Not sure if this is where to post this, but....
Do you believe in the concept of hate crimes?
In RAV vs. City of St. Paul, Minnesota [505 US 377, 112 S.Ct. 2538], Robert A. Viktora, a white teenager and several of his friends burned a cross in the middle of the night on the lawn of the only black family in the neighborhood. He was arrested and charged with violating a law against hate-crimes such as burning crosses, displaying swastikas, etc on public or private property. The law defined these symbols as anything likely to cause "anger, alarm, or resentment in others on basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender"
I don't know about you, but I have some issues with this.
Laws against these so-called "hate-crimes" violate the 1st. If you're allowed freedom of speech, it should be explanded to all forms of non-violent expression, be it cross-burning, be it swastika displays....As long as it doesn't interfere with something else (vandalism, arson, etc) you shouldn't be arrested for that. People aren't arrested for racial slurs, are they? Why should this be any different.
Also, something that can cause "anger, alarm, or resentment in others on basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender" isn't well-defined. People can stretch something this vague to cover just about anything if they're creative enough.
That said, the teenagers could still be arrested on the grounds of arson and tresspassing, but to charge them with a hate crime is unconstitutional, methinks.
In the end, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against RAV, but strangely enough, none of them agreed on why.
To take it a step further, in Wisconson vs Mitchell [508 US 476, 113 S.Ct. 2194], Todd Mitchell and several other black guys were pretty worked up after discussing a scene in Mississippi Burning. Later, Mitchell allegedly said, "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?" and consequently, the group beat a white kid unconscious and stole his shoes. Mitchell and crew were convicted of battery, for which the maximum sentence is 2 years, but under Wisconson's "hate-speech" law, he was sentenced to 4 years because he "intentionally selected the person against whom the crime...is committed...because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person."
How can it be considered constitutional to punish someone for their own personal beliefs?