The cat's out of the bag

Oops. Whiny Uber-liberal Utah State Representative David Litvack (D, natch) has made a big boo-boo. In this Deseret News article today he slipped and said:

Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake, who is sponsoring hate crimes legislation, said even though it doesn't qualify as a hate crime, what happened in Sandy is an example of why such legislation is needed.

"It will not directly address that issue," he said. "It does send that message that hate is not a community value."

So, almost everyone in the article agrees that even though what has been done is protected Free Speech, the legislation is "needed" because it "send[s] a message that hate is not a community value".

And what kind of "message" do you intend for this law to send, Rep. Litvak? That if you have an opinion that is unpopular or offensive, you should be investigated by the police? That if you offend a member of a minority group, you should be prosecuted? That debate on some issues is not allowed because it might "promote" hate?

If what happened in this article is not a hate crime, then why are you seeking to "send a message"?

The truth is, the offended black lady in the article is far more intellectually honest than slippery ol' Litvak. She wants the person arrested precisely because she wants him silenced. Free speech be damned. And as an aside, is simply denigrating a Martin Luther King speech now considered to be racism?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Hate crimes laws have one purpose, and one purpose only: To stigmatize and marginalize certain points of view, with the ultimate goal of criminalizing them. Hate Crimes Laws are antithetical to Free Speech.

You can have free expression, or you can "prevent hate". You can't do both.