(The Center Square) – First Amendment encroachment and fear that a new crime has been created tied to the “Islamophobia” bill are not founded, says the Virginia bill’s author and a leading voice on free speech.
Both tell TCS bias-related incidents would have a new categorization.
“The purpose of this legislation is to create a subcategory so the state can track these crimes,” Sen. Saddam Azlan Salim, D-Fairfax, told TCS on Thursday. “This does not infringe on any First Amendment rights.”
Senate Bill 624 – filed Jan. 14 and on Feb. 2 moved to the 2027 legislative session – proposes adding a definition of “Islamophobia” to Virginia’s assault-and-battery statute. The legislation does not create a new criminal offense; rather, it addresses how certain bias-related incidents could be classified and tracked.
Salim said the bill is largely focused on reporting and data collection rather than expanding criminal liability. The Department of State Police in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, would include the bill’s definition of “Islamophobia” in its hate crime reporting central repository.
“It does not create a new crime,” David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, told TCS on Wednesday. “It simply directs how information is categorized.”
Keating said the proposal primarily deals with how incidents would be recorded and tracked rather than regulating speech. He also said he does not see how the bill would trigger a legal challenge because the measure does not impose new restrictions or penalties.
Virginia law already provides enhanced penalties and reporting mechanisms for crimes motivated by protected characteristics, including religion. Salim said SB624 is intended to clarify how incidents involving perceived anti-Muslim bias are documented within that framework.
“There are cases where individuals are targeted based on perceived identity,” Salim said, pointing to situations where a person’s clothing, appearance, or cultural markers may lead to misidentification.
Salim emphasized that the proposal applies only when conduct rises to a criminal act, not protected expression.
“If somebody writes something online expressing a viewpoint, that is not what this bill addresses,” Salim said. “It becomes relevant when there is an actual assault or battery.”
There is legal distinction in Virginia law for assault, an attempt to cause bodily harm or a threat creates reasonable fear of harm, and for battery, actual willful and unlawful touching in a rude or angry manner. The two are often charged together.
Simple assault and battery is a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with jail up to one year and a fine up to $2,500. Escalations happen if mitigated by factors such as a hate crime, against protected personnel such as lawmen or educators, or if it is domestic. Repeat offenses are another trigger to up punishment.
Salim said First Amendment and free speech considerations were a central focus while drafting the legislation.
“We were careful to ensure this does not regulate speech,” he said. “It applies when actions become criminal.”
“I didn’t want to put anything in place that would limit someone’s First Amendment rights,” Salim said. “The question was how we coexist with that while still protecting different communities.”
Salim said the bill has been misunderstood, particularly regarding its effect on speech. He believes the measure would be legally defensible if enacted.
Lawmakers in other states have introduced legislation addressing how anti-Muslim bias or Islamophobia is defined or tracked. Bills touching on similar issues have recently been introduced in states including New Jersey and Illinois
SB624 was continued without further action this session. Lawmakers may reconsider the proposal when the General Assembly reconvenes in 2027.
