Hate "speech" damages homes??

This is so wrong--but I'm talking about this newspaper's headline (as well as the act).

Published: October 23, 2006

Local News: Public Safety
Weekend hate speech damages two homes

By Chris Green
ROCKFORD REGISTER STAR

ROCKFORD — Racism reared its ugly head over the weekend, not once, but twice on the homes of residents on the city’s northeast side.

Dave and Deb Sandberg woke up Saturday morning to find the words “Sandnigger go home” spray painted in black on the garage door of their home in the Deer Point Estates subdivision. The message was accompanied by a large swastika.

Sandnigger is a racist term to describe Iraqis and more generally Arabs. The swastika is generally viewed by westerners as a sign of fascism, racism, and the Holocaust.

I know that strong winds can damage homes, but strong words?

A despicable racist act damaged those two homes, not "hate speech."

I don't know what the hell they were thinking of, but of all folks, a newspaper reporter and/or editor should be more careful about their article headline phrasing. In this country, and in and of itself, hate speech is legally-protected free speech. If they're ever apprehended, the individual or individuals responsible for this crime will be charged with criminal damage to property (as this fact is pointed out in the body of the report).

"The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts." (Justice William O. Douglas, Concurring Opinion, Brandenburg v. Ohio.)

There is a significant difference between hate speech and hate acts and the folks who run that newspaper should well know better.