The resolution contains boilerplate from previous resolutions, exposing its true purpose. My blog post “Freedom of Opinion and Expression”,includes a list of previous posts which contain some of the details.

Rich Rostrom: Second, there is no chance whatever of the Covenant ever being applied to the corrupt dictatorships, terrorism supporters, political demagogues, and pseudo-religious fascists that are the main emitters of “hate speech”. It is very likely to be used against honest critics of Islamic culture; it will never be used against the government of Syria for publishing the blood libel against Jews.

You do realise the Covenant, i.e. the ICCPR, and its brother the ICESCR, have been around for several decades already? They have nothing to do with the Human Rights Council and are not, on the whole, the topic of conversation here.

Second, there is no chance whatever of the Covenant ever being applied to the corrupt dictatorships, terrorism supporters, political demagogues, and pseudo-religious fascists that are the main emitters of “hate speech”. It is very likely to be used against honest critics of Islamic culture; it will never be used against the government of Syria for publishing the blood libel against Jews.

It will deform and weaken the societies of many countries which do not have robust civil liberties. It will do nothing to detoxify the hate-filled societies which spawn terrorism.

pablo panadero: With many on the Supreme Court willing to cite “international law” as a foundation of their decisions, this is merely the back door to imposing this restriction of liberty on US citizens.

I agree reference to foreign law has no place in First Amendment jurisprudence in the U.S. Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s decisions that refer to the practices of other countries in outlawing obscenity (Miller v. U.S., IIRC made such an explicit reference) should be revisited.

It’s true! I saw speculation about it on some rightwing website someplace.

Northern Dave: Correct me if I’ve got the summary wrong, but isn’t it part of the Official Summary of H.R.262 that:“Requires the head of each federal agency to establish prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation programs and services relating to hate crimes for employees.”I’m trying to see how this in combination with support of the HRC resolution in question would apply to some wee Southern Baptist Tresury Bookeeper who refused to agree that all systems of thought were equally valid. Would she be sent to a re-education center? Who gets to determine the curriculum?……..I guess I’m trying to get a handle on the package.(Currently here in Canada there seems to be a stepping away from the brink: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hate-speech-law-violates-charter-rights-tribunal-rules/article1273956/)

I would guess they think this resolution would give them the legal imprimatur to force the “rehabilitation” of any individual guilty of “hate” speech (i.e., any speech counter to their agenda). For some reason, it doesn’t surprise me any that this administration would jump on board something like this.

Montjoie: I’m pretty sure I’ve seen case law holding that a treaty that violates Americans’ Constitutional rights is void. Maybe time to pull that one out again? I don’t have the cite at my fingertips, though.

Here’s the findlaw annotation on the matter, including plenty of case law.

LOL – I dare say Professor Volokh just coined a great new term.

Well, no.

Joe: Future liberal academics and judges will cite resolutions like this to claim the existence of a “compelling interest” in banning “hate speech” that overrides free speech rights.Cf. Roberts v. Jaycees (1984) (Supreme Court held that compelling interest in eradicating discrimination overrode First Amendment freedom of expressive association); Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S. (holding that consensus against racial discrimination created compelling interest that overrode college’s First Amendment rights); but see Boy Scouts v. Dale (2000) (5-to-4 ruling refusing to allow state interest in discrimination to override freedom of expressive association).The problem with that is that the definitions of hate speech employed by international bodies, UN agencies, and Third World judiciaries are grossly overbroad.Worse, “hate speech” laws are commonly used in Third World countries to suppress advocacy of the rights of ethnic and linguistic minority groups.In practice, hate speech laws are used in most of the world to silence dissent, not protect vulnerable minorities.

I thought the problem with those activist judges was that they vote their policy preferences regardless of whether they have any legal excuse to do so? In that case, how would this resolution make things worse? If there are five votes on the Supreme Court to exempt hate speech from first amendment protection, they don’t need a UN HRC resolution to give them an excuse, they can just make up the exception out of whole cloth, like they did with all the other exceptions. Given the power of the US Supreme Court, there’s very little that can restrain them if five of them agree.

This draft resolution is full of good things, but it is not law. And it’s not meant to be, either. The “hate speech” line that EV quoted (scare quotes because I’m not sure that hate speech is the best way to describe it) is to be applied in the context of the constitutional tradition of every state. In Saudi-Arabia, you get caned for insulting Mohammed, in the US you get a strongly worded editorial in the New York Times.

[Also, at this early hour I totally read "deranged lobster of the discourse." It was a pretty awesome half a second before I corrected.]

Relic: Hate to break it to you, but requiring a protest permit,and limiting the protest’s reach isn’t a new thing.

Never said otherwise, so no need to regret breaking the news. Rather, I was amused that a commenter felt that “free speech zones” were some kind of leftist ploy and was seemingly oblivious to the widespread use of such zones by the Secret Service under the Bush Administration.

Mithras: So what’s the point of this post? Volokh: “Maybe I can gin up a fake controversy like Bernstein did about that HRW guy.”

I daresay the good professor has been invaded with the spirit of Glenn Beck, that deranged destroyer of the discourse. To the stakes! To the kindling! To the Star Chamber!