Is Hate Speech Protected by Free Speech?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 30 2006, 01:20 PM) [snapback]355866[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I never managed to get to law school. As an undergrad, I studied radio/television communications, and took a lot of pre-law related courses. It was my intention to go to law school after graduating with my bachelor's degree, and was planning on pursuing a J.D. at the University of Michigan (which has an amazing law school). Unfortunately, like many college grads, I fell into the trap of needing money after college and decided to enter the work force for a year or two. The bastards kept promoting me and paying me more, and I kept delaying law school. Now, I'm 41, married, and have a nice cushy job where I can work from home and play with my dog all day.. It's a trap, I tell you!

Still, I never lost a love of law, and try to keep a hand in it. Worked in the broadcast industry in Chicago for years, and was the point person at the office on libel/slander issues. Currently, I'm the chairman of a non-profit organization (the chairman's job is to make sure the organization operates within the law, and that all the legal bylaws are properly observed), volunteer with another organization enforcing intellectual property issues (yes, I look for illegal vending on eBay every day), and am presently developing a bill draft request for the Nevada legislature regarding changing Nevada's labor laws on accrued vacation time.

Every once in a while, I look into law schools around the country, and think about taking three years off to go back to school... visited UNLV's campus about a month ago. It gets harder and harder to do this once you get older and have responsibilities (family, mortgage, etc). If anyone reading this is considering working for a bit in between college and post-grad, beware of the trap. It is easy to get seduced by a regular paycheck. OK, my slightly off-topic rant is complete now.

Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 30 2006, 03:20 PM) [snapback]355866[/snapback]</div>

I know you weren't addressing me, but I lived on the southwest side of Chicago at that time, going to high school half a mile from where George Lincoln Rockwell had his headquarters on 71st Street in Marquette Park. It was a particularly ugly time. One of the strange things was that the newspapers in Chicago were reporting that the rallies were being held in Gage Park, about a mile north of Marquette Park where they were actually being held! I assume it cut down on some of the potential violence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Nov 30 2006, 09:38 AM) [snapback]355749[/snapback]</div>

You are wrong on that one. The California Department of Corrections is very aggressive about prosecuting crimes committed in prison by inmates. Prisoners who are convicted of new crimes must be sentenced consecutively pursuant to California law.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Nov 30 2006, 09:38 AM) [snapback]355749[/snapback]</div>

Huh?

The DA uses discretion in bringing charges. You could provide dozens of examples of the use of that discretion, but it doesn't change what the DA can do to press charges. It only shows that they don't do it in every case.

But to buttress my statement that hate crimes are not charged for speech alone:

The report also outlines how hate crimes are not "anti-white", as 11% of the hate crimes are for crimes against whites. Its an interesting read, but it is a 151KB download. You can also go to http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat1.htm to see some analysis of hate crime legislation in the US.

It is different in Canada, as they prohibit hate speech on the public airwaves and censor it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 30 2006, 03:34 PM) [snapback]355990[/snapback]</div>

Hm, "hate" crimes? This is one of the worst examples of idiotic, populist PC rhetoric, turned into law, out there. People should be punished for their actions, period. Creating protected classes is ridiculous and flies in the face of logic, as well as against the Equal Protection Clause.

Crime is crime, is crime. If someone clobbers someone else over the head for no reason, it matters little (especially to the victim,) if the perpetrator wanted to steal a wallet, or wanted to beat up a homeless person, or a person of a different ethnicity. Throw in the fact that virtually all violent crime where the attacker and the victim are acquainted, should technically be classified as prima facie "hate" crime (yep, that includes domestic violence, since people who beat up on their spouse or other live-in, usually do it in a moment of rage ("hate") against that person, and often provide ample proof of it in the form of abusive words.) Again, treat it like any other act of punishable violence, because that's what it is. The rest is just made up justifications to appease some vocal or politically important group.

As for the 11% "anti-white," it's a smoke-screen of little meaning: generally just over 50% of violent crime is committed by (young) black males, and nationally black on white violent occurrences are about 10 to 1 compared to the reverse. So the 11% number is really insignificant when compared to all violent crime, particularly since it is likely that a good portion of these 11% is crime perpetrated against white gays, or Jews (and it may include white perpetrators, as well.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Nov 30 2006, 10:25 PM) [snapback]356032[/snapback]</div>

I tend to agree with this. While there are a few "extremes"where I may be willing to consider the mental "opinion" of the perpetrator, generally those examples are so heinous that the crime itself carries a big enough punishment.

Hate crimes smacks of "thought" police and it is a slippery slope to start getting into what a criminal is "thinking".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Nov 30 2006, 05:25 PM) [snapback]356032[/snapback]</div>

Hate crimes, as defined by California, at least, are just like "pre-meditated" crimes, "capital crimes", and other special cases where the DA can file more charges depending on the situation. Taking your "crime is crime is crime" idea to its logical conclusion, you have to have the same punishment for the soccer mom who runs over and kills a child while talking on the cell phone as you do for the pedophile who tortures a child to death. In one case we have criminal neglect, and a child dies a horrible death. In the other case, we have a predatory, sick individual who plans and then executes a crime and takes great pleasure in it. Intent, pre-meditation and lying in wait are all terms that increase punishment for the same "crime is crime is crime."

Having a person kill someone while screaming racial epithets tells us that person is a racist, and his actions are motivated, in part, by that racism. It is evidence of a predilection to the act, and proof that recidivism is more likely. If we lock up that person for a longer time, that is a good thing. I'm a law and order, conservative kind of guy.

I think your stats are right in regards to inter-racial crime (much more likely for an inter-racial victim to be white than black, and much more likely for the perpetrator to be black). There are sociological reasons for that, including the fact that violent black youths may see a white guy in a suit as more likely to have money, and less likely to beat him up than one of his fellow gang members. It is also because blacks make up about 11% of the population and whites a much greater proportion. You would expect more white victims (the real story is that young black men are much more likely to be violent for some reason).

Domestic abuse is rarely a "hate" crime under legal definition. I'm sure some abusers have a thing against the opposite sex, but there is rarely a danger that the abuser will go next door and smack around the neighbor because of the neighbor's gender. The abuser is hitting their spouse/so because they are mad at the individual, and not at the entire gender.

I have no sympathy for a murderer, rapist, batterer or other violent criminal who gets extra charges piled on because he is a racist as well as a violent criminal. Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

Hate speech is another issue entirely. Speech is protected, even vile, offensive and hateful speech. While some college campuses and private organizations (like my new website in the signature link) have what amounts to "speech codes" disallowing certain speech, there is no state in the union that censors such speech or arrests people for speech alone. Canada is a different story, of course, as they do have standards that prohibit "hate speech" on their public airwaves.

You can get sued for it though ... see http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-1...tion-case_x.htm

Wow! FHOP members take note!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 1 2006, 06:12 PM) [snapback]356518[/snapback]</div>

Interesting case, but I don't think it's about hate speech - it's about defamation of character, which is different.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 1 2006, 06:12 PM) [snapback]356518[/snapback]</div>

Not exactly. I did say "punishable," and intent is often a necessary element. "Hate," in conjunction with other evidence, may be used to establish intent, but "hate" by itself should have no bearing on the punishment of the violent act (or do you think we should met punishment also according to "mild dislike," or "dislike," or "strong dislike?"

The problem with "hate" crime laws is, that they create different classes of victims. Some are"protected" classes, some are not. For example: Someone who hates policemen and professes so, can kill a policeman and get XX years in jail. Someone else, who hates prostitutes and professes so, can kill a prostitute and also get XX years in jail. But someone else, who hates gays and professes so, can kill a gay person and will get XX+Y years in jail, because gays are a protected class.

Why do you think that crimes against gays, or any other protected group, deserve a more severe punishment (and the presumed increased deterrent which stems from such punishment,) than crimes against other victims of exactly the same type of violent act?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 1 2006, 11:26 PM) [snapback]356540[/snapback]</div>

I think the protected classes are there to redress a long history of unprotection. For a long time it was quite all right to assault gays and jews, and lynch african-americans without trouble from the police and possibly to the acclaim of ones friends. The feelings behind such acts are still prevalent in many parts of the country, if sometimes less spoken. There's the ubiquitous "GOD HATES FAGS" signs at political rallies. Just in the past few months we have Mel Gibson ranting against Jews and Michael Richards ranting against blacks.

The hate crimes laws may seem unfair on the surface, but they are a necessary check to keep our more base natures in check so that we hopefully don't return to the casual oppressions of the past. A real hate crime -- the tying of Matthew Shepard to a fence, James Byrd being tied with a chain and dragged to his death, spraying swastikas on synagogues -- these are at heart acts of terrorism. For a long time, such acts helped "keep people in their place."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 1 2006, 07:26 PM) [snapback]356540[/snapback]</div>

Your premises are faulty.

In California, and I am sure elsewhere as well, crimes committed against police officers carry considerably harsher penalties than identical violations of law against ordinary persons. Violent crimes against gay people which are carried out because the victims are gay and similar bias motivated crimes of violence do not carry punishments as severe as similar offenses committed against police officers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Dec 1 2006, 08:51 PM) [snapback]356571[/snapback]</div>

Ah, but only if the officer is on duty. And the idea behind it is not to protect the police officers as a class, in the way these other classes are protected from "hate," but to aid in the discharge of their duties. And this one makes sense, because of the unique duties of the officer visa-vi the criminal. But, if you punch an off duty policeman in civilian clothes at a barbecue, because you got into a political argument over a beer (say you told him you think all policemen are corrupt pigs,) that 10 year increase doesn't enter the equation, and you should be tried as if you punched a regular civilian white Protestant male.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 1 2006, 07:50 PM) [snapback]356547[/snapback]</div>

Well, in this case, why not pick the one group, which throughout history has been invariably "unprotected": the poor?

The poor of every creed, of every race, in every society, generally enjoy less protection than the rich. They can't afford the best legal help, they don't have powerful friends, they don't command media attention. If OJ was poor, he'd be in prison right now, possibly on death row.....

Who can be more deserving of special status, than the poor? Shouldn't we then increase the penalty for crimes against those bellow the poverty line by an additional 10 years? And if it's a poor black or gay man, by an additional 5 years. And if it's a poor black woman, or a lesbian, by 5 more years, since women have had it even worse? And while we are at it, why not reduce the penalties for crimes against those who come from, say, three generations of wealthy families - they have traditionally been privileged, and if they didn't carry such fat wallets, robbers wouldn't be so tempted to rob them?

That should make for a just system, wouldn't it?

As for the well-publicised stories you cite, try reading a few "ordinary" death-penalty cases: They are all horrific, each in it's own way, and the notion that some victims are more deserving of protection, or of compassion, than others, is noxious.

Why do some have such a problem with simply applying the law, equally?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 2 2006, 12:47 AM) [snapback]356603[/snapback]</div>

Not exactly. If a police officer is killed or assaulted because he or she is a police officer, regardless of whether it happened while on duty or not and the prosecution can prove such a motive, the enhanced punishments apply.

Thus you were wrong when you wrote:

That is because in this example the officer is killed because he or she is an officer. That makes the killer subject to more severe penalties than if an ordinary person were to be killed under similar circumstances.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 1 2006, 06:22 PM) [snapback]356520[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, you're right! And I think the reason the suit was successful was that the defamation could be shown to cause harm to the person's business.

While we worry about criminal law (i.e., government censorship), maybe what we should really be looking at is the chilling effect of civil law on free speech.

 

I would have to check to see if there are actually protected "classes" in California's hate crime laws. I suspect not, because 11% of the prosecutions are for crimes committed against whites, which are not part of a protected class.

So it isn't the "class" of the person being victimized that matters, its the intent of the criminal. "Racially motivated" crimes include crimes by blacks against whites, when it can be shown that racism is part of the motivation for the crime. No stats for this, but "gender" crimes would work the same way, as would "sexual orientation" or any of the other classifications. A gay killer, who seeks out and kills only straight people, would be eligible for the extra charges.

I think there is a danger of going too far and starting to actually limit speech, as most European countries have done. But I don't know of any law in the US, and certainly not any in my state of California, where speech itself is limited.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Nov 30 2006, 01:03 PM) [snapback]355903[/snapback]</div>

Let me assure you that you did not miss a thing.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Dec 2 2006, 08:36 AM) [snapback]356690[/snapback]</div>

Hm, are you saying that my argument is wrong, or just the police officer example? If it is just that part that bothers you, then ignore it and let's discuss why a prostitute murdered while the perpetrator was yelling "Whore!" should enjoy less protection than a gay victim whose killer was "yelling "Faggot!"? Because this is the gist of the argument.

But as to the police officer example: in California, the enhanced sentencing came in through a proposition in the late 1990s. It covers officers murdered in the line of duty, or officers INDIVIDUALLY targeted by a perpetrator in their civilian life (more to do with with specific targeting of such individual officer by a criminal or criminal group, than with a protected from "hate" class.) In addition, certain regular duty peace officers, such as transportation officers or those working within the university police system, are still not covered under this enhanced sentencing scheme, to the best of my knowledge.