150 likes | 414 Views
In 1948, Father Terminiello , a Roman Catholic priest, arrived to make a speech at a Chicago auditorium. Outside the auditorium, about 300 people were picketing his speech. Inside, Terminiello criticizes Jews and African-Americans, as well as the crowd outside.
E N D
In 1948, Father Terminiello, a Roman Catholic priest, arrived to make a speech at a Chicago auditorium. Outside the auditorium, about 300 people were picketing his speech. Inside, Terminiello criticizes Jews and African-Americans, as well as the crowd outside. A police line prevented the protesters from entering the building. However, the “howling mob” outside was throwing stones and bricks at the building, and the police were unable to maintain control. The crowd was also yelling and harassing people who came to hear Terminiello speak. Terminiello was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct under an ordinance forbidding any breach of peace. He was convicted, and his conviction was upheld in the Illinois courts. However, in a 5-to-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed his conviction, ruling that the breach of peace ordinance was vague and punished some speech that should have been protected. Should the police have controlled the crowd instead of arresting Terminiello? Did the police violate the First Amendment rights? Why or why not?
Fighting Words • Words spoken face-to-face that are so abusive that they are likely to cause an imminent fight between the speaker and the person spoken to. • Not protected by the First Amendment
Fighting Words • Verbal slap-in-the-face • Do not convey thoughts that contribute to the “marketplace of ideas” • Their value is outweighed by society’s interest in keeping order. • HOWEVER, “fighting words” is a doctrine rarely used in court today.
“Clear and Present Danger” Test • A test formerly used by courts to restrict speech when the government thought the speech would create a danger of serious harm. • Harm did not have to occur immediately after speech. • Used prior to the 1950s
“Incitement” Test • Current method used by courts to determine whether to restrict or punish expression based on its potential to cause immediate unlawful behavior within a short period of time. • Gives greater protection to speakers than “clear and present danger” test. Less Constitutional protection More Constitutional protection
Hate Speech • Bigoted or racist speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.
General Examples • KKK Rally • Westboro Baptist Church • Neo-Nazis • Holocaust Deniers • Promotion of violence against homosexuals
Specific Examples “Is it not also curious that when white males are young and [healthy], they attempt to master [football, basketball, soccer, etc], but as they become older and wiser, they psychologically resign themselves to their inability to master [such sports]? Their focus shifts… to hitting the tiny white golf balls in disgust and [defeat]—in full realization of white genetic [inferiorioty].” --THE ISIS PAPERS: THE KEYS TO THE COLORS 141 (1991)
Specific Examples “The necessary re-education of Blacks and a possible solution of the racial crisis can begin… only when Blacks fully realize this central fact to their lives: the white man is their Bitter Enemy.” --Phil Collier and David Horowitz, THE RACE CARD (1997)
Specific Examples “We recognize that so long as the news and entertainment media around the world are controlled by [foreigners]… there is no possibility for Whites to democratically regain control of our own destiny. We will not compromise when it comes to our children’s future, or the future of our race and species. We will not allow our people to be pushed toward extinction without pushing back.” --White Revolution, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CLINIC
Specific Examples http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103645/gingervitus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0TOd2jDNvU http://youtu.be/rElqVPbfLM8
Punishment for Hate Speech? • YES • Emotional and psychological impact on victims and their families • Hate speech = fighting words • NO • Speech laws designed to promote tolerance for minorities, women, and gays are vague • Combat hate speech w/ MORE speech… speech condemning hate speech.
Case Study: Westboro Baptist Church http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBA6qlHW8po