tional, so is Wisconsin's statute. ⁸⁶ In effect, the Court stated that hate
crime laws serve the same purpose as Title VII--each provides a remedy
for discriminatory conduct, not a prohibition of speech. But the harms
that hate crime laws are designed to remedy are not clearly identifiable.
The harm to the victim is already punished by generic criminal law. It
would appear that the only additional purpose in punishing more severely
those who commit a bias crime is to provide extra punishment based on
the offender's politically incorrect opinions and viewpoints.

There is a long history of attempts to suppress bigoted expression in the
United States. In the first half of the twentieth century, some states pro-
hibited Nazi and Communist "propaganda." Other states outlawed
group libel based on race, nationality, and ethnicity. Unlike most other
countries in the world, in the United States these laws have not with-
stood judicial scrutiny or political judgment. Tolerance for vile expres-
sion is the price we pay for the right to free speech. As Supreme Court
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed it a half century ago: "If there
is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for at-
tachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought--not free
thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we
hate." ⁸⁷

In recent years, bigotry and prejudice have become increasingly
deplored in American society. Indeed, anti-prejudice itself has become
a reigning ideology, one that the government heartily and rightly en-
dorses. Despite the near universal condemnation of bigots, the First
Amendment protects their offensive speech. If a bigot acts on those views,
the criminal law is there to punish him. But, in our view, the First Amend-
ment is implicated when extra punishment is meted out for bigoted beliefs
and motives.

The campus hate speech codes have emerged as the contemporary
successor to the old group libel laws. These codes attempt, in the name
of multiculturalism, to regulate student expression, including personal
discussions, jokes, and comments in class. Not surprisingly, they have
failed to withstand legal challenge.

Passing hate crime laws is now the fallback position for those who
wish to denounce prejudiced and bigoted thought and expression via
criminal law. By linking hate speech prohibitions to generic criminal law,
many well-meaning advocacy groups and politicians seek to shake a fist
at the kind of ideas, opinions, and degenerate personalities that "right-
thinking" people abhor. But we must consider whether punishing crimes

-128-