Democrats run the state government of Michigan, with majorities on the House and Senate of the state legislature and Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer with the ability to sign bills into law. That’s why a bill already passed by the State Legislature’s House and assigned to committee in the State Senate is so dangerous.  Can you believe five years in prison for speech based on someone’s feelings about it? HB 4474 (official summary of text here; revised language of the bill here) has a good chance of becoming law, despite its obvious unconstitutionality.

Michigan State Capitol in Lansing

Wade Vellky of the Michigan Review (a student-run publication at the University of Michigan) writes:

Michigan HB 4474 states that a person may be charged with a felony and sentenced to up to five years in prison if they “intimidate[] or harass[] another individual,” use “force or violence, or cause “severe mental anguish” based on two new additions of “perceived characteristics”: gender identity or sexual orientation. How can we define intimidation, harassment, and violence? Well, if the person feels like they’ve been intimidated or harassed, then, of course, they’ve been harassed according to this bill. It’s also important to mention that no one on the left can even define what violence means. Up until a couple of years ago, effectively everyone understood that violence was related to some form of physical harm. Unfortunately, a wide majority of Democrats no longer define violence that way. So, how do we define violence? According to Democrats, words are violence, and in particular, words that they disagree with are, obviously, violence.

Briana Oser, writing in the Washington Examiner, puts it this way:

The problematic language about “feelings” can be found in the bill’s definition of “intimidation” as “willful course of conduct, involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened.” (snip)

“Hate speech” accusations are designed with one outcome in mind: censorship. “Hate speech” is usually not hateful speech. What often constitutes “hate speech” is any language that opposes popular narrative. This label is causing damage to our nation. We find frequent examples of its effects in how it muffles free speech on college campuses.

In a May exclusive with Fox News, Alex Morey of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said that many college students are adopting a “victim mentality” and thus approve of censorship to combat their perceived persecutors. FIRE deals with legally ensuring that each student is able to use his or her voice.

Yes, the bill is unconstitutional. But if it becomes law, it will takes years and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to get it to the Supreme Court for a finding. IF it makes it there.

Meanwhile, left wing agitation to weaken the Court and drive conservatives from its bench will only intensify. If they succeed or if mortality intervenes and Democrats get to appoint more justices or even pack the court by expanding it, the constitutional safeguards may crumble in the foreseeable future.

Here is the official legislative summary of the bill:

House Bill 4474 would amend provisions of the code that now define and prohibit the crime
of ethnic intimidation.
Under current law, a person is guilty of ethnic intimidation if they maliciously do any of the
following with the specific intent to intimidate or harass another individual because of their
race, color, religion, gender, or national origin:
• Cause physical contact with the other individual.
• Damage, destroy, or deface any real or personal property of the other individual.
• Threaten, by word or act, to do either of the above, if there is reasonable cause to
believe that they will do so.
Ethnic intimidation is a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up
to $5,000, or both. The act also allows a person who suffers personal injury or property damage
as a result of ethnic intimidation to bring a civil cause of action against the offender for an
injunction, actual damages (including damages for emotional distress), or other appropriate
relief. The civil action can be brought regardless of the existence or outcome of any criminal
prosecution. A plaintiff prevailing in such an action can recover damages in the amount of
three times the actual damages or $2,000, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney
fees and costs.
The bill would provide that a person is guilty of a hate crime if they maliciously and
intentionally do any of the following to another individual based in whole or in part on an
actual or perceived characteristic of that individual, regardless of the existence of any other
motivating factors:
• Use force or violence on the other individual.
• Cause bodily injury to the other individual.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 7
 • Intimidate the other individual.
• Damage, destroy, or deface any real, personal, digital, or online property of the other
individual without that individual’s consent.
• Threaten, by word or act, to do any of the above.
Intimidate would mean a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing
harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel
terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel
terrorized, frightened, or threatened. However, the term intimidate would not include
constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.
For purposes of the above provisions, an actual or perceived characteristic would include any
of the following:
• Race or color.
• Religion.
• Sex.
• Sexual orientation.
• Gender identity or expression.
• Physical or mental disability.
• Age.
• Ethnicity.
• National origin.
• Association or affiliation with an individual or group of individuals in whole or in part
based on a characteristic described above.
For both HB 4474 and HB 4476, gender identity or expression would mean having or
being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity or expression, whether or not
associated with an individual’s assigned sex at birth.
Penalties
Except as described under “Enhanced penalties,” below, a hate crime would be a felony
punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up to $5,000, or both. Instead of
or in addition to those penalties, the court, if the defendant consents, could impose an
alternative sentence that may, if the entity chosen for community service is amenable, include
an order requiring the offender to complete a period of community service intended to enhance
the offender’s understanding of the impact of the offense upon the victim and the wider
community. In determining the suitability of an alternative sentence, the court would have to
consider the criminal history of the offender, the impact of the offense on the victim and the
wider community, the availability of the alternative sentence, and the nature of the violation.
Enhanced penalties
If any of the following apply, a person who commits a hate crime would be guilty of a felony
punishable by imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to $10,000, or both:
• The hate crime results in bodily injury.
• The person has one or more prior convictions 1 for hate crimes.
1
A prosecuting attorney intending to seek an enhanced sentence based on a defendant’s prior conviction would have
to include on the complaint and information a statement listing the prior conviction(s). The existence of the prior
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4474 to 4477 (proposed floor substitutes) Page 2 of 7
 • A victim of the hate crime is less than 18 years of age and the offender is at least 19
years of age.
• The person commits the hate crime in concert with one or more other individuals.
• The person is in possession of a firearm during the commission of the hate crime.
If the defendant consents, the court could reduce any penalty described above by up to 20%
and impose an alternative sentence that may, if the entity chosen for community service is
amenable, include an order requiring the offender to complete a period of community service
intended to enhance the offender’s understanding of the impact of the offense upon the victim
and the wider community. In determining the suitability of an alternative sentence, the court
would have to consider the criminal history of the offender, the impact of the offense on the
victim and the wider community, the availability of the alternative sentence, and the nature of
the violation.
Civil cause of action
The bill would allow a person who suffers bodily injury or damage to their property as a result
of a hate crime to bring a civil cause of action against the offender for an injunction, actual
damages (including damages for emotional distress), or other appropriate relief. The civil
action could be brought regardless of the existence or outcome of any criminal prosecution. A
plaintiff prevailing in such an action could recover damages in the amount of three times the
actual damages or $25,000, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Photo credit: San 906 public domain