KINDER'S COMMENTARY: BULLYING EDITORIAL WRITERS WOULD CRIMINALIZE CERTAIN THOUGHTS

Twice in four days, in May 16 and 19 editorials, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch took gratuitous swipes at me. The first I deemed unworthy of a response, but the second was far less reasoned commentary than it was an unprovoked, journalistic drive-by shooting. In discussing the General Assembly's passage of hate crimes legislation over the principled opposition of many of us, they singled me out as "homophobic" for opposing it.

Ugly bullying in editorials is unworthy of a great newspaper. It is amazing that from their ivory tower, Post editorial writers can divine motives in people whom you have never met. This finely developed skill will come in handy in the brave new world of hate crimes. Why? Because under this new regime we are embarked on the left/liberal project of ascertaining motive as the basis for criminal prosecution. This is the great new project, itself an abrogation of the First Amendment: Criminalizing certain forms of thought.

Mere crimes and laws against them aren't enough for the Post-Dispatch. For eons many of us have thought that murder is murder, assault is assault, aggravated rape is aggravated rape. For most crimes, the state of mind of the defendant has always been relevant at two stages: First, in the prosecutor's decision as to which charge to bring (premeditated murder or involuntary manslaughter?), and second in the sentencing phase (are there aggravating or mitigating circumstances present?).

The claim is that special categories of protected groups aren't being created. The facts belie this.

Query: According to the Post-Dispatch, is burning an American flag a hate-crime against our country and all who love her? If not, then, after we adopt the Post's reasoning as to hate crimes, why not? Surely the person who ignites Old Glory in a public place -- say, at an American Legion convention -- intends vividly to communicate his contempt, his hatred, of America? But in the Post-Dispatch lexicon, this not only isn't a crime, but is a protected exercise of free speech. An archival search turns up old Post editorials acknowledging this, even as they celebrate -- no, demand -- the right of every American to be able to express this (favored?) form of hatred.

As the above example illustrates, not all hatred is to be criminalized, but rather only those hatreds deemed unacceptable by liberal editorial writers, friendly legislators and those cowed by their thunderbolts. This is how the one great, shining precept of Anglo-American jurisprudence -- equality before law, lady justice blind as to those who appear before her -- is violated. Minorities will be among those hurt worst. While they're at it, hate-crime advocates are unconcerned with violating double-jeopardy protections, too.

We have been centuries, first acknowledging as our ideal, then striving imperfectly to approximate the reality of equal justice under law. Like the beasts who dragged poor James Byrd to his death in Texas, the scum who tortured Matthew Shepard with such horrific brutality in Wyoming have been charged, tried and sentenced under conventional -- not hate crime -- statutes. (I favor executing the brutes. And George Will adds: "Surely Matthew Shepard's assailants would deserve no less severity if he weren't gay and their motive had been pure sadism.") From their graves these victims and their families should expect the birthright of every American: Equal justice under law, not the special status, plus abrogation of the First Amendment and double jeopardy protections, that lie down the road where the Post is leading us.