15 Likes
Except the Alien and Sedition Act was used, in practice, to prosecute people for intimidation of others for their association with a group. That falls under the contemporary definition as hate speech.
Huh? There are currently Federal and State laws against hate speech. They’ve been tested and (as the one you linked to) refined in order to keep not be overbroad, but very much valid.
10 Likes
My guess is he was going for Thomas Smith, from Man in the High Castle.
Unfortunately, he nailed it.
5 Likes
I was going to say the same thing… Attempt to be clever “Its not a Nazi symbol…” or the exact opposite of clever? Tough call…
(or a flipped photo)
1 Like
No, that’s not correct. You are conflating hate crime legislation with restrictions on hate speech. They most definitely aren’t the same thing.
Hate crime legislation usually enhances the punishment for some existing crime if it is motivated by certain racial/religious/ethnic bias or animus. For example, beating someone up is a crime, and if you do it because you specifically wanted to beat up a Jewish person, that could be a hate crime. Vandalism is a crime, and spray painting racial slurs on a family’s home may be a hate crime.
Look at the hate speech entry on Wikipedia or go to the ACLU website or look at a con law textbook, they’ll all show that the 1A does not have an exception for “hate speech”.
Read RAV and Phelps, they explain pretty clearly.
Read the statute. Intimidation includes speech and expression, and includes acts like burning a cross in someone’s yard. They can be stand-alone violations.
3 Likes
Unless one happens to be a Muslim.
Consider the difference in treatment between Muslims who declare an intention to forcefully oppose Western imperialism vs white Americans who declare an intention to subjugate non-White people.
10 Likes
I’m sorry, but you didn’t read RAV which addresses exactly what you’re raising & explains why a hate speech restriction was unconstitutional but other methods were available to the state. Here, take a look: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul - Wikipedia
Honestly, I’m not trying to be difficult, but this is just relatively clear caselaw.
ETA: I understand that these discussions are often proxies for a different discussion. The question of whether hate speech is restricted is a stand-in for the question of whether hate speech should be restricted. I also understand that a lot of folks (probably a majority or plurality on BB) would prefer that hate speech be restricted, but that isn’t the same thing as acknowledging what the law actually is.
That’s a fantastic illustration of exactly why I don’t want the state to have the power to restrict unpopular and/or unpleasant speech. That’s why I donate to the ACLU every year, because they do the hard work of safeguarding these rights. Perhaps you disagree, but I most definitely don’t want Donald Trump to have the power to declare something “hate speech” and therefore subject to restriction.
There wouldn’t be Federal laws against hate speech if all Hate Speech laws were unconstitutional.
7 Likes
Hi, former high school teacher here.
Yes, good principals patrol the hallways in between classes. They’re not a figurehead; they help to enforce the rules.
They are responsible for anything that might go wrong at the school. If it’s anything that is beyond their normal control, they are judged by the decisions that they make.
I know of one principal who was reassigned due to low teacher morale. Parents were out of control and teachers felt unsupported. It spilled over during the school’s accreditation time, and adversely affected the score by the visiting committee. The principal was held accountable even though she had no control over parental feedback given to the committee.
Happens ALL.THE.TIME.
8 Likes
Bullshit I didn’t. Did you?
First off, Scalia, which means the ruling starts off on the wrong side of the bed. Second, the ruling doesn’t state that the problem with the law was that it limited hate speech, but that the state had other means to prosecute the perpetrators. Thirdly, the ruling doesn’t have a problem with limiting speech, it states that the problem is when the law chooses sides in determining what is and isn’t hate speech.
Finally, if the case law is so clear, explain Virginia vs. Black which upheld a similar law as long as it was provable that intimidation was intended.
7 Likes
“Hey, bruh, I’m just Buddhist, fam.”
Is that the rebuttal?
4 Likes
is the reversal in this case a flipped image or ignorance?
even the reverse swastika is mostly wrecked. many temples have removed them.
not to mention how wrecked that mustache style is.
most sane people don’t want to be within a thousand miles of even the remote possibility of the appearance of being associated with the nazis, for very good reason.
6 Likes
Exactly. That’s one of the reasons the statute that focused on the speech element impermissible. (also, the decision was 9-0, which should tell you something)
Yes, that’s precisely why the “hate speech” ordinances are almost certain to fail. Because they “choose sides” in what types of speech are permissible. That’s the point.
Friend, Virginia demonstrates the opposite proposition of what you intend here. First of all, Virginia struck down the statute, it didn’t uphold it. It did, however, make clear that the state could criminalize cross-burning IF the state could demonstrate the specific intent to intimidate, which would take it to the category of a “true threat” and therefore unprotected under 1A. Just like in RAV, it is the threat of intimidation which is permissible to restrict, not “hate speech” in any general sense. Phelps an Matal go on to reiterate these principles and make clear that there is NO exception under the 1A for “hate speech”
That’s very…true? Ok, now which federal law against hate speech are you referring to, keeping in mind that hate speech laws are not the same thing as hate crime laws?
or a fallacy? hate speech on all “sides” can be illegal, against any group or people.
no need to allow one side while blocking another. that there are two sides and both are hate speeching each other is a false dichotomy that doesn’t exist in reality. hate speech is more often from one problem group to anyone outside their close minded comfort zone.
that a lot of qualms and stipulations they didn’t feel necessary to tack on, on the last flag burning vote…
6 Likes
I don’t follow. Flag burning is protected speech. Some fools want to amend the Constitution to change that, but that’s not the law.
2 Likes
These kids keep trying to one-up each other to be more “shocking”. What’s next, wearing a Nazi uniform and blackface simulaniously? Throw in a MAGA hat and pro-life fake tattoo for extra attention.
Seeing young people do this kind of thing is a bit demoralizing, I kind of hold out hope that the youth are more progressive. But I guess if they are immersed in blatant racism by enough of their elders and peers, its not surprising to see the cycle repeat itself ad nauseum.
4 Likes
that bit was just me pondering out loud about the discrepancy in the need to add intent stipulations on cross burning vs all the arguments against such stipulation when they were trying to outlaw flag burning, it wasn’t really a point, more just an observation.
it’s the other bit that’s the important point, hate speech isn’t a both sides issue, and can be stopped against all groups.
3 Likes
Sure it can be, just not under the First Amendment as we know it. The wisdom of such a step is a much different question than whether or not “hate speech” is, in fact, protected speech under the First Amendment in this country. (it is)
that’s not correct.
outlawing hate speech isn’t incompatible with protected free speech under the first amendment.
in the usa, we have many many examples of types of criminalized speech: one can’t threaten another individual, one can’t insight public violence or a mob, one can’t insight public panic (scream fire in a theater), one can’t threaten the president, one can’t make prank calls to emergency services, one can’t claim to be a law enforcement office, one can’t slander non public figures, and on and on and on and on and on.
the first amendment protections don’t preclude such…nor was protecting such its intent…curious where you heard otherwise?
6 Likes
