The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday upheld the hate crime conviction of a man who posted handwritten notes at homes with rainbow flags and decals urging them to “burn that gay flag.”
The majority rejected Robert Clark Geddes' claim that his conviction for trespassing as a hate crime violated his right to free speech. But a dissenting judge said a hate crime conviction was not appropriate because it was not clear whether the people displaying the symbols were actually associated with the LGBTQ+ community.
As the court noted, the rainbow flag symbolizes support for LGBTQ+ rights. The majority said the state statute at issue does not criminalize the speech, but rather conduct with a specific intent: trespass because the owners or occupants had joined a protected class.
“The display by individuals of the LGBTQ+ flag or flag sticker on their own property was an exercise of First Amendment rights; “The suspect surreptitiously entering these properties to post his harassing notes was not,” the court said.
In June 2021, handwritten notes taped to the front doors of five renters and homeowners in the city of Boone surfaced showing rainbow flags or decals. Everyone said, “Burn that gay flag.” One contained additional anti-gay slurs. The recipients told police they found the notes “alarming, irritating and/or threatening,” the decision said.
Based on surveillance footage from some homes, police identified Geddes as the man who left the notes, and he acknowledged posting them. He was charged with five counts of trespassing as a hate crime. He was later convicted and given probation for up to two years.
On appeal, Geddes argued that prosecutors failed to prove that he targeted or had an association with people who were LGBTQ+. He said his conviction therefore violated his right to freedom of expression.
Iowa's hate crime law requires that the victim was targeted because of their “race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability,” or because of their “association with” people in those areas. categories.
In his dissent, Judge Matthew McDermott said there was no evidence in the record that the recipients of Geddes' notes were members of the LGBTQ+ community, or that he believed they were, nor that any of the residents were a “ had a connection with” an actual person. in these protected classes. He noted that the Legislature chose the words “association with” instead of “solidarity with” when it wrote the hate crimes law.
“As a symbol, a flag does not in itself create or express actual associations with particular individuals,” McDermott wrote, adding that “not everyone who displays a pirate flag is associated with actual pirates.”
Geddes' attorney Ashley Stewart said they were disappointed in the decision.
“We should all be concerned about protecting the free market for ideas under the First Amendment, even if the ideas are minority views,” Stewart wrote in an email. “Iowa's hate crime statute requires the victim to be associated with a targeted group. We agree with the disagreement that merely displaying a flag on a house does not meet the criteria.”
Jane Kirtley, a First Amendment expert at the University of Minnesota, said the dissenting judge may have a valid point. When hate crimes are so linked to expression, she says, the specific facts of the case matter. She agreed there may not be enough facts in the record to determine whether Geddes' actions breached hate crime law, given the use of the vague term “association with.”
“Words matter,” Kirtley said in an interview. “The legislature can write with greater precision. Judges are reluctant to read cases in ambiguous language, and rightly so.”