pageok
pageok
pageok
"Hate Speech":

From a UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center study titled Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio:

Types of Hate Speech

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).

What a definition! And this is their example:
Table 1. Analysis of Hate Speech from The John & Ken Show

EXAMPLE
"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.

BerkeleyBeetle:
I'm not sure it really matters to the point of this post, but the story that probably provoked the "hate speech" was a pretty big scandal in San Francisco, where the city's sanctuary policy required that they not inform immigration officials when they arrested juvenile illegal immigrants, and some of those released went on to murder people. (I can't tell for sure whether this was the story in question, because the study doesn't date the "hate speech")

Example story

So the reference to the illegal immigrants being "criminals" referred to gang activities, not their status as illegal immigrants.
2.19.2009 1:48am
Dave N (mail):
The National Hispanic Media Coalition are a bunch of morons.

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:
Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?
2.19.2009 1:51am
BerkeleyBeetle:
My mistake. I see they did date the speech. In which case, the relevant story is this one.
2.19.2009 1:52am
BGates:
There is a date mentioned in Eugene's quote, and it's the same week as the arrest of a 21 year old gang member for the murder of 3 people who accidentally cut him off in traffic. The gang member was in the country illegally and had repeated arrests since he was convicted of assault at age 17.
2.19.2009 1:54am
clarence rutherford (www):
Why is the state of California funding this "Chicano Studies Center" in a time of a budget crisis?
2.19.2009 2:21am
Perseus (mail):
BerkeleyBeetle correctly identified the Edwin Ramos case as being the basis for the John &Ken show.

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.
2.19.2009 2:52am
Wilpert Archibald Gobsmacked (mail):
clarence rutherford: Because the legislature - which for years has been controlled by a bunch of idiots democrats 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.
2.19.2009 2:54am
Kazinski:
What is missing from this analysis, is the obvious good intentions of the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center. No one doubts that statements on talk radio can be taken out of context, misinterpreted, and used to further an agenda to restrict freedom of speech. But what will prevent special interests from misusing and distorting innocent comments is to ensure that people of good will are the ones that make the actual decision of what speech goes over the line and should be remedied by lenthy prison sentences, re-education, internal exile, and possibly rehabilitaion.
2.19.2009 3:07am
Daryl Herbert (www):
"Hate speech" is any time you're winning an argument with a liberal.

This is why they want the "Fairness Doctrine"--to shut up anyone who is making sense and speaking truth to power.
2.19.2009 3:12am
Wilpert Archibald Gobsmacked (mail):
Apparently the Chicanos at the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center are unaware or not concerned that a great number of self-identified California Chicanos are not at all happy with the official molly-coddling of so many - using a polite term - undocumented foreign born folk, and the adverse and divisive effect their hidden and black market economics have caused hard working and struggling citizens who happen to be of Hispanic ethnicity. Most of them do not subscribe to or share the third world culture being foisted on them by "the invaders".

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.
2.19.2009 3:17am
c.gray (mail):

This is why they want the "Fairness Doctrine"--to shut up anyone who is making sense and speaking truth to power.


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?
2.19.2009 3:22am
one of many:
Under the standards for hate speech used in this report, are the report writers committing hate speech against radio talk show hosts? Are talk show hosts characterized as a direct threat to the readers' way of life?

Just wondering.
2.19.2009 3:46am
Ron Hardin (mail) (www):
John and Ken themselves cover the paper on Jan 28 4PM hour here.
2.19.2009 5:41am
RBG (mail):
One of the most remarkable aspects of the paper's position in my view is that it describes vigorous disagreement, mockery, and condemnation of government policy and leaders as hate speech. One might ask whether much of the left's political discourse over the past eight years doesn't fall within this category, but, regardless, once political criticism of those in power is defined as hate speech, what's left of the First Amendment?
2.19.2009 6:09am
krs:
Give them a tiny amount of credit for taking a shot at defining "hate speech," even if the effort falls flat.

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...
2.19.2009 6:19am
A. Zarkov (mail):
The referenced document starts of with
Of the 8,999 single-bias hate crime offenses
in 2007, two-thirds (66.5 percent) were motivated by
race and ethnicity/national-origin biases,...

Also little altered is the fact that anti-Black bias still accounts for more than half of offenses motivated by race and
ethnicity/national-origin biases and for the largest share
of total offenses ...
Let's put aside the spurious precision in the quoted figures, typical of crackpot work and focus on how misleading this statement is. The clear implication is that blacks disproportionately suffer violence at the hands of whites when in fact the precise opposite is true. The National Crime Victimization Survey canvasses a representative sample of about 80,000 Americans (43,000 households) and provides data that clearly refutes this implication. The 1994 survey shows that blacks committed more than 90% of violent inter-racial crime and more than half of the violent crime by blacks is directed against whites. But only 3% of the violent crime committed by whites was directed against blacks. These numbers are quoted from a modeling exercise done by La Griffe du Lion called Crime in the Hood. The NCVS data are online and one can easily check the numbers.

Do blacks attack white because of hate speech on commercial talk radio?
2.19.2009 7:28am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Suppose this becomes an issue.
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.
2.19.2009 8:16am
Happyshooter:
Four counts of hate speech in a single sentence. Wow.

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!
2.19.2009 8:44am
Sarcastro (www):
Clearly ridicule of these academics is not enough. Only paranoia is the proper response.
2.19.2009 8:53am
John (mail):
Suggesting these rules constitutes hate speech directed toward talk show hosts.
2.19.2009 9:27am
Falafalafocus (mail):
I really wish Sarcastro would stop using such hate speech. (Flawed Argumentation and Divisive Language).
2.19.2009 10:01am
Stacy (mail) (www):
"Clearly ridicule of these academics is not enough. Only paranoia is the proper response."

Ironically, you can't fire them for saying stupid things...
2.19.2009 10:11am
autolykos:
clarence rutherford said:


Why is the state of California funding this "Chicano Studies Center" in a time of a budget crisis?


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:


So the reference to the illegal immigrants being "criminals" referred to gang activities, not their status as illegal immigrants.



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 -


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.
2.19.2009 10:24am
jukeboxgrad's favorite YouTube video:
Good Lord, if "flawed argumentation" amounts to hate speech, then most of the motions I file are hate speech!
2.19.2009 10:33am
Sarcastro (www):
s' true, I am filled with roiling, hot hot hate.
2.19.2009 10:37am
aloysiusmiller (mail):
I think hating hate speech is hate and should be banned.
2.19.2009 10:52am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Stacy. If they say enough stupid things, you have to hire them. See Angry Studies.
2.19.2009 10:52am
sirpatrick (mail):
Good God Almighty!!..Using this definition the LA Times would have to immediately stop publication!!
2.19.2009 10:53am
Acosmist (mail):
I especially like how false facts can include true facts. Stupid people with no sense of logic should probably not enter the marketplace of ideas. Not that they should be barred, but...when you're selling ignorance, no one will buy.
2.19.2009 11:03am
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):

Good God Almighty!!..Using this definition the LA Times would have to immediately stop publication!!


So it's not all bad.
2.19.2009 11:04am
dearieme:
I think most people look bloody silly in baseball caps. Happily that's only hat speech.
2.19.2009 11:13am
WHOI Jacket:
It'd be humorous if these people didn't actually wield influence.

But they do.
2.19.2009 11:15am
DangerMouse:
One of the most remarkable aspects of the paper's position in my view is that it describes vigorous disagreement, mockery, and condemnation of government policy and leaders as hate speech. One might ask whether much of the left's political discourse over the past eight years doesn't fall within this category

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.
2.19.2009 11:20am
ALEXISTAN:
Hey, now, don't be a coward when it comes to discussing race, or, La Raza, for that matter. Make AG Holder proud.
2.19.2009 11:22am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
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]
2.19.2009 11:23am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: c.gray
RE: Only....

Do conservatives really want to start using it too? -- c.gray


....as much as it will hoist them by their own petard.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[What goes around comes around.....]
2.19.2009 11:26am
Real American (mail):
There are no good intentions here, just attempts to justify shutting down political speech by non-lefties.
2.19.2009 11:28am
edh (mail):
To be a "coward" you have to be afraid of something.

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"?
2.19.2009 11:44am
luci:
My view of hispanics would be dramatically lowered if I thought that, as a group, they wanted to restrict my freedom speech in the manner suggested by the Chicano Studies Research Center. Does this collection of academic grievance mongers really want to go about, under the guise of speaking for an identifiable ethnic group, and advertise that it doesn't understand and/or support one of the cornerstone liberties of this country?
2.19.2009 11:48am
Self-hating Boomer (mail):

angry studies departments


I'm stealing that.
2.19.2009 11:48am
A Law Unto Himself:
edh:

I think you mean: nation of cowards kowtow-ers"
2.19.2009 11:51am
wildman (mail):
with california in dire straits, why are they funding a chicano studies group? Let the state go bankrupt and take the chicano studies group with it.
2.19.2009 11:51am
autolykos:

I'm stealing that.


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.
2.19.2009 11:54am
George Smith:
It goes with the Left's "Southwestern Strategy." A region increasingly dominated by a non-English speaking, non-assimilated population that will vote Democrat nationally in return for local political power (and federal money) in the hands of the La Raza/MeCha crowd. This is all pretty much under the national radar, as we are rightly concerned with the threat of militant Islam to Western civilization. Nuevo Aztlan is on the horizon.
2.19.2009 12:01pm
Plutosdad (mail):
But what will prevent special interests from misusing and distorting innocent comments is to ensure that people of good will are the ones that make the actual decision of what speech goes over the line and should be remedied by lenthy prison sentences, re-education, internal exile, and possibly rehabilitaion.

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.
2.19.2009 12:02pm
ALANSTORM (mail):
The FCC has a policy against "rigging or slanting the news."? With regards to 90% of the media, who would have guessed?
2.19.2009 12:12pm
Jack Diederich (mail) (www):
Eugene, it looks like you dropped some keystrokes in there. Free advice: Do not put your cellphone on the desk between the wireless keyboard and the receiver.
2.19.2009 12:21pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: ALANSTORM
RE: FCC Policies

The FCC has a policy against "rigging or slanting the news."? -- ALANSTORM


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]
2.19.2009 12:25pm
ShelbyC:

You forgot labor! Hard labor is always great as a teacher.


Of course. That's why were gonna have compulsary national service.
2.19.2009 12:27pm
David H Dennis (mail):
I am sure the writers of this article have attended an International ANSWER protest or two, or at the very least, would not wish to see the protests banned.

"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
2.19.2009 12:30pm
Eric (The Intrepid) Holder (mail):
a prestigious university, a multiculturally sensitive "studies" program, flawed argumentation, divisiveness, misleading statements, ...

it's all hate.
2.19.2009 12:34pm
Willis (mail):
This is the style of argument they used on the Fight the Smears website.
2.19.2009 12:34pm
Scott Marquardt (mail):
The rubric they're using runs afoul of itself in the way they apply it. A self-referential problem seems to inhere.
2.19.2009 12:45pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Willis
RE: Don't Forget....

This is the style of argument they used on the Fight the Smears website. -- Willis


...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.....]
2.19.2009 12:52pm
Brian C (mail) (www):
If the last 8 years of vilification and calumny coming from the Left towards every Republican (and the Bush administration in particular) are not hate speech, then certainly the example cited isn't either...
2.19.2009 12:52pm
Nicole (mail):
I experienced race/gender issues in law school. A vast majority of classes are blind graded. Students are issued an exam number and the grading professor has absolutely no idea whose exam they are grading. The professor has to submit the grades before the exam number is matched to as student. You would think that this would lead to race/gender neutral results. Not so, because minorities write different and subconsciously or consciously professors recognize this and give them lower grades. I never got a clear explanation of how women and minority writing differs from white males. I would think coherent argument and correct grammar was not the sole territory of white males. The proof for their argument was that the average GPA of a minority student was lower than white students. Of course the only explanation for that was racism and prejudice. To mention that requirements for minority admittance were lower was racist.
2.19.2009 12:57pm
Cover Me, Porkins (mail):
Dehumanizing metaphors

Erm, "The Smirking Chimp"?

How many dollars were wasted on the study of these mountebanks?
2.19.2009 12:59pm
AntonK (mail):
With rules like those, how can anybody say anything about anybody?
2.19.2009 1:09pm
another_anon (mail):
"angry studies departments "

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...
2.19.2009 1:12pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
another.
That's where I saw it. Seems to be extremely descriptive in a short phrase.
2.19.2009 1:25pm
buzz (mail):
Hate speech is whatever you want it to be. What possible difference does it make? The first amendment protects "hate" speech. As long as morons can march peaceably in Skokie, the first amendment is affirmed for the rest of us sane people. The concept that there is "free" speech and there is "hate" speech is nothing more than method of restricting the "free" speech.
2.19.2009 1:27pm
Rawsnacks:
Let's see, would a 'hate crime' murder carry a stiffer penalty than regular old friendly murder - say friendly murder is 10 years and 'hate crime' murder is 12 years. If so, that would mean 10 years for the murder and 2 for the hate. How long will it be until we're just giving out 2 year sentences for 'hating' when no crime is committed?
2.19.2009 1:33pm
ronbo:
@dearieme:

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.
2.19.2009 1:53pm
A.C.:
Isn't it a general rule that when you use a string of words to describe some people, the people you are describing are the intersection of all the categories you use? If you say "male nurses," you are referring to males who are also nurses, not implying that all nurses are male or all males are nurses. You're trying to restrict the group by adding additional descriptive words, not broaden it through sloppy associations.

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.
2.19.2009 1:56pm
davod (mail):
"Types of Hate Speech

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.
2.19.2009 2:03pm
jj08 (mail):
Now that the Won has Hugo Chavez-type powers, the brownshirts of the Left are trying to shut down free speech.

All too predictable.
2.19.2009 2:12pm
wfjag:

ronbo:
@dearieme:

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.

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 ____" ?)
2.19.2009 2:15pm
Sarcastro (www):

the brownshirts of the Left are trying to shut down free speech.

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.
2.19.2009 2:42pm
James Stephenson:
We are headed right into a Fahrenheit 451 world are we not.

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
2.19.2009 3:07pm
Brendanav (mail):
"Stupid people with no sense of logic should probably not enter the marketplace of ideas. Not that they should be barred, but...when you're selling ignorance, no one will buy."

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.
2.19.2009 3:11pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
You have angry studies as a place to keep all the diversity hires. The original thought was, I suppose, that they couldn't do any harm over there. They certainly couldn't have been put into conventional departments.
2.19.2009 3:21pm
NickM (mail) (www):
The UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center: making kinesiology majors look intelligent.

Nick
2.19.2009 4:09pm
Fub:
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.
The embedded link is to the FCC publication, The Public and Broadcasting (a printed copy of which can be obtained from any licensed broadcaster by simply paying a copying fee, per FCC reg).

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:
The FCC does, however, regulate content in some narrow areas. For example, federal law prohibits or limits the broadcast of obscene, indecent, or profane language. But the FCC must be guided by decisions of the courts in determining whether specific material may be prohibited under this law. Similarly, the FCC may penalize licensees for knowingly broadcasting false information. [emphasis mine]
...
As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public. The FCC has stated publicly that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest." The FCC does act to protect the public interest where it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from "insiders" or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. In the absence of such documented evidence, the FCC has stressed that it cannot intervene.
"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."
2.19.2009 4:11pm
Dave N (mail):
Lots of good comments but NickM wins the thread.
2.19.2009 4:27pm
SukieTawdry (mail):
Wow, talk about cutting off your nose. Don't the left realize that once they eliminate the use of exaggerated and misleading statements, falsehoods, "decontextualized" facts, flawed argumentation, divisive language and dehumanizing metaphors, they're stuck with a playbook consisting only of itterating the same nutty ideas again and again no matter how many times they may have failed in the past? Ah well, perhaps they'll catch their error.
2.19.2009 7:55pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Sukie. The left knows one big thing. They're in charge of defining what's hate and what's not. So their noses will stay firmly attached, at whatever length.
2.19.2009 8:47pm
Toby:
After Waxman's attempt to regulate internet content under the fairness doctrive (as announced this week) is complete, threads like this will no longer spew hate speech...
2.19.2009 9:07pm
jt007:

There are no good intentions here, just attempts to justify shutting down political speech by non-lefties.


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.
2.20.2009 2:28am
Yankev (mail):

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.
As in "Racist, sexist, anti-gay, College Republicans [or other group being pickedted] Go away!"
2.20.2009 9:30am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Yankev.
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.
2.20.2009 10:09am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

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.