You seem to think that “hate speech” is some well defined set of words that don’t deserve constitutional protection. That’s not what the courts have said. Unless you are talking about a very narrow set of circumstances (imminent threats targeted at specific individuals), then the constitution protects even the most vile speech.
My argument is that the government should not be punishing people for speech that the government doesn’t like.
How about injurious speech in a protected environment?
Listen, I’m tagging in other, more well spoken peeps so they can continue with you. I’m stepping out for a moment, although I’ll be back later to continue if you want.
Eh… That’s true and I recognize the immutability angle as salient. But it’s really beside the point - hate speech against someone who can change groups doesn’t really cease to be hate speech. That’s why I previously brought up the Jewish example - before it was flagged.
The Third Reich approach was more aimed at the racial aspect, but historically antisemitism in Europe had a very long tradition of oppression, pogroms and other assorted niceties - which the Jews could easily escape simply by converting to Christianity. They could just choose to stop being oppressed: By abandoning their culture and creed and (subjectively) betraying their allegiance to God. But I assume you’d agree that this possibility of escape didn’t make the pogroms ok.
Killing people is never okay. And I’m not exactly sure punishing the kids in this situation is necessarily correct. Suspension is useful in that it removes caustic bigotry from the school for a while. It helps protect those wronged. I’d also be interested in teaching these kids a lesson in compassion. Perhaps take away their senior year project choices and requiring them to do community service instead.
While the message is different (drug legalization vs racism), the tool of punishing disruptive speech is the same.
I missed that language in Morse. And so did everyone else.
You don’t seem to understand.
I’m sorry that you don’t understand.
Sure, if the threat is imminent and specific, then it wouldn’t be protected. But that’s a very limited set of circumstances. Brandenburg v. Ohio set a very high bar, and nothing these students did comes anywhere close.
Well… that’s where the specific details come in. The bigotry didn’t really take place “in the school” as far as I understand the facts of the case. It was a pic on the internet, never intended for mass viewing. So there are also no specific wronged individuals. And I have serious doubts this will teach the punished any compassion - most likely it will, if anything, internally harden them in their convictions.
Some response is in order. But I think it should be more along the lines of a thorough explanation of the wrongness of the action and of the negative effects such statements and attitudes have on the school environment and minority students.
Can you lay out why you think that “hate speech” is somehow less protected than other speech? Is there a case you would like to cite?
Some girls engaged in inappropriate behavior at a school function where they spelled out a racist slur using their shirts, then Instagrammed it. The Instagram was reported to the school. The girls got a one day suspension. This is now over. Are you trying to say that their one day suspension was wrong and High School students must be permitted to be openly racist with impunity? It seems like you’re saying that High School students are entitled to express racism as a Free Speech right, are you really saying that?
Oh, you want to cry. He won’t even tell his dearest loved ones what his handle means.
+1 internets taco for you sir!
That’s called shifting the burden of proof counselor and no.
They did not instagram it, they snapchatted it. Thinking it will disappear in 24 hours and (I assume) intending to share it only with their personal friends. Then it accidentally got out.
That’s what the whole situation hinges on for me - there doesn’t seem to be any real intent to offend or bully anyone. It was just a private joke of a bunch of racist, to be shared with other members of the group.
Had they done this as a statement at the function, posing with the t-shirts in a way that would prominently display the word for everyone to see, or proudly posting the photo to facebook, it would be different. It would be in effect an act of intimidation and bullying towards others and the school would be required to move against them. But as it stands, the whole incident feels but a degree above cracking racist jokes in private. And to me, punishing that is too close to thought-crime territory. You can’t legislate against people being bigots.
Yes, you’re right.
So since they engaged in inappropriate behavior at a school function and would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddling [whoever] reporting it, there should be no takes-backsies in your opinion. I don’t have an opinion on that matter other than that I can’t comprehend why you’d be spilling so many words about how terrible it is that some kids got a one day suspension for getting caught engaged in inappropriate behavior when they tried to cover their tracks and failed. It’s just beyond my comprehension that you’d care.
I’ve never seen anyone use the expression “I’m not a racist” who wasn’t espousing racist rhetoric or defending those who do.
User is claiming the photo was “accidentally” released, however some friend of theirs clearly shared it with the world. It’s not “oooops! this reached the mainstream media” one of their peers shared it as notably interesting for some reason. Sure they didn’t intended to use school photo day to create a conversation on racism… but they did.
