To amend section 2927.12 and to enact sections 2749.01, 2749.02, 2749.03, 2749.04, and 2927.121 of the Revised Code to enact the Hate Crime Act to prohibit hate crimes and to create a civil remedy for a person who is terrorized by another because of specific characteristics or beliefs.
HB306 would enact the “Hate Crime Act” and create a new chapter in the Revised Code prohibiting certain acts of violence or intimidation motivated by a victim’s protected characteristics or beliefs. The bill makes it unlawful to terrorize another person by violence or by intimidation by threat of violence because of the person’s political affiliation, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, familial status, military status, disability, position in a labor dispute, or a perceived characteristic or position in those categories. It also defines “terrorize” and “intimidation by threat of violence,” including false reports to law enforcement and unauthorized distribution of materials on private property intended to frighten an occupant.
The bill also creates a civil cause of action for violations, allowing an injured person to sue for actual damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and a civil fine of up to $25,000. In addition, the attorney general or county prosecutor could investigate complaints and bring actions on behalf of victims. HB306 would also restrict contractual waivers of these protections, making certain waivers void if required as a condition of goods or services and limiting when such rights can be waived.
The bill would amend existing Ohio law on ethnic intimidation, which currently focuses on race, color, religion, and national origin, and would add a new hate-crime offense covering a broader set of protected traits and political activity. It would create a new offense of “hate crime” for offenses of violence committed against intentionally selected victims because of their actual or perceived protected characteristics or political rights, and it would make that offense one degree higher than the underlying offense. The measure would therefore expand both criminal and civil remedies related to bias-motivated conduct.
Because the bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, there is no recorded vote or committee testimony in the provided materials. The overall sentiment in the available record is therefore limited, but the bill’s broad sponsorship list suggests substantial support among its introducers. The main points of contention likely center on the scope of the protected categories, the inclusion of political affiliation and labor-dispute-related conduct, the civil penalty and attorney-fee provisions, and the line the bill draws between punishable threats and protected speech, especially in the labor-picketing exception and the speech-alone standard.
HB306 would add new criminal and civil provisions to Ohio law by creating sections 2749.01 through 2749.04 and 2927.121, while amending section 2927.12. It would broaden hate-crime and ethnic-intimidation law beyond the current race/color/religion/national-origin framework, add new protected categories, authorize civil lawsuits and government enforcement, and impose limits on contractual waivers of these rights. The bill would affect individuals accused of bias-motivated violence or threats, victims of such conduct, prosecutors, the attorney general, and parties entering contracts for goods or services.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or recorded support/opposition in the materials. The bill’s introduction with many cosponsors indicates at least initial legislative support, and its stated purpose reflects a policy goal of expanding protections against hate-motivated violence. At the same time, the breadth of the proposal suggests it could draw scrutiny over free-speech implications and the reach of the new civil and criminal penalties.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s expansion of hate-crime protections to political affiliation, perceived characteristics, and labor-dispute positions; the criminalization of intimidation by threat of violence and the definition of terrorizing conduct; and the civil enforcement scheme with damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and a $25,000 civil fine. Another likely flashpoint is the bill’s treatment of speech, including when speech alone can constitute a violation, and the carve-out for lawful labor picketing. Opponents may also question the contract-waiver restrictions, while supporters are likely to emphasize stronger remedies for victims of bias-motivated violence.