TV hucksters got you raving mad? Keep it to yourself

Web-posted: Tuesday, February 18, 1997

hen we hear about hate crimes, they usually involve attacks on places of worship, burning crosses on lawns, threats painted on minority-owned homes or garages, and that sort of thing.

But is it possible to commit a hate crime against a TV commercial? Apparently so, much to the regret of a Chicago mope named Frank.

Frank's story begins late one night when he got home from his night job driving a cab. He has a day job, too, but he moonlights to make ends meet.

Everyone else was sleeping, and he was tired and tense. So he watched TV and had a few drinks to wind down.

As any insomniac knows, the commercials on late-night TV differ from those in prime time. So Frank found himself listening to a lawyer telling of the benefits of filing for bankruptcy.

Frank, 52, found himself getting angry because he and his wife had been through bankruptcy and thought it was a devastating experience.

The TV lawyer gave his phone number for those who wanted to call and retain his services.

And Frank did something really stupid. He dialed the number, was connected to an answering machine and drunkenly ranted about why he thinks the lawyer's commercial message stinks.

He also gave his name, which serious hate-crime perpetrators seldom do.

I'm not going to repeat precisely what Frank said because if I did, it would cause even the slightest sympathy for him to evaporate. Take my word that it was disgusting, obscene, abusive, anti-Semitic and stupid.

Had he said these things to someone's face, chances are he would have been knocked flat on his back. But there's something about a telephone or a computer modem that brings out the worst woolly caterpillars in a person's brain.

When he finished the barrage of insults, he gave his phone number in case Melvin Kaplan, the lawyer, wanted to call him back.

Then he hung up and flopped into bed for a few hours sleep before getting on with life's pains.

A few days later, the cops came to his Northwest Side house, but Frank wasn't home. Later, he got a call from a cop asking him to stop by the Jefferson Park station to clear up some "paperwork.''

It sounded harmless enough, so Frank went. He was arrested, questioned about the call--which he admitted making--and cuffed and spent the night in jail before being bonded out.

He was charged with a felony: committing a hate crime.

When his court date came, Frank still didn't think it was a big deal because he hadn't threatened the lawyer, only insulted him. So he went to court believing it was a preliminary hearing and he would be granted a continuance to get a lawyer.

A mistake. According to Frank, everyone--the judge, the prosecutor and a court-appointed lawyer--seemed in a rush to get the case done. So, Frank says, his court-appointed lawyer urged him to accept a deal and plead guilty to a felony, which he did.

The deal, it turns out, wasn't much of a deal, but Frank says he didn't know it. He wasn't jailed, but he was ordered to perform 200 hours of community service. And, of course, the guilty plea made him a convicted felon.

All that for a dumb, alcohol-laced, insulting phone message.

But the hate-crime law was written to please every conceivable minority. It can even be applied to a boozy phone call from someone who didn't like a TV commercial.

Having read a transcript of Frank's phone remarks, it occurs to me that I've missed a chance to have thousands of people charged with hate crimes for offensive calls they've made to me, my assistant or my voice-mail machine.

And Frank's legal troubles aren't over. The worst may be down the road. The Illinois hate-crime law says that hate victims can file civil suits. The law says: "The court may award actual damages, including damages for emotional distress or punitive damages. A judgment may include attorneys' fees and costs.''

Not long ago, there was another knock on Frank's door. This time it was a process server from the sheriff's office. He gave Frank a legal document and a piece of friendly advice: "You'd better protect your house.''

Frank had been sued by the lawyer. Nothing complicated. The suit says that Frank "left an anti-Semitic, harassing telephone message. . . . That said actions constituted a hate crime . . . and a civil cause of action exists under subsection (c) thereof.''

It asks for damages for Kaplan's emotional distress, punitive damages and attorney's fees.

I've done some superficial research, and this could be the first hate crime in Illinois directed at a TV commercial.

Also, it seems harsh to brand a man a felon for remarks he made to an office voice-mail machine. And, after he pleads guilty, to punish him further with a civil lawsuit.

I tried to reach Kaplan to ask how his emotional distress was going, but his office said he is out of town for and wouldn't return calls.

Think about it: a felonious hate crime for insulting a lawyer in a late-night TV commercial.

What's next in our hypersensitive society? Hate crimes for yelling at a Bears quarterback or a Cubs pitcher?

© 1996 Chicago Tribune