squareandrabbet-- really excellent analysis above. It is astounding to me that whenever we have one of these hate hoax crimes, the conversation inevitably becomes not about how heinous the actions of the hoaxer are, and what the implications are for the people or class of hoax attackers-- but instead on the flimsy issue that "it could have happened". And the conversation pivots to the hoax victim/s, and what that "might" mean for future "potential" (anticipated) real victims. The faux victims get to keep on being victims. Indeed-- they are celebrated for being both victims of the hoax attack (intersectionality and all), and simultaneously excused for making a mistake, and being bashed for being called out, but heroic for "raising awareness".
And the *real* victims, the class of people, or individuals, who are being defamed as faux attackers, are continued to be viewed by many as perpetrators.
Almost no focus is given to the reputation or stereotypes of the imaginary attackers fabricated by the hate hoaxers. Imagine if 2 white men had actually been arrested and accused as a result of JS's hoax? Their lives would have been destroyed, and a lot of people would probably have been happy about that. Just like the Covington Catholic kids.
The message of every hate hoax is that we have so few actual hate crimes-- they are rare, that it is imperative to some that a few hate hoaxes "have to" be fabricated, you know, just to "keep the issue" in the forefront of media discussions.
This was the message of the terroristic letter in the JS case. When the terroristic/ white powder letter targeting JS sent, almost certainly by JS himself, to his workplace did not get the "right amount and type" of attention/ media outrage, this persuaded JS that he had to escalate his hoax game significantly. Double down on defaming his intended class of victims. Which is exactly what he did, according to the details of the felony charge.
If we focus on the heinous criminal behavior of those who plan and carry out hate hoaxes, who target and accuse innocent people, and not contort ourselves into knots about flimsy or imagined social justice issues, then we would have to admit, as a nation, that *anyone* who perpetrates a hoax is personally RESPONSIBLE for their own criminal behavior. Apart from whatever group or ideology they "identify" with.
If we condemn the behavior, and punish it at all levels of society and justice, then we move forward as a society together. And heaven knows, we can't be actually solving problems or fostering togetherness of purpose, right? Maintaining divisions is essential for ideological extremists to hold their power. That's why, IMO, these hate hoaxes keep happening.
If we are all responsible for our own behavior, good and bad, then self-proclaimed "victim" identity in a fractured subgroup doesn't really matter. We all become equal in the eyes of justice.
. And I absolutely don't mean to say that "these things don't happen", but that there is a difference in the gradation of "hate crime". While I don't think it's great that an overserved someone in a crowded nightclub might push past someone and say "Hey, watch where you're going, you f--!"; it's not on a par with Matthew Shepard (RIP); and to imply by the use of handwaving vagueries about generic "hate crimes" which people face daily in the dozens that they are the same, does everyone an injustice. 
