Jewish organizations find no fault with the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the constitutionality of a St. Paul, Minn., “hate crimes” ordinance.
The Minnesota Supreme Court had upheld the law against a challenge by a Skinhead convicted of burning a cross on a black family’s lawn.
The municipal ordinance bars the display of symbols that arouse “anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed or religion or gender.”
The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith readily admit that the language of the statute is too subjective, although they argue that burning a cross on private property is inherently illegal.
ADL hopes that the high court affirms the conviction, citing its strong concern that hate crimes laws are “an important part of the arsenal in fighting bigotry and ignorance in our country,” said Steven Freeman, ADL legal director.
But AJCommittee and AJCongress have not reached that judgment because they have yet to determine whether or not the court should invoke its so-called “overbreadth doctrine.”
That doctrine allows a statute to be struck down if part of it is found to be overly restrictive of free speech.
AJCommittee and AJCongress are concerned that Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who strongly opposes that doctrine, could muster a majority of the court to strike it down. Such an outcome would be a “substantial loss for free speech,” said Marc Stern, AJCongress’ legal director.
The Supreme Court will not hear the case until the fall.
A VERY AWKWARD POSITION
Stern said the Jewish community has “always had difficulty” on First Amendment free speech cases in advocating the “punishing of people who commit hate crimes.”
“It puts us in a very awkward position,” he said.
ADL, AJCommittee and AJCongress agree that the law is flawed, because it appears to bar speech on public property and less inciteful speech. For example, to some Jews it is anti-Semitic to advocate that Israel should become a binational state, Stern said.
The three groups have agreed on a model hate crimes law, drafted by the ADL, that imposes special penalties for acts which violate existing assault or trespass laws and are motivated by race, color, creed, religion or sexual orientation.
While the model law was drafted specifically to pass constitutional muster, actual statutes are not always so carefully drawn.
The St. Paul law, for example, imposes penalties for those who arouse “anger, alarm or resentment” in others because of racial, religious or sexual motives. That language may simply be too subjective.
“There’s First Amendment protection for allowing people to make other people angry even if they do so in a fashion that we may find despicable,” said Richard Foltin, director of governmental affairs at the AJCommittee.
Of the three organizations, only the ADL has decided to file a friend-of-the-court brief.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
