I often hear people arguing that some speech is unprotected under current First Amendment law because it's "hate speech," or asking "Is [X] free speech or is it hate speech?" That, it seems to me, is a mistake.
"Hate speech" is not a legal term of art under U.S. law, nor an exception from First Amendment protection. Some of what some label "hate speech" may, depending on the circumstances, fall within the generally quite narrow exceptions for fighting words, threats, incitement, or certain kinds of false statements of fact. But if one thinks a particular scenario or incident is unprotected on those grounds, one needs to mention the specific exception, and explain how the speech fits within that exception.
Of course, one could argue (though that's not what the people I'm referring to above are doing) that the Supreme Court should create a new "hate speech" exception from First Amendment protection -- that the speech is currently protected, but ought to become unprotected. But then one needs to explain precisely how one would define this new exception, since "hate speech" doesn't have a clear and well-accepted definition. And of course one should then respond to the foreseeable arguments about why this exception would be unacceptably vague or broad.
Simply asserting that some speech is unprotected under current First Amendment law because it's "hate speech" doesn't demonstrate much of anything -- except that it demonstrates to those readers who are familiar with First Amendment law that the speaker isn't making a sound First Amendment argument.
Just, so ya know...
a crime, when accompanied by speech indicating a discriminatory mens rea, can become a "hate crime" -- and be punished more severely than the same crime without the speech component attached.
I hope that I never actually see a fire in a theater that may contain those "protected" and priviledged people. I am not sure I want to personally risk warning them...
This is the last thing we need...
More generally, I wish to sue anyone who tries or has tried to suppress my free speech in general. Perpetrators of the low-level terrorism known as "political correctness" come to mind.
Also see www.ezralevant.com for some unbelievable video of the HRC in action.
But as I recall, the Canadian prosecutions for hate speech began with the trial of Ernst Zundel, a notorious holocaust denier. However Zundel was not convicted of "hate speech", but rather for the crime of "spreading false news." There is indeed a slippery slope from falsehood to false news to Canadian political refugees fleeing to New Hampshire.
I, too, hope that pro-censorship types, like Robert Bork, for example, are kept far away from the Judiciary.
You're confusing it with "hate thought". /sarc off
Is it too much to ask for evidence about this assertion on a blog run by Law professors?
It's happening in Canada right now.
“The Trinity was carried in a general council by one vote against a quaternity; the Virgin Mary lost an equality with the Father, Son, and Spirit only by a single suffrage.”
– John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812.
And:
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
And:
“If I understand the Doctrine, it is, that if God the first second or third or all three together are united with or in a Man, the whole Animal becomes a God and his Mother is the Mother of God.
“It grieves me: it shocks me to write in this stile upon a subject the most adorable that any finite Intelligence can contemplate or embrace: but if ever Mankind are to be superior to the Brutes, sacerdotal Impostures must be exposed.”
– John Adams to Francis van der Kemp, October 23, 1816.
(hate) invariably takes the form of some kind of communication, so (hate) = (hate speech).
Now it makes no sense to say that (hate speech) is protected, otherwise how could you have it as a contributory part as (hate crime)? Therefore, (hate speech) must be unprotected. Q.E.D.
This statement finds no basis is reality. In fact, there are few reliable distinctions between liberal and conservative Justices in first amendment jurisprudence, largely due the fact that the first amendment has a questionable originalist history.
Furthermore, both liberals and conservatives are quite willing to invalidate laws as unconstitutional under the first amendment, which of course negates your supposition that liberals run around the country looking for speech to criminalize. Take the Rehnquist Court as an example. The following Justices invalidated the provided number of statutes on first amendment grounds... Thomas 15; Kennedy 15; Souter 14; Scalia 13; Stevens 12; Ginsburg 11; Rehnquist 9; O'Connor 9; and Breyer 8.
As you probably notice, there is really no pattern in these numbers.
I think you have something there. How can one say: Yet it be a contributory part of a so-called crime?
I also don't quite understand why the First Amendment gets at least partially suspended when I enter my workplace. Or wholly suspended if I enter most any University of California campuses. Why do students have to keeping suing over an over to retain their speech rights?
I am old enough to have observed McCarthyism at first hand.
"But as I recall, the Canadian prosecutions for hate speech began with the trial of Ernst Zundel, a notorious holocaust denier. However Zundel was not convicted of "hate speech", but rather for the crime of "spreading false news." There is indeed a slippery slope from falsehood to false news to Canadian political refugees fleeing to New Hampshire."
The offence of spreading false news was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731).
You might be thinking of R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, where the SCC upheld the constitutionality of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group.
These Criminal Code offences are separate from the more controversial (and more idiotic) provisions in the provincial and federal Human Rights Acts, which are being used against Mr. Steyn.
Really? Have you been in prison or something for the last couple of decades?
Look at the suppression of free speech for just the last 20 years, and note that the most famous anti-First Amendment folks are not only Democrats, they're MAJOR Democrats.
Start with the four letters "PMRC," and work your way forward.
...and also old enough to forget that he was a Democrat...
McCarthy was a Republican.
He really was elected and served as a Republican. Maybe you looked up Eugene instead of Joseph.
Not very well, apparently.
No. If it's OK, I'll just quote one of our hosts:
In his controversial 1996 book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Judge Robert H. Bork argued that we must adopt extensive censorship of violent and sexually explicit media in order to combat social pathologies such as crime, welfare dependency, and illegitimacy
Here is a distinction between liberal and conservative views on First Amendment jurisprudence: conservatives believe that the First Amendment's freedom of speech protects all speech, but should not encompass things that have little to do with speech. Liberals, by contrast, believe that the First Amendment's freedom of speech should include non-speech things that they like, but should not protect speech that they don't like.
This is why conservatives are fine with restrictions on flag burning, nude dancing and pornography, and liberals support restrictions on speech critical of abortion or homosexuality, any kind of offensive speech in the workplace, etc.
Isn't hate incitement just another way of yelling fire in a crowded theatre?
Try these, from the Criminal Code of Canada:
Advocating genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. …
Hate Propaganda
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction..
Warrant of seizure
320. (1) A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is hate propaganda shall issue a warrant under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies.
The legislation comes with detailed definitions and judicially closely watched and refined development over the years.
Outside the speech context, I once used this rather preposterous example to explain to a skeptical (new) Judge why some of the elements of a crime can, individually, be legal while in the aggregate constituting a criminal offense: In my state it is legal to open-carry a firearm. It is also legal to walk into a bank or other place of business holding itself out as generally accessible to the public. It is legal to ask people to give you money. But put all three of these legal actions together, and presto, you have bank robbery... [yes, I deliberately left out the essential criminal mens rea which would arguably distinguish armed panhandling (!) from armed robbery, but that wasn't the point].
Perhaps it is more precise in the context of this thread to argue it's not the protected "speech" that is an element of the crime, so much as the "speech" is probative evidence of the underlying motive. You can punch a person standing on the corner and only be charged with simple assault. You can scream the "N-word" and successfully claim that your speech is Constitutionally protected (albeit boorish or worse). But if you're screaming the "N-word" while punching a person on the corner who happens to be African-American, you risk being charged with something considerably worse than simple assault.
Do you remember the recently-declassified material that verifies the red spy ring he broke up?
1) Ask Brigitte Bardot and PETA what they think of her hate speech.
hate speech
2) I thought the whole point of the first amendment was to protect speech that others might object to? Sounds like hate speech to me...
--John Howard Lawson, head and cultural commissar of the Hollywood division of the American Communist Party, instructing the rest of the Hollywood 10. From Dmytryk, Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten
I don’t think it’s a liberal vs conservative thing as each has been know to support or attempt to repress speech they disagree with. To me, it is a statist policy right or left.
Eugene, if you haven't read it you'd love it.
Everyone quickly completed the assignment. The the professor told us, "You can always divide any list of terms into two or more groups." That was the lesson.
See, when the law refers to "distinct groups," there's always a big overlap. What if someone is 2/3 part of a 'distinct group,' and 3/4 part of another group that is supposedly doing the discriminating? It's all very nebulous and subjective, and therefore easily manipulated by the devious folks that Orwell was always warning us about.
The only vaccination against this type of statism is made crystal clear here:
"It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies."
~ William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
It is true that civil libertarians (not "liberals") have found reason to generalize "freedom of speech and of the press" into "freedom of expression" and thus to take in works of art and performance. However, it is simply, flatly false to suggest that "conservatives" have been defenders of basic, elementary freedom of speech.
The categories of speech most shackled by "conservatives" are sedition, blasphemy, incitement, and profanity. These are acts of speech or writing, not merely "expressive" acts in some more general case.
2. As to this:
Loving v. Virginia was 41 years ago. Can you please direct me to the court decision compelling a church to perform a mixed-race marriage?
People do not discover in school why unfettered speech is essential. It has no import for them. They don't learn that the strength of democracy is not that the voters get it right, but that it commits to the continuous, everlasting process that the smallest voice is empowered to try to convince the others of the merits of the idea.
It is the humility that humans can't be perfect, can't know where they are wrong, and depend on others who may say something one might not wish to hear, but need to hear anyway.
Depends on how you "asked". If you requested to withdraw money from your account and gave the teller your bankbook, that's not robbery. What would make it robbery is if you made a demand under threat of violence. And really, there's only two elements in even that example: the robbery itself and the use of a firearm to commit the crime.
It's unfortunate that the left has been all too successful in whittling away our 2nd amendment rights by criminalizing firearms wherever possible. It's not very comforting that they have now turned their attention to speech.
Yeah, but did you see when the old Soviet archives were opened we found out they WERE all communists! And on the KGB payroll too.
Hate speech concepts, it seems to me, are how we supplanted the "fighting words" concept, making it never OK to take offense physically.
As Sidney Hook pointed out in "Heresy Yes, Conspiracy No", it is (or should have been) perfectly acceptable to espouse or embrace or promote communist ideas. What was not acceptable was being a member of a conspiracy (the CPUSA) that was actively working on behalf of an enemy of the US and for their benefit.
The McCarthy analogy doesn't work for me.
Below is a news release from Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)
Also thanks to Jonathan Constantine and Reut Cohen at Red County blog.
Department of Education Reopens Case Against UC Irvine
Posted by: Jonathan Constantine | 06/06/2008 3:27 PM
ZOA has the details:
June 6, 2008
Contact Morton A. Klein at: 917-974-8795 or 212-481-1500
Attn: NEWS EDITOR
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INITIATES NEW INVESTIGATION INTO
UC IRVINE'S RESPONSE TO CAMPUS ANTI-SEMITISM
By letter to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) dated April 25, 2008, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has indicated that it will be investigating several incidents of alleged anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination that occurred in May 2007, at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The ZOA had brought these incidents to OCR's attention almost one year ago, asserting that the incidents show that UCI has continued to respond ineffectively to campus anti-Semitism, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title VI requires that recipients of federal funding (like UCI) ensure that their programs and activities are free discrimination based on "race, color, or national origin." If the recipient is found to have violated Title VI, it can lose its federal funding.
The ZOA first brought UCI's alleged violation of Title VI to OCR's attention in October 2004, when the ZOA filed a Title VI complaint on behalf of Jewish students with OCR, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law. The ZOA's complaint alleged that Jewish students had been facing a longstanding pattern of anti-Semitic harassment and hostility on the campus, and that UCI had failed to respond effectively to the problem, in violation of its obligations under Title VI. After reviewing the ZOA's allegations, OCR decided that an investigation into UCI's conduct was warranted.
In the course of that investigation, the ZOA furnished OCR with evidence about several incidents of harassment that had occurred at UCI as late as May 2007. The ZOA repeatedly urged OCR to interview witnesses with pertinent information about these incidents. Even though these incidents were relevant to the allegations of the ZOA's October 2004 complaint asserting a pattern or practice of anti-Semitic discrimination at UCI, OCR refused to investigate the incidents or to interview crucial witnesses.
OCR typically resolves Title VI complaints within 180 days after they are filed. It took OCR more than three years to issue a decision on the ZOA's October 2004 complaint. In November 2007, when OCR finally issued its decision, it absolved UCI of wrongdoing. It was plain from the decision that OCR had applied a narrower interpretation of Title VI than the one that OCR had said it would enforce when it issued two policy statements in the fall of 2004. At that time, OCR had made it clear that consistent with federal precedent recognizing that Jews were a racial or national origin group for purposes of affording civil rights protections, OCR would likewise protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment under Title VI. Later, under new leadership at OCR, that policy was whittled down, so that Jewish students would no longer be afforded the protections of Title VI as a racial or national origin group.
OCR's decision in November 2007 engendered deep concern from Members of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, which was expressed in powerful letters to U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. In the letter from U.S. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) - all three of whom are Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary - they questioned the decision that OCR reached in the ZOA's case against UCI, and the interpretation of Title VI that OCR had applied in the case. According to the Senators, OCR's conclusion in the ZOA's case "is inconsistent with its prior policy statements." The Senators asked probing questions of Secretary Spellings, including why there were witnesses "that the ZOA proffered . . . whom OCR did not interview."
The letter from Members of the House also raised troubling concerns about OCR's decision in the ZOA's case, and demanded answers from Secretary Spellings about whether OCR's policy for enforcing Title VI was affording Jewish students the protections they need. U.S. Representatives Brad Sherman (D-CA), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), Allyson Schwartz (D-PA), Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) emphasized that OCR's conclusion in the ZOA's case "reversed OCR policy, as clarified in 2004, of protecting Jews against anti-Semitism."
The leadership of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the umbrella group for more than 50 national Jewish organizations across the religious and political spectrums, also criticized OCR's decision in the ZOA's case against UCI. In a letter to Stephanie Monroe, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, the Presidents' Conference urged OCR to reconsider its decision in the ZOA's case. The decision "will affect Jewish students not only at UCI, but also at other colleges and universities across the United States. At a time when reports of anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation on college campuses is [sic] increasing, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), whose mission is to redress racial and ethnic discrimination, should be seeking to expand the protections of the law."
When, in the April 25, 2008 letter, OCR notified the ZOA about the new investigation of incidents that occurred at UCI in May 2007, OCR indicated that it had determined that several of the ZOA's allegations "are appropriate for investigation under the laws enforced by OCR. . . . We will contact you soon to discuss the allegations and complaint resolution process."
Morton A. Klein, the ZOA's National President, and Susan B. Tuchman, Esq., the Director of the ZOA's Center for Law and Justice, said, "We are pleased to know that the Office for Civil Rights is finally looking into incidents that the ZOA brought to OCR's attention almost one year ago. The witnesses who were ready and willing to come forward at that time are just as eager to furnish information to OCR now. As we did during OCR's first investigation, we stand ready to assist the agency in every way possible.
"Since the time that OCR issued its decision in November 2007, OCR has gotten the clear message from Members of the House and the Senate, and from the Presidents' Conference, that OCR's narrower interpretation of Title VI is of deep concern. We hope that OCR will rethink that more restrictive policy. When it conducts this new investigation, we urge OCR to keep an open mind and apply the policy it clarified in 2004 - that OCR would protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment under Title VI. As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recognized in April 2006, Jewish students are entitled to the protections of Title VI, and the Office for Civil Rights should be vigorously enforcing the law to ensure that they are protected."
Fousesquawk comment: This is certainly good news. Hopefully, they will also go into 2008.
gary fouse
adjunct teacher
uci-ext
fousesquawk
However, in the more on-point example (beating somebody up while uttering certain Constitutionally-protected words), the speech itself, while protected, was unequivocal direct evidence of the necessary criminal intent. So in that sense, "hate speech" (however loosely defined) can be relevant to determining if a "hate crime" has occurred.
The California courts have ignored religious exemptions written into statutes in forcing Catholic institutions to provide birth control.
And in New Jersey, the government is trying to force a Methodist institution to allow gay civil union ceremonies to be conducted on its property.
And on this very blog, we discussed a photographer compelled to take photographs for gay couples.
So it's hardly a far-fetched concern.
What's the # count of Supreme Court Justices who are Catholic? I would just LOVE to see the betting odds that the Supreme Court will "rule that churches are constitutionally compelled to perform homosexual marriages."
I think the Supreme Court will rule that the Catholic church must allow women to become priests, before it EVER compels Catholic churches to perform homosexual marriages!
Or, maybe the ruling that compels all other churches to perform homosexual marriages will carve out an exemption for CATHOLIC churches from the rule? ... have to keep the Vatican (and Vatican Bank) happy ..
Personally I have no problem in restricting flag burning. It's a major symbol of this country and frankly I don't buy the argument that burning the flag is free speech or an expression. You want to write "Down with Amerikkka"? Sure thing. You want to shout "Death to America!". Ok by me.
Now "anti-gay T-shirts"? Free speech. Pro-gay T-shirts? Same thing. "affirmative action bake sales"? Same. Pro-"affirmative action bake sales"? Same again.
But the US Flag is not T-shirt and should be treated with greater reverence than it currently is.
So, is THIS an example of "hate speech"? If so, what are my remedies.
Sarcastro—No, no one is going to say that. But what is wrong with pointing to evidence that we now have concerning attempts at subversion and acts of treason conducted by Americans?
"McCarthyism" really ought still to refer to the smearing of innocent people by calling them communists. NOT to naming actual communists. Geez, no WONDER you were the only student to fail the superhero class.
Of course not. He was a politician out looking for a plank to ride to the Presidency.
That does not however negate the Verona Cables.
Which will make an interesting political exercise for an American Bismarck, should we happen to have one at the time. 1.) Allow all free-thinking Canadians political asylum in the US, 2.) Close border when they're mostly all here 3.) After letting the dregs fester for a few years, declare a humanitarian intervention 4.) Profit!
The Bob Jones case involved revocation of tax-exempt status of a university. You can quarrel with the statutory interpretation, certainly. But I'm not sure you can credibly argue that it presages revoking a church's tax-exempt status for core sacramental functions. And extending it to actual compulsion of sacramental functions is ridiculous.
Arguable (true as to the effect of the ruling, arguable as to the "ignored" part). But dispensing pharmaceuticals is not a sacrament. Nothing in the decisions credibly suggests that courts will compel churches to administer sacraments in a particular way.
I assume you are referring to this, in which a church which accepts tax exempt status to run a boardwalk as an "open to the public" space is arguing that state antidiscrimination laws should not apply to that space. Once again, I think that's a rather far cry from forcing a church to sanctify same-sex weddings.
Which is arguably a First Amendment violation. But it's not forcing a church to change the rules of a religious rite.
I thought Professor Bainbridge -- who is not exactly a howling liberal -- had a rather convincing analysis of this.
And my comparison stands. If there is a slippery slope to forcing churches to conduct same-sex weddings, can anyone point to a church forced to conduct a multi-racial wedding after Loving v. Virginia?
To me, that's indistinguishable from the argument in favor of banning "hate speech." It's a categorical argument -- activity X is just different, because it is, or because it causes huge offense, or because X (where X is racial, sexual, or religious status, or else national symbolism) is uniquely worthy of protection in a way that should create an exception to the First Amendment.
By the way -- if burning the American flag "is not an expression", is burning another country's flag an expression? How about the flag of, say, Iran? Is that expression?
"'have to keep the Vatican (and Vatican Bank) happy ..'
So, is THIS an example of 'hate speech'? If so, what are my remedies" ---->
Hoosier, that is a purely economic observation of opinion: If the Supreme Court rules the Catholic church is compelled to perform homosexual marriages, the Pope will rule otherwise. The Catholic church has HUGE financial holdings in the U.S., real property holdings and money. The Vatican Bank does what all banks do -- protect funds. Thus, it is just like what would happen if DOJ sued OPEC in anti-trust and froze all OPEC producers assets ... OPEC (and the Vatican) would transfer all funds out of the U.S.
Pretty simple. But, obviously, those who are bent on ideas of entrapment of innocent disabled Americans because they do not like disabled people, do not like the Americans With Disabilities Act, and do not like disabled people speaking about how great the Americans With Disabilities Act is, can conjure up just about anything -- including Foo Foo Dust.
If I say something "offensive" to you, and you punch me for it, then, by definition, what I said was "fighting words."
Thus, any speech you utter can be hate speech if I am sufficiently offended by it to punch you over it.
Don't you see? Any speech can be "fighting words" if whoever hears your speech will just punch you, or shoot you, or behead you for it.
That's what the Supreme Court said when it made an exception to the First Amendment for "fighting words."
I fully admit that all too often liberal Justices engage in ideological decision making. It is unfortunate, however, that you actually believe that conservatives are not prey to a similar political bias. You are wrong for this blindness.
Take Justice Thomas as an example. During the Rehnquist Court, Thomas voted to invalidate 15 federal statutes restricting speech. Of these 15 votes, 3 were in favor of invalidating campaign finance laws and 3 were in favor of invalidating commercial speech.
The obvious inference from these numbers wholly undermines your premise. 6 of Thomas's 15 votes are recitations of the GOP's talking points. Thomas's votes are as conservative as it gets, and the same argument can be made for each conservative on the Rehnquist Court. In other words, your supposition that liberals are somehow unique for using their votes to promote a liberal agenda is bindingly biased.
But your own post further undermines its very premise. Again, you argue that liberals are unique because they support the restriction of speech they disagree with. You proceed to give examples of speech that conservatives restrict that you agree with. Namely, restrictions on porn, nude dancing, and flag burning. In other words, restrictions that support the GOPs in-your-fact patriotism and emphasis on religious moral values. Wow, that isn't right down the GOP party line (read sarcasm).
Before I conclude, I want to point out a glaring mistake in your post. You say that conservatives should be held up as heroes for voting to uphold restrictions on flag burning. But your are wrong. Take the leading case, Texas v. Johnson. In Johnson, the majority was joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy. The dissent consisted of Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, and Stevens. In other words, there are no discernible political lines in this case. The second most important case, U.S. v. Eichman, was decided upon the exact same voting record. Thus, conservatives do not as a general rule support restrictions on flag burning.
Police decide to investigate stuff only to learn that it is not, in fact, criminal all the time.
When I was a fed an NCIS guy conducted a year-long campaign to get me to prosecute some guy living near a naval base who used to fly his American flag at night.
You may be right, but it will not happen with some of use exercising the 2nd Amendment power of Veto.
The EU 'Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred' has the benefit of being more specific.
As for campaign finance laws, not only do such laws interfere with speech, they interfere with political speech, which, along with social criticism, was precisely the sort of speech that the First Amendment was originally intended to protect. Now, I do agree that the First Amendment protection extends beyond political speech and social criticism, but if there is any law today that represents the core of what the First Amendment was intended to protect us against, it would be campaign finance legislation.
"onglong" = ongoing"
"execise" = exercise
Hate: an attitude that finds personal insult in the very existence of a person, object, action or situation. Some actions and situations are objectively bad; hating such things is not irrational.
Anger: a negative emotional reaction, directed at a person or object perceived as a source of stress.
Criticism: the belief that some action or situation is inherently bad. Note that when we (rationally) criticise people or objects, we are criticizing the former's actions or the latter's use.
The Bardot case is an example of confusing criticism (allegations of a religion's inhumane treatment of sheep) with hate. Mark Steyn is on trial for criticizing destructive cultural trends. A common political bigotry accuses opponents of certain programs of hating the people those programs are intended to benefit, resting on the false assumption that the opponents actually believe the programs will deliver the promised benefits - that alone should scare people away from supporting "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws.
Congratulations, the record shall so reflect. Would you care to explain how any of your civil rights have been violated by "retaliatory blog posts"?
I look forward to your inevitable lawsuit being dismissed.
P.S. You might want to learn the difference between a comment and a post.
I am thankful for how expansively the First Amendment has been interpreted in the US, but that is partly pure luck. Let us not pretend that the constitution, tradition, or logic can prevent five judges from remaking the constitution as they see fit. Sure, a fig leaf will be used, along the lines of, I don't know, the Commerce Clause, but we know that it was a new politics, not new legal thinking that paved the way to the New Deal and what followed becoming constitutional.
In opening, you're anonymity entitles you to absolutely nothing. The cited regulation requires me to file the grievance only with the Title II public entity, in this instance UCLA law school and the Regents of the university of California.
Rather than mocking my autism language impairments by suggesting I cannot differentiate between a post and a comment (I know of no difference), perhaps your time would be better spent learning the difference between a "lawsuit" and a 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.107 grievance.
Peace.
I agree with you that "identifiable group" isn't very precise. However, it is defined in the legislation as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation." That seems to be precise enough to solve your professor's objection.
Yeah, well, looks like your professor left out "disability" from the protected groups. I think I'd ask for my tuition money back.
1) I am offended by your apparent blanket classification of Autism as a disability. I do not consider myself disabled. You do not speak for me.
2) It appears to me that you are actually seeking out conflict for whatever reasons of personal gratification. Your combativeness reflects on me, and may actually harm my interests. You do not speak for me.
3) Whether by lawsuit or complaint, it appears to me that you seek to censor the speech of others, and impose your will upon their tongues (and indirectly their minds). The price of that has been seen time after time and ignored, while the boons of disagreement get disparaged. I cannot support this. You do not speak for me.
4) "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". All you can do is silence people. You won't actually change minds. You will, however, plant seeds of resentment. You do not speak for me.
5) I understand that your words seem rational and lucid to you. To me, they appear to reflect someone who is not sane, but rather haunted by phantasms of persecution. You may find value in identifying which aspects of your experience and perspective are phantasm. Until you do so, and learn to manage them, they will be visible to others, but not to you. You do not speak for me.
So a novel like "Lolita" isn't speech? I seem to recall it was accused of being pornography back in its day. How about the movie version? If you don't think it's pornography, why not?
I didn't know this blog was hosted by UCLA.
Would harsh statements about Nazism be "hate speech" under Canadian law, as tending to single out 'Aryans' for obloquy?
After the Duke lacrosse rape-hoax, I suspect most non-ideologues will be less likely to believe similar claims in the future. Which causes real problems if, in fact, there was a crime.
Similarly, this sort of thing probably makes VC readers less likely to take claims of violations of the ADA seriously. There's a reason why Aesop's shepherd boy who cried "Wolf!" is still an iconic figure after more than 2600 (!) years. We all know precisely what he meant.
By the way, Aesop has another fable, the upshot of which is "Lighten up, Francis."
I am sure M.Quinn can defend this, but you are really misrepresenting the cases regarding pornography.
Pornography: Recent cases concerning child pornography Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2001) , 8 justices agreed that it didn't violate the first amendment. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) , a majorty including Justice Thomas thought that COPA did violate the first amendment. Then in 2004, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, we have another majority including Justice Thomas and Kennedy striking down COPA again, Justice Breyer dissented with Scalia, Rehnquist and O'connor.
None of these cases exhibited the typical liberal-conservative split, even this year's child pornography decision got Stevens and Breyer on board to sign the majority opinion.
section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides:
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
and the definition is incorporated by reference into the hate propoganda offence-creating provision.
So Nazis don't quite make it. Neither would members of the Democratic Party.
But the more troubling question might be this:
Why does there seem to be such a resistance to trying to "climb into" these sections and the idea of such crimes in this blog.
Some conduct deserves to be criminalized, including hate conduct -- no less than the proverbial fire in the proverbial movie house.
The "Catholic institution" (Catholic Charities) was (in the words of the court), "a nonprofit public benefit corporation", not a church.
But too young to recognize it in your contemporaries, apparently.
Please get beyond the symbol to the underlying principles.
Would straight white males count as a group for purposes of feigning offense in order to shut down argument?
Nah. Why did I bother to ask?
WROTE:
"Mary Katherine Day-Petrano:
1) I am offended by your apparent blanket classification of Autism as a disability. I do not consider myself disabled. You do not speak for me." --->
I did not state autism was a "blanket classification." I have a "record of" protection under Title II of the ADA under individualized assessments required by the ADA. I did not "speak for you." I spoke for myself and I have a First Amendment right to do so. Lucid enough for you?
pmorem
WROTE:
"2) It appears to me that you are actually seeking out conflict for whatever reasons of personal gratification. Your combativeness reflects on me, and may actually harm my interests. You do not speak for me." ---->
Your take on things/causation argument is a little far fetched, ya think? I believe I signed my post above "Peace," meaning I am simply speaking my own content viewpoint with which anyone is free to respectfully disagree. I am not clear on your message: do you have autism? As far your perception of "combativeness" goes, I am extending my further handshake of genuine goodwill as I have on many other occassions. I did not "speak for you." I spoke for myself and have a First Amendment right to do so.
pmorem
WROTE:
"3) Whether by lawsuit or complaint, it appears to me that you seek to censor the speech of others, and impose your will upon their tongues (and indirectly their minds). The price of that has been seen time after time and ignored, while the boons of disagreement get disparaged. I cannot support this. You do not speak for me." ---->
Regarding your feelings, you have whit and other posters saying they 'have the right to be mean' because of immutable characteristics of a protected individual and/or class of persons and I say that crosses over the line and equates to hate speech to a protected individual and/or even class of persons. Congress has authorized the exercise of grievance rights when such a line is transgressed; have you fully read 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq. and the relevant Title II Code of Federal Regulations thereunder? Your other points are not clear. I come here for discussion, newsworthy knowledge, social interaction, integration, and enjoyment of debating my J.D./M.B.A.-California bar passage peers. I do not "speak for you." I speak for myself and have a First Amendment right to do so.
pmorem
WROTE:
"4) 'A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still'. All you can do is silence people. You won't actually change minds. You will, however, plant seeds of resentment. You do not speak for me." --->
Okay. I do not "speak for you." I speak for myself with my own content viewpoint and have a First Amendment right to do so. Your other points are not clear.
pmorem
WROTE:
"5) I understand that your words seem rational and lucid to you. To me, they appear to reflect someone who is not sane, but rather haunted by phantasms of persecution. You may find value in identifying which aspects of your experience and perspective are phantasm. Until you do so, and learn to manage them, they will be visible to others, but not to you. You do not speak for me" ---->
Your last point shows that you are attempting to practice clinical psychology or psychiatry and make medical diagnoses and prognoses directed to me across state lines into the State of Florida without demonstrating you have a valid Florida medical license to do so, and without my invitation, informed consent, and/or authorization to use and disclose HIPAA and/or Calif. CMIA protected health information. Please provide me your medical license # and State of issue in light of your faulty diagnoses/prognoses contained in your above comment-post directed to me.
Have you seen where people have developed computer programs which can spout out utter nonsense, but which is indistinguishable from, say, an article published in a random post-modernist academic journal? I'm picturing MKDP as a computer program like that, just loaded with a bunch of legal jargon instead.
Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen
My personal theory is it's a troll who has a major axe to grind with the ADA and is trying to be the shrillest advocate for it possible, interjecting it into places where it makes no sense to do so.
They renamed the dog "Adi." I surprised they didn't pick "Che." Did Thein and his dog engage in hate speech?
No, they wouldn't, because gender isn't one of the categories. Straight white people would count.
2. And the laws are set up so that if you get angry with someone, attack them, and then a call them a bunch of names, you're a hate crime artist. Except that when people get angry with another person, you're likely to call them every name you can just to hurt their feelings; it betrays nothing about why you're attacking them. Yet the law is clearly designed so that if you attack them while calling them the n-word, the f-word, etc., you're guilty.
3. And finally, practically speaking, the laws are clearly designed to punish those who would attack traditional minorities and not minorities who attack white straight males. How many rap songs involve violent lyrics towards white males and perhaps inspire racial violence? Yet the chances of a black person being prosecuted under hate crime are low, simply because the law is clearly designed for white straight male oppression of others.
4. The laws are redundant in the abstract, and constitutionally invalid in the concrete. We already have laws punishing murder/rape/assault/etc. We even have add-ons for aggravated or truly heinous crimes. As such, a hate crime law is useless in the abstract--all arguments for hate crime legislation fail when confronted with group-neutral enhancement penalties that already exist. The only reason, therefore, hate crime legislation exists is to target some group(s) for special protection or for special prosection--which violates the 14th Amendment.
heck, i run into this all the time at my job with citizens who seem to think that mean speech, racial speech, etc. is ILLEGAL. don't they teach civics any more.
one of the things that makes us better than europe, etc. is that we trust our citizens - to carry guns, and to have a REAL marketplace of ideas.
any govt. that attempts to protect people from icky ideas (such as many forms of hate speech) vs. letting BETTER ideas win over is treating their citizens like subjects.
spend any time on liberal blogs and it is very disturbing to see how quickly "progressives" are willing to give up the right to free speech all to protect against "hate."
it's disgusting
thanks again.
Amen.
It sure is hard to compliment rightwingers, though. It appears from the responses to my mild post that a lot of people don't know anything about McCarthy, not to mention the one who didn't know he was a Republican.
I am forwarding the above comment-posts to the House and Senate Judiary Committees, and ABA Judicial Nominating Evaluation Committee.
Thank you, Eugene for alerting voters that our elite crew members were planning on heading our National ship of State for the rocks.
"Judiary " = Judiciary
Hate crime laws don't punish you more severely merely for hitting that category of person. If someone walks into a store, starts firing randomly, and hits 5 people, he's not going to get a harsher sentence for hitting the black one than for hitting the white or asian or hispanic one.
Also, the criminal law has always taken the identity of the victim into account when sentencing. Hitting a child or a pregnant woman, for example, is judged more harshly than hitting a man. It doesn't mean a man is worth less than a child or pregnant woman.
Disenfranchised? Gallop on down to the polling place.
Impoverished? Maybe if you didn't spend your time writing long flames on blogs or filing frivolous law suits, you wouldn't be so impoverished.
MDKP—From one person with a disability to another: PLEASE stop this crusade of yours. You are going to make it harder for the rest of us to get a hearing. And a job.
I can imagine that people of good will would think before hiring someone with a cognitive disability if he thought that he would face endless harassment claims and costly litigation. I'm currently on the academic job market and, JaysusMaryandJoseph, I don't need that.
I think everyone gets that. The argument is that unless it were otherwise legal to beat up blacks, jews, etc, the perpetrator is being punished for both committing violence and - separately - for having prejudiced beliefs.
And incidentally, it is actually pretty common for US police departments and/or the media to just assume that a crime committed between dissimilar races is a hate crime.
WROTE:
"MDKP—From one person with a disability to another: PLEASE stop this crusade of yours. You are going to make it harder for the rest of us to get a hearing. And a job." --->
Thank you for your comment-post. I am reminded of Jim Crow days when African-Americans were relegated to servitude second-class jobs and sitting in the back of the bus, etc. There were always persons among African-Americans who rejected the civil right movement because such would "make it harder for the rest of us," as you say.
Fortunately, like myself, persons like Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus.
God Bless you.
Even without an intent to kill, manslaughter becomes murder if the prosecution can prove the perpetrator's state of mind had malice aforethought. But who argues the perpetrator is being punished for committing violence and - separately - for his state of mind?
Hate-crime laws apply equally to acts caused by hatred towards gays and straights, and the other named classifications as well. I suspect anything less than that would be struck down as unconstitutional.
Why?
Hate-crime laws apply equally to acts caused by hatred towards gays and straights, and the other named classifications as well. I suspect anything less than that would be struck down as unconstitutional.
I'd clarify that a bit, hate-crime laws in theory apply equally... . Not sure what the current practices are, but when states first started to write the modern hate-crime laws the effects were erratic and confused and by no means equal. With regards just to racial hate crime; some jurisdictions charged all violent interracial crimes as hate-crimes regardless of cause, some ignored cases of clear anti-white hate, some routinely ignored interracial hate crimes between non-white races, some disproportionately didn't charge white on other race as hate crimes, others the reverse, etc.. Equal applicability is not the same as equal application / an equal application claim could be possibly still be made to strike down hate-crime laws as unconstitutional but it would have to be made through substantive due process and courts these days are taking a harsh view towards unequal application claims.
You do not speak for me.
I believe Hoosier has indicated that you do not speak for him, either.
You insult us both (Jim Crow) for failing to yield to your 'vision'.
I do not seek to prevent you expressing your thoughts. All I am doing is making sure others are aware that not all Autistics think the way you do.
You are welcome to locate your head within whatever portion of your anatomy provides you the stimming you desire. You're even free to speak from that place. You're free to petition the government (like the Judiciary committees) for redress of grievances, even if said greivances exist only in your imagination.
I can't speak for anyone but myself on this (though I suspect others agree). You come across as an ass.
I accept that it's difficult for you to process through and understand how and why they react to you the way they do. I'll give you a hint, though. There's one person who is consistent in all your interactions. I don't recommend your removing that person from your life, so you might consider other ways to alter the person.
Yep. Hate-crime laws have been used in the prosecution of black perpetrators of racist anti-white violence. I haven't heard of any cases of anti-straight violence, so I can't speak to that.
I'm of two minds regarding hate-crime laws. I understand the argument that a person's beliefs should not be themselves criminalized. It would be insane if a Republican administration could make any crime committed by Democrats count more severely than the same crime by Republicans, for instance. But at the same time, there's a good reason to take more seriously an assault which is intended to terrorize a whole sector of the population, as compared to one which is intended merely to hurt one person.
We count terrorism as more serious than ordinary crime. If some loser goes postal and shoots a hundred people, that's not taken as severely a