Tags
ACLU, Alex Jones, Ben Franklin, Civics, defamation, democracy, false statements, Fellowship of the Minds, First Amendment, Free Speech, Free speech zone, hate incident, Hate speech, Hong Kong, immigration, incitement, Justice Holmes, libel, limitations on free speech, Maria Hsia Chang, National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie, panic, Private property, private space, public space, Sandy Hook, Schenck v US 1919
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic…. The question in every case is whether the words used … create a clear and present danger” (Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919) [1]
Ben Franklin Freedom of Thought Speech Capitol, AOC gov
“Lost in the discussion about unfettered freedom of speech is the 1977 Supreme Court decision, “National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.” The nationalist party promoted a Nazi and anti-Semitic platform, and despite attempts by Skokie, Illinois, to restrict the group, the court ruled it could march in the predominately Jewish town, north of Chicago. All speech is free speech, the court ruled.
Many people are unaware of that decision, says Howard Gillman, chancellor of the University of California-Irvine, because, “Not a lot of civics teaching [is] going on in high school,” or students would know that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment.
There are exceptions to First Amendment protections. Libel, or false statements that injure a person’s reputation, is an exception. Incitement, which is speech that intentionally advocates imminent lawlessness, is another caveat.
“For example, talking to an enraged mob outside a building an urging them to burn it down. That would be punishable,” says Volokh….
Stephen Hayes, editor in chief of The Weekly Standard, says curbing any speech goes in the wrong direction. “More speech is the best antidote to hate speech,” he says.” (“Where One Hears Free Speech, Another Hears Hate Speech ” August 10, 2018 1:15 PM, by Julian Nazar https://www.voanews.com/a/where-one-hears-free-speech-another-hears-hate-speech/4523182.html )
“Hate speech” is a slippery slope concept, which could lead to the US having something like the UK concept of “hate incident” where if you change sides of the street or change subway wagons, etc., and someone perceives, or pretends to perceive, that it is due to prejudice, it can apparently be classified as a “hate incident”, based on what the Met Police web site says! Can’t make this up: “A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender./ Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but it is equally important that these are reported and recorded by the police./ Evidence of the hate element is not a requirement. You do not need to personally perceive the incident to be hate related. It would be enough if another person, a witness or even a police officer thought that the incident was hate related.“. https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime (Emphasis our own.) Have they even thought this through? A crime should be a crime, as well. The entire idea of “hate crime” is dangerous and unfair. If a person loses their job to an immigrant and is driven to the breaking point and does something criminal, why isn’t it enough to be punished for the crime itself? And, why isn’t it a crime for governments to create hate by giving jobs away to immigrants – thus making victims of both the immigrants and their own people. The immigrants may be fooled into thinking that they are needed and welcomed. In many places, government policy is setting up the conditions for animosity and hate to be created, even where it never existed. Then the same governments put an extra penalty for crimes committed by desperate citizens, who only have one country. Hate of others can be based on ignorance, fear, or resentment, which may or may not be justifiable. Thus, creating this concept of “hate speech”, “hate crime”, and “hate incident” does not appear a logical or effective solution.
From VOA News:
“Where One Hears Free Speech, Another Hears Hate Speech
August 10, 2018 1:15 PM, by Julian Nazar
College students and educators continue to struggle with balancing free speech rights on campus while keeping debate from turning violent as a new school year approaches.
In the United States, the free exchange of ideas is the bedrock of college campuses. But avoiding violence — like the deaths of three people in Charlottesville, Virginia near the University of Virginia a year ago during a protest over race — shows the difficulty in keeping debate from turning into a brawl.
Hate speech should not be protected, say many students.
When a speaker like Charles Murray at the University of Michigan attributes class differences in America to genetic superiority, they say a line is crossed from speech to propaganda. Ideas that have little basis in science or scholarly research shouldn’t be on the same stage as valid research, they said.
“His views on race, intelligence, and inequality are hateful and archaic,” argues Isaac Whitcomb, a rising junior at American University.
“Protesters believe that hosting speakers with white nationalist views legitimize those views,” says Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, judicial affairs editor at the liberal news blog Daily Kos. “Some students feel that silence implicates them, or at least signals that they condone racism.”
Students say they know the difference between hate speech and free speech, and don’t want hate spread on campus. A 2016 Gallup poll found that nearly 70 percent of students said they believed universities should restrict speech that was “intentionally offensive to certain groups.”
And among the 1,500 undergraduate students surveyed by the Brookings Institution in August 2017, 51 percent thought it was fine to loudly and repeatedly disrupt a “very controversial speaker” … “so the audience cannot hear him or her.”
On some campuses, officials have tried to maintain the peace by creating “free speech zones,” designated for unrestricted speech – some inside fences. Los Angeles Pierce College, Ohio University, Wichita State University, Modesto Junior College are a few schools to establish those zones.
Outside the “free speech zones,” those discussions and activities are prohibited. The legality of these zones has been questioned.
In “University of Cincinnati Chapter for Young Americans v. Williams,” the federal district court ruled that the university’s free speech zone, which was less than .01 percent of the entire campus, was in violation of the First Amendment. The court found the university failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in justifying the exclusion of free speech activities from other areas on campus.
The southern state of Georgia in May became the 10th state to pass legislation outlawing free speech zones on college campuses. The other states are Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and Tennessee.
On the other side is the call for unrestrained freedom of speech on college campuses.
“There are absolutists …who argue freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our democracy,” said Mary Beth Leidman, a professor of communications media and media law at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, referring to the advocacy rights group American Civil Liberties Union and the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. They have advocated that “the absolute freedom of speech must be protected absolutely,” Leidman said. Lost in the discussion about unfettered freedom of speech is the 1977 Supreme Court decision, “National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.” The nationalist party promoted a Nazi and anti-Semitic platform, and despite attempts by Skokie, Illinois, to restrict the group, the court ruled it could march in the predominately Jewish town, north of Chicago. All speech is free speech, the court ruled.
Many people are unaware of that decision, says Howard Gillman, chancellor of the University of California-Irvine, because, “Not a lot of civics teaching [is] going on in high school,” or students would know that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment.
There are exceptions to First Amendment protections. Libel, or false statements that injure a person’s reputation, is an exception. Incitement, which is speech that intentionally advocates imminent lawlessness, is another caveat.
“For example, talking to an enraged mob outside a building an urging them to burn it down. That would be punishable,” says Volokh.” https://www.voanews.com/a/where-one-hears-free-speech-another-hears-hate-speech/4523182.html
Another problem beyond free speech per se is private ownership of forums, including internet and email. Free speech may be protected, but it doesn’t mean that a private service will allow it if they disagree with the content. This problem came up in pre-internet days about free speech and protest in public vs private space. If the town square becomes the shopping mall, then the shopping mall could and does restrict free speech in most places. A similar problem arises with private internet services. Where is the public space? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
“InfoWars host Alex Jones faces defamation case from Sandy Hook families over false conspiracy theory Parents of shooting victims faced death threats and online harassment from conspiracy theorists, by Elizabeth Williamson, Wednesday 1 August 2018. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sandy-hook-alex-jones-info-wars-fake-conspiracy-theory-a8472301.html Related: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sandy-hook-defamation-case-alex-jones-evidence-a8497176.html
Fellowship of the Minds was probably removed from Word Press due to legal action from Sandy hook families or others: http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/04/hartford-trade-service-fellowship-of.html
Fellowship of the Minds is apparently run by a retired Hong Kong born Poli Sci professor named Maria Hsia Chang. See http://www.crisisactorsguild.com/2016/01/18/who-writes-this-shit-who-is-dr-eowyn/. Her husband, or former husband, was born Anthony Gimigliano, but is known as A. James Gregor and was previously an academic co-author with her. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._James_Gregor
[1] “Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment , by Kathleen Ann Ruane Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2014 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf
Mining Awareness + 
You must be logged in to post a comment.