Iowa court affirms hate crime conviction of man who left anti-gay notes at homes with rainbow flags

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday upheld the hate crime conviction of a man who posted handwritten notes on houses with rainbow flags and emblems, 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 as it was unclear whether the people displaying the symbols were actually associated with the LGBTQ+ community.

As the court noted, the rainbow flag has come to symbolize support for LGBTQ+ rights. The majority said the state statute in question does not criminalize speech, but rather conduct with a specific intent: trespassing because the property owners or residents had associated with a protected class.

“The display of the LGBTQ+ flag or flag decal by individuals on their own property was an exercise of their First Amendment rights; “The defendant’s surreptitious entry into those properties to publish his harassment notes was not,” the court said.

In June 2021, handwritten notes appeared taped to the front doors of five renters and homeowners in the City of Boone displaying rainbow flags or stickers. Everyone said, “burn that gay flag.” One contained additional anti-gay slurs. The recipients told police they found the notes “alarming, upsetting and/or threatening,” according to the decision.

Based on surveillance videos from some of the homes, police identified Geddes as the man who left the notes and acknowledged posting them. He was charged with five counts of trespassing as a hate crime. He was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to up to two years of probation.

On appeal, Geddes argued that prosecutors failed to prove that he targeted LGBTQ+ people or had a connection to them. She said her conviction therefore violated her right to freedom of expression.

Iowa’s hate crimes law requires that the victim have been attacked because of their “race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability” or because of their “association with” people in those 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 whether he believed they were, nor whether any of the residents had an “association with ” a real person. in those protected classes. He noted that the Legislature chose the words “association with” rather than “solidarity with” when drafting the hate crimes law.

“As a symbol, a flag does not independently create or express an actual association with particular persons,” McDermott wrote, adding that “not everyone who displays a pirate flag is associated with actual pirates.”

Geddes’ lawyer, Ashley Stewart, said they were disappointed with the decision.

“We should all care about protecting the free market of ideas under the First Amendment, even if the ideas are minority opinions,” Stewart wrote in an email. “Iowa’s hate crimes statute requires that the victim be associated with a targeted group. “We agree with the dissent that the mere display of a flag on a home 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 tied to speech, she said, the particular facts of the case matter. She agreed that there may not be enough facts in the record to establish whether Geddes’ actions violated hate crimes law, given the use of the vague term “association with.”

“Words matter,” Kirtley said in an interview. “Legislatures can write more precisely. “Judges are reluctant to read things in ambiguous language, and rightly so.”