Ruling by Appellate Court Boosts State ‘Hate Crimes’ Law

A state appeal court has held for the first time that California’s “hate crimes” law does not violate the constitutional right to free speech, a crucial test required by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The statute, similar to laws in 25 other states, provides for stronger punishments for people who commit violent crimes because of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin or sexual orientation.

The appeal court ruling came in the case of a teen-ager and reputed “skinhead” found guilty of a hate-related attack on a gay San Jose man who videotaped the incident to get proof he was being harassed.

A state Court of Appeal in San Jose concluded that the 1987 law was aimed at punishing behavior--not speech or thought--and thus does not violate the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“One is free to think, speak, publish or even advocate racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay or other bigoted ideas without running afoul of (the statute),” Appellate Justice Christopher C. Cottle wrote in an opinion filed Monday. “(The law) targets discriminatory conduct, not speech.”

The court noted that last year a state commission reported that hate crimes were at an all-time high in California. There were 147 bias-related crimes in Los Angeles in 1991, reflecting a 22% increase over the year before, the commission said.

The San Jose case drew broad attention as a key free-speech test of the law following a decision last year by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a municipal ordinance in Minnesota that had outlawed cross-burnings and other bias-motivated displays.

In this week’s ruling, the state appeal court said that although the Minnesota ordinance’s ban on symbols was impermissible, California was making a legally valid attempt to curb acts of violence motivated by discrimination.

Edward M. Chen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, welcomed the ruling, saying that the organization supports hate-crime prosecutions so long as evidence of bias is directly related to the crime and there is no “chilling effect” on free speech.

Chen noted that state courts around the country have been divided on the validity of hate-crime laws. The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to review a Wisconsin law that--like statutes in California and other states--imposes harsher punishments for bias-related crimes.

An attorney for the assailant in the San Jose case could not be reached Wednesday. But the ruling is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

The case arose from a long and bitter dispute between William Kiley and his neighbors, the family of a 17-year-old identified as Joshua H. In 1988, after the boy’s mother was bitten by a dog on Kiley’s property, she sued and won damages from Kiley.

Later, as relations worsened, Kiley accused the youth of yelling insults about Kiley’s sexual orientation and committing other acts of harassment. Kiley consulted an attorney and was advised to get proof he was being harassed.

In June, 1991, Kiley set up a video camera and after a series of confrontations succeeded in taping the youth as he taunted, hit and kicked Kiley, using slurs about his sexual orientation and calling him names.

Huff was tried in juvenile court and found to have violated the state hate-crimes law. He was sentenced to 10 months in a Santa Clara County juvenile camp.

ANTI-GAY VIOLENCE ON RISE: A survey shows a 4% rise in anti-gay violence in cities. B1