Elliott Riches People v. Rokicki 718 N.E.2d 333 (Ill.App.

1999) History: Rokicki was convicted of a hate crime and convicted. He appealed claiming the hate crime statute was unconstitutional. Facts: Delaney testified that rokicki entered a pizza hut and ordered a pizza. When asked for payment he refused and Delaney took payment. Rokicki then asked that the victim whom he referred to as that faggot touch his food. When his pizza was ready the victim sliced the pizza. Rokicki then leaned over the counter and began yelling epithets at the victim complaining that he had touched his food. Delaney asked him to leave and threatened to call the police. Rokickis money was refunded and he left the restaurant. The victim testified that after the events described in Delaneys testimony occurred he followed Rokicki to the parking lot took his license plate number and called the police. Sergeant merit testified. That Rokicki entered the police station and wished to report an incident at a pizza hut. He claimed that he was upset because a homosexual was working there and he wanted someone normal touching his food. Hagedorn an employee testified that Rokicki entered the restaurant to get the address of the district manager so he could complain that he was arrested because he didnt want an f__g faggot touching his food. Issue: Did the hate crime statute chill free speech? Holding: No Reasoning: The court talked about three things when analyzing the appeal. First did the law infringe free speech? They said that while opinions and rights to believe what one wished are constitutionally protected one may not force those opinions on others be yelling, pounding ones fist, or disrupting a lawful business. Rokickis opinion is not in question but the fact that he terrorized someone is. And terrorism of others isnt protected by the first amendment. The court said second that the hate crime statute discriminates based on the offenders beliefs. The court said that because the statue limits only certain things it doesnt discriminate against conduct. The court finally analyzed whether the statute chills free speech. Rokicki contends that the statute will stop people making certain comments because they may be illegal. The court rejects this argument stating that individuals wont stop expressing opinions because they fear they will later be used as motive. AFFIRMED