A McHenry county judge denied bail for a 16-year old who's only crime was making a flyer that says "God Hates Fags".
Two girls were arrested in McHenry County, Illinois last week for distributing flyers at their school that depicted a male classmate kissing another classmate and had the words "God Hates Fags" on the flyers. The two were charged with disorderly conduct and felony hate crimes. As can be expected, debate has been generated on the wisdom of hate crimes laws, debate that's not confined solely to the right. Even gay sites are not entirely behind the arrest and charging of these girls for a minor stunt.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - hate crimes=no, skate crimes=yes
I am not sure if god hates fags or fags hate god but I think any judge that ignores all precendent to "send a message" should be put under review. This is the court system not judge judy, vatos.
77 - Michael Leo Lively
Hell, everybody hates white males. Even a lot of white males. Poor babies.
MLL- White Male
78 - Jet in Columbus
It all comes down to defending some jerk that yells FIRE! in a crowded theater. The judge had to weigh the damage the word caused, vs the 1st amendment right to yell it.
Many adults use children to commit crimes (hate or otherwise) because they know as juveniles they'll get lighter sentences.
No on one was sitting in that judge's seat, nor can they judge how unrepentant the girls were or how "justified" they thought they were.
If a kid is truly sorry for their actions, a light sentence, if they acted like they were going to go out and spread more flyers the moment the exited the building, or brag about their "Street cred" for doing something that led them to court, I'd have thrown the book at them too.
I could stand in the lobby of a crowded highschool and pick a kid at random and say he's gay. Whethere he was or not, the lable would not only stick, but do irreparable damage.
We're talking about impressionalbe youngsters here, not seasoned adults.
A similar action happened near Akron a few years ago, it was followed with a giant "KILL A QUEER FOR CHRIST" spray painted across the front of the school.
79 - ExidusElectric
I think that the judge knows how to do his job a little better than whoever posted this.
If he didn't have reason to carry out these judgments, then chances are he would not have been allowed to do so. I think that this is just a bunch of speculation and not enough fact. Until there are actual facts released from the courtroom itself I chose to have no opinion on the matter.
80 - RJ
I am sympathetic to the concerns this author raises, but it is a fact that the juvenile justice system is completely different and separate from the adult criminal justice system.
In Re Gault blurred the boundaries between these two justice systems somewhat, but the fact remains that juveniles do not possess the same due process rights as adults.
This is one of those (innumerable) instances where the overall law makes sense, but the manner in which the law is used in a specific case makes absolutely no sense...
81 - RJ
"This judge looked at a few documents and made a decision in 5 minutes, that's how arraignment hearings work for anyone who's ever seen one."
Thank you.
This ain't "Law & Order" folks. The real Criminal Justice system (for most offenders, or alleged offenders) works without much input from defense attorneys/public defenders. And the juvenile justice system is even less concerned about such "trivial" due process rights. Juveniles don't even have the right to a trial by a jury of their peers!
82 - RJ
"If someone can be charged with a felony for simply expressing something and it carries the same weight as physically harming an individual then we have truly lost our way."
Yep. "Hate crime" laws are utter and complete bullshit. They only serve to create what are really "thought" crimes, and therefore all decent people should all oppose this Stalinist nonsense.
And writing that "GOD" "hates" "fags" is obnoxious and insulting, but it's arguably a valid opinion, at least if one actually reads the Bible...
83 - Roger D.
John is right. Period. People should have the right to hate anyone they choose. And they should not end up being arrested for it - as long as they don't act on their beliefs by physical force.
...and no matter what, the Judge, no matter how wrong, will ever be arrested for doing this to someone. ...and no amount of posting on the net will change that!
84 - Ricky Retardo
What is next I ask you!?! Will this inbred bimbo put a sculpture of Reverand Gene Robinson in a bottle of piss and call it art? The horror...
85 - ovrclkdpmp
welcome to the peoples republic of IL
86 - Tawny
These girls are being denied their right to free speech. They are acting as though it is a crime to criticize perverts.
Homosexuals spread AIDS and anyone who opposes them is doing the work of the almighty creator.
87 - STM
The first amendment doesn't cover anything that may be regarded as a criminal action, and never has. This stuff is now regarded under law (and by the courts) as "hate speech". You can believe what you like, and vote accordingly, but you can't publicly do this stuff any more without the risk of landing yourself in court. While some courts may dismiss such charges, others won't be so quick so there's no guarantee now.
The US is also a signatory to an international UN human rights agreement (of which it was a prime mover) that prohibits such actions and/or speech and is obligated under the terms of the treaty to uphold it, which means prosecutions. Them's the rules, and not liking it won't change it. The fomenting of "hate", whether you agree with this premise or not, is now regarded as a serious issue in the United States - the theory being that while free speech should be forever regarded as a guaranteed and fundamental right, it can't override another person's rights not to be vilified and treated with contempt (which is also laid down as a protection in the US constitution).
88 - sean
This is just wrong to begin with.
Opinions and ideas MUST NOT BE CRIMINALIZED.
It's a shame, that this girl has such hateful, discriminatory ideas in her head. But THAT DOES NOT makes it right to take away her first amendment rights.
89 - STM
Sean: Those rights never existed under the first amendment. People just misguidedly thought they did. The first amendment has never guaranteed absolute free-speech rights in which you could slander, vilify, or defame. Rightly or wrongly, it's not a get-out-of-jail free card to say whatever you like, and wasn't designed to be so. That's also why the 9th amendment exists, so that the constitution won't be a) misread, and b) misused in that way.
90 - Zack
In order to end hatred and discrimination towards anybody, somebody must first be made an example of. If you're ignorant and do express such hate for any given race, religion, or sexual orientation, so be it, but to spread propaganda in a school where young minds can still be mended is a crime which must be made example of.
I commend this judge, and although he will be ridiculed for this decision, ultimately, it was the right thing to do.
91 - 1st Amendment
This is a horrible injustice. Absolute insanity. That judge needs to be yanked off of his bench.
And a side not - those girls shouldn't be accused of hate speech because they never said that they hated anyone, they were saying that god did. give god an ankle bracelet.
92 - wdufkin
#35 If my child were "feeling" gay I would instruct him not to kiss other boys while at school. (I would homeschool him if he couldn't restrain himself) I would teach him that our society is divided over homosexuality and flagrant displays of public affection, which I would discourage in my straight child as well, are generally not tolerated well. While I find hate speech unkind, in general I disagree with laws against it since it is only ever going to be able to be enforced arbitrarily. Eventually just having a moral objection to homosexuality will land one in jail...or worse.
93 - whyreply
Unless you have unfeathered access to this child's records, yes, I think that the people that have been appointed to make this decisions that DO have access to their records do have a much better view then you do. How do you know who all was involved, and I would be willing to bet that they have done a home inspection sometime in the process of the 12 other run-ins with the police. Get a clue man
94 - Zedd
John
If you have a dog and when encountering a person, walking down the street you say to your dog "sick'em". Is that covered under free speech?
95 - LL
I must agree with the judge on this one on some level. He had information about one girl to deny bail such as possession as well as drinking. A 16 year old doesn't belong doing any of these actions.
What I see in this whole article, is me questioning what are the parents doing or not doing enough of? If I was the parent of the girl that was on house arrest, I would be thanking the judge for pointing out what the other girl has done and changing what my daughter would be doing.
is it the teenagers responsibility of parents responsibility for their actions that is also what I would ask myself today.
96 - Roger D.
For those of you that keep siding with the Judge...what is your thinking about refusing bail? A gang member would not bother to make up signs - they would just beat the crap out of anyone that offends them (or worse). And they would get bail. How can you justify some teenager with a sign being denied bail?
97 - handyguy
Wow, John, your latest piece of "journalism" is almost as popular as American Idol. Perhaps someday you will actually use facts without distortion or eye-roll-inducing sensationalism to write something that is worth reading. I haven't seen this happen yet, but I suppose it's possible.
98 - Dave Nalle
Handy, if he did that the it wouldn't be nearly as inflammatory and therefore would not become such a big, popular hit.
What do you want, accuracy or action? Get yer priorities straight, man.
Dave
99 - Arch Conservative
Wow.....all of the liberals on this post condemning this girl and applauding the judge just adds more eveidence to the already bountiful amount of it proving that most liberals are hypocrites when it comes ot free speech, only advocating and defending free speech that they agree with and attacking all that runs contrary to anything and everything that they believe.
I cannot think of a better example for comparison and contrast than that of the ACLU and leftists sticking up for NAMBLA's right to free speech while demonizing this girl. NAMBLA is a vile organization that advocates grown men having sex with young boys. They have a website and distribute literature aimed at advancing thier views. One of their members, Charles Jaynes, was even convicted of murdering and raping (in that order) 10 year old Jeffrey Curley in Masachusetts in 1997. The ACLU then provided legal representation for the Boston NAMBLA office. Yet liberals love the ACLU for it's free speech defense of NAMBLA and hate this girl who although, should be criticized and reprimanded for her actions, could never in her wildest dreams harm our society as much as the ACLU and NAMBLA have already.
Anyone who summarily dimisses what happened to Jeffrey Curley and applauds the ACLU defense of NAMBLA"s free speech rights while painting this young girl as one of the gravest threats to our society who must face extreme punishment is quite simple scum who doesn't even deserve to breathe the same air as the rest of us.
100 - Christopher Rose
God hates Arch Conservative!
101 - Jet in Columbus
Now Christopher, remember-The ACLU defends Arch's right to express himself... you wouldn't what to piss them off now would you?
102 - Clavos
Chris,
But have you noticed that Arch's comments have become better written and less hysterical lately?
Arch,
Did you hire a ghostwriter?
103 - Jet in Columbus
He knows he's on the losing side and he's being careful that's all. Anyone that defends Bush nowadays risks making themselves look like a fool, not that he hasn't already repeatedly.
But that's the nature of the beast!!
104 - Doug Hunter
"God hates Arch Conservative!"
That's funny, until you're charged with a felony 'hate' crime and denied bail. The whole concept of writing a three word sentence and having it constitute a felony shows how hysterically PC our local police state has become. This is a sad and disgusting day in our history yet most of the sheeple are too stupid to understand how or why.
105 - Jet in Columbus
Doug-perhaps you're too stupid tu understand that if such a law had been enforced in Nazi Germany, hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't have been sent to concentration camps because they were CALLED jews, even though they weren't by bastards who just wanted to get rid of someone they didn't like!
In that state if you were called one, you were one whether you were or not.
The same applies to being called a Fag nowadays. A sign saying God Hates Fags is justification for someone to "Kill a Queer for Christ" in god's name too.
106 - Arch Conservative
That's great. I didn't say anything about Bush in my post or ANY of my recent posts but somehow Jet managed to throw it in and also mention how the ACLU stands up for free speech of everyone save the young girl in this article.
Jet's comments along with the other posts following mine completely ignore the example of the Jeffery Curley murder and the ACLU support of NAMBLA that I offered as a contrast to the free speech concerns of this young girl and her flyers. Wether you think it is not a suitable comparison or not......no one even bothered to address it at all.
And I'm the one who never has anything relevant, on topic, or substantive to offer? MMMMM hmmmmm....
107 - Jet in Columbus
Oh well Arch, if the ACLU supports NAMBLA, and I'm gay amd so I must always go chase little boys, so I must be a pervert if I defend the ACLU who who constantly chases little boys, so you're absolutely right in what you've said.
I'll go hide in a corner now
I'm so ashamed?
By the way how old are you?
108 - Doug Hunter
JIC,
First, Germany had laws against speech inciting violence before and after Hitler took office.
Second, it wasn't 16 year old girls with fliers that slaughtered the Jews it was an out of control police state. Hitler is a perfect example of why you don't hand over excessive authority for 'security' over to the government. He used just those sorts of laws to seize and legitimate his authority as dictator.
The justice system is designed to divine black and white, guilty and innocent, not to uncover and punish inner thoughts and motivations. When you give it such a broad, undefinable range of authority you create a dangerous loophole just waiting to be exploited by those with malicious intent.
109 - Jet in Columbus
". When you give it such a broad, undefinable range of authority you create a dangerous loophole just waiting to be exploited by those with malicious intent."
Yeah like teenaged brats handing out fliers to inspire their fellow students to hate anyone different from them based on a book writen centuries ago, and misinterpreted by supersticious fools.
And I said enforced laws in Nazi Germany
110 - Arch Conservative
"Oh well Arch, if the ACLU supports NAMBLA, and I'm gay amd so I must always go chase little boys, so I must be a pervert if I defend the ACLU who who constantly chases little boys, so you're absolutely right in what you've said."
Jet.....would you mind coming down to planet earth with the rest of us for a moment?
First of all where in my earlier posts did I mention anything about anybody being gay? Maybe you might point that out for me because I don't recall saying anything about anyone being gay lety alone implying that gay people are all pedophiles.
Second the point of my use of the Jeffrey Curley murder/ NAMBLA legal defense was to illustrate that the ACLU is in fact very selective in who they decide voice their support for. Based on these two incidents alone it seems as if the ACLU believes a single 16 year old girl should not have the right to handout flyers that say "god hate fags," because it is harmful speech but that an entire organization whose sole purpose for existing is to encourage sexual relationships between adult men and young boys and who has been linked to the murder of a ten year old boy should have the right to free speech.
To me that seems a little warped Jet. But please, feel free to make another post in which you totally ignore the things that I have actually said and then proceed to attribute to me words and sentiments I haven't expressed.
111 - Jet in Columbus
No Arch, what's warped is that you referred to National Man Boy Love Association-that's how you brought the perverted gay subject into the conversation.
[Personal attack deleted] you couldn't find a logical argument, so you injected the "yuck" factor by mentioning NAMBLA infering that the only thing the ACLU does is defend men who go after little boys, and that the only people that support the ACLU's efforts are men who go after little boys-after all why mention them when they hadn't been before until YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
YOU BROUGHT IT UP
[Personal attack deleted]
112 - Franco
Whether you agree with this 16 year old girls position on homosexuality or not, she has a right to her opinion and to express that opinion. If she were handing out pro-homosexual pamphlets at school we would not even be having this debate.
Additionally, it dose not matter how many scraps with the law she has had. This is about free speech and the exercise of and nothing more.
If the school does in fact have specific campus laws prohibiting students from handing out anti or pro positions on highly debated matters such as this, or abortion, or the war, then I would think the schools would have had the right to suspender her as long as they suspended pro-homosesexual student handing their pamphlets outs on campus as well.
But having the law and the government taking hold of her or her friend over this specific issue and matter shows us all a clear and present danger is now moving upon us and our free speech. That is the issue at hand and if the pro-homosexuals can not stand up for this girl and her rights then there is something drasticly wrong with them.
And no, I do not think yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theather falls under free speech.
113 - STM
This absolutely doesn't fall under free speech according to the law. What you think your 1st amendment rights are and what the laws (federal or state) thinks they are - and has always thought they were, in various guises - are two different things. As has been pointed out above, the 1st amendment was never meant to offer carte-blanche protection against (broadly) such things as defamation, slander, vilification, incitement and libel (the latter having an onus of proof of actual malice, making it hard to stand up but actionable nevertheless). An issue in this case under US law for the girls may revolve around statement of values vs allegation of fact. One's permissable, the other's not. You be the judge here as to what they were doing. Having these opinions and perhaps stating them to a friend is different to publicly airing them in a situation such as this that might cause hurt and offence to another person.
The other issue is that having driven other countries to uphold human rights values and signing UN declarations to that effect, the US - which did make some changes applying only to itself in deference to 1st amedment concerns - is obligated to act upon the "hate speech" provisions, and many other provisions, contained therein.
This is not a 1st amendment issue, however - it's a criminal/civil issue, and most likely would also falls under consideration in regard to the written terms of other amendments to the constitution. That would include the 9th, which is implicit in its explanation that the Constitution should not be read as the whole law of the land - one way or the other - and possibly also the 14th, which deals explicitly with personal and civil rights and has a built-in anti-discrimination principle.
The First Amendment Center carries the following summation of a Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1942 (Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire) "The following is a notable passage from Justice Murphy’s opinion: "Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances ... There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem ... These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace ... It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality ... 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument'."
The law is the law, and there's no getting around it. Whether you think these kids were right or wrong, the law says they were (allegedly, of course) wrong ... and that's the beginning and end of it. In the interim, not granting bail to one of these girls may well have something to do with her personal or family situation rather than any concern that she a) won't appear, or b) break the conditions of her bail.
I do agree, though, addressing the gist of John's post in regards to the granting of bail - at first glance, not to do so seems excessive in the extreme.
114 - Bobby
"The judge, in commenting on denying bail, said that the girl's home situation was unacceptable. It's unclear how a judge can legally take a child out of their home simply because the child shows up in the courtroom for an obnoxious high school prank."
Irony is: Making sweeping judgements about people making sweeping judgements....
Mayhaps this judge was the same judge that has passed judgement on this kid before? In a small county this would be VERY likely.
115 - Dr Dreadful
STM is on track with this, IMHO. To put it as plainly as I can:
Your First Amendment rights entitle you to say anything antisocial you want, including "Fire!", "God hates [insert desired persecutable social group here]!" or "Death to [insert name of politician wished rubbed out here]!"
Again, you can say it. Just don't expect not to face the negative consequences of saying it.
116 - Zedd
Sorry folks, in school you are not allowed to express anything of the sort without the permission of the school authorities. You may not even wear a t-shirt with a message.
Also free speech does not protect inflammatory speech. If you have a dog and say "sick em" that is simply speech, however the dog will or may react to your mutterings and injure an individual. Inflammatory speech is dangerous and can and does incite. That is what hate crime legislation protects us against.
117 - STM
Doc: I feel like a naughty boy discussing US law with Americans, but it's interesting how many people in the US wrongly think the first amendment means they can say whatever they like without fear or favour. While it obviously does proffer some rights that don't exist in some other Western countries, numerous judgments of the courts clearly indicate it is not the case that it overrides all other aspects of the laws relating to speech. It's also interesting that in discussing many of these issues, many Americans either forget about the "silent" 9th amendment completely or misread its intent (which is discussed at considerable length by the founding fathers).
It too quite clearly states that the Constitution, as worded, should never be regarded as the only law of the land, and indeed was placed there as a safeguard for that very reason. On the plus side of that, the 9th amendment is a bit like the usual legal interpretations of English Common Law and is certainly a nod to American common law - that you might have rights you don't even know about, for instance so-called "natural rights", either now or in the future, depending on what other laws are passed or have been passed, or have always existed. As the founding fathers explained, they were not really offering anything new in the drafting of the Constitition. What was new and ground-breaking was that they set down in words and enumerated once and for all what they believed had always existed under common law.
And since they were used extensively in the colonies prior to the War of Indendence, they also paid homage to Blackstone's treatises - a very conservative interpretation of English law even for the period - in the drafting of it. If you haven't already, Blackstone's works are worth a look if you are interested in American history.
118 - Dr Dreadful
I feel like a naughty boy discussing US law with Americans
That's OK, Stan, I'm not an American either - I just live here. (Still working on that flag, BTW.)
There's so much rhetoric bandied about regarding the Constitution that people do, as you say, tend to forget that it is not the whole law of the land and doesn't pretend to be. It's a set of very general guidelines which relies on legislation to interpret and fill in gaps. If these laws are flawed, provision exists in the courts and legislatures to overturn them.
That's democracy, folks. If you don't like it, you know what to do.
119 - Dr Dreadful
Forgot to add - I used to work in a reference library and we had a complete set of Blackstone's scowling down from our groaning shelves in all its judicial glory. It wasn't often asked for (we were a public, not a law library after all), but when it was, we had the devil of a job trying to figure out what volume and page the customer needed. Ah yes, and then there were those timeless blockbusters, Halsbury's Laws and Statutes. You just had to hope the customer actually knew what they were looking for... which more often than not, they didn't. What fun we had.
120 - Clavos
You ARE a naughty boy, Stan.
Go wax your surfboard. :>)
121 - Clavos
...or I'll put me titfer on and give ya whatfer like a drill sergeant...
122 - STM
Ah, and there's the other thing. Although most educated Americans will never deny their country is a democracy (as enunciated by FDR himself, and many other Presidents including the current one) I find sometimes that people want to pick over that definition, often to support their own political viewpoint, and say they are not a democracy at all but rather a representative republic.
Well, yes, that hoary old chestnut. Of course, it IS a representative republic. Just like Australia is a representative constitutional monarchy AND a democracy. As is the UK. I think if I lived there, I would go mad with all that earnest stuff, unless of course I lived in Maui (Honolua Bay, to be exact) or a little secret spot in California. Then I could quite easily not give a rat's arse - about anything except the direction of the wind and swell. That, truly, would be heaven.
123 - STM
Lol. I'm contacting Canberra this arvo Clav to see if you can be offered honorary citizenship. As you already have an Army titfer badge with a Crown on it, you are well on the way. Check yer emails BTW old boy. Hat does look pretty schmick, though, I must say.
124 - SteveS
Putting a classmates face on the flyer is a direct attack against another individual. It is not freedom of speech.
If you look at your first sentence you will see that you said 'depicted a male classmate'. You are trying to just label this as a speech issue over the God Hates Fags comment without discussing that it included a specific individual. That is libel and harassment, not free speech.
Also, your lead-in to this story says 'for the only crime of...' then you go on, within the story to mention her troubled youth.
You briefly mention that the judge did it because her homelife was unacceptable, then go on with wild hypothesis trying to compare her situation to that of murderers. In court, each case should be looked at individually and trying to draw connections there is erroneous.
I haven't been here in a long time John, but I see you are still busy trying to fight for the right to spread hatred.
125 - sr
Thanks Jet for comment #103. Arch Im proud to be in the club of fools with you since I support our President also. GOD BLESS PRESIDENT BUSH and fuck the rest of you.