Hate crime charges offer enhanced sentences for prejudice‐motivated acts in recognition of the injury that extends beyond the victim to other members of the targeted group. The present study builds upon and extends previous work illuminating how anti‐Black prejudice influences application of free speech protections to justify criminal acts against Black (vs. White) targets, which subsequently reduces support for hate crime charges for the act by investigating the potential effects of environmental cues that increase the salience of free speech rights. The present work tested the main and interactive effects of act target (Black vs. White), anti‐Black prejudice, and the salience of freedom of speech on perceived free speech protections for a prejudice‐motivated criminal act and the consequent influence on support for hate crime charges. Replicating previous findings, greater anti‐Black prejudice predicted more perceived free speech protections for Black‐targeted acts, which predicted less support for hate crime charges. Low‐bias participants viewed Black‐ versus White‐targeted acts as less protected by free speech rights and more deserving of hate crime charges; high‐bias participants viewed the two acts similarly. Making the right to free speech (compared to protections from search and seizure) salient amplified differential perceptions of free speech protections based on prejudice and target group, which predicted support for hate crime charges. This work holds implications for justification processes and highlights the importance of studying culture‐specific values.