From a UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center study titled Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio:
Types of Hate SpeechWhat a definition! And this is their example:We identified four types of speech that, through negative statements, create a climate of hate and prejudice: (1) false facts [including "simple falsehoods, exaggerated statements, or decontextualized facts [that] rendered the statements misleading"], (2) flawed argumentation, (3) divisive language, and (4) dehumanizing metaphors (table 1).
Table 1. Analysis of Hate Speech from The John & Ken ShowEXAMPLE
“And this is all under the Gavin Newsom administration and the Gavin Newsom policy in San Francisco of letting underage illegal alien criminals loose” (from the July 21, 2008, broadcast).TARGETS
Vulnerable group: foreign nationals (undocumented people).
Social institutions: policy and political organizations (city policy and mayor’s office).FALSE FACTS
The sanctuary policy preceded Gavin Newsom’s tenure as San Francisco’s mayor, and neither Newsom nor the sanctuary policy supports “letting underage illegal alien criminals loose.”FLAWED ARGUMENTATION
Guilt by association is used to make the hosts’ point. Undocumented youth and those who are perceived as their endorsers at the institutional level are stigmatized by being associated with criminality.DIVISIVE LANGUAGE
Criminalized undocumented youth and their perceived validators (Gavin Newsom and the sanctuary policy) are depicted as a threat to San Francisco citizens, setting up an “us versus them” opposition.ANALYSIS The language depicts the hosts’ targets (undocumented people, city policy, and Mayor Gavin Newsom) as dangerous, criminal, and collusive. In addition, the focus of that policy (undocumented people) becomes reduced to “underage illegal alien criminals.”
So describing a policy as involving "letting underage illegal alien criminals loose" is now "hate speech" aimed not just at underage illegal alien criminals but at all "illegal alien[s]." The vagueness and potential breadth of the phrase "hate speech" is a pretty substantial reason -- though just one among many -- to resist the calls for a "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment. And the vagueness and potential breadth is also a reason to be skeptical of uses of the phrase even outside the law: It's very easy to define "hate speech" as you like (or leave it undefined, as some arguments do), and use it to condemn people who express a wide range of views that you disapprove of.
The National Hispanic Media Coalition seems to be using the study to buttress its call for an FCC investigation into "hate speech" against Hispanics. The NHMC asserts that it's not calling for restrictions on such speech or reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, but only wants the FCC to "collect[] ... information and data about hate speech in the media." Bt just on the page before it sys that "hate speech undermines the public interest," and that "hate speech that contains false and misleading information" could violate the FCC policy against "rigging or slanting the news." Such policy violations may lead to a station's losing its license, as would a finding that the station is disserving the public interest.
Even more likely, such findings (or likely future findings) by the FCC will often lead to a station's feeling pressured to stop such supposedly "misleading" "hate speech" in order to avoid even a modest risk of losing its license and thus losing its shareholders' investment. Given the degree to which "hate speech" has become a term in the legal debate and not just in discussions of morality or media ethics, labeling speech (especially speech on licensed broadcasters) as "hate speech" can trigger legal regulation and not just public condemnation.
Note, incidentally, that illegal entry into the U.S. is generally itself a federal crime, though usually a misdemeanor, and one that a minor may have a defense to if he is young enough when he enters; perhaps the radio broadcasters were making the claim that most illegal aliens are criminals simply by virtue of their illegal entry. Or perhaps not -- the study offers no context for the quote that can help readers see whether its critique of the quote is right, or whether the quote is itself a "decontextualized fact" that might paint a misleading picture of what the speakers were saying.
Example story
So the reference to the illegal immigrants being "criminals" referred to gang activities, not their status as illegal immigrants.
Gee, now I am guilty of hate speech too--because that is a statement of opinion and there is probably at least one member of the National Hispanic Media Coaltion who has a room temperature IQ.
Please. This is the kind of twaddle we must all fight.
For some reason I am reminded of the scene from Monty Python and Holy Grail:
The sanctuary policy preceded Gavin Newsom’s tenure as San Francisco’s mayor,
Half-truth. The policy did precede Newsom's tenure, but Mayor Newsom "publicly reaffirmed The City’s sanctuary policy" and his office helped to develop a media campaign to increase awareness among illegal aliens of the city's sanctuary policy.
and neither Newsom nor the sanctuary policy supports “letting underage illegal alien criminals loose.”
False. "San Francisco's juvenile justice system shielded young illegal immigrant felons from possible deportation" "under what authorities now concede was a misinterpretation of the sanctuary law." Furthermore, Mayor Gavin Newsom's office "gave grants totaling more than $650,000 to nonprofit agencies to provide the underage offenders with free services - everything from immigration attorneys to housing assistance to "arts and cultural affirmation activities," city records show."
Criminalized undocumented youth and their perceived validators (Gavin Newsom and the sanctuary policy) are depicted as a threat to San Francisco citizens, setting up an “us versus them” opposition.
It's "divisive" if one is so morally obtuse as to not want to marginalize illegal alien murderers. But John and Ken apparently did want to help the Mayor promote his sanctuary policy with a plan to bus illegal aliens to San Francisco.
ANALYSIS: The language depicts the hosts’ targets (undocumented people, city policy, and Mayor Gavin Newsom) as dangerous, criminal, and collusive.
Apparently that qualifies as insightful analysis at the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center.
idiotsdemocrats who have never wasted an opportunity to shower public monies on "oppressed" peoples in order to buy future votes - can't help themselves. They are like children, and can not be expected to do responsible things.This is why they want the "Fairness Doctrine"--to shut up anyone who is making sense and speaking truth to power.
Within the Hispanic community of those born here [Chicanos] one finds seething hatred of most of the others. Now that's something that should be studied at UCLA, not talk radio.
Uhg.
Progressives long ago made the pretentious phrase "speaking truth to power" tedious via endless repetition. Do conservatives really want to start using it too?
Just wondering.
Also, everyone who disagrees me on anything almost certainly does so on the basis of false facts and flawed argumentation, so if they're at all insistent it's probably hate speech...
Do blacks attack white because of hate speech on commercial talk radio?
The honest guy opposes it. His political opponent says,"MY opponent favors hate speech."
If you oppose VAWA, you favor violence against women.
To oppose this kind of campaigning requires an educated populace.
So a third grader of my acquaintance was referring to presidents. The worst we ever had were the Bushes, she claimed.
She's scary bright, which isn't the same as educated, and her parents are teachers. Not to mention being exposed to public school six hours a day.
So this kind of campaigning wins.
We'll see flexible hate speech laws within ten years, sooner if Canada's speech police survive current scrutiny, which they probably will.
What sanctions should John &Ken undergo to prevent more hate speech?
Having their tounges removed.
Imprisonment for life in a supermax.
Death.
For those in the Race, Everything! For those outside the Race, Nothing!
Ironically, you can't fire them for saying stupid things...
The same reason every major state school has a host of angry studies departments, because those universities found that, shockingly, when they let in a bunch people who weren't otherwise qualified solely because of their skin color, that many of those people weren't capable of competing with their peers in real fields of study. The schools set up the angry studies programs to bolster graduation rates among those who couldn't compete in finance or physics.
This "study" is pretty representative of the quality of the "scholarship" that comes out of these programs.
BerkeleyBettle said:
No, no, no, you're getting it all wrong. The people aren't criminals, they're "criminalized" (the criminalization is something that's happening to them, not a depiction of who they are). It's all because society insists on making silly things like "robbery" and "assault" illegal that these people are criminalized and (apparently unfairly) depicted as a threat to San Francisco citizens.
See -
So it's not all bad.
But they do.
Libs are, by definition, incapable of "hate speech" because libs are incapable of hate. They crap strawberries and puke sunshine, and ride around on unicorns instead of filthy SUVs. All their actions and ideas are of the purest motives. Only conservatives and the unwashed masses use hate speech, because they're not libs.
RE: Now...
...that the Leftists are in power, politically-correct thinks are moving faster than I had expected in terms of making it illegal to criticize people or government officials.
Hitler did the same.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you aren't getting paranoid, you're not paying attention]
RE: Only....
....as much as it will hoist them by their own petard.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[What goes around comes around.....]
Maybe we're a "nation of cowards" when it comes to speaking about race precisely because of "hate speech" definitions like this one?
For that matter, why isn't it "hate speech" when a public official speaks of his constituents as a "nation of cowards"?
I'm stealing that.
I think you mean: nation of
cowardskowtow-ers"As much as I'd like to take credit for inventing the term, I can't, so no need to worry about me coming after you for royalties.
You forgot labor! Hard labor is always great as a teacher. I know we mostly got rid of it in our prisons but for speech violations we should bring it back, I mean the average radio jockey just sits around in front of a mic so they could probably use some labor, for their own health.
RE: FCC Policies
Where can I find that documented? And, in light of how thick that document is likely to be, please cite book/chapter/verse.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. -- William Tecumseh Sherman]
Of course. That's why were gonna have compulsary national service.
"Bush = Hitler" surely qualifies as hate speech.
It consists of false facts - Bush is certainly not Hitler.
It consists of flawed argumentation - Bush's policies are not even remotely close to Hitler's, or those who make the claim would be in concentration camps right now.
It consists of divisive language, pitting those who believe Bush is Hitler against those who do not.
I would think anyone of even average intelligence would see that an anti-hate speech law this broad could easily be used against them. I'm not sure if even something as tame as NPR could survive this form of test.
D
it's all hate.
RE: Don't Forget....
...the bogus documents, i.e., unsigned, unsealed Certificate of Live Birth.
I also found it odd that one could not access the Hawaiian Revised Statutes (HRS) about Birth Certificates on-line during the run-up-to and after the election.
Kept getting 404 errors.
But someone DID capture information about the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth. And it stated that any American citizen could get one. It appeared to me to usually be used for children born to an American citizen outside of the United States or its territories.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
Erm, "The Smirking Chimp"?
How many dollars were wasted on the study of these mountebanks?
AFAIK, that term was coined on KC Johnson's 'Durham in Wonderland' blog referring to the Group of 88 et al. Don't remember who it was, though...
That's where I saw it. Seems to be extremely descriptive in a short phrase.
I think most people look bloody silly in baseball caps. Happily that's only hat speech.
Actually, you are 3/4 of the way to hate speech, so I'm not sure what you're so happy about.
The PC/hate speech brigade seems to have picked up the habit of interpreting descriptions like these as the union of all the different categories. So, they will say that "Islamic fascists" implies all followers of Islam are fascists, when it really just refers to those followers of Islam who are also fascists. (No need to take the conversation off into a discussion of the relationship between Islamic fundamentalism and European-style fascism -- we've done that. It's just an example of this style of argument, and one we've all seen.)
Can we declare a policy of calling people on this kind of thing whenever it comes up? "Underage illegal alien criminals" does NOT mean that all underage people are illegal aliens, or that all illegal aliens are criminals, or that all criminals are underage, or anything else of that nature. It refers only to people who are described by ALL the words in the string.
We identified four types of speech that, through negative statements, create a climate of hate and prejudice: (1) false facts [including "simple falsehoods, exaggerated statements, or decontextualized facts [that] rendered the statements misleading"], (2) flawed argumentation, (3) divisive language, and (4) dehumanizing metaphors (table 1)."
Most of these could be applied to the MSM in every ciscumstance.
All too predictable.
So "Mad Hatter" is 150% of "hate speech", or do I have to count the 3 letter in "Mad" in addition to the 6 letters in "Hatter"?
And, how does "My President is Blank" rate? (does that rate differently than "My President is ____" ?)
The competence in the Leftist Nazi stormtroopers of UCLA is surpassed only by their subtly. That's why no one except a select few can tell how we're totally becoming just like Mugabe's regime.
I mean really wasn't it a book about PC and hate speech laws gone to the extreme.
It would be funny, if it were not so deadly serious. They can have my books when they douse me with gasoline.
James
I beg your pardon: this is a critical factor in selecting staff for "studies" departments*. Going further, if you have to open your mouth to see where you are going, you are material for a chairmanship.
* Wearing a sweatshirt with a picture of the murderer Che gets you diversity points
================================
"Clearly ridicule of these academics is not enough. Only paranoia is the proper response."
Ironically, you can't fire them for saying stupid things..."
Paranoia is good. Even if you're not paranoid, you do have enemies, and idiots in non-technical disciplines are stupid enemies. This makes them seriously dangerous, like participants of a ghost-dance, convinced they are bullet-proof because nobody has the balls to open fire on them. Somehow, academia has sold the world on "academic freedom" being synonomous with irreversible employment. The lie is that the Tyrant will oppress those with thoughts that do not serve the state. However, these characters ARE the tyrant, whose method of dispensing tenure not only does not aid freedom of inquiry but promotes state-sponsored oppression of inquiry. If these were extraordinary people they would of course choose a diversity of viewpoints, but since they are low-IQ trash, they think the cable they leave behind them is "scholarship". The hard science part of the campus does a better job since they produce testable results, which means those with the moxie to produce good grant streams are OK irrespective of the particular political cod-piece they wear. Law Schools and economics departments are somewhat more emotional than the scientists/engineers perhaps, but good ones recognize the probity of inquiry no matter what the consequences, and like a good fight only if followed by cocktails.
In the soft "studies" rackets the imbecilic inbreeding produces the intellectual utility of another consequence of inbreeding, vestigal tails. Not even worth eating....
So a fair question is why do the other real departments tolerate these embarrasments? How about laziness, contempt for taxpayers and contempt for parents-who-pay-the-bills? The only cure for a coven of loons is to fire the bastards for stealing, yet we get nothing because most academics are wiennies. But its not fair to the chicanery studies folks themselves to let them get away with this drivel. Instead of giving chimps lifetime banannas so they can follow you around and snap at you, the prod of unemployment would would force these clowns to forage, thus bringing them to their proper place in "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" (as Darwin elegantly put it). Almost anyone, including a professor of Chicano studies is trainable at some level. Even my parrot can say "would you like fries with that?"
The soft side of campus is a racket anyway. The University has now morphed from its once proper place into a bloated racket that lives off income from real departments and imagined departments alike. Even SCOTUS has recognized that Universities are actually businesses, whatever line they are slinging at the moment. Like any business, they'll sell you condoms open at both ends if you're willing to buy them. The hapless marks who think howler monkey noises are the real currency of intellectualism are turned over and shaken, whether by "Chicano Studies" or any of the other ludicrous "studies" listed in the catalogue of the Division of Funny Walks. These hopelessly unprepared suckers should consider a career in welding: it pays well and you don't have to spend years coming to the realization that you've been played.
Nick
It is worthwhile to understand that "rigging or slanting the news" means essentially "deliberately falsifying the news", ie: intentionally making a false news report. Within The Public and Broadcasting document is a link to another FCC document, Complaints about Broadcast Journalism, which explains this:"Slanting the news" is essentially editorializing. "Knowingly broadcasting false information" is different.
The difference (in an actual news broadcast, not an editorial or entertainment broadcast, and under orders from broadcast licensee's management) is between:
"Lights in sky sighted over Grover's Mill, New Jersey. Some say invasion from Mars is imminent."
and
"Invasion fleet from Mars lands in Grover's Mill New Jersey. Thousands flee."
This is precisely the intent of the ethnic studies crowd and other leftists. They are the intellectual progeny of the Institute for Social Research aka the Frankfurt School. This documentary on You Tube is about the Cultural Marxists who founded that institute and who developed Critical Theory. They eventually developed many of the tactics now in common use by the cultural left.
They were Marxists who were disappointed by the failure of the working classes in Europe to resist their respective governments' calls to fight each other in World War I. They decided to advance what they called "Cultural Marxism" and they develeped Critical Theory. They brought their ideas to the United States when they fled Hitler's Germany in the 1930's. Herbert Marcuse became Critical Theory's leading proponent in the US and he eventually became a professor at the Univ. of California-San Diego. Marcuse found a constituency in the 1960's amongst student radicals and minorities. They served as a surrogate for the working class that had failed to advance the cause of traditional communism. Herbert Marcuse published a paper in 1965 entitled "Repressive Tolerance" in which he argued that it was actually intolerant to be tolerant of intolerant ideas. Therefore, real tolerance required one to squelch the expression of intolerant ideas. I think you can guess the kinds of ideas that a marxist academic defined as intolerant: pretty much anything that contradicts or challenges leftist ideas.
The documentary is fascinating because it explains the origins of all the tactics that we have now become so familiar with. Many of the 60's radicals who were so greatly influenced by Marcuse now populate American universities. They define ideas that they don't agree with as hateful and bigoted, they ridicule and dehumnanize the speaker and they ascribe psychological dysfunction to their ideological opponents. Every single one of those tactics was devised by Marcuse and his colleagues from the Franfurt School. We should all take note of this problem because this sort of thinking now seems to be the norm in Europe. Just ask Mr. Wilders.
Right. Problem is, the admin goes along with them. The lefties have figured out that the species with the same amount of backbone as a tapeworm is a university administrator. Strange, for something supposedly vertebrate. So they go to trump and the admin caves, shutting down the object of the lefties' hate.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.