High school girls charged with hate crime for anti-gay flier

[MikeyPatriot]

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/se....asp?id=317900

By Charles Keeshan
ckeeshan@dailyherald.com
Posted Wednesday, May 30, 2007

A 16-year-old Crystal Lake girl jailed since her May 11 arrest for distributing anti-gay fliers at her high school can go home but must remain under electronic monitoring, a McHenry County judge ruled Tuesday.

The girl’s release came after she agreed to live under the strictest form of home detention available and participate in a counseling program.

“There were some new conditions of home detention that made the state more comfortable — as well as the judge more comfortable — that the minor could go home,” Assistant McHenry County State’s Attorney Robert Windon said.

The girl and her mother declined to answer questions Tuesday as they left the McHenry County courthouse, but their attorney, Matthew Haiduk, described her as “very happy” to go home after 18 days in detention.

The boy targeted by the fliers, present in court Tuesday because the case had been scheduled for trial, also declined comment.

The girl and a 16-year-old female friend also on home detention face felony hate crime charges along with misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and resisting a peace officer. It’s alleged they passed out inflammatory fliers at Crystal Lake South High School. Both cases are being heard in juvenile court.

The fliers depicted a photograph of two males kissing with a message about homosexuality. Authorities say the fliers were less about spreading a political or social message as they were targeting a male classmate with whom the girls had a dispute.

Under state law, a person can be charged with a hate crime if they commit a criminal act with the intent to cause another harm because of that person’s race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. In this case, the girls are accused of committing disorderly conduct against the boy because of his perceived sexual orientation.

Haiduk plans to file a motion to dismiss the charges, saying Tuesday the girls’ statements qualify as protected free speech and their actions never breached the peace or caused harm.

“It’s not something that’s necessarily mainstream thought, but I think it’s protected by the First Amendment,” Haiduk said.

“I don’t think the kid on the flier even saw the flier,” he added. “I don’t think there was any risk of harm to him. From what I understand, there wasn’t even a threat of harm.”

“The state completely disagrees with their interpretation of the situation and does not feel this type of behavior is what the First Amendment protects,” Windon responded.

A hearing on the girl’s motion, as well as a similar one filed last week by her co-defendant, is scheduled for June 26.

------------------------------------------------------------

This took place in the town next to my hometown.

I'm not sure what to think here. If it was simply anti-homosexual literature, I don't really think there's much you can do. Personally, if I knew them, I'd probably say something to them about it. But if they were specifically targeting someone, I think that's crossing a line, though I don't know what you can do for punishment.

[guids]

Welp, there goes the whole first amendment thing.

[GiantWalleye]

[ QUOTE ]
Welp, there goes the whole first amendment thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT, What a joke

[superadvisor]

I agree with the punishment the girls are faced with.

"Authorities say the fliers were less about spreading a political or social message as they were targeting a male classmate with whom the girls had a dispute."

It's one thing to say that being gay is wrong or that being gay is a sin. It's another to post fliers about a particular individual in an inflammatory manner using their sexual orientation as a tool.

Just imagine somebody passing fliers around your workplace with two guys kissing with a remark at the bottom saying that it's you and the gay guy in marketing, secretly gay lovers.

[Scary_Tiger]

Evidently the poster didn't depict whichever boy they were supposedly targeting... so wtf are they doing?

[Chillee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Welp, there goes the whole first amendment thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT, What a joke

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it says you can ruin other's people life ?

[n.s.]

[ QUOTE ]
Welp, there goes the whole first amendment thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we have enough info to make this call. The first amendment has always had it's limitations when it comes to speech that is intended to cause harm to someone else, so I don't think that the hate crime law is fundamentally flawed.

I agree that with the limited info given here it seems like this is a misapplication of the law, but it's hard to say without seeing the fliers. If it really was targeting a specific student and, say, encouraging violence against him, then I think this is reasonable.

[EYEWHITES]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Welp, there goes the whole first amendment thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT, What a joke

[/ QUOTE ]


Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

gotta go with guids on this one, need to see the flyer to see if her intent was slanderous(sp?),but i think she waswith in her rights from the story mentioned

[AbreuTime]

[ QUOTE ]

The girl’s release came after she agreed to live under the strictest form of home detention available and participate in a counseling program.

The girl and her mother declined to answer questions Tuesday as they left the McHenry County courthouse, but their attorney, Matthew Haiduk, described her as “very happy” to go home after 18 days in detention.


[/ QUOTE ]
18 days in detention seems excessive for putting up fliers, since the content of the flier was not a threat of any kind.

[skunkworks]

[ QUOTE ]
Haiduk plans to file a motion to dismiss the charges, saying Tuesday the girls’ statements qualify as protected free speech and their actions never breached the peace or caused harm.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure it breached the peace and caused harm, but can that be shown in a court?