By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
The court’s ruling reaffirmed the hate crime statute’s application to symbolic acts, balancing protection against hate crimes with free speech rights.
The Iowa Supreme Court has upheld the hate crime conviction of Robert Clark Geddes, who was found guilty of leaving antigay notes at homes displaying Pride flags.
Friday's decision marks a pivotal moment in interpreting hate crime legislation and its overlap with free speech rights.
The case dates back to June 2021, when Geddes targeted homes with rainbow flags, leaving notes that urged residents to “burn that gay flag,” the Associated Press reports. Some of these notes also included additional antigay slurs. Through surveillance footage, Geddes was identified as the perpetrator and later admitted to his actions. He faced five counts of trespassing as a hate crime and was ultimately sentenced to a probation period of up to two years.
During his appeal, Geddes challenged the conviction, arguing that there was no concrete evidence to suggest he specifically targeted individuals who were LGBTQ+ or closely associated with them. However, the court maintained its stance, confirming that under Iowa’s hate crime law, such offenses apply when a victim is targeted due to their “association with” people in protected categories, including sexual orientation.
The ruling drew a dissenting opinion from Justice Matthew McDermott, who questioned whether displaying a symbolic flag like the rainbow flag necessarily indicates an actual association with the LGBTQ+ community. He compared this to the idea that someone displaying a pirate flag is not necessarily associated with actual pirates, underscoring the potential ambiguities in the current interpretation of hate crime laws.
First Amendment expert and professor at the University of Minnesota Jane Kirtley highlighted the importance of examining the specific facts of each case when applying hate crime laws.
“Words matter,” Kirtley told the AP. “Legislatures can write with greater precision. Judges are reluctant to read things into ambiguous language, and rightly so.”
