I guess it should be obvious, if for no other reason than the speaker is Louis Gohmert and he’s pretty much always confused, but Gohmert is confusing “hate crimes” and “hate speech.” In order be charged with a hate crime, you have to first … (can you guess ) … commit a crime.
Hate SPEECH is not a crime. It is protected by the First Amendment. Yes, it is possible to argue that pastors will be accused of hate speech if they preach racist or homophobic dogma from their pulpits, but they can’t be accused of a hate crime unless they actually commit some crime. They’re pretty safe unless they follow up a homophobic sermon by shooting up a gay bar, or telling their parishioners to.
(SIDEBAR: I suppose that in countries where certain forms of hate speech are ipso facto illegal, religious leaders of all faiths can commit criminal acts simply by offering a sermon or counseling.)
Couldn’t the pastor be charged if he/she invited others if they invited others to commit a hate crime?
Yes, absolutely if a crime actually occurs at his behest, but the hate crime statute does not change whether he has committed a crime. It would only change the jurisdiction to the federal courts. The action you describe, if it resulted in action, would be a crime even if the statute did not exist. If the hate crimes concept did not exist, such a preacher would be charged with murder.
Same as Charles Manson.
In fact, that’s exactly what Charles Manson was convicted of. He was essentially a preacher and told his disciples commit a crime.
Once again, nobody can be charged with a hate crime unless they commit an actual crime. Simply saying “gays are sinners” is not criminal. Saying “go thee forth and kill those sinners” is, if that causes somebody to kill. (If he urges his flock to kill random people, it’s an ordinary crime. If he directs them to kill a designated group – gays or Mexicans or whatever – it becomes a hate crime. A hate crime is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership in a certain social group or race. But again, it must first be a crime. If there is no crime, then there is no hate crime.)
But …
But what if a Christian preacher (or Muslim Imam) consistently urged people to commit a murder, even gave specific directions to do do, but nobody actually did so? That still can be charged as a crime, hate or otherwise, but is getting into a fuzzier area of the law. That does violate Federal statute 18 U.S. Code § 373 – “Solicitation to commit a crime of violence” – the same crime as hiring a hit man, even if the “hit” never occurs. I’m not a lawyer, but I guess the preacher could be charged with the crime of solicitation if he directs the violence against random people and it would become a hate crime if he specifies a certain group.
Stress “could be.”
Realistically, does the legal system have time to prosecute everyone who encourages others to commit a crime, without follow-up? We can’t even keep up with the crimes actually committed.
1.As described, Charles Manson, if not the ringleader, would still have been guilty of being an accomplice.
2.However, this is not quite correct. Manson left the LaBianca residence before the murders were committed, but he played a direct role as he tied them up.