This page was created by Matthew Cantrell,
a Web-based Master's Degree student in the Department
of Criminal
Justice,
New
Mexico State University. This web page was
submitted in August 2003 as partial fullfillment of
the requirements
of CJ 532, Civil Liberties
in Criminal
Justice.
Introduction
Hate speech is
one of the most highly controversial topics of our time. It
is thought of by many as either a byproduct of freedom
or a direct result of freedom. For
those who have a derogatory message to send then it is
a direct result of their freedom. Likewise, for those whom the message was
intended and others who are offended by the message then
it is considered a byproduct of freedom. The
Constitution’s First
Amendment protects most forms of speech and hate speech
is one of them. Hate
speech is, and must remain protected in order to keep all
other forms of communication free. The First Amendment’s protection makes
the United States a safe haven used by foreign hate groups
to send their message from within America’s boarders to
anywhere in the world. Due to the fact that many countries do
not have the same level of personal freedoms. Hate
speech is defined as, “Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a
social or ethnic group or a member of such a group” (Dictionary.com,
no date). Hate
speech and many other forms of communication are protected by the First Amendment. Through the years, the courts have interpreted
the First Amendment rights very broadly through cases like Thomas
v. Chicago Park, and Crawford
v. Britton. The
Supreme Court views hate speech as a person’s right to
speak about whatever issues they choose, no matter how
offensive the topic. The only restriction the Supreme Court has indicated is whether
that speech advocates violence or not. Therefore, the only forms of speech that are not protected are any communications
that advocate violence against another group, and any speech
that would put people in unnecessary danger. The court made this clear with “Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, the Supreme Court
held that speech may not be suppressed or punished unless
it is intended to "produce imminent lawless action" and it is "likely to produce such action." The
defendant in Brandenburg was
a member of the Ku Klux Klan and was being prosecuted under
the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act for his participation
in a Ku Klux Klan rally” (Stewart, no date). Another
example is it would be unlawful to enter a movie theater
and yell fire if there was no fire. The court upheld this as recently as
this year in a case involving a civilian woman working
on an Air Force base that reported a fictitious bomb threat
closing down the base for many hours. She
received a light prison sentence with an $800,000.00 fine
in punitive damages.
In most other
countries it is illegal to say or physically express yourself
in a manor that offends, threatens another, or advocates
dislike or violence against another or the government. For
example, the slogan "kill the farmer, kill the Boer," used
by some black nationalists during the fight to overthrow
apartheid, was ruled as hate speech by South Africa's human
rights body. The
main difference between the United State’s courts and other
countries justice systems is that their courts not only
rule on criminal issues but also moral issues. Even
America’s neighbors to the north and south do not have
the same level of freedom of speech, and have some level
of hate laws in place.
The United States has become
a refuge for those in foreign countries whose governments
have anti-hate speech laws. America’s free speech laws make it permissible
for these groups to base their operations from within America’s
borders and spread their message of hate, via the Internet,
to any where in the world. This
has become a problem for much of Europe since they have
hate speech laws throughout the region. The Council
of Europe (COE) was conceived to deal with Internet
crimes such as virus attacks, racist websites, and website
hacking. The COE wrote a treaty that
has been signed by 12 counties so far, including the United
States, to put a stop the hate websites. The
Council said in its report on the new protocol, “that it
is a necessary response to the fact that the emergence
of international communication networks like the Internet
provides certain persons with modern and powerful means
to support racism and xenophobia and enables them to disseminate
easily and widely expressions containing such ideas.” (Ramasastry,
2003). However, there is no legal precedent
to indicate the US could ever up hold such a treaty. It would be a violation of the hate groups’ First Amendment
rights to silence their voice.
Many believe
that the US should start to limit the First Amendments
protection by making hate speech and other expression like
burning the flag illegal. These
issues continue to confront the Supreme Court with the
court consistently upholding a broad interpretation of
the First Amendment. The court’s view is equal protection
for all. If
the Constitution permits a man-of-god to preach about love
in a public or private place then it must also allow anyone
else the right to preach hate. The court further says that we have the freedom to either
listen to that message or not, by walking away, changing
the channel, or not visiting a particular web site. It
is not the court’s place to judge what is moral but only
what is fair and just for all. In order for the government
to regulate the content of speech, there must be a compelling
state interest and such regulation must be narrowly drawn
to meet that interest. Because
strict scrutiny applies, government regulations of speech
content are likely to be held invalid. The only way
to end hate speech is to change the hearts and minds of
people around the globe. As Americans, it is our obligation to
the freedom of speech, to ensure that hate speech and other
form of obscene expression stay legal. If
the courts start ruling that hate speech is illegal then
where will it stop. Once the court has opened the door making
precedents for the banning of free expression then what
is next, art work, the Internet, or books? The
bottom line is that hate speech is protected so that we
all can have fee speech.
Hate Speech on the Internet
Articles describing hate websites and
the growing numbers of hate sites on the Internet.
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/forgottenfires/hate_a4.html
Websites to report hate crimes on-line.
http://hate-crime.website-works.com/
http://fbi.gov
A paper about hate speech on the Internet.
http://gsulaw.gsu.edu/lawand/papers/su01/stewart/
Other issues facing the freedom of speech (non-hate speech)
An
Article describing a corporation’s
right to lie.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm
Articles from the
ACLU on various issues about hate speech and more.
http://www.aclu.org
Supreme Court case law Virginia v. Black,
a recent case banning some types of cross burning. This also helps explain the courts view of the First Amendment.
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20030417_chemerinsky.html
Hate crime statistics.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/98hate.pdf
Hate
speech around the globe
How hate speech affects other countries
across the Internet.
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/10/1314258.shtml
United Nations Concerns
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38abb59f741b.htm
An article from
a woman raised in Pakistan praising the freedoms of the
United States because it is
so different from what she experienced as a child.
http://www.newexpression.org/feb02/loveusa.html
Hate
speech according to Spain’s Constitution
http://www.ddp.unipi.it/dipartimento/seminari/brisbane/Brisbane-Spagna.pdf
How to deal with hate speech
An Article for school
administrators to handle hate speech on college campuses.
http://www.adl.org/campus/guide/free%5Fspeech.asp
Help kids deal with hate speech
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a163929.htm
Constitutional
and Legal Issues
The American Bar
Association website that has many full length articles
about the freedom of speech
and hate speech.
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth/sia/debate_hate.html
Hate crime legislation
in your state.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/hatecrimes980611.html
Supreme Court cases on hate speech
and the evolvement of the First Amendment
Adickes
v. S. H. Kress & CO.
a case that involved racism
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/398/144.html
Good
News Club v. Milford Central School a case about
the equal use of school property
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/533/98.html
Boy
Scouts Of America v. Dale a case about a Scout Master and
homosexuality.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/530/640.html
References Dictionary.com (no date, no copyright)
definition of hate speech
29
July 2003 URL: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hate%20speech
Ramasastry,
Anita (Feb. 05, 2003, no copyright) Can
Europe Block Racist Websites from its Borders?
29
July 2003 URL:
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20030205.html
Stewart, Brooke (no date, no copyright)
Hate Speech On The Internet
29
July 2003 URL:
http://gsulaw.gsu.edu/lawand/papers/su01/stewart/
|
