|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Following the tragic 2015 murders of nine members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, South Carolina Democrats have sought racial justice through a misguided hate crime law. It’s an unnecessary bill that effectively criminalizes the protected speech of every citizen and doesn’t stop hate.
Instead of stiffening existing penalties for violent crimes, the Republican-led South Carolina General Assembly (GA) is proposing a new law, going after “mean words” with hate crime bill S.99, which may advance once the 126th GA reconvenes on Tuesday, January 13, 2026. The South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee led by Horry County Republican Luke Rankin, gave its blessing to Enhancement of Penalties on Assault Crimes (S.99), following a 12-9 vote in its April 16, 2025 meeting despite the bill’s vague wording and potential for selective prosecution.
Luke Rankin of Horry County (R) takes the lead for Republicans helping pass Deon Tedder’s (D) anti-First Amendment bill to criminalize speech.
There’s no evidence hate laws deter bias attacks any more than the death penalty deters murder. Advocates concede the law won’t stop hate crimes but insist it will “send a message.” Therefore, the government’s message appears to be twofold: that citizens better watch what they say about certain political identity groups and that “equal justice under the law” is a thing of the past in South Carolina. Hate crime laws play favorites, giving special treatment to some citizens over others. They establish a dual justice track: one for crimes against ordinary citizens and another for harm involving crime victims given priority by politicians.
The Senate Republicans voting to pass S.99 out of committee were Rankin, Adams, Campsen, Elliott, Kimbrell, and Reichenbach. They allied themselves with Democratic Party members Devine, Graham, Ott, Sutton, Tedder, and Walker.
Only nine opposed the bill, all Republicans: Blackmon, Cash, Johnson, Kennedy, Leber, Massey, Nutt, Stubbs, and Zell.
Three Hate Crime Bills: S.99, H.3039, and S.247
After years of frustrating failures to get the Clementa C. Pinckney Hate Crimes Act through the SC Senate, bipartisan supporters came up with an “aggressive new strategy” that might just work. Bill S.99 is one of three similar Democratic Party-led hate crime laws being pushed simultaneously, all aided by Republicans. Also in the pipeline are Senate S.247, still under review, and House H.3039 which was gathering more sponsors. S.99 is the stealthy one, creeping in under the title of “penalty enhancements” with no mention of “hate crime.”
Hate crime bills harm minorities and “criminalize thoughts” warn civil rights watchers
These bills don’t prevent hate crimes and hurt the very citizens they claim to protect, according to black civil rights watchdogs, progressive activists, and academics. In Columbia, South Carolina, blacks and the homeless were most negatively impacted by a local hate crime ordinance. Civil rights groups have warned for years that such laws harm racial minorities, especially young Black men, and do not protect LGBTQ+. The same lawmakers calling for prison reform ignore warnings that hate-crimes laws lead to civil-rights violations and expand prison populations. One close examination of the matter points out that the ACLU has long objected to hate crime laws on the grounds that they punish constitutionally protected expression. They report that the ACLU cautions these laws can “criminalize thoughts,” insisting that thinking or expressing hurtful ideas should not be criminalized. The ACLU demonstrated how police used the law’s “ethnic intimidation” wording to expand police power and punish speech, specifically citizens “saying offensive things to the officers who arrest them.”
How do hate crime laws work?
Hate crime laws potentially criminalize constitutionally protected words. Under S.99, if you commit a “violent crime” against certain individuals, prosecutors can then mine your memes, posts, comments, and past statements for evidence of “bias” against a protected group and then pile years onto your sentence.
South Carolina defines “violent crimes” very broadly (§16-1-60), sweeping in offenses that don’t involve direct physical contact and many an ordinary person would never expect. Under that statute, a hate crimes enhancement could be triggered for merely attempting or being an accessory before the fact to one of the listed offenses if the crime was against someone from the special-identity categories of victims. S.99 also draws on the state’s “lynching” statute, assault by mob in the second degree as defined in Section 16-3-210(C), involving two or more perpetrators in a premeditated attack. And it’s worth considering that, if “words are violence,” as progressives have long insisted, could we expect to see that inserted that into our laws eventually?
What’s in bill S.99?
Following conviction, a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and five years of incarceration may be added if prosecutors can prove targeted hate in a person’s mind (intent). If S.99 passes, you can face civil lawsuits and be sued for damages. The bill uses a known but highly unusual term “national orientation” in place of the clearly defined “national origin.” National orientation is a vague classification that reaches beyond country of birth and could be interpreted to include cultural norms, practices, and traditions. Without a firm legal definition, it risks expanding past expected notions of national origin or citizenship and could be invoked to challenge or chill public objections over rights or benefits granted to illegal immigrants. The proposed law also creates a hate offense for targeting someone’s “political views,” another vague category with plenty of room for interpretation and opportunities for selective political persecution. After a hate crime bill is enacted, lawmakers can amend it to add new protected identities, as several other states have done. It’s only the first step toward censorship. South Carolina legislators themselves have previously attempted to insert additional protected categories into earlier hate-crime proposals.
Against all prevailing wisdom, our legislators are committed to building the “mean-words-to-prison pipeline” and chipping away at the First Amendment while calling it “justice.”
South Carolina proudly remains one of only two states staring down national pressure to pass censorship laws under the banner of so-called hate crime legislation, but that may soon change unless citizens hold legislators to their oath to defend the U.S. Constitution.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Contact your lawmakers and ask why they don’t simply strengthen penalties for violent crime, regardless of who the victim is? Why would they create a legal double standard, one in which politically favored groups receive special victim status and identical crimes are treated as more serious based on identity rather than conduct? Press them on whether they are aware that hate crime laws have a documented history of harming vulnerable populations while failing to stop serious violence. Note that opposition comes from across the spectrum: progressive civil liberties advocates and conservatives alike warn these laws are ineffective, criminalize speech, and threaten core civil rights.
1. Senate Bill S.99 was passed out of committee, but ask your Senator or Representative to vote against it if it makes it to the floor for a vote.
2. Copy and paste the emails of the following Republican Senators reviewing hate crime bill S.247 in the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to vote against it:
3. Copy and paste the emails of the following Republican Representatives in the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to vote against hate crime bill H.3039:
4. Contact your Senator and ask them to vote against S.247 and S.99.
5. Contact your State Representative and ask them to vote against H.3039.
“Advocates concede the law won’t stop hate crimes but insist it will “send a message.” ”
Really?? And what message is that? “Messages” don’t seem to work for y’all’s corrupt, criminal enterprise AKA The Legislative Branch.
Did someone forget about Our Federally (and SC) Constitutionally protected the First Amendment?
“Hate” is a completely subjective term and therefore has absolutely no place in Legislative language concerning speech.
Possibly, y’all could concentrate on the CRIMES y’all commit everyday in both the Legislative and Judicial Branches?!
SC’s political / legal / judicial is an absolute corrupt mess…how about appointing Judges who follow the written Law, vs rulings for their political buddies and friends.