"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." This well-known quote by English author Evelyn Beatrice Hall seems to be the embodiment of the freedom of speech principle which we Americans prize so deeply as part of our First Amendment rights.

Is Freedom of Speech an absolute freedom, or does it have qualifications, and, if so, where is the line? One of the most cited examples of where free speech is not protected is when a person maliciously yells "fire" in a crowded theater, hoping to inspire a panic. In today's tense, racially charged environment, the issue of words, images and intent have become flashpoints.There is a debate going on in nearby Northampton County involving District Attorney John Morganelli and free speech advocates over whether a white student's video and commentary maligning an African-American student in the Saucon Valley School District rises to the threshold of a hate crime. Morganelli has filed ethnic intimidation charges against the 14-year-old white student who made, narrated and distributed the profanity-laced video showing the 16-year-old African-American student eating chicken. The video provoked the 16-year-old to retaliate and beat up the video-maker, resulting in assault charges.Civil libertarians believe Morganelli has gone too far in labeling the incident ethnic intimidation. Mary Catherine Roper, who represents the American Civil Liberties Union in legal matters, said she does not believe one video constitutes a crime and worries that this type of overreaction will have dire consequences for our First Amendment rights.So where is the line? Not surprisingly, there is little agreement among experts and scholars.The federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act makes it illegal to harm someone physically based on his or her race, religion, national origin, gender or sexual orientation. Pennsylvania has had a hate crimes law in effect since the early-1980s, and these state laws have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.The First Amendment offers us extensive free speech protections, even for unpopular beliefs. For example, a person can belong to organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, which promote hateful ideologies and racial prejudices.That said, court rulings have underscored major exceptions and permitted prosecution for language that involves threats or is intended to lead to riotous actions.The more specific a threat is, the more likely it is to run afoul of the law. Jim Weinstein, a constitutional law instructor at Arizona State University, gave this example to The Associated Press: "It's one thing to say, 'Kill all the Jews,' versus 'Kill that Jew who was my kid's schoolteacher who gave him an F.' " The first example, Weinstein believes, is protected speech; the second is not.Writing in The Washington Post, Eugene Volokh, a free speech professor at UCLA, said: "Hateful ideas are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam - or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens - as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans."Morganelli is expecting that his decision to file charges in the Saucon Valley incident will send a strong message to discourage racial intimidation and harassment in our schools. He said, however, that he has had to pay a price for his unpopular decision. He said he has received racially charged name-calling texts, emails and phone calls from those disagreeing with his decision to prosecute.Hate crimes are difficult to prosecute, according to legal experts, because they require getting into perpetrators' minds to try to figure out intent with their prejudices and biases. Except in cases where overt action captured on video makes a case nearly irrefutable, proving intent can be dicey. The case earlier this month where four black men and women in Chicago were charged with kidnapping and assaulting a disabled white man while showing the incident live on Facebook is an example where intent seems crystal clear.You might recall the case in Monroe County last year when a couple was charged with ethnic intimidation after they left a cow's head at a cow sanctuary in Jackson Township. Fueled by a discussion by opponents of the location of the sanctuary in their midst, Kimberly Ann McKee, 19, and Ricky Strausser, 25, left the cow's head, hoping to discourage owner Sankar Sastri from remaining at the sanctuary. The head was taken from the body of a cow from a nearby farm and was not from the sanctuary where cows are viewed as sacred animals by practicing Hindus.Both suspects were given a year's probation after they pleaded guilty to lesser charges in Monroe County Court. Sastri dismissed the incident as more of a "prank" rather than a hate crime or a case of ethnic intimidation. When conflicts occur over which is more important - rights of the individual vs. protecting the community interest - we believe a balance must be the goal, to protect the rights of society without compromising the freedom of speech rights of the speaker.By Bruce Frassinelli |

tneditor@tnonline.com