Manhattan DA Dismisses Felony Hate Crime Charges Against Journalist Documenting Gaza Protest

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office just walked away from its case against Alexa Wilkinson, a Hudson Valley-based photojournalist who was staring down years in prison for a felony hate crime. The whole thing started back in July when the New York Times building was spray-painted with "NYT LIES; GAZA D." Wilkinson wasn't the one holding the spray paint, but prosecutors went after them anyway, citing their presence at the scene and some vague "communications." Now that the case is dismissed and sealed, it's clear that months of digging didn't give prosecutors what they needed to prove that filming a crime is the same thing as committing a hate crime.

Using hate crime statutes here was a massive stretch. Usually, a hate crime requires proof that a victim was picked because of a protected characteristic. By charging Wilkinson with a felony for documenting vandalism against a corporate entity like the New York Times, Bragg’s office tried to turn those protections into a weapon against a reporter. It worked, at least for a while. This legal tactic gave the NYPD the green light to kick in Wilkinson's door, ransack their home, and walk off with thousands of dollars in professional gear—cameras and tools that sat in a police locker for months, effectively killing Wilkinson’s career.

“The dismissal confirms that after months of investigation, prosecutors could not prove that documenting a crime constitutes a hate crime.”

There’s a pretty glaring gap between the Alvin Bragg who ran for office and the one who actually runs it. Bragg campaigned on a platform of holding the powerful accountable and ending over-prosecution, yet his team spent significant resources chasing an independent reporter for documenting a protest against a major media institution. And then there’s the New York Times. The paper often talks a big game about global press freedom, but it served as the complainant in this case. Its own security footage was the primary evidence used to justify the initial raid on Wilkinson's home.

We still don't know what those "communications" were that supposedly triggered the hate crime label. Because of New York’s CPL 160.50, records for dismissed cases are now sealed. That protects the defendant's privacy, sure, but it also gives the DA’s office a shield. It prevents the public from seeing exactly how they justified such an aggressive prosecution in the first place. We don't know if the DA actually had evidence that later fell apart, or if the charges were just a "placeholder" used to justify seizing Wilkinson's digital devices for intelligence gathering.

For any independent journalist covering protests in New York, the message is loud and clear. Even if the charges don't stick, the process is the punishment. You get your home raided, your tools taken, and a felony hanging over your head for half a year. As the 2024 election cycle heats up, the use of "hate crime" labels to bypass First Amendment protections is becoming a potent tool for prosecutors looking to suppress coverage of demonstrations they don't like.