Throwback Truths: Government Mandated Mind-Reading

At the Institute on the Constitution, we believe that safeguarding our future begins with understanding and reinforcing our foundations. That’s why we’ve created Throwback Truths — a series that revisits classic video presentations from Michael Anthony Peroutka, founder of IOTC. These timeless messages encourage us to reflect on who we are as a nation and the principles that define true liberty.

In this edition, we revisit Peroutka’s bold response to proposed “hate crime” legislation—laws that, he argues, have no place in a free and constitutional republic.

Can the Government Read Your Mind?

Michael Anthony Peroutka opens with a chilling question: Can you read my mind? If the answer is no—as it is for any honest person—then why does the federal government claim the power to do so?

He references House Resolution 1913, introduced by Representatives John Conyers and Mark Kirk. The bill aimed to increase penalties for so-called “hate crimes”—offenses believed to be motivated by bias against a person's race, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected categories. But Peroutka, trained in law during the 1970s, points out that he never once encountered the concept of a “hate crime” in his legal education. Why? Because, according to him, there’s no such thing under American law.

Peroutka draws a stark comparison: regimes like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia sought to control not only the actions of their people, but also their thoughts. This is precisely what “hate crime” legislation attempts to do—punish individuals not simply for what they did, but for what they were allegedly thinking when they did it.

Government Can Punish Actions—Not Thoughts

In Peroutka’s view, the Constitution grants the government authority to punish crimes—actual actions that cause harm to persons or property—but it does not give government the right to examine, judge, or punish motives. That’s because, as the Founders recognized, only God can truly judge the intentions of the heart.

“We are not subjects,” Peroutka reminds us. “We are citizens who grant authority to our representatives—but that authority is limited and enumerated.”

The idea that hate crimes are legally valid, he argues, is not just wrong—it’s dangerous. It blurs the line between justice and thought control, and opens the door for punishing dissent, unpopular opinions, or beliefs that clash with those in power.

Only God Judges the Heart

In closing, Peroutka offers a principled stand: if he were to sit on a jury, he could not in good conscience convict someone of a “hate crime”—because no such crime exists under the true American legal system. While acts of violence or property destruction are punishable, the thoughts behind them are not the government’s to judge.

Liberty depends on clear lines and limited power. When those lines blur, so does freedom.

This edition of Throwback Truths challenges us to revisit not just a specific piece of legislation, but the larger question:

Do we still believe in liberty of conscience—and is our government limited as our Constitution demands?