I am writing in response to Dottie Boyce’s column (“‘U’ should not have to put up with hate crimes,” SN 10/2) regarding so-called “hate crimes.” I am not going to debate whether the activities in Bailey and Bryan residence halls could be construed as hate crimes or not.

What I am here to do is criticize the very nature of hate crime legislation. The idea that someone can be distinguished in the eyes of the law based on their intent is very frightening. A crime is a crime and should not be treated differently because of the beliefs of the accused. This sort of thought-policing seriously undermines the individual’s right to free speech.

I am not saying that these crimes should go unpunished. If a man kills another man based on the color of his skin or his sexual orientation, that man is scum and should be punished. The punishment, however, should not be any greater in degree than a man who kills another because he wanted his sneakers, or because he slept with his wife or any of the other ridiculous reasons people kill other people. Hate crime laws send a message that thinking one way is more illegal than another way of thinking, which is an infringement of our First Amendment rights. If this line of reasoning is continued, what is to stop other sorts of censorship to work its way into the legal system?

We are going into very dangerous territory with hate crime laws. I do not think we are in an Orwellian distopian society yet, but with this sort of legislation being implemented, I am afraid that we might be there sometime soon.

Thomas Muth Jr.
geology junior