A hate crimes ordinance proposed for the city of Boulder has sparked a debate between its advocates and those who say it would imperil free speech.

The Community United Against Hate, a group formed in the wake of several race-based incidents in Boulder over the last few months, will bring the proposal before the city's Human Relations Commission on Monday night.

"We want the city of Boulder to demonstrate, not just with rhetoric but with action, that it takes these kinds of crimes seriously and take some ownership over the situation," said Bill Cohen, a spokesman for the group. That worries Carla Selby, a former chairwoman of the Boulder County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. She said thugs should be prosecuted for assaulting people, not for their beliefs about race or other contentious subjects.

"We should prosecute the action," she said. "Not the thought, not the intent, not the speech. It should be about the action."

Colorado already has an "ethnic intimidation" statute under which authorities can charge suspects in assault cases that appear to be motivated by the victim's "actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation."

Phillip Martinez, the man accused of assaulting a biracial University of Colorado student named Andrew Sterling and breaking his jaw because of his race, faces that charge.

There's a substantial difference between the state statute and what Cohen's group is proposing. Ethnic intimidation is a stand-alone charge. The anti-hate committee is proposing instead an ordinance that would provide harsher sentences for a wide variety of offenses, many of them nonviolent.

Lesser offenses

The city's ordinance would only apply in misdemeanor cases that wind up in municipal court. Cohen said that's a bonus, because it will help ensure that less high-profile cases of bias in Boulder don't "slip through the cracks."

The original crime wouldn't even have to be against a person, Cohen said. He said it could be used to lengthen the sentence of a graffiti artist whose message appeared to be motivated by bias.

"They're punished for violating the graffiti law, which makes it illegal to put graffiti on someone's property. The second part of it is their motive," he said, which the law would punish. "The U.S. Supreme Court has said you can introduce evidence of motive."

Selby said that's precisely the problem.

The graffiti example, she said, shows the ordinance could be used to punish people not just for their actions, but for their opinions.

"You can't enhance the penalty because someone wrote something you don't like," she said.

Mixed response

The proposed ordinance has drawn a mixed response from City Council candidates. Some, like Nabil Karkamaz and John Klein, said they'd support it if elected.

Others - like Shaun McGrath, Andy Schultheiss and Richard Polk - said they haven't had time to properly analyze the proposal.

Macon Cowles said he has serious reservations about the ordinance's possible free speech implications. Eugene Pearson said he would be "very likely to support it." But, he said, free speech questions need to be seriously addressed.

Candidate Shawn Coleman voiced similar concerns. Even if the ordinance can be drafted in such a way that it doesn't infringe on free speech, he said, the city shouldn't necessarily put it into place.

"As a person of color in this community who has never experienced racism ... I put it in a pretty low priority," he said. "I think this city has a lot of other things going on. The issues of class are much more important than the issues of race."