For All Those Who Believe It Isn't Illegal to Be Racist, You Still Think So?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I originally posted about this incident in Current Events (Alleged white supremacists start brawl at Lynnwood bar; 9 arrested) however the fact that the FBI is now involved caused me to post an update to the Race Relations Forum

Suspects in Lynnwood hate-crime attack appear in court

...
"There is overwhelming evidence that malicious harassment is appropriate," said Snohomish County Deputy Prosecutor, Tim Geraghty, to the judge, regarding the case with a Bothell man.

The state pointed the judge to an officer’s report after he watched surveillance video from the Rec Room Tavern that apparently captured the incident.

Four of the eight arrested are from the Pacific Northwest, including, one man from Bothell and another from Tacoma.

One of the defendants, Nathaniel Woodell said he is a musician from out of town and not a part of the group involved.

He wasn't the only one who told the judge he's not a part of a hate group.

"I was not involved in that incident, I was just sitting at a table," said Woodell to the judge. "I have a son and a home I will lose if I don't make a payment on."

Each of the eight defendant's police paperwork lists them as having a gang affiliation with the Aryan Brotherhood.

The Sheriff's office said it is partnering with the FBI to ensure the strongest sentencing possible.

It also believes the group was here for a rally to mark the anniversary of the death of white supremacist leader from Whidbey Island.

Eight people appeared in court today, but two cases were continued until tomorrow for their bail hearings.​

 

[Montrovant]

Nothing in that article indicated it is illegal to be racist. I have no idea why you posted this OP with that title and this article.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nothing in that article indicated it is illegal to be racist. I have no idea why you posted this OP with that title and this article.

He posted it because he's a mute donkey.

Not only does he not get freedom of expression, as explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment; he doesn't even get freedom of thought. For it to be illegal to be racist, government would need to have the power to read our minds, and to prosecute us for even thinking thoughts that government deems illegal.

 

[fncceo]

It isn't illegal to be a racist. It's illegal to allow racism to prevent hiring a qualified applicant, sell someone a property, or deny someone public accommodation. Certain publicly issued racist speech could be criminal prosecuted if it is intended to incite violence.

However, racism, generally speaking, is a like a taking a selfie at a funeral. Not illegal, just incredibly tacky and in very poor taste.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Aryan Brotherhood is a prison gang. Were all these guys in prison?

 

[IM2]

That's not what you guys say about Farrakhan.

Or the NBPP.

 

[fncceo]

That's not what you guys say about Farrakhan.

Or the NBPP.

I don't remember saying anything about Brother Farrakhan, or the Black Panthers (new or old). I prefer the old ones however, those leather jackets were tight!

 

[MarcATL]

I voted "it's my right" because it is legal.

They'll never make being racist a crime, for obvious reasons.

 

[irosie91]

"white supremacist leader from Whidbey Island".
?????????????????

 

[fncceo]

I voted "it's my right" because it is legal.

They'll never make being racist a crime, for obvious reasons.

Because it's obviously very difficult to criminalize opinion in a non-Totalitarian society.

 

[irosie91]

was brother Farrakhan ever criminally prosecuted
for "racism"?

 

[fncceo]

"white supremacist leader from Whidbey Island".
?????????????????

I didn't even know Whidbey Island had it's own leader. Do they use a king?

 

[irosie91]

"white supremacist leader from Whidbey Island".
?????????????????

I didn't even know Whidbey Island had it's own leader. Do they use a king?

I never heard of Whidbey Island

 

[fncceo]

"white supremacist leader from Whidbey Island".
?????????????????

I didn't even know Whidbey Island had it's own leader. Do they use a king?

I never heard of Whidbey Island

Near Seattle, I believe.

 

[irosie91]

"white supremacist leader from Whidbey Island".
?????????????????

I didn't even know Whidbey Island had it's own leader. Do they use a king?

I never heard of Whidbey Island

but its good to have a NEW HOLIDAY-----
"WHITE SUPREMACIST OF
WHIDBEY ISLAND DAY" we need
a holiday-----between the recent and
the next

 

[protectionist]

The first thing that would need to be done if racism were to be made illegal, is to define what is racism.

Currently, the most racist thing in America (Affirmative Action), victimizing, by far, the largest amount of people, is still legal in 42 states.

It's carried on every day, with no one even breaking a sweat.

 

[Asclepias]

I voted "no as long as I dont harm anyone else." The minute you harm someone else while being racist makes it a hate crime which is of course illegal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I voted "no as long as I dont harm anyone else." The minute you harm someone else while being racist makes it a hate crime which is of course illegal.

Correct.

And the Supreme Court has upheld hate crime legislation – such as enhanced sentencing when the crime is motivated by racial animus – as Constitutional (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)).

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The first excerpt below was included in my original post, I guess I should have posted it again:

The Revised Code of Washington states:

RCW 9A.36.078
Malicious harassment—Finding.
The legislature finds that crimes and threats against persons because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicaps are serious and increasing. The legislature also finds that crimes and threats are often directed against interracial couples and their children or couples of mixed religions, colors, ancestries, or national origins because of bias and bigotry against the race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin of one person in the couple or family. The legislature finds that the state interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors such as criminal trespass, malicious mischief, assault, or other crimes that are not motivated by hatred, bigotry, and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias. Therefore, the legislature finds that protection of those citizens from threats of harm due to bias and bigotry is a compelling state interest.

The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member. In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror. Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust. Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.

The legislature also finds that a hate crime committed against a victim because of the victim's gender may be identified in the same manner that a hate crime committed against a victim of another protected group is identified. Affirmative indications of hatred towards gender as a class is the predominant factor to consider. Other factors to consider include the perpetrator's use of language, slurs, or symbols expressing hatred towards the victim's gender as a class; the severity of the attack including mutilation of the victim's sexual organs; a history of similar attacks against victims of the same gender by the perpetrator or a history of similar incidents in the same area; a lack of provocation; an absence of any other apparent motivation; and common sense.
[ 1993 c 127 § 1.]
NOTES:

RCW 9A.36.080
Malicious harassment—Definition and criminal penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:

(a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;

(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or

(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person would have under all the circumstances. For purposes of this section, a "reasonable person" is a reasonable person who is a member of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or who has the same mental, physical, or sensory handicap as the victim. Words alone do not constitute malicious harassment unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute malicious harassment if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat.

(2) In any prosecution for malicious harassment, unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact's satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims, the trier of fact may infer that the person intended to threaten a specific victim or group of victims because of the person's perception of the victim's or victims' race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap if the person commits one of the following acts:

(a) Burns a cross on property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of African American heritage; or

(b) Defaces property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of Jewish heritage by defacing the property with a swastika.
This subsection only applies to the creation of a reasonable inference for evidentiary purposes. This subsection does not restrict the state's ability to prosecute a person under subsection (1) of this section when the facts of a particular case do not fall within (a) or (b) of this subsection.

(3) It is not a defense that the accused was mistaken that the victim was a member of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or had a mental, physical, or sensory handicap.

(4) Evidence of expressions or associations of the accused may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the crime charged. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.

(5) Every person who commits another crime during the commission of a crime under this section may be punished and prosecuted for the other crime separately.

(6) For the purposes of this section:

(a) "Sexual orientation" has the same meaning as in RCW 49.60.040.

(b) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to:

(i) Cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or

(ii) Cause physical damage immediately or in the future to the property of a person threatened or that of any other person.

(7) Malicious harassment is a class C felony.

(8) The penalties provided in this section for malicious harassment do not preclude the victims from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law.

(9) Nothing in this section confers or expands any civil rights or protections to any group or class identified under this section, beyond those rights or protections that exist under the federal or state Constitution or the civil laws of the state of Washington.
[ 2010 c 119 § 1; 2009 c 180 § 1; 1993 c 127 § 2; 1989 c 95 § 1; 1984 c 268 § 1; 1981 c 267 § 1.]

RCW 9A.36.083
Malicious harassment—Civil action.
In addition to the criminal penalty provided in RCW 9A.36.080 for committing a crime of malicious harassment, the victim may bring a civil cause of action for malicious harassment against the harasser. A person may be liable to the victim of malicious harassment for actual damages, punitive damages of up to ten thousand dollars, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing the action.
[ 1993 c 127 § 3.]
​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Nothing in that article indicated it is illegal to be racist. I have no idea why you posted this OP with that title and this article.

I have had several US Message Board members tell me that they can be as racist as they want and that being a racist is not illegal. I beg to differ as it would appear that the state of Washington has provided very clearly that malicious harassment which involves targeting anyone due to their actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, religion, national original, etc. is punishable as a class c felony as well as civilly.

The fact that the FBI is now involved didn't clue you all in?