Provides that the display of symbols of Nazi Germany in a public location in a manner that is likely to cause another person to feel harassed, annoyed, threatened or alarmed, or to incite violence, shall be aggravated harassment.
S01119 amends New York’s aggravated harassment in the first degree statute to expand the conduct that can qualify as a class E felony. The bill adds language covering the display of symbols associated with or derived from Nazi Germany in a public location when done in a manner likely to harass, annoy, threaten, alarm, or incite violence. It also retains existing aggravated harassment provisions involving damage to religious premises, repeated aggravated harassment offenses, cross burning in public view, and the display of a noose on property without permission.
The bill broadens the statute’s protected categories by expressly including conduct motivated by a belief or perception regarding race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation. It also updates wording to use gender-neutral language and clarifies that the prohibited conduct can include symbols displayed in public, not just markings on buildings or real property. If enacted, the measure would directly amend Penal Law section 240.31 and make the new Nazi-symbol provision part of first-degree aggravated harassment.
The bill would amend Penal Law § 240.31, New York’s aggravated harassment in the first degree statute, by adding a new basis for felony liability tied to public display of Nazi Germany symbols or related symbols in a harassing or threatening manner. It would also preserve and restate existing felony harassment provisions involving religious property damage, repeat offenses, cross burning, and noose displays. The practical effect is to expand prosecutorial tools against hate-motivated intimidation and symbolic threats, while leaving the offense classification as a class E felony.
The available context shows a generally supportive or protective posture toward the bill’s purpose, with the measure introduced by several senators and referred to the Committee on Codes. The bill text reflects a focus on hate-symbol intimidation and public harassment, suggesting an intent to strengthen anti-harassment law. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no documented opposition or recorded debate in the provided materials.
The main point of contention is likely to be the scope of the new prohibition on Nazi-related symbols, especially the bill’s use of a public-location standard and a likelihood-of-harassment or incitement threshold. Supporters would view the measure as a targeted hate-crime and public intimidation response, while critics could argue about free speech implications, vagueness, or whether the statute could be applied too broadly to expressive conduct. Another possible issue is the bill’s expansion of protected categories and whether the amended language sufficiently limits enforcement to genuinely threatening conduct.