The new law differs from the old version in two key ways: by expanding protected class status to self-identified sexual minorities, and by significantly rewriting the terms under which charges may be pressed. The old language prohibited physical assault and property destruction “with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person” falling in one of the then-current protected classes. The new language further disregards “any other motivating factors” and makes “intimidation” itself a crime, with a lengthy gloss focused solely on the victim’s perception. Anything that could cause “a reasonable individual” to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened” now qualifies. 

Last month, the Democrat-controlled Michigan House of Representatives voted 59 to 50 in favor of sweeping new hate crime legislation, drastically updating a 1988 law that was originally designed to prevent harassment on the basis of sex, race, or religion. Democrats like State Rep. Emily Dievendorf have hailed the bill as a significant step forward against the sort of hate speech that might translate into “hate actions.” Citing his own identity as a Jewish gay man, sponsor Nate Arbit passionately declared that it’s “about time” Michigan proved it can be “so much better” at prosecuting hate speech.

Fine words maybe, but what does the bill actually say? The new law differs from the old version in two key ways: by expanding protected class status to self-identified sexual minorities, and by significantly rewriting the terms under which charges may be pressed. The old language prohibited physical assault and property destruction “with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person” falling in one of the then-current protected classes. The new language further disregards “any other motivating factors” and makes “intimidation” itself a crime, with a lengthy gloss focused solely on the victim’s perception. Anything that could cause “a reasonable individual” to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened” now qualifies. The bill as originally introduced would have additionally allowed a victim reporting “severe mental anguish” to bring a civil cause of action even if a criminal suit was dismissed.

Who could possibly find fault with this, except a bigot? This, of course, is the implicit challenge presented by the bill. But Republicans like State Rep. Steve Carra have risked the heat to raise concerns about how the legislation will impinge on free speech.

Read More