The Anti-Mosque Bandwagon: Crossing Constitutional Lines

The anti-Mosque bandwagon in NYC is crossing Constitutional lines.

The main defense for the activities of the anti-Mosque bandwagon is their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. I would agree that they have the right to speak out against the Mosque and attend city zoning meetings to voice their opinion to the officials who will be making the decision. But as this article illustrates, the actions of the teens has gone past Constitutional protection.

I see this case as needing the application of the penalties involved with prosecuting a hate crime, not simply "disrupting a religious ceremony." I would draw on the legalese and Constitutional interpretation laid out in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), in which the Supreme Court upheld Wisconsin's penalty-enhancement law. A group of black men targeted a white boy to beat up specifically because of his race. Assault was beefed up under the law to aggravated battery. The Supreme Court upheld the WI law for three reasons, which I see applicable to this current incident:

1. Physical assault is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment (firing a shot gun and sideswiping a worshiper with a vehicle are NOT constitutionally protected forms of expression).

2. In previous cases, sentencing judges have been allowed to take into account the defendant's racial animus towards his victim (there is no doubt that the victims in this case were targeted as a direct result of their religious standing).

3. The law punishes only conduct, NOT speech (anti-Mosque demonstrators have been allowed to voice their dissatisfaction with the plan with Constitutional protections; those protections do not extend to battery and/or firing a shot gun in city limits).

State Supreme Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled over and again in similar cases. Throughout history, religion has been the impetus and the victim of targeted violence, enough so that the Supreme Court has made it a federally-protected class (just like race). It is unjust to apply those protections inconsistently. The charges of "disrupting a religious service" are a joke. It is up to the State, as per the 10th Amendment, to extend those protections to the members of the Mosque while properly punishing those whose conduct (not speech) is criminally punishable. If the NY Supreme Court is unwilling to step up in this case, then it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to follow stare decisis (precedent).