Symbolic hate: Intention to intimidate, political ideology, and group association

Richard L. Wiener, Erin Richter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In Virginia v. Black (123 S.Ct. 1536, 2003), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not bar statutes that prohibit cross burnings in which defendants acted with intention to intimidate others. Using a variety of symbols including cross burnings, swastikas, confederate flags, and skin fists, the current research tested how mock jurors used alternative actor intentions to judge culpability in symbolic hate speech cases. Only partially validating the Court's assumptions, participants rated guilt certainty highest when they believed the speakers conveyed direct threats, sometimes regardless of whether defendants intended to intimidate others. Further, results showed the level of perceived intimidation only partially mediated the relationship between type of fact pattern and guilt certainty ratings. While alternative intentions did produce different levels of intention to intimidate, path analysis showed that the participants' ratings of the defendant's intention to convey a direct threat influenced guilt certainty ratings in all cases. Perceived intimidation levels predicted culpability in only some of the cases and not for cross burning on private property.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)463-476
Number of pages14
JournalLaw and human behavior
Volume32
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2008

Fingerprint

Hate
political group
hate
political ideology
Guilt
guilt
rating
threat
private property
path analysis
statute
amendment
Supreme Court
symbol
Intentions
Political Ideology
Skin
Research
Rating
Certainty

Keywords

  • Equality versus speech
  • Hate crime
  • Symbolic speech

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Psychology(all)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Cite this

Symbolic hate : Intention to intimidate, political ideology, and group association. / Wiener, Richard L.; Richter, Erin.

In: Law and human behavior, Vol. 32, No. 6, 01.12.2008, p. 463-476.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{01e091fc032344c5ac865822bf37a584,
title = "Symbolic hate: Intention to intimidate, political ideology, and group association",
abstract = "In Virginia v. Black (123 S.Ct. 1536, 2003), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not bar statutes that prohibit cross burnings in which defendants acted with intention to intimidate others. Using a variety of symbols including cross burnings, swastikas, confederate flags, and skin fists, the current research tested how mock jurors used alternative actor intentions to judge culpability in symbolic hate speech cases. Only partially validating the Court's assumptions, participants rated guilt certainty highest when they believed the speakers conveyed direct threats, sometimes regardless of whether defendants intended to intimidate others. Further, results showed the level of perceived intimidation only partially mediated the relationship between type of fact pattern and guilt certainty ratings. While alternative intentions did produce different levels of intention to intimidate, path analysis showed that the participants' ratings of the defendant's intention to convey a direct threat influenced guilt certainty ratings in all cases. Perceived intimidation levels predicted culpability in only some of the cases and not for cross burning on private property.",
keywords = "Equality versus speech, Hate crime, Symbolic speech",
author = "Wiener, {Richard L.} and Erin Richter",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10979-007-9119-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "463--476",
journal = "Law and Human Behavior",
issn = "0147-7307",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Symbolic hate

T2 - Intention to intimidate, political ideology, and group association

AU - Wiener, Richard L.

AU - Richter, Erin

PY - 2008/12/1

Y1 - 2008/12/1

N2 - In Virginia v. Black (123 S.Ct. 1536, 2003), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not bar statutes that prohibit cross burnings in which defendants acted with intention to intimidate others. Using a variety of symbols including cross burnings, swastikas, confederate flags, and skin fists, the current research tested how mock jurors used alternative actor intentions to judge culpability in symbolic hate speech cases. Only partially validating the Court's assumptions, participants rated guilt certainty highest when they believed the speakers conveyed direct threats, sometimes regardless of whether defendants intended to intimidate others. Further, results showed the level of perceived intimidation only partially mediated the relationship between type of fact pattern and guilt certainty ratings. While alternative intentions did produce different levels of intention to intimidate, path analysis showed that the participants' ratings of the defendant's intention to convey a direct threat influenced guilt certainty ratings in all cases. Perceived intimidation levels predicted culpability in only some of the cases and not for cross burning on private property.

AB - In Virginia v. Black (123 S.Ct. 1536, 2003), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not bar statutes that prohibit cross burnings in which defendants acted with intention to intimidate others. Using a variety of symbols including cross burnings, swastikas, confederate flags, and skin fists, the current research tested how mock jurors used alternative actor intentions to judge culpability in symbolic hate speech cases. Only partially validating the Court's assumptions, participants rated guilt certainty highest when they believed the speakers conveyed direct threats, sometimes regardless of whether defendants intended to intimidate others. Further, results showed the level of perceived intimidation only partially mediated the relationship between type of fact pattern and guilt certainty ratings. While alternative intentions did produce different levels of intention to intimidate, path analysis showed that the participants' ratings of the defendant's intention to convey a direct threat influenced guilt certainty ratings in all cases. Perceived intimidation levels predicted culpability in only some of the cases and not for cross burning on private property.

KW - Equality versus speech

KW - Hate crime

KW - Symbolic speech

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=55949105909&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=55949105909&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10979-007-9119-3

DO - 10.1007/s10979-007-9119-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 18030607

AN - SCOPUS:55949105909

VL - 32

SP - 463

EP - 476

JO - Law and Human Behavior

JF - Law and Human Behavior

SN - 0147-7307

IS - 6

ER -