In assault, further providing for the offense of ethnic intimidation; and, in particular rights and immunities, further prohibiting civil rights violations.
HB1905 would rename Pennsylvania’s current offense of “ethnic intimidation” as “hate-based intimidation” and expand the protected characteristics covered by the statute. The bill adds or clarifies coverage for race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, ancestry, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and disability. It also broadens the conduct that can trigger the offense to include certain personal injury crimes, arson-related offenses, criminal mischief/property destruction, and criminal trespass when committed with malicious intent toward a protected individual or group.
The bill also amends the civil rights violations statute to give victims of hate-based intimidation or institutional vandalism a right to sue in court for injunctions, damages, and other equitable relief. It expressly allows recovery from not only the direct actor, but also people who solicited the conduct or knowingly aided it, and it specifies available remedies such as actual or statutory damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs. The bill takes effect 60 days after enactment.
HB1905 would change Titles 18 and 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by updating the criminal hate-crime offense and expanding civil remedies for victims. It would replace the term “ethnic intimidation” with “hate-based intimidation,” broaden the list of protected classes, and extend civil liability to accomplices and solicitors. The bill also preserves a construction clause stating that it should not be interpreted to punish constitutionally protected religious speech or conduct, or otherwise interfere with free exercise rights.
The committee vote suggests the bill was supported but not unanimously: the House Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment and then reported the bill as amended by a 14-12 vote on the same day. That narrow margin indicates meaningful support for expanding hate-crime protections, but also substantial reservations among committee members. No transcript excerpts were provided, so the available record shows procedural advancement rather than detailed debate.
The main points of contention appear to be the scope of the hate-crime expansion and the civil liability provisions. Supporters likely favor broader protections for additional identity-based categories and stronger remedies for victims, while opponents may be concerned about the breadth of the offense, the inclusion of gender identity and sexual orientation, and the potential for civil suits against people who aided or solicited the conduct. The bill’s explicit religious-freedom savings clause suggests lawmakers were also attentive to concerns that the measure could be read to burden protected religious expression or conduct.