to engage in behavior which elicits fear amongst other college students and creates an environment where intimidating rallies and protests occur against a specific group of people." "Let this piece serve as a calling for administrators, faculty members and students to look at their campus laws and policies to ensure that protests and rallies may occur, but only if they are contained so as to not forecast threats toward other students on campus."
And it's pretty clear that the author -- a commentator at the University of Connecticut student newspaper -- isn't just speaking of speech that itself contains threats against certain people. Rather, in his view, even "draw[ings of] allusions to the extreme suffering of millions of innocent people," "drawing[s of] symbols on campus which excuse horrendous human rights violations against enslaved blacks," and similar "menacing and threatening" expression needs to be banned, presumably because it constitutes "targeted hate speech against an entire group of people."
"Regardless as to which group is targeted, let us call out professors who abuse their position of power to utter reckless and incendiary comments. Let us work together to curb events which demonize people for their religion, race, ethnicity and other attributes." And in context, it's clear that he's talking about coercive suppression of speech by universities, not just "call[ing] out" through counterspeech, or "curb[ing]" through public condemnation. Oh, yes, and jurors who take the opposite view are "pinheads."
The particular speech that Mr. Tarr is focusing on is anti-Semitic speech, but naturally his rationale applies to whatever other speech can be characterized by university administrators as "intimidating" or "excus[ing] horrendous human rights violations" or "demoniz[ing of] people for their ... attributes."
You can make the same point by posting an opinion piece criticizing the ACLU, but why do it? All you've accomplished is made this wrongheaded speaker's day.
In 2006, he wrote the following in an op-ed entitled Minimum Wage Makes Minimum Sense, supporting Romney's overidden veto of an increase to the Massachusetts minimum wage and concluding:
The op-ed appeared in a publication called Inpolitically Correct, whose mission statement reads
Oh, well, so much for that!
Next we can start expelling large groups of students for their chants about the opposing team during the big game.
Nick
I guess that is a good example why hate speech laws are always bad laws. I think one can derive a hard line at specific threats (i.e. free speech does NOT allow me to extort money from you under vague threats of bodily harm and then claim it was protected speech), but regulation of hate speech beyond the either such a threat or an intent to create imminent lawlessness should be protected, as per Brandenburg v. Ohio
Drawling swastikas on the door to a student's dorm room sounds pretty threatening to me.
I'm not quite sure what "draw[ings of] allusions to the extreme suffering of millions of innocent people," "drawing[s of] symbols on campus which excuse horrendous human rights violations against enslaved blacks," means, but if he's referring to depicting say lynching scenes on a black student's door, I'd say that's a threat.
Well, darn.
There goes VMI's rat line
Geez. What's his problem with jurors?
Kids. Go figure. If he thinks he's got a problem with dissenting opinion now, wait until he grows up and leaves the campus playpen.
(Google: George Washington University swastika 2007)
Of course, it doesn't matter if it was a hoax or not. Its foolish to limit speech. There is real anti-semitism and racism in the world. Tough cookies. Free speech is precious.
Thus, if there were intent to intimidate, pasting a swastika on someone's door might be construed as a graver offence than vandalism or trespass.
Mere words, whether in print or verbal, cannot be criminal unles there were an immediate threat, though.
Is this correct?
However, on the hate speech side, I don't think you can draw the line at fear and intimidation without more specificity than that. I think you have to draw the line at specific threats of imminent lawless action. If I start handing out copies of Mein Kampf (or, for that matter, the Alhambra Decree and say "We should do that here") at a university, that really ought to be protected in itself just as it would be with the Communist Manifest, or any other political work.
If there is an attempt to intimidate a specific individual, that is one thing that really should be taken action against. If there is a plot to target a specific group would physical violence or other lawless activity that is also something I support preventing. However, unless an action rises to these levels, people need to chill out a bit.
It seems that R.A.V. v. City of Saint Paul closed the door quite firmly on these kinds of laws. I can't see any reason why the current Court would overrule it, but that might make me naive. Aside from the standard appeal to what's "right," am I missing something?
I thought Virginia v. Black turned on the Court's characterization of cross-burning as a "true threat" (at least on the facts of the case) and not on specific intent to intimidate, although specific intent may have been an element of a true threat.
I agree that vandalism is actionable as such, but I disagree that the article focuses on threats. Although the author does mention some incidents that could be "true threats," he seems concerned with speech that some students may find threatening, i.e., ostracized or hated. This is different from the true threats of violence in Virginia v. Black. So I don't think intent to intimidate is enough; from what I remember, the circumstances must indicate a credible threat of violence.
In short, in that case, I thought that the issue was fairly clearly the fact that the state supreme court failed to properly apply Brandenburg and SCOTUS was just telling them this.
In other words, the state can ban acts of intimidation, but not abstract expression (fairly close to the ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio). Although the phrase "intent to intimidate" appears in the majority opinion, this seems qualified by the overall emphasis on true threats.
So in the end, I have to agree with Alligator.
Laws? We don't need no steenking laws!
A number of states have already set up kangaroo "human rights commissions" based on the Canadian models, which have as their mission banning "offensive" speech. There is no case law, no statutes to follow, just a bunch of leftists finding the rightwingers guilty of "offending" approved victim groups. Add that to the dominant PC culture on nearly every university in the country, where "offending" precisely the same groups can be punished all the way up to expulsion. No legalism necessary.
The only thing Orwell got wrong was the date.
Well, it depends on who is doing the limiting. If it the government, or a gov't sponsored organization, then it cannot and should not limit any speech, unless it crosses into the realm of true threats or vandalism.
If it is not a gov't sponsored organization, such as a private college, then it can certainly limit speech as a condition of enrollment. Whether it should or should not is an issue best left to people other than me, I'll concede.
As for the students, I think they are a bit confused. I think that they are basically asking for basic civility from everyone, which is something that I whole heartedly agree with. You might have free speech in a legal sense, but one thing that you need to learn in college is what is or isn't acceptable in polite society. Or at least, that is what I hope students might learn. You might have a right to call your neighbor all sorts of bad names, but whether it is wise might be another matter.
The newspaper should have framed the issue as a civility matter, and a learning experience, that the world is filled with all sorts of people you might disagree with or dislike, but if you want respect from them, then you should show respect towards them as well. Good manners and politeness are something that are sorely lacking in our society, and perhaps if we had a little more of it, we might not have such anger.
But then, I wish women knew that elbow length gloves are only for formal occasions. And who wears hats anymore?!
Is a society which tells people are afraid of these things to "deal with it" thereby an intolerant society?
Is a society which tells people are afraid of these things to "deal with it" thereby an intolerant society? Why not?
Is the student really arguing about fear in general, or only fear in people or for reasons that he happens to like? If the latter, what's fear got to do with it?
Suggest dealing with the first-hand matters.