Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

“Hate crimes” laws are a sneaky go-around for censorship. Such a law is up for consideration, again, in the South Carolina State Senate with the 2025 version of the “Clementa C. Pinckney Hate Crimes Act” (LegiScan S247 and SC Senate 2025 S247 text). It is the product of communities demanding a form of lasting retribution for the horrific 2015 Charleston Emanuel AME Church deaths. It is supported by politicians on both sides of the aisle who are anxious to demonstrate solidarity with their fellow South Carolinians. But the reality is that activist organizations are using the opportunity to establish the foundation for a censorship agenda.

The public is focused on vengeance and doesn’t recognize that the effect of a hate crimes law is to stifle constitutionally protected speech for everyone. South Carolina is one of only a handful of states free from this legislation and activist organizations are applying intense pressure on our elected officials to conform. In 2023, the pressure worked and many GOP legislators voted YES, inching it closer to passage. Democrats say they believe they have the votes this year. It’s time for citizens to put our elected officials on the record about their willingness to surrender citizens’ free speech rights and permit government censorship. 

How do hate crimes laws lead to censorship? 

Hate crimes, according to the FBI, take place when a criminal believes a victim possesses certain characteristics, perhaps assuming that the victim is Jewish or foreign or physically disabled and can’t fight back. Prosecutors can add more penalties if they determine this took place. But here’s one big problem: the government must guess what the perpetrator was thinking. South Carolina’s proposed law says that the state “determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed against a victim who was intentionally selected, in whole or in part, because of the person’s belief or perception regarding the victim’s race, color, religion, sex, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability….” (emphasis added) 

Social media posts become ammunition for vengeful prosecutors

That’s a great deal of vagueness and legal wiggle room crammed into one bill. The law is used to punish a criminal for personal bias, including racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, misogyny or transphobia. To make their case, prosecutors need to get into the mind and heart of the offender to “prove” that bias provoked the crime more than, say, an antisocial personality, predatory or violent tendencies, criminal behavior, anger, drug usage or drunkenness, mental illness, spite, revenge, cruelty, or even boredom. This means that prosecutors of so-called hate crimes scour prior social media posts, published materials, perceived microaggressions, and remarks overheard in the past. To punish an offender under this law, the state will present its story about what the accused thought before and at the time of the act. One way to determine “thought crime” is by reading things like opinions, re-tweets, follows, and memes. In 2024, the Biden DOJ convicted a man for re-tweeting a joke meme, successfully framed by prosecutors as an attempt to influence voting.

Perhaps, in some cases, a direct line may be drawn between word and deed, especially when the actor is explicit about his or her motives for committing the crime. But even in those situations, criminal law has already decreed a suitable punishment that was determined through deliberate, objective jurisprudence. Hate crimes laws permit ostensibly neutral public servants to pile on additional penalties that punish potentially misguided beliefs allegedly held by the accused. But most of all, it inhibits expression of similar thinking by others. The long-term consequence of expanding punishment to “hateful words” is to open the doorway to censorship of speech and to curb freedom of thought, targeting both the political left and right. 

No credible evidence that hate crimes laws work

Supporters of the proposed law don’t provide credible evidence that it prevents hate crimes. These are “feel good” measures with no consistently measurable target for success, owing to the vagueness of the laws’ objectives and the expanding definition of “hate.” They don’t explain all the repercussions of these laws. Protected categories are “political judgments” and states are allowed to “add whatever other characteristics they want” to be classified as hate crimes. In fact, states have both broadened the categories and the application of these laws. In one case, Utah tried to use it to punish two non-criminal behaviors merely by emphasizing in the charges that a woman was “smirking” while allegedly stepping on a pro-police sign (a statute gave police special identity status). That effort and others have failed, so far, but it demonstrates the slippery slope when law enforcement is permitted to interpret bias through vaguely worded laws. Experience and common sense warn us it would be useful for politically motivated prosecution.

More than anything, hate crimes laws are intended to shape behavior and are as effective at that as the death penalty has been at deterring murder. Regardless, South Carolina’s Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson says the law would “shape attitudes” for “message crimes” and that we must “have a message of our own.” In fact, all of the justifications given by South Carolina proponents are similarly emotional. Read for yourself, rather than being rooted in law, justifications include a simplistic plea to “stamp out hate forever” and even veer into talk about the economic impacts on the state and chiding us that it’s a “shame” not to have one. 

The consequences: These laws hurt minorities, fill prisons

A 2-part article provided anecdotal evidence that minorities and fringe populations were most impacted, the very reason civil rights groups oppose hate crimes laws. A glimpse into South Carolina’s efforts to craft local ordinances confirmed that, contrary to intentions, otherwise protected classes were disproportionately swept up. For this reason, national civil rights groups have long warned against unintended expansion of prison populations. As one organization cautioned, “We can’t incarcerate our way out of racism, homophobia, and bigotry any more than we can incarcerate our way out of addiction and poverty.”

What’s the real target? 

The gullible public is being eased into censorship, believing hate laws only impact criminals or might infringe on only the most abhorrent legally protected speech. But radical activists are emphatic that all hateful “words are violence,” justifying violent pushback. Hate crimes laws work along a similar sentiment and lay the groundwork for a justice system weaponized against your words, assisted by well-funded progressive organizations  and extremist groups who back this legislation in our state.  

Free speech for all or for none

If you demand free speech for yourself to support opinions and positions you believe are righteous, but which may be objectionable to others, then you must also allow free speech for your opponent. That is the spirit of the First Amendment which has protected Americans from the worst forms of government tyranny we see taking place in other countries today. Thankfully, the majority of people are beginning to recognize there is a growing trend toward criminalization of free speech. There’s good reason why, in recent years, many have also begun to self-censor even when sharing factual information or making observations about self-evident truths. 

“Anti-hate” censorship created a European surveillance state

Hate crimes laws, speech codes, and censorship are shown to produce the opposite effect to public safety, inciting intolerance, forcing dissidents to go underground, thus, requiring an expanded police surveillance apparatus to ferret them out. European citizens are now victims of laws purportedly about stopping hate, but which have quickly evolved into broad censorship and surveillance systems run by law enforcement. Under the guise of tackling hate, European countries have imposed increasingly harsh standards for public discourse, targeting “wrong think” by silencing non-mainstream positions, political parties, and even restricting conversations between citizens in their own homes. If you believe none of that could happen here, you may have forgotten about the U.S. social media companies, doing the dirty work of the federal government to deplatform Americans in a coordinated campaign to limit “hate” and to  censor conversations about such topics as the COVID-19 origin (xenophobic!) and vaccine efficacy (misinformation!), masking (grandma killer!), biology (science denier!), “gender identity” (transphobic!), BLM (racist!), and rigged voting systems (anti-democracy!). Major financial institutions happily joined them and debanked ordinary citizens. Credit card companies followed the lead of banks.

Hate crimes laws target words. The first step to official censorship is the enactment of hate crimes laws – laws about opinions and beliefs – serving as a government-sanctioned trigger to unleash a cascading effect that will bring South Carolinians under the thumb of private and public censorship bodies. So remember, anything you say (or post on Facebook, Instagram, or X) can and will be used against you in a court of law.