make clear that the
ordinance applies only to 'fighting words' that insult, or provoke
violence 'on the basis of race, color creed, religion or gender.
Scalia noted that under the St. Paul law, those who used fighting
words against others - homosexuals, for example - could ricit be
prosecuted because sexual orientation was not listed as a triggering
factor.
"The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special
prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects,
" he wrote.
Hate-crime laws have become more common in towns nationwide in recent
years in response to growing attacks on racial groups, homosexuals and
women, but their application has split the civil rights community.
Some like the American Civil Liberties Union claim they are not
acceptable because they base their prosecution on the emotional impact a
person's speech or action will have on an individual rather than on
the action itself.
But others, like the NAACP, claim cross-burning and similar acts
aimed at inciting anger or fear amount to terrorism that is not
protected by the Constitution.
cont'd
3
Advocates say the laws are needed to control an upsurge of
crimes motivated by hatred for blacks, Jews, Asians, homosexuals.
other minorities and women.
According to the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, only
Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska and Alaska lack some form of hate-crime
law.
Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union say the laws
pose a threat to free speech and seek to impose politically
correct" expression on all. Such laws could be used to stifle
dissent and criticism of public officials, they say.
The St. Paul ordinance was upheld unanimously by the Minnesota
Supreme Court last year.
The state court said the local law could be applied narrowly to
ban only `fighting words'' and speech likely to incite disorder or
lawless conduct.
The state court said Robert A. Viktora, 17 when he was charged
with burning two makeshift crosses in the yard of a black family's
home, may be tried for violating the hate crime ordinance.
Viktora also was charged with assault for causing fear of
immediate bodily harm or death. He still could be prosecuted on
that charge.
The St. Paul ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to place a burning
cross, Nazi swastika. and similar symbols - including some forms of
graffiti - on public or private property.
The local law says such action is a crime if it arouses anger,
alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed,
religion or gender. The maximum penalty is 90 days in jail and a
$500 fine.
The case is R.A.V. V5. St. Paul, 90-7675.
AP-NP-06-22-92 1129EDT(
2
THE
SUN
DATE: 10-24-4:
PAGE:
12A
BAL TIMORE MARYLAND
The Right To Burn a Cross
Does the First Amendment to the Constitution
was unconstitutional because It protected only
protect the right to burn a cross, Ku Klux Klan
those attacked on the basis of their "race, color.
style. in a black American's yard? We thought not.
creed, religion or gender." This left out homosexu-
Freedom of speech is cherished. but no one has
als, union members and Republicans and Demo-
ever convincingly argued that It is an absolute
crats, he said. thus It was selective regulation of the
right. False and damaging accusations are not pro-
content of speech.
tected by the First Amendment, nor is child por-
Well. yes. But Justice John Paul Stevens gave
nography, nor until now so-called "fighting words."
the proper assessment of that silliness: "Conduct
That is speech conveying a threatening message of
that creates special risks or causes special harms
imminent harm and violence. The Supreme Court
may be prohibited by special rules. Lighting a fire
enunclated its fighting words doctrine exactly 50
near an ammunition dump
is especially dan-
years ago. This week in a narrow 5-4 opinion the
gerous: such behavior may be punished more se-
court in effect overturned that doctrine.
verely than burning trash in a vacant lot. Threat-
It did so in a case from St. Paul, Minn. A city
ening someone because of her race or religious
ordinance forbids hate crimes - which It defines
beliefs may cause particularly severe trauma or
as acts or speech that "arouse anger, alarm or
touch off a riot
Such threats may be punished
resentment in others on the basis of race, color.
more severely than threats against someone based
creed, religion or gender." All nine Supreme Court
on. say, his support of a particular athletic team."
justices agreed that this ordinance was invalid. But
Given this nation's history of racial strife and
for four the reason was basically that it criminal-
terror. It is not a good idea in effect to ban all
izes too many things. For example, causing "resent-
provocative hate crime laws of the fighting words
ment" is not a valid reason for a state to outlaw a
category. Yet by its insistence that hate crime laws
form of speech. In First Amendment jurisprudence,
apply S0 widely across the board, this decision may
laws are subjected to "strict scrutiny" to see if the
produce that result. In addition to "strict scrutiny."
state has an important reason for limiting speech.
another principal element of First Amendment ju-
But the court's narrow majority, led by Justice
risprudence is that speech bans not be "over-
Antonin Scalla, went beyond this simple conclu-
broad." If St. Paul and other jurisdictions rewrite
sion and justified its reasoning in an alarming way.
anti-hate ordinances to include speech or acts not
Justice Scalla said a law could not forbid any form
related to a limited list of specifics such as "race
of hate speech including fighting words unless It
gender" etc., judges looking to other precedents
banned all forms. He said the St. Paul ordinance
may well rule that that is unconstitutional, too.
13
The Miami Herald
DATE:
PAGE: 10
No haven for deeds of hate
A
DEEPLY divided U.S. Supreme
Court reached a unanimous decision
HIGH COURT ON FREE SPEECH
on Monday to throw out a "hate
crimes" ordinance from St. Paul, Minn.,
but quarreled over whether the First
it elevates "fighting words" to the level of
Amendment is an absolute protection for
"debate" and takes an "all-or-nothing"
bigots.
approach to bans on hateful words.
In doing so, the court offers little guid-
This conflict adds confusion to efforts to
ance to the Florida Supreme Court, which
distinguish laws such as Florida's from St.
will consider a challenge to this state's hate
Paul's. While some argue that the Florida
law on Sept. 2. That law stiffens penalties
law merely enhances punishment for
for crimes motivated by prejudice. St.
actions, others say that it still punishes
Paul's ordinance, by contrast, banned sym-
unpopular free speech. A Broward judge has
bols and graffiti that arouse "anger, alarm,
found the Florida law too vague in a ruling
and resentment in others" because of race,
now before the state Supreme Court.
religion, or gender. A white teenager
Rep. John Cosgrove, Democrat of
I
appealed his conviction for burning a cross
Miami, says that he will push to tighten the
on the lawn of a black family.
law, if need be, after the state court makes
Minnesota courts said that the ordinance
its ruling. During the present special ses-
was a permissible ban on "fighting words."
sion, the Florida Senate has not considered
The Supreme Court majority, led by Justice
his House bill providing such tightening.
Antonin Scalia, disagreed, calling the ban
St. Paul's ordinance was an honest effort
"viewpoint discrimination" because it sin-
to make clear the city's attitude toward
gled out particular words and symbols that
bigotry. There is a way, though, to cut
the city found offensive. The city has other
through the constitutional confusion.
laws "to prevent such behavior without
Rather than targeting bigoted opinions
adding the First Amendment to the fire."
themselves, the law surely can and should
While calling the St. Paul law "over-
target bigotry's fruits - vandalism and
broad," four other justices criticized the
open burning in the St. Paul case - and
Scalia opinion itself as overbroad. They said
prosecute them with great vigor.
14
The Dallas Morning News
DATE: 6-24-92
PAGE:
16A
HATE CRIMES
Court ruling shouldn't deter bias fight
In no society - - not even one that values
Other cities and states, by contrast, ad-
free speech as deeply as ours - should
dress the problem by punishing action. Gen-
someone be able to burn a cross in another
erally, they take existing crimes - such as
individual's front yard.
assault, trespassing and vandalism - and in-
This week's Supreme Court decision void-
crease the penalties when the crimes were
ing St. Paul's ban on cross burning has cast
motivated by prejudice.
doubt on other city ordinances and state
Texas legislators took a similar approach
statutes dealing with hate crimes, raising
three years ago when they approved a stat-
the specter of prolonged litigation. But
ute that increased the punishment for cer-
when all is said and done, the powers that
tain types of vandalism.
be must make clear that such despicable be-
Legal experts say it is unclear what mes-
havior will not be tolerated.
sage the Supreme Court was sending to state
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the city
and local governments attempting to deal
law ran afoul of the Constitution because it
with the wave of hate crimes sweeping the
tried to ban expression based on content -
country. But a logical response to the deci-
and selective content at that. The ordinance
sion would be to assume that these other
made it a crime to engage in behavior - and
laws, which rely on stepped-up punishment,
even speech - - that was likely to arouse "an-
are as valid as ever.
ger or alarm" based on "race, color, creed,
Perhaps the best clue to the court's think-
religion or gender."
ing can be found in Justice Scalia's summa-
A statement "casting aspersions on a
tion: "Let there be no mistake about our be-
person's mother" might be equally offensive
lief that burning a cross in someone else's
to the listener but was not among St. Paul's
front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has
"favored topics," the justice explained.
sufficient means at its disposal to prevent
As unsettling as the high court's decision
such behavior without adding the First
may seem, it needs to be put in perspective.
Amendment to the fire."
Of all the "hate crime" ordinances and stat-
Hate, by itself, is not against the law, and
utes passed in recent years, St. Paul's was
our guarantee of free speech means we
perhaps the broadest. It punished "speech or
sometimes must listen to repugnant
thought crime." Even before this week's rul-
thoughts. But when prejudice flares up into
ing. many legal experts considered that ap-
illegal actions. we have a duty to deal with
proach to be flawed.
that conduct in the strongest terms possible.
15
Los Angeles Times
DATE:
62
PAGE:
San Diego County
The V.P. in the 'Hood
Politics: Dan Quayle
receives mostly critical
response to his visit to a
tough section of Southeast
San Diego.
By MICHAEL GRANBERRY
TIMES STAFF WRITER
V
ice President Dan Quayle
went to Southeast San
Diego Monday to check out
what Ted Thomas calls "the
"hood." Flanked by minicams and
motorcycles. Quayle left as he
came-with a toothy smile and a
wave of the hand.
Afterward. Thomas stood alone
in the parking lot, muttering about
promises and dreams and missed
DON BOOMER / Los Angeles Times
opportunities. He didn't mean
Dishing It Out
"photo opportunities."
Moments after the motorcade
Vice President Dan Quayle received a cool response from Southeast San Diego residents
pulled away. the 27-year-old ex
during a visit to their community. Quayle said he came to the area because it falls within a
Marine and lifelong resident of the
"Weed and Seed" district, meaning it is eligible for federal funds. Quayle, above, helps
neighborhood frowned and said, "I
hand out hot dogs at the Nu-Way Youth Center.
really wonder-why was he here?
Was he here to better our commu-
several cities due to receive
Green said the goal of the Nu-
nity or here for a media blitz?
$500,000 in the current fiscal year
Way program is to "prevent kids
"What did the man do for us,
and $500,000 in the next-amounts
from entering the criminal-justice
really? Deep down, I want to know,
criticized by some as minuscule.
system, which many seem headed
is something really going to hap-
Quayle stopped at the youth center
for." She said the vice president's
pen here. or will the 'hood stay like
to showcase the "seed" portion.
visit "helps our children's self-es-
it is? This was nothing but media,
teem. I hope he sees meaning and
S
0 far, the center. which serves
man. This was a media show!
takes our message back. And I
about 1,000 children from 10
When are we going to get someone
hope it translates into funds."
who will actually do something?"
and 21 years old, and up to 300
Begun in 1979, the program
families, has yet to receive a penny
Quayle met briefly with children
seeks primarily to intervene in
of federal funds. Sixty-five percent
and staff members of the Nu-Way
families whose children are court-
of the children and teen-agers in
Youth Center at Logan, Olvera and
ing or being courted by gangs. It
the program are "law-enforcement
Euclid avenues, which police es
operates on an annual budget of
referrals." meaning they have po-
corting the vice president called
lice records.
$70,000, all of which comes from
one of the toughest areas in the
The remaining 35% are from
county and city sources. About a
city
what director Doris Green called
year ago, the program received a
Quayle said he came to the
"dysfunctional families, kids who
philanthropic donation of $100,000.
corner because it falls within a
are troubled, with all sorts of
Police say that many of the 35
"Weed and Seed" district, meaning
behavioral problems." Green said
gangs in the city, with more than
the surrounding area is eligible for
the program provides tutoring and
4,000 known members. come from
federal funds in a program de-
recreation for inner-city children
the area visited by Quayle on
signed to enhance law enforcement
in drug-plagued areas and targets
Monday. In 1990 alone, police re-
(the "weed" portion) and commu-
latchkey kids.
ported 52 drive-by shootings,
nity involvement (the "seed").
many in the neighborhood of Doris
The program was announced a
Green's center. Twelve gang-re-
year ago. San Diego is one of
lated homicides occurred in the
area in 1990.
16
cont