Should "hate speech" be criminalized?

[UdoKier]

Poll question: Should "hate speech" be criminalized?

Should "hate speech" be criminalized?

[MontecitoDem]

1. How about just a simple NO choice?

I'm not sure about the "knuckle sandwich" commenT!

[UdoKier]

7. It's halfway tongue-in-cheek.

If I saw a white guy call a black guy "nigger", then the black guy punch the white guy, I'd laugh, and when the police came, I'd probably say that the white guy hit first.

That's all I meant.

[TX-RAT]

35. So your saying you would lie.

Why?
Calling someone names doesn't justifies an assault, no matter how bad or how hurtful it was. Not only would he be charged with assault, you'd be charge for giving a false report.

[UdoKier]

40. not if there was nobody else around.

As far as I'm concerned, calling someone that to their face that is an assault. Unless the black guy was unreasonably brutal, I'd take his side, because I know the law would be inclined not to.

Now if we're talking Calrence "football" Williams and Reginald Denny, I'd tell the police that Clarence threw a brick at that guy for no reason whatsoever.

I would never justify a serious beating. A punch in the face, however is little more than a wake-up call, and I'd have little respect for a grown man who would actually call the cops over one punch. Like they don't have anything better to do!

[TX-RAT]

55. "not if there was nobody else around?

It's still a lie.

(calling someone that to their face that is an assault)
No it's an insult. To hit someone for saying it, is an assault.

(I would never justify a serious beating.)
Any beating is criminal.

[7th_Sephiroth]

2. freedom of speach is just that

if you dont like it dont listen, there ae millions of venues to choose from (this goes for tv censorship, too)

[gospelized]

3. this "hate speech" stuff

is ridiculous.

for a party that supposedly tried to protect people's rights, we sure do try to take away ones we don't like.

[wryter2000]

4. Serious threats against people should be investigated

But hate speech itself shouldn't be made illegal. People should be allowed and/or encouraged to denounce such speech, though. That's also protected speech.

[UdoKier]

8. Yes. I think threats are already illegal, right?

nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Free speech is free speech. PERIOD.

Unless it directly advocates imminent harm, it is protected no matter what. And I happen to take issue with your "knuckle sandwich" option. That's assault and battery. No one has the right to do that.

[mark414]

13. oh lighten up

some people need to get a good whack now and then

[TX-RAT]

36. Keeps the county jails full.

And solves nothing.

[UdoKier]

41. There is no reason to call police over a punch.

There was a time when there was a thing called fisticuffs. Two guys had a disagreement, duked it out, one of them won, annd enjoyed his pyrhhic victory, the other went home with a bruised ego.

Now people call police over the slightest altercations, and yet our society is no less violent.

It seems to be a symptom of being cooped up indoors all the time, getting soft and flabby.

I personally hate to fight, but in the few occasions when I have, (and I have NEVER been the instigator), I would not have called the police.

What the hell ever happened to shaking hands going about your business?

[walldude]

49. I'm with you except these days

a guy is as likley to pop a cap in your ass as have a fair fight. Perfect example of this, my 6 year old has been getting taunted by this new kid who moved in across the street, the other day I guess he had had enough and pushed the kid down(I punished him for it, violence isn't a solution in my house). You know playground crap. Well instead of trying to work things out this kids father came to my door(drunk as hell before noon) telling me if my kid ever touched his little angel again he was going to kick my ass. The little angel's grandfather threatened to call the police. Over 2 6 YEAR OLDS FIGHTING. You know maybe if the guy had come over and wanted to sit down over a couple beers and talk through this, then sit the kids down and teach them both that teasing and fighting gets no one anywhere we may have been able to make friends. I guess I was lucky, today I saw his shiney new pickup sporting a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker. hehe "Hardcore Drunks For Bush Strike Again"

[mark414]

51. it'll make some jackass think twice next time

and if you don't agree with that than you've obviously never given someone a good pop in the kisser

some assholes just need that shit

newt gingrich, for one

[TX-RAT]

54. I agree with you about Newt.

21 yrs in the Sheriffs Dept. I've been in a lot of fights.
You can't hit someone just because you don't like what they say. It's criminal.

[AngryAmish]

57. That is what I tell my girlfriend

Although she feels neglected sometimes.

[progressivejazz]

6. Of course not.

Silly question.

[sweetheart]

9. hate crime is incited by hate speech

When people know it is not right to "speak" hate, they are warned not
to "do" hate. Britain has such a law and it is used to clean up
the public common. The results: 1/10th the violent crime rate of
the USA. An ongoing attempt is in progress to eliminate racial hate
and intolerance in 1 generation. It is no suprise the USA is not
interested whilst quoting "freedom of speech" maxims.

The fact is that "hate speech", is the same as shouting "fire" in a
crowded theatre. It is not a right. It is a crime, like assault as
a predecessor to battery. If battery is a crime, assault is as well.

Yes it should be criminalized.

[mark414]

12. poor logic

fundies are trying to drown out OUR voices to criticize the president because we don't agree with them.

if they had their way, liberals would have NO voice in this country.

hate speakers have a right to their senseless dribble

we have a right to laugh at them

this is america, not nazi germany

[sweetheart]

21. HATE crime is not political discussion

I realize that with a failed legal system, and a failed constitution,
there is little optimism that a law against hate speech could work
fairly. Rather, the mantra is NO NO NO, and no government or laws
ever work, ever.

Those nazi's are up to something. Race crime, crime against gays
and all sorts of that stuff is happening in america as well. Hate
speech is a complex thing to prove in a court of law, and with the
proper laws, only those who are really perpetrating a crime will
get taken down.

This is nazi america, and the hate crime against liberals is
appalling... the threats and the violence. It has to end.

It is poor logic to accept that hate crime is part of free speech.
Given that logical base, then rape is part of sex.

For the same reasons, your logic is flawed.

Ann coulter should be in prison, washing tommy chong's toilet. ;-)

[el_gato]

24. Now your equating speech with crime

[sweetheart]

27. If you write "All 'xxx''s should be shot."

And somebody later shoots an <xxx>, are you in any way culpable?
Some would say its your free speech. Maybe it is, if it is a passing
comment... but say you repeat yourself a lot, make music lyrics of
the message, and send it out in emails. The comment is an incitement
to committ a heinous crime. When does it cross the line?

Maybe nobody shoots an <xxx> and it was a passing feeling.. no harm
done. Maybe, after years of repeating, some teenager takes it to
heart, and shoots an <xxx> with a deer rifle, taking a human life.
Are you telling me that such incitement, is not itself a crime,
given the wooly definitions that would need to be in place to
prosecute the real thing?

If you say that in britain with <xxx> as muslims, women, gays, or
whatever, the publisher will be asked to stop publication, and on the
advise of the public prosecutor, you may be drawn up on incitement
charges. This sort of law is primarily used when it has gone too
far, not in single one-off cases... like a case of an islamic
preacher who preached to attack britain, and its people.. repeatedly.

Sadly, our culture is too immature to handle free speech
responsibly... and we need some checkpoints. The right to life, of
the already-dead victems, demands it.

[el_gato]

28. You are scaring me

"Sadly, our culture is too immature to handle free speech"

Kinda like:


"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani - NYC
New York Times, March 17, 1994


"There ought to be limits on freedom."

George W. Bush

[sweetheart]

30. freedom has responsibility

I think we get too far down the road of "freedom" without recognizing
that we all live on the same planet, and that there are ripple
effects.

"I call for the USA to be broken up." == sedition, a crime under
the constition.

There area already more checkpoints on free speech, inappropriate ones,
than we would both prefer. Myself i'm not inclined to calling "fire"
in a theatre a crime either... but a pile of trampled dead bodies
might call it a crime.

I am for no limits on freedom, but as well, total responsibility
for the results of exercising freedom. If you freely drive your
car and kill someone, it has crossed the line. Speech has that
line as well... not george bush's pathetic calls for authoritarian
control, but our civil society's need to clamp down on hate crime
and its many causes. Speech inappropriately used, is but one cause,
and in a rare case, can be criminal.

What should scare you, is the fact that so many people are so
ignorant, that free speech is used to spread hatred and violence.

Bottom line, we're ruled by a criminal felon who should be in the
dock on war crimes. Until that error is fixed, black is white, and
american ethics and law are just a pathetic joke of power against
the poor and disenfranchised.

[el_gato]

32. That's why more laws will always be used against us

Calling for more laws is a mistake due to the very facts that you just cited. Otherwise I agree with much of what you have said.

[UdoKier]

17. Well, I think it's very disrespectful and rude.

But I disagree that it's a crime.

But if the speech is connected to a crime, it makes it into a "hate crime". Andd I'm okay with that.

[MontecitoDem]

43. This doesn't make sense to me

are you saying Britain has lower violent crime because of speech restrictions? Don't you think there are a lot of other, more important factors?

"Hate Speech" is not the same as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. "Fire" produces panic and foreseeable physical injury - the "imminent harm" test. "Hate Speech" clearly is not so easily defined. What constitutes "hate speech" could change over time, and isn't the question of imminence dependent on who hears it?

It is not assault. It may be offensive, but that's the cost of living in democracy. Each right comes with the inconvenience, or even the pain, of others exercising that right.

[sweetheart]

48. grey, not black and white

Britain has a hate-speech law, that it can use to shut down mosques
and other venues that are used to forment hate crime. Remember the
british passport holders who fought for the taliban in afganistan and
most recently in falluja defending the mosque from the infidel (USA).

If you watch your favorite violent film on british TV, or rent the
video/dvd, you'll note the cut sequences where violent fighting would
be. Britain censors gratuitous violence, from all media, and i
think it is wise to censor violence from the public common. violence
begets violence... why start.. nip it in the bud.

As well, britain has intensive gun controls and policing technologies
that are not used in the US, so the causative statement that violence
is reduced by hate crime laws, is wholly innaccurate. Rather there
is a dilligence in the body politic, to keep lower impulses outside
the public common, both the media common, and the physical common.

Here is a website formenting hate: http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com/jew.htm

Do you feel proud that they have free speech, on your dime? I don't. The internet was paid for by the goodwill of american
taxpayers. What right have a bunch of crackers to use this
magnificent tool of truth as a propaganda basis for their hate
adgenda.

Presuming a reasonable test under the law. Hate crimes do start
with formenting hate... and america has to own up to its own part
in this. Free speech has been abused, and it is incumbent upon us
free and wise civilians to propose how we deal with such things.

I would rather their web-publishing activities were impaired, as it
does no justice to free speech whatsoever, and truly opens the
critique of al queda, that our culture "embellishes blasphemy".
Until we can control our whacko's, the critique stands.

[MontecitoDem]

50. Again, the problem is always the same....

Who decides what is acceptable speech? what is acceptable thought? That is what the framers wrestled with. Do you think posters at political protests should be censored? What if someone thinks they invokes hate?

I am very much in favor of gun control laws, of teaching nonviolence, of limiting violence on television and video games, etc. But conflating that with the idea of controlling speech which is not presenting a clear and present danger of imminent harm violates the constitution. and it violates my idea of what is great about America.

[sweetheart]

53. trading nazi stuff on ebay

The nazi thing is a good example. By american free speech, these
sorts, and their white racists buddies, are allowed to go about
their business spreading their disease.

I hear your point about "acceptable", and perhaps 200 years ago when
america was a white man's wilderness, "freedom" to speak freely was a
different thing. It meant that you had to be in the proximity of
another person, or be published in a newspaper. Both of these
were without anonymity, and focused responsibility by "knowing" the
speaker.

Now we are in an age where america is no longer a wildnerness, rather
(they claim) a sophistocated civilization coast to coast. Then you
can put up a website and blast your views to a billion people around
the planet. Electronic technologies multiply this problem, and
simply looking back to the framers, helps us not. Our culture is
sick with violence, and it starts in the media. Film and TV portray
criminal violence in a way that appears romantic. Sure, we've
managed to censor child-pornography, and rape from televisions and
some ridiculous swear words... yet shooting someone with hateful
violence is not considered similarly? I think this is wrong
thinking, coming from the defeated democratic surrender of the
public common (airwaves/bandwidth). When decent people take the
common back, crime on the public purse, and the insinuation of it,
is innappropriate.

What we can observe, is that lies in the media (protected by free
speech) have completely perverted our democracy. Then our constitution
and its framers are a joke, to be dug up whenever we need a wooly
feeling, but not realistic given what is going down. Meanwhile,
more people are killed by violent crime in american cities tha in
wars abroad. Many areas are simply unsafe, due to the weapons
proliferation, and the stewing poverty and hatred that divides.

Britain uses the spirit of the law, and the US uses a rule based
approach towards law. In the former, i think the law should be
like, "speech incites crime" is an abuse of free speech, and let
the courts interpret. Unfortunately, the country's courts are
not free to make a spot judgement, as legislatures have created
minimum sentencing and stupid things that prevent justice from
being dealt.

I agree with your views, and as well, i think it high time that
we start digging in to our new information society and building a
safe foundation for the next 1000 years of information civilization.
Our constitution is pre-electronics, and is as useful as a stone tool
in the iron age.

What is great about america is that it is nation of the people whose
government derives its mandate from the people. Every increasing
bit that this becomes "not true", the country is less great. The
laws are only guidelines within this "people's government" basis,
and now the entire thing has been corrupted from the fish head.
Until we depose the coup-2000 criminals, there is no constitution.

[serryjw]

10. Its the difference B/T Zell Miller & Tommy Frank!

What is YOUR intention........to express an opinion or INSIGHT a riot!

[Syrinx]

11. who the hell is voting to criminalize dumb jokes?

:shrug:

[theboss]

14. You don't have the right to incite

You do have the right to hate.

[sffreeways]

15. Um...it is in some places

In SF you can be fined pretty harshly.

I told a story here a few years ago about an incident at Safeway in the Bay Area. I was shopping and an employee called me a faggot as I passed by him. I didn't hesitate to confront him especially since he was wearing the store uniform. I went to the manager then returned to my shopping. A few minutes later the enraged employee came out of nowhere and grabbed my cart and started yelling at me that I was a liar. Forget that about 10 people around me heard him call me a faggot and then heard the confrontatin that followed.

He wouldn't let me get passed him so I abandoned my cart and went back to the manager. I was brought into an office with three other managers for witnesses and told them again what was happening. Of course the whole affair was caught on the security tapes so there was no doubt I was telling the truth.

When I got home I called the sheriff and filed a compliant. The police went to his home and told his parents (he was about 18 and still living at home). He was fined and fired and the union wouldn't defend him after an investigation.

There is a law in CA that protects people who have been intimidated from accessing public places and Safeway had to pay me $3000.00 and fullfill my demand that there be anti-discrimination literature and posters available for all employees working at Safeway and that those employees recieve sensitivity training. Success.

Now I know these laws don't exist everywhere but the number of places they do is growing. And good. You should be able to go freely where evr you want in this country without being intimidated, harrassed, and maligned. Freedom of speech is not about freedom to slur your neighbor it's about expressing agreement or disagreement with your government.

edited for typos

[UdoKier]

19. That guy sounds pretty psycho.

Hell, he should have been fired for being abusive to a customer, if for no other reason.

Why anybody like that would choose to live in SF is beyond me...

[sffreeways]

23. He really wasn't

he was an obnoxious kid that didn't know any better. But he does now.
Oh I got a letter of apology from him several weeks later as part of the agreement as well.

The Bay Area has plenty of idiots in fact SF has the highest incidents of gay bashing in the country. It's because the community is so visible.

[UdoKier]

25. Well, that and there are so many more people to be bashed...

nt

[Heyo]

16. Freedom of speech is totally sacrosanct....

.. but at the same time.. you and only you are responsible for what comes out of your mouth.

Heyo

[el_gato]

18. They would use it to call criticism of Halliburton hate speech

We don't need more laws, we need the Law off our backs!

[Aidoneus]

20. absolutely not

It should, however, promptly be met with a firm response. Depending on the 'hate speech' in question, this response can be anything from a calm verbal rebuttal, a dismissive sneer, or in the case of klansmen and protest-warriors, perhaps a shove and a laugh. But, not under any conditions should any sort of of speech be criminalized and regulated by the state.

[wryter2000]

29. Firm response

Exactly. I have a problem with people objecting to a firm response to hate speech. You know...the sort who screams "politically correct" whenever someone criticizes him for saying something obnoxious. It's as if hate speech is to be protected, which means it's also to be protected from criticism of any kind.

[beyurslf]

22. No. The speech that offends is the very speech that needs to be protected.

[noiretextatique]

26. absolutely not...but, don't get upset when you get called on it

as so many tend to do.
this isn't a hate speech story, but i think it's illustrative.
a guy at work called me "girl" not long ago. i knew he was trying to be cool and familiar, but he wasn't cool, and i didn't want to be familiar with him...it was appropriate. so...i called him "boy" when i responded to him. he turned 50 shades of red and huffed away...probably went and whined to our manager. i kept on working.
some people think they can just say anything without be challenged.

[immoderate]

31. Does the law recognize "fighting words?"

Any legal types know about this?

I assume you can get in someone's face enough that it would be inciting as much as "Fire!" in you proverbial crowded theater.

--IMM

[Endangered Specie]

38. The "Clear and Present Danger" test is usually what is used

to determine if what said is covered by the 1st amendment... If what you say presents a "clear and present danger" to the public/someone, it is not allowed ("Fire" in theater vs. "I think you are a stupid sack of.... mother in an outhouse... etc")

[sffreeways]

39. Great question !

Constitutional Challenges to
Hate Crimes Statutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Speech Challenges: R.A.V. and Mitchell

In 1992 and 1993, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases addressing the constitutionality of statutes directed at bias-motivated intimidation and violence: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul4 and Wisconsin v. Mitchell.5 4 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
5 508 U.S. 476 (1993).
These well-known cases have now substantially defined which hate crimes statutes are, and which are not, acceptable under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Based on these cases, ADL has been strongly urging states to adopt penalty-enhancement statutes based on the League's model.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court evaluated for the first time a free speech challenge to a hate crime statute. In that case, the defendant had burned a cross "inside the fenced yard of a black family that lived across the street from the house where the was staying." The ordinance before the Court, as interpreted by the Minnesota Supreme Court, criminalized so-called "fighting words" which "one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Fighting words are words which will provoke the person to whom they are directed to violence; more than 50 years ago, in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,6 6 315 U.S. 568 (1942). In Chaplinsky, the defendant had been convicted of issuing an insult after calling a city marshall a "racketeer" and a "damned fascist." The doctrine of "fighting words," elaborated in this one case, has not played a significant role in recent free speech jurisprudence. Use of the doctrine in R.A.V. gave every appearance of a last-ditch effort to salvage a problematic ordinance.
the Supreme Court decided that such words were not protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, in R.A.V., the state of Minnesota argued that because all so-called "fighting words" are outside first amendment protection, race-based fighting words could be criminalized.

The Supreme Court disagreed and struck down the statute. The Court held that because Minnesota had not in fact criminalized all fighting words, the statute isolated certain words based on their content or viewpoint and therefore violated the First Amendment. Based on R.A.V., hate crime statutes which criminalize bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech are unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny. Particularly, cross burning statutes or statutes criminalizing verbal intimidation are more suspect after this decision.

However, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Wisconsin statute which provides for an enhanced sentence where the defendant "intentionally selects the person against whom the crime because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person." The defendant in Mitchell had incited a group of young Black men who had just finished watching the movie "Mississippi Burning" to assault a young white man by asking, "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people," and by calling out, "You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him."

Noting that "raditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant," the Court rejected the defendant's contention that the enhancement statute penalized thought. First, the Court affirmed that the statute was directed at a defendant's conduct -- committing a crime. The Court then held that, because the bias motivation would have to be connected with a specific act, there was little risk that the statute would chill protected bigoted speech. The statute focused not on the defendant's bigoted ideas, but rather on his actions based upon those ideas. Finally, the Court made clear that "the First Amendment . . . does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent." After Mitchell, challenges to penalty-enhancement statutes on the basis of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution appear to be largely foreclosed.

http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp

The way the law has generally worked is that most hate speech occurs during the commission of other crimes. Like the one I mentioned below in my Safeway story. The law forbids behavior that in that example that would interfere with someones right to access a public place. By singling out someone with a racial, sexual or other biased slur the offender has interfered with that right.

[TX-RAT]

33. I vote no

I think freedom of speech covers it all. Just like John Rocker, although i disagree with what he said, he has every right to say it. Just remember we are judged by ever thing we say and do.

[JimmyJazz]

34. no but "bushspeak" should - check this out

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/

[Endangered Specie]

37. Just No... period, comma, exclamation point.

All hate speech, including unpopular rude and utterly offensive speech is protected.

Imagine if Freepers were in charge and declared what we say against W and Repo's "Hate Speech"

[kayell]

42. No, unless it is inciting to violence, but

hate speakers should be publicly ostracized.

[Selwynn]

44. Absolutely not! For one, who decides what is and isn't hate speech?

Speech I don't like, that's the price I pay for my right to say what I believe is right freely.

[MontecitoDem]

45. I voted OTHER

because it's NO, but without the knuckle-sandwich!

[The Straight Story]

46. What is hate speech?

Not sure I have a full legal/moral understanding of what 'hate' speech is and who morally decides it is hateful.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Yes, if it reaches the point of intimadation or violence.

I'm a very big fan of free speech. But, I remember seeing small black girls surrounded by a mob of whites shouting racial slurs at them.

Free Speech? I think not.

[kiahzero]

58. That was almost certainly assault

The thing about 'hate speech' laws is that they are generally not necessary - any egregious act you would want to prosecute using them would almost certainly involve committing some other crime.

[mr_du04]

52. I say a BIG NO

because the pukes could try to twist it against us.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

56. Does anyone like

The idea of judges being judges, not the executors of the will of the cops and DAs?

All sentencing enhancements just feed Prisons, Inc. The "kingpin" statute is a domestic holocaust.

A judge is supposed to determine whether the person before him is a person who made a mistake or a violent, racist scumbag who is likely to commit more crimes. Now judges have no choice but to "throw the book" at anyone because almost every situation has an "enhancement" on it, unless the defendant is rich and white.

I don't consider myself a democrat anymore (I still vote democratic) because of Bill Clinton and Gray Davis playing into the hands of the police.

We wonder why the poor support Republicans? Because Republicans say they are anti-government. The only government the poor know directly are cops and DAs, and the only thing cops and DAs do is lie to advance their careers, destroying lives in the process.