This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals, State v. Mitchell, 163 Wis. 2d 652, 473 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1991), which affirmed judgments of the circuit court for Kenosha county, Jerold W. Breitenbach, Circuit Judge, adjudging Todd Mitchell guilty of aggravated battery, party to a crime, and adjudging that Mitchell intentionally selected the battery victim because of the victim's race in violation of the hate crimes penalty enhancer, sec. 939.645, Stats. Mitchell challenged the constitutionality of the sec. 939.645, Stats., on appeal, and the court of appeals held that the statute was constitutional. We conclude that the statute unconstitutionally infringes upon free speech, and reverse the decision of the court of appeals.
The sole issue before the court is the constitutionality of sec. 939.645, Stats., the "hate crimes" statute.1 *158Mitchell asserts that the statute on its face violates: (1) his right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and (2) his right to due process and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We hold that the statute violates the First Amendment and is thus unconstitutional.2
The facts are not in dispute. On October 7, 1989, a group of young black men and boys was gathered at an apartment complex in Kenosha. Todd Mitchell, nineteen at the time, was one of the older members of the group. Some of the group were at one point discussing a scene from the movie "Mississippi Burning" where a white man beat a young black boy who was praying.
Approximately ten members of the group moved outdoors, still talking about the movie. Mitchell asked, the group: "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?" A short time later, Gregory Reddick, a fourteen-year-old white male, approached the apartment *159complex. Reddick said nothing to the group, and merely walked by on the other side of the street. Mitchell then said: "You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him." Mitchell then counted to three and pointed the group in Reddick's direction.
The group ran towards Reddick, knocked him to the ground, beat him severely, and stole his "British Knights" tennis shoes. The police found Reddick unconscious a short while later. He remained in a coma for four days in the hospital, and the record indicates he suffered extensive injuries and possibly permanent brain damage.
Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery, party .to a crime. Sections 939.05 and 940.19(lm), Stats. The jury separately found that Mitchell intentionally selected Reddick as the battery victim because of Reddick's race. The aggravated battery conviction carried a maximum sentence of two years, secs. 940.19(lm) and 939.50(3)(e), Stats. Because the jury found that Mitchell selected Reddick because of Reddick's race, sec. 939.645(2)(c), Stats., increased the potential maximum sentence for aggravated battery to seven years. The trial court sentenced Mitchell to four years for the aggravated battery.3
After the circuit court denied Mitchell's request for post-conviction relief, Mitchell appealed the judgments of conviction and the sentences to the court of appeals, focusing on the constitutionality of the hate crimes stat*160ute. On June 5, 1991, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgments, concluding that Mitchell waived any equal protection challenge and that the hate crimes statute was neither vague nor overbroad. State v. Mitchell, 163 Wis. 2d 652, 473 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1991). We granted Mitchell's petition for review on the issue of the constitutionality of the hate crimes statute, and now reverse.4
This case presents an issue which has spawned a growing debate in this country: the constitutionality of legislation that seeks to address hate crimes. Numerous articles have been published concerning the issue, some applauding hate crimes statutes and some vigorously in opposition.5 Individuals and organizations traditionally *161allied behind the same agenda have separated on the issue of the legitimacy of hate crimes statutes. As one commentator noted:
[T]he debate over these laws is occurring not merely between traditional allies, but between one side and itself. Moreover, whenever either viewpoint prevails, whether in the legislature, the courts, or even in a purely academic argument, its proponents do not seem to be very happy about it. They can see very well their opponents' point of view, and in fact largely agree with it. It is as if everyone involved in thé debate over the permissibility and desirability of ethnic intimidation laws were actually on both sides at once.
Susan Gellman, 39 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. at 334 (emphasis in original).
Statistical sources indicate that incidents of all types of bias related crime are on the rise. Joseph M. Fernandez, Bringing Hate Crime Into Focus — The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, 26 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 261 (1991); Tanya Kateri Hernandez, Bias Crimes: Unconscious Racism in the Prosecution of Racially Motivated Violence, 99 Yale L.J. 845, 845-46 (1990). Between 1980 and 1986, three thousand incidents of bias related violence were documented. Id. at 846. The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL) reports that " [d]uring 1990 there were 1685 anti-Semitic incidents reported to the Anti-Defamation League from 40 states and the District of Columbia." 1990 Audit of AntiSemitic Incidents, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 1 (1990). This was the highest total ever reported *162in the twelve year history of the audit. Id. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force reported 7031 incidents of anti-gay violence in 1989. Anti-Violence Project, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), Anti-Gay Violence, Victimization and Defamation in 1989 (1990). See also Developments in the Law — Sexual Orientation and the Law, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 1508, 1541-42 (1989).
In response to the recent rise in hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-275. The purpose of the Act is to establish a national data collection system for compilation of statistics concerning bias-related crimes. The Act requires the Attorney General to publish an annual summary of the findings. See generally, Fernandez, supra.
At the state level, the response to reports of bias related crime has been significant. Nearly every state in the country has enacted some form of hate crime legislation. See ADL Law Report: Hate Crimes Statutes: A 1991 Status Report, Appendix C, pp. 24-26 (1991). The Wisconsin legislature's response was to enact sec. 939.645, Stats., which enhances the potential penalty for a criminal actor if the state proves that the actor intentionally selected the victim because of the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.
The first step in reviewing a constitutional challenge to a statute is to determine which party bears the burden of proving its constitutionality or unconstitutionality. While the party challenging the statute ordinarily bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional, Bachowski v. Salamone, 139 Wis. 2d 397, 404, 407 N.W.2d 533 (1987), *163the burden shifts to the proponent of the statute to establish its constitutionality when the statute encroaches upon First Amendment rights. City of Madison v. Baumann, 162 Wis. 2d 660, 669, 470 N.W.2d 296 (1991). Because the hate crimes statute punishes the defendant's biased thought, as discussed below, and thus encroaches upon First Amendment rights, the burden is upon the state to prove its constitutionality.
The hate crimes statute violates the First Amendment directly by punishing what the legislature has deemed to be offensive thought and violates the First Amendment indirectly by chilling free speech.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states bluntly: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."6 The First Amendment protects not only speech but thought as well. " [A]t the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that an individual should be free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one's beliefs should be shaped by his mind and his conscience rather than coerced by the State." Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 234-35 (1977). Even more fundamentally, the constitution protects all speech and thought, regardless of how offensive it may be. "[I]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989).7 As Justice Holmes *164put it: "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 654-55 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting), overruled, Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946).8
Without doubt the hate crimes statute punishes bigoted thought. The state asserts that the statute punishes only the "conduct" of intentional selection of a victim. We disagree. Selection of a victim is an element of the underlying offense, part of the defendant's "intent" in committing the crime. In any assault upon an individual there is a selection of the victim. The statute punishes the "because of" aspect of the defendant's selection, the reason the defendant selected the victim, the motive behind the selection.
Construing the model hate crimes statute designed by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL), *165upon which the Wisconsin hate crimes statute is apparently loosely based,9 one author provides the following insightful analysis:
Under the ADL model, a charge of ethnic intimidation must always be predicated on certain offenses proscribed elsewhere in a state's criminal code. As those offenses are already punishable, all that remains is an additional penalty for the actor's reasons for his or her actions. The model statute does not address effects, state of mind, or a change in the character of the offense, but only the thoughts and ideas that propelled the actor to act. The government could not, of course, punish these thoughts and ideas independently. That they are held by one who commits a crime because of his or her beliefs does not remove this constitutional shield. Of course, the First Amendment protection guaranteed the actor's thoughts does not protect him or her from prosecution for the associated action. Neither, however, does the state's power to punish the action remove the constitutional barrier to punishing the thoughts.
*166Susan Gellman, 39 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 333, 363 (1991).10 Because all of the crimes under chs. 939 to 948, Stats., are already punishable, all that remains is an additional punishment for the defendant's motive in selecting the victim. The punishment of the defendant's bigoted motive by the hate crimes statute directly implicates and encroaches upon First Amendment rights.
While the statute does not specifically phrase the "because of . . . race, religion, color, [etc.]" element in terms of bias or prejudice, it is clear from the history of anti-bias statutes, detailed above, that sec. 939.645, Stats., is expressly aimed at the bigoted bias of the actor. Merely because the statute refers in a literal sense to the *167intentional "conduct" of selecting, does not mean the court must turn a blind eye to the intent and practical effect of the law — punishment of offensive motive or thought.11 The conduct of "selecting" is not akin to the *168conduct of assaulting, burglarizing, murdering and other criminal conduct. It cannot be objectively established. Rather, an examination of the intentional "selection" of a victim necessarily requires a subjective examination of the actor's motive or reason for singling out the particular person against whom he or she commits a crime.12
*169In this case, Todd Mitchell selected Gregory Red-dick because Reddick is white. Mitchell is black. The circumstantial evidence relied upon to prove that Mitchell selected Reddick "because" Reddick is white included Mitchell's speech — "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?" — and his recent discussion with other black youths of a racially charged scene from the movie "Mississippi Burning." This evidence was used not merely to show the intentional selection of the victim, but was used to prove Mitchell's bigoted bias. The physical assault of Reddick is the same whether he was attacked because of his skin color or because he was wearing "British Knight" tennis shoes. Mitchell's bigoted motivation for selecting Reddick, his thought which impelled him to act, is the reason that his punishment was enhanced. In Mitchell's case, that motivation was apparently a hatred of whites.13
The statute commendably is designed to punish — and thereby deter — racism and other objectionable biases, but deplorably unconstitutionally infringes upon free speech. The state would justify its transgression against the constitutional right of freedom of speech and thought because its motive is a good one, but the magnitude of the proposed incursion against the constitutional *170rights of all of us should no more be diminished for that good motive than should a crime be enhanced by a separate penalty because of a criminal's bad motive.14
The state admits that this case involves legislation that seeks to address bias related crime. The only definition of "bias" relevant to this case is "prejudice.” A statute specifically designed to punish personal prejudice impermissibly infringes upon an individual's First Amendment rights, no matter how carefully or cleverly one words the statute. The hate crimes statute enhances the punishment of bigoted criminals because they are bigoted. The statute is directed solely at the subjective motivation of the actor — his or her prejudice. Punishment of one's thought, however repugnant the thought, is unconstitutional.15
*171In R.A.V., supra, decided June 22, 1992, the United States Supreme Court held that a Minnesota ordinance prohibiting bias-motivated disorderly conduct16 was facially invalid under the First Amendment. Accepting the Minnesota Supreme Court's determination that the ordinance reached only expressions that constituted "fighting words" within the meaning of Chaplinsky, the Court held that the government may not constitutionally regulate even otherwise unprotected speech on the basis of hostility towards the idea expressed by the speaker. R.A.V., 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3863, at *24-28. In other words, while the government may regulate all fighting words, it may not regulate only those fighting words with which it disagrees. Such a prohibition is nothing more than a governmental attempt to silence speech on the basis of its content. Id. at *26.
While the St. Paul ordinance invalidated in R.A.V. is clearly distinguishable from the hate crimes statute in that it regulates fighting words rather than merely the actor's biased motive, the Court's analysis lends support to our conclusion that the Wisconsin legislature cannot criminalize bigoted thought with which it disagrees. The Court stated:
*172[T]he only interest distinctively served by the content limitation is that of displaying the city council's special hostility towards the particular biases thus singled out. That is precisely what the First Amendment forbids. The politicians of St. Paul are entitled to express that hostility — but not through the means of imposing unique limitations upon speakers who (however benightedly) disagree.
Id. at *32-33 (footnote omitted). The ideological content of the thought targeted by the hate crimes statute is identical to that targeted by the St. Paul ordinance — racial or other discriminatory animus. And, like the United States Supreme Court, we conclude that the legislature may not single out and punish that ideological content.
Thus, the hate crimes statute is facially invalid because it directly punishes a defendant's constitutionally protected thought.17
The hate crimes statute is also unconstitutionally overbroad. A statute is overbroad when it intrudes upon a substantial amount of constitutionally protected activity. Aside from punishing thought, the hate crimes stat*173ute also threatens to directly punish an individual's speech and assuredly will have a chilling effect upon free speech. As we explained in Bachowski:
A [statute] is overbroad when its language, given its normal meaning, is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the state is not permitted to regulate. The essential vice of an overbroad law is that by sweeping protected activity within its reach it deters citizens from exercising their protected constitutional freedoms, the so-called "chilling effect."
Bachowski, 139 Wis. 2d at 411 (citations omitted). The chilling effect need not be evident in the defendant's case; it is enough if hypothetical situations show that it will chill the rights of others. Milwaukee v. Wilson, 96 Wis. 2d 11, 19-20, 291 N.W.2d 452 (1980). Finally, "[i]n the First Amendment context, 'criminal statutes must be scrutinized with particular care . . ..' " R.A.V., 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3863, at *63, (White, J., concurring), citing Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 459 (1987).18
The state admits as it must that speech may often be used as circumstantial evidence to prove the actor's intentional selection. This case is a perfect example. Mitchell's speech is the primary evidence of his intentional selection of Reddick. The use of the defendant's speech, both current and past, as circumstantial evidence to prove the intentional selection, makes it appar*174ent that the statute sweeps protected speech within its ambit and will chill free speech.
The criminal conduct involved in any crime giving rise to the hate crimes penalty enhancer is already punishable. Yet there are numerous instances where this statute can be applied to convert a misdemeanor to a felony merely because of the spoken word. For example, if A strikes B in the face he commits a criminal battery. However, should A add a. word such as "nigger," "honkey," "jew," "mick," "kraut," "spic," or "queer," the crime becomes a felony, and A will be punished not for his conduct alone — a misdemeanor — but for using the spoken word. Obviously, the state would respond that the speech is merely an indication that A intentionally selected B because of his particular race or ethnicity, but the fact remains that the necessity to use speech to prove this intentional selection threatens to chill free speech. Opprobrious though the speech may be, an individual must be allowed to utter it without fear of punishment by the state.
And of course the chilling effect goes further than merely deterring an individual from uttering a racial epithet during a battery. Because the circumstantial evidence required to prove the intentional selection is limited only by the relevancy rules of the evidence code, the hate crimes statute will chill every kind of speech. As Professor Gellman explains:
In addition to any words that a person may speak during, just prior to, or in association with the commission of one of the underlying offenses, all of his or her remarks upon earlier occasions, any books ever read, speakers ever listened to, or associations ever held could be introduced as evidence that he or she held racist views and was acting upon them at the time of the offense. Anyone charged with one of the *175underlying offenses could be charged with [intentional selection] as well, and face the possibility of public scrutiny of a lifetime of everything from ethnic jokes to serious intellectual inquiry. Awareness of this possibility could lead to habitual self-censorship of expression of one's ideas, and reluctance to read or listen publicly to the ideas of others, whenever one fears that those ideas might run contrary to popular sentiment on the subject of ethnic relations.
It is no answer that one need only refrain from committing one of the underlying offenses to avoid the thought punishment. Chill of expression and inquiry by definition occurs before any offense is committed, and even if no offense is ever committed. The chilling effect thus extends to the entire populace, not just to those who will eventually commit one of the underlying offenses.
Susan Gellman, 39 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. at 360-61 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).19
Thus, the hate crimes statute is unconstitutionally overbroad because it sweeps protected First Amendment speech within its reach and thereby chills free speech.
Finally, we consider the argument advanced by the amici curiae ADL, et al., and embraced by the dissent that an analogy exists between the hate crimes statute and antidiscrimination laws, and that the numerous United States Supreme Court decisions upholding antidiscrimination laws lend support to the hate crimes *176statute.20 We disagree.
Discrimination and bigotry are not the same thing. Under antidiscrimination statutes, it is the discriminatory act which is prohibited. Under the hate crimes statute, the "selection" which is punished is not an act, it is a mental process. In this case, the act was the battery of Reddick; what was punished by the hate crimes statute was Mitchell's reason for selecting Reddick, his discriminatory motive.
As explained above, selection under the hate crimes statute is solely concerned with the subjective motivation of the actor. Prohibited acts of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and analogous state antidiscrimination statutes, such as refusal to hire, termination, etc., involve objective acts of discrimination. What is punished by the hate crimes penalty enhancer is a subjective mental process, not an objective act. The actor's penalty is enhanced not becausé the actor fired the victim, terminated the victim's employment, harassed the victim, abused the victim or otherwise objectively mistreated the victim because of the victim's protected status; the penalty is enhanced because. the actor subjectively selected the victim because of the victim's protected status. Selection, quite simply, is a mental process, not an objective act.21
*177Finally, there is a difference between the civil penalties imposed under Title VII and other antidiscrimination statutes and the criminal penalties imposed by the hate crimes law, and contrary to the dissent's protestations, it is a difference that matters.22 The difference is that while the First Amendment may countenance slight incursions into free speech where the overarching concern is protection from objective acts of bigotry in the employment marketplace and the adverse consequences of such acts on the civil rights of minorities, the First Amendment will not allow the outright criminalization of subjective bigoted thought. We have little doubt that an antidiscrimination statute which criminalized an employer's subjective discrimination, with nothing more, would be unconstitutional. This apparent schism in the First Amendment's protective shield is perhaps best understood in the context of overbreadth. A statute criminalizing the bigoted selection of a victim will chill free speech to a much greater extent than a statute *178imposing civil penalties for objective discriminatory acts.
In the wake of the Los Angeles riots sparked by the acquittal of four white police officers accused of illegally beating black motorist Rodney King, it is increasingly evident that racial antagonism and violence are as prevalent now as they ever have been. Indeed, added to the statistical compilation of bias related crimes could be the vicious beating of white truck driver Reginald Denny by black rioters, horrifyingly captured on film by a news helicopter. As disgraceful and deplorable as these and other hate crimes are, the personal prejudices of the attackers are protected by the First Amendment. The constitution may not embrace or encourage bigoted and hateful thoughts, but it surely protects them.
Because we wholeheartedly agree with the motivation of the legislature in its desire to suppress hate crimes, it is with great regret that we hold the hate crimes statute unconstitutional — and only because we believe that the greater evil is the suppression of freedom of speech for all of us.
By the Court. — The decision of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to the circuit court, for resentencing on the aggravated battery conviction.
At the time of Mitchell's crimes,, sec. 939.645, Stats. 1989-90, provided:
(1) If a person does all of the following, the penalties for the underlying crime are increased as provided in sub. (2):
(a) Commits a crime under chs. 939 to 948.
(b) Intentionally selects the person against whom the crime under par. (a) is committed or selects the property which is damaged or otherwise affected by the crime under par. (a) because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person or the owner or occupant of that property.
(2)(a) If the crime committed under sub. (1) is ordinarily a misdemeanor other than a Class A misdemeanor, the revised maxi*158mum fine is $10,000 and the revised maximum period of imprisonment is one year in the county jail.
(b) If the crime committed under sub. (1) is ordinarily a Class A misdemeanor, the penalty increase under this section changes the status of the crime to a felony and the revised maximum fine is $10,000 and the revised maximum period of imprisonment is 2 years.
(c) If the crime committed under sub. (1) is a felony, the maximum fine prescribed by law for the crime may be increased by not more than $5,000 and the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed by law for the crime may be increased by not more than 5 years.
(3) This section provides for the enhancement of the penalties applicable for the underlying crime. The court shall direct that the trier of fact find a special verdict as to all of the issues specified in sub. (1).
(4) This section does not apply to any crime if proof of race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry is required for .a conviction for that crime.
Because of our holding, we do not address Mitchell's Fourteenth Amendment vagueness and equal protection claims.
Mitchell was also convicted of theft, party to a crime, sec. 943.20(1) (a) and (3)(d)2, Stats. The circuit court imposed and stayed a four year sentence for the theft conviction and imposed a four year period of consecutive probation. The circuit court did not find that the theft violated the hate crimes statute. The court of appeals rejected Mitchell's challenges to the theft conviction, Mitchell, 163 Wis. 2d at 664-65, and that portion of the court of appeals decision is not before the court.
Amicus curiae briefs were filed with the court on behalf of two separate coalitions: the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Wisconsin State Public Defender; and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Milwaukee Jewish Council, the Wisconsin Jewish Conference, the Milwaukee Urban League, the Madison Urban League, Inc., the NAACP — Milwaukee Branch, and the Madison Community United, Inc.
See, e.g., Susan Gellman, Sticks and Stones Can Put You in Jail, But Can Words Increase Your Sentence? Constitutional and Policy Dilemmas of Ethnic Intimidation Laws, 39 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 333 (1991); and Tanya Kateri Hernandez, Bias Crimes: Unconscious Racism in the Prosecution of Racially Motivated Violence, 99 Yale L.J. 845 (1990). Similarly, numerous courts and commentators are currently struggling with the constitutional implications of college campus "hate speech" rules. See, e.g., UWM Post, Inc. v. Board of Regents, 774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991); Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989); Charles R. Lawrence, If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus-, 1990 Duke L.J. 431; Nadine Strossen, Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Mod*161est Proposal?, 1990 Duke L.J. 484; and Katherine T. Bartlett and Jean O'Barr, The Chilly Climate on College Campuses: An Expansion of the "Hate Speech" Debate, 1990 Duke L.J. 574.
Article I, section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides in equally sweeping language that "no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech."
See also R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, No. 90-7675, 1992 LEXIS 3863, at *9, — U.S. — (June 22, 1992); Hustler Magazine, *164Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 55-56 (1988); City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804 (1984); Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 65, 72 (1983); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 462-63 (1980); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 745-46 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 63-65, 67-68 (1976) (plurality opinion); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1976); Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115 (1972); Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972); Bachellar v. Maryland, 397 U.S. 564, 567 (1970); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 382 (1968); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 142-43 (1966); and Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368-69 (1931).
As was said in a statement attributed to Voltaire, surely one of the philosophical ancestors of our American constitution: T disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The ADL model statute provides:
A. A person commits the crime of intimidation if, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation of another individual or group of individuals, he violates Section-of the Penal Code (insert code provision for criminal trespass, criminal mischief, harassment, menacing, assault and/or other appropriate statutorily proscribed criminal conduct).
B. Intimidation is a-misdemeanor/felony (the degree of the criminal liability should be at least one degree more serious than that imposed for commission of the offense).
ADL Law Report: Hate Crimes Statutes: A 1991 Status Report, p. 4 (1991) (emphasis added). While the Wisconsin statute substitutes the phrase "because of" for "by reason of," it is clear that both statutes are concerned with the actor's reason or motive for acting.
See also State v. Beebe, 67 Or. App. 738, 680 P.2d 11 (1984). In Beebe, the Court of Appeals of Oregon interpreted an ethnic intimidation statute fashioned after the ADL model, ORS 166.155(1), and recognized that the statute punished motive:
The statute does not offer more protection to any class of victims. Anyone may be a victim of bigotry. It is the defendant who classifies, and he does so by his motive. The statute distinguishes between acts of harassment which are motivated by racial, ethnic or religious animus and acts of harassment which are not so motivated.
Id. at 13 (emphasis added). In People v. Grupe, 141 Misc. 2d 6, 532 N.Y.S.2d 815 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1988), the court interpreted New York's hate crimes statute which prohibits persons from subjecting persons to physical contact "because of" their protected status. In that case, the court stated: "Section 240.30(3), both on its face and as applied in this case, regulates violent conduct, and physical intimidation, when committed intentionally and because of racial, religious or ethnic prejudice." Id. at 817 (emphasis added). Finally, in Kinser v. State, 88 Md. App. 17, 591 A.2d 894, 896 (1991), the court upheld a conviction under Maryland's hate crimes statute, Md. Ann. Code art. 27, § 470A(b)(3) (Supp. 1990), in part because the defendant's conduct "overwhelmingly demonstrate^] his actions were motivated by racial animus." (Emphasis added.)
There seems to be considerable confusion regarding the meaning and effect of "motive" in criminal law. As Black's Law Dictionary 810 (6th ed. 1990) states in its definition of "intent":
Intent and motive should not be confused. Motive is what prompts a person to act, or fail to act. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted.
This confusion is manifested clearly in the dissenting opinion of Justice Bablitch, which correctly defines "intentionally" at pp. 197-198 as "a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified," correctly recognizes at pp. 187-188 n.2 that the term "because of" implicates an actor's motive, and somehow concludes that the hate crimes statute involves ordinary criminal intent.
In this case the crime was aggravated battery, and the necessary intent under sec. 940.19(lm), Stats., is an "intent to cause great bodily harm." Quite clearly, Mitchell's intent to cause great bodily harm to Reddick is distinct from his motive or reason for doing so. Criminal law is not concerned with a person's reasons for committing crimes, but rather with the actor's intent or purpose in doing so.
As explained by Professor Gellman:
"Motive,” "intent," and "purpose" are related concepts in that they all refer to thought processes. They are legally distinct in crucial respects, however. Motive is nothing more than an actor's reason for acting, the "why" as opposed to the "what" of conduct. Unlike purpose or intent, motive cannot be a criminal offense or an element of an offense.
The distinction becomes more clear upon consideration of the effect of altering the intent or purpose on the legal characterization of the same conduct, as compared to the effect (or lack thereof) of altering the motive. Continuing with the example of burglary, changing the purpose of the break-in changes the very nature of the act: if *168A broke into B's house for the purpose of getting A's own property (not a criminal purpose), the act of breaking in is simply breaking and entering or trespass, not burglary, even if A's motive was identical (the desire to pay his debts). By contrast, changing A's motives, even to more sympathetic ones (say, the desire to buy a house for the homeless), while his purpose was that of committing the crime of theft in B's house, does not change the nature of the act: it is still burglary.
Susan Gellman, 39 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. at 364-65 (emphasis in original). While the state speáks of the "intentional" aspect of the hate crimes statute, when the focus is on the "selects ... because of" aspect of the law, it becomes clear that it is the actor's motive which is targeted and punished by the statute.
In fact, on May 13, 1992, the legislature amended sec. 939.645, Stats., to apply specifically where the selection is "in whole or in part because of the actor's belief or perception regarding" the victim's status "whether or not the actor's belief or perception was correct." 1991 Wis. Act 291. Sections 939.645(1)(b) and (4), Stats., currently provide (with the substantive changes highlighted):
(1)(b) Intentionally selects the person against whom the crime under par. (a) is committed or selects the property that is damaged or otherwise affected by the crime under par. (a) in whole or in part because of the actor's belief or perception regarding the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person or the owner or occupant of that property, whether or not the actor's belief or perception was correct.
(4) This section does not apply to any crime if proof of race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry or proof of any person's perception or belief regarding another's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry is required for a conviction for that crime.
*169Thus the legislature has removed any doubt that the aim of the statute is the actor's subjective motivation. The dissenting opinions ignore this legislative clarification in their refusal to recognize that the statute is focused upon and punishes the defendant's motive.
While the statute as written may extend to situations where the actor in fact is not biased, this does not save the statute. The legislature may not subvert a constitutional freedom — even one as opprobrious as the right to be a bigot — by carefully wording a statute to affect more than simply that freedom.
As has long been recognized, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. See George Herbert, Jacula Prudentum (1640); Samuel Johnson, from James Boswell, Life of Dr. Johnson (1791); George Bernard Shaw, Maxims for Revolutionists; and others. Or as the latin poet Virgil said in the Aeneid in a reference to the slippery slope, "Facilis descensus Averno," which liberally translated means "Beware that first false step." Eugene Ehrlich, Nil Desperandum 107 (Guild Publishing 1987).
Of course, freedom of speech is not absolute. For example, the government may regulate or punish "fighting words" that are "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 574 (1942). Also, the government may regulate expressive conduct where there is an important governmental interest and the regulation is narrowly tailored to address that interest. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968). The bigoted thought which is punished by the hate crimes statute fits neither category. While an individual's bigoted speech may occasionally provoke retaliation, a person's thought will not. Nor is it argued that a hate crime is protected expressive conduct. It is not. *171Rather, a person's bigoted thought, the very thing punished by the hate crimes statute, is entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment.
The ordinance, St. Paul, Minn. Legis. Code § 292.02 (1990), provided:
Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The dissent of Justice Bablitch asserts that punishing motive is permissible, based upon Dawson v. Delaware, 90-6704 (U.S. Supreme Court, March 9, 1992), wherein the United States Supreme Court indicated that evidence of a convicted murderer's bigoted motivation in committing the murder is a relevant inquiry in sentencing. Dissenting op. at 192-193. The dissent is wrong. Of course it is permissible to consider evil motive or moral turpitude when sentencing for a particular crime, but it is quite a different matter to sentence for that underlying crime and then add to that criminal sentence a separate enhancer that is directed solely to punish the evil motive for the crime.
In R.A.V., four Justices disagreed with the analysis of the majority, but concurred in the judgment because they concluded that the Minnesota ordinance is fatally overbroad because it "makes criminal expressive conduct that causes only hurt feelings, offense, or resentment, and is protected by the First Amendment." R.A.V., 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3863, at *58-64 (White, J., concurring).
See, e.g., Grimm v. Churchill, 932 F.2d 674, 675-76 (7th Cir. 1991) (fact that arresting officer in ethnic intimidation case "had heard through his brother-in-law that Grimm had a history of making racial insults and engaging in racial confrontations" supported conclusion that officer had probable cause to arrest).
See, e.g., Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984); and Runyan v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976).
The dissenting opinion of Justice Bablitch recites that it does not understand this "very complicated and elaborate distinction" between the hate crimes penalty enhancer and antidis-crimination statutes. That is interesting in light of the dissent's recognition at 200 that the statute applies to the defendant's "selection decision," an obviously subjective mental process. To *177state that a "decision" is analogous to the conduct proscribed by antidiscrimination statutes is untenable. We freely admit that antidiscrimination statutes are concerned with the actor’s motive, but it is the objective conduct taken in respect to the victim which is redressed (not punished) by those statutes, not the actor's motive.
We repeat. The hate crimes statute does not punish the underlying criminal act, it punishes the defendant's motive for acting. Taking the dissent's explanation that the statute is concerned with the "decision" of the defendant, it is clear that the hate crimes statute creates nothing more than a thought crime. Apparently that dissent is comfortable with such an Orwellian notion; we are not.
See Bablitch, J., dissenting, at 187 n.2, 189 n.3, 191 and 192.