A male teenager who allegedly yelled a racial slur at members of the Utah women’s basketball team during the NCAA Tournament will not be charged with a hate crime. The 18-year-old reportedly directed a racist epithet at the team as they made their way from their hotel to a restaurant in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho during their participation in the NCAA Tournament.
According to Ryan Hunter, the city’s deputy attorney, an official statement revealed that the prosecution did not find adequate evidence to indicate that the young man posed a physical threat to the women or their property. Consequently, it was determined that his conduct is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be prosecuted under Idaho’s malicious harassment law.
The incident occurred while the team was lodging at a Coeur d’Alene hotel and proceeding to a restaurant. A truck approached and the driver uttered a racial slur towards the group. The same driver later returned to the restaurant after the team had departed, accompanied by others who revved their engines and continued to direct derogatory language at the players.
These distressing encounters caused the team to become worried for their safety, prompting Utah coach Lynne Roberts to express her extreme dismay at the racial hate crimes directed towards their program. University of Utah officials opted not to provide a response to the prosecutor’s decision.
Despite reliable witness testimonies and surveillance footage, discrepancies were noted in the descriptions of the vehicle and the individual responsible for the verbal abuse. Although the police managed to identify the 18-year-old high school student who admitted to uttering the slur, prosecutors found that there was insufficient evidence to support any of the three possible charges: malicious harassment, disorderly conduct, or disturbing the peace.
The assertion that he had vocalized the racial slur in a light-hearted manner was dismissed as lacking in foundation, as it was determined that his intent to intimidate and harass could not be substantiated. The First Amendment was cited as protecting his hate speech, with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression stressing the importance of safeguarding free speech, regardless of how offensive it may be.
While the incident elicited widespread anger and censure, it was underscored that the First Amendment safeguards even hateful or offensive speech, except in specific and well-defined circumstances such as true threats or incitement.