Bruce Borders, Matt Hostettler, Christopher Judy and Curt Nisly

As the Indiana General Assembly prepares to convene in January, legislation is being proposed that seeks to criminalize the thoughts of Hoosiers.

This legislation seeks to challenge centuries of Western civilization, where individuals are judged by their actions. The new legislation would replace this Western legal tradition by giving prosecutors and judges the authority to prosecute and sentence based on perceived thoughts, ideas, and beliefs.

Supporters of this legislation are trying to mask their effort to plunge Indiana into a surveillance state, because they fear Hoosiers might object to having their political and religious beliefs judged by the government.

So rather than objectively and transparently communicating to Hoosiers the intent to begin policing their thoughts — and thereby calling the legislation “thought crimes” — this bill is hiding behind the misleading nickname “hate crimes.”

This proposed legislation brings to mind a state of government control nearly identical to that described in George Orwell’s classic novel 1984. In Orwell’s timeless example, the Thought Police monitored society to ensure that citizens wouldn’t hold beliefs contrary to governing authorities.

Policing thought is the epitome of restricting free speech. It’s the most intrusive means imaginable to stifle any objection raised by individuals or groups with viewpoints contrary to those held by the government.

If such policing becomes legal in Indiana, prosecutors will have the ability to treat the holding of unpopular political views as criminal actions.

Prosecutors and judges in Indiana already possess the means to deal with both violent and nonviolent crimes in a manner that respects victims and still protects the inalienable rights of the accused. Assault, battery, murder, vandalism, and other terrible actions are already against the law in Indiana, and judges have the ability to adjust sentencing decisions based on many factors the judge may deem relevant to the respective situation.

Thought crime legislation goes far beyond the criminalization of actions and seeks to prosecute and administer judgment based on beliefs (even if merely perceived) which may have triggered criminal action.

This gives prosecutors and judges the authority to declare the motivation for a crime. Doing so effectively transfers the burden of proof to the accused, who would then be essentially required to prove that the allegation was false.

Shifting the burden of proof to the accused would turn another cornerstone of Western civilization — presumption of innocence — on its head. If a person is accused of a crime and holds views unpopular to the governing political class, their political or religious views are likely to be held against them.

Both the United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution protect the rights of individuals to hold and express unpopular political and religious beliefs and viewpoints. But in an Indiana governed by thought crimes, a social media post, picture, or article of clothing could be the determining factor for a prosecutor or judge.

For example, imagine an individual enjoying a meal at an Indiana restaurant when his “Bernie 2016” t-shirt or her red “MAGA.” hat agitates another of the restaurant’s patrons. If an argument breaks out and the police are called, the t-shirt or hat might label the individual as someone who evidently hates others.

The dangerous legislation being proposed in Indiana would make it possible for prosecutors and judges to prosecute and sentence as a thought crime, which could be based on the personal political or religious beliefs of the accused.

Or suppose someone is attending a peaceful political rally on the subject of immigration, marriage, abortion, or school choice, and they encounter protesters from the opposing viewpoint. An escalated argument could turn into a situation in which Bible verses or Che Guevara quotations found in a social media post could be used to label that individual as a “hateful” person engaged in criminal activity.

Those who are promoting thought crime legislation believe that individuals and groups who hold certain unpopular viewpoints may legitimately have their rights infringed upon in the name of the “public good.” This, however, is the opposite of a free society.

When someone holds a viewpoint most find disagreeable, we should not seek to criminalize and stifle that person’s thoughts or speech. To do so would be to embrace George Orwell’s world of state control of the individual.

We should instead embrace freedom and be willing to respectfully argue our point of view in an attempt to persuade others. Our forefathers fought and died for this freedom. We owe it to our children to fight to preserve this freedom.

Bruce Borders is a Republican state representative from Jasonville. Matt Hostettler is a Republican state representative from Fort Branch. Christopher Judy is a Republican state representative from Fort Wayne. Curt Nisly is a Republican state representative from Goshen.