The University of Minnesota's College Republicans lit up a heated debate after painting the pro-Trump slogan "Build the Wall" on a campus bridge, a move that prompted protests and calls for its removal.
Instead, in the tumult leading to the 2016 election, University President Eric Kaler defended the mural as protected speech — denouncing the vandal who scrawled "Stop White Supremacy" over the sign.
Debate over the limits of free speech and whether it should be policed has intensified since the election. An increase in documented crimes against Muslims in Minnesota, combined with incidents nationally, have immigrant and minority communities on high alert. The Department of Justice acknowledges that many hate crimes are not reported to law enforcement, making trends difficult to track.
In June the city of Minneapolis launched a new statewide hot line for reporting hate crimes, joining cities such as New York City, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. In the announcement, Velma Korbel, director of the city's Department of Civil Rights, warned of a rise in bigotry and xenophobia and said that, "in no uncertain terms," hate-based actions had no place in Minneapolis, including "hate-motivated speech."
How this will be enforced is yet to be seen, but trying to crack down on speech gets into legally tricky territory, said Jane Kirtley, media ethics and law professor at the University of Minnesota. The problem, she said, is that most speech — even hateful and demeaning speech — is protected under the First Amendment, a fact reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.
Colliding with First Amendment
When government tries to make decisions in investigating speech, it runs the risk of colliding with the First Amendment and creating a chilling effect, Kirtley said. That exposes a potential danger of the city's new hot line, she said. "This is one of these things that strikes me as well-intentioned but probably not very well thought out in terms of what the constitutional implications would be."
In Minnesota, there is no clear definition of "hate speech" or any single law addressing it. Some speech may be illegal under the Human Rights Act, designed to combat certain types of discrimination, such as in housing or the workplace. Speech may also reach the threshold of a criminal statute, such as "terroristic threats," defined as a threat with the intent of committing a violent crime.
The law covering hate crimes is rarely simple. In November 2015, when Allen Scarsella shot protesters outside a Minneapolis police station, community members dogged prosecutors for declining to charge the incident as a hate crime. But under Minnesota law, they could have sought only a "penalty enhancement," which would have actually been a lesser charge than the multiple felonies Scarsella faced.