In a recent decision, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the hate crime conviction of Robert Clark Geddes, who had posted handwritten notes at homes displaying rainbow flags and emblems, urging them to “burn that gay flag.” The majority of the court rejected Geddes’ claim that his conviction for trespassing as a hate crime violated his free speech rights. However, a dissenting justice raised questions about whether the victims were genuinely associated with the LGBTQ+ community.
Support for LGBTQ+ Rights Symbolized The court recognized that the rainbow flag has become a symbol of support for LGBTQ+ rights. They clarified that the state statute in question does not criminalize speech but rather focuses on conduct with a specific intent. Specifically, it addresses trespassing when property owners or residents have associated themselves with a protected class.
First Amendment Rights vs. Trespassing “The individuals’ display of the LGBTQ+ flag or flag decal on their own properties was an exercise of First Amendment rights; the defendant’s surreptitious entry onto those properties to post his harassing notes was not,” the court stated.
Debate Surrounding Victim Association Geddes had posted the offensive notes in 2021 on the front doors of individuals who displayed rainbow flags or decals. His actions were deemed “alarming, annoying, and/or threatening” by the recipients. However, Geddes argued that prosecutors failed to prove that he targeted LGBTQ+ individuals or those associated with them, claiming that his conviction violated his free speech rights.
Dissenting Opinion Justice Matthew McDermott, in his dissent, raised concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the victims’ actual LGBTQ+ affiliations and whether Geddes believed they were associated with the LGBTQ+ community. He pointed out that the hate crime law specifies “association with” rather than “solidarity with” when defining protected groups.
Protecting Free Speech and Clarifying Ambiguous Language Geddes’s attorney, Ashley Stewart, expressed disappointment with the decision, emphasizing the importance of protecting minority opinions under the First Amendment. Experts like Jane Kirtley from the University of Minnesota noted that when hate crimes intersect with expression, the specific details of the case become crucial. She agreed with the dissenting justice, suggesting that the vague term “association with” in the hate crime law might require greater precision.
In this complex case, the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision highlights the ongoing debate between free speech rights and the boundaries of hate crime laws, particularly in situations where symbols and actions converge.
