ATL 135 Chapter 1 Presentation: Hate Speech

1
ATL 135 Chapter 1 Presentation Hate Speech

• Shannon Elaine Switzer

2
Arguments For Restrictions on Hate Speech

• Paternalistic Justifications
• Pressure Valve Argument
• Reverse Enforcement Argument
• Free Speech has been minorities best friend
• The More Speechtalking back solution

3
Pressure Valve Argument

• Holds that rules prohibiting hate speech force
  the racists to bottle up his/her emotions making
  them likely to act much more hurtful later
• Allowing the racist to say what they want makes
  them feel better/victim feels less safe
• Ends in labeling a person

4
Reverse Enforcement Argument

• Idea that enacting antiracism rules will hurt
  minorities in the long run
• As it is now, it is very rare that a member of a
  minority group to be charged with a hate crime or
  with violating a campus hate-speech code

5
Free Speech As Minorities Best Friend

• Nadine Strossen Martin Luther King could not
  have made the speeches he did without free speech
• Why paternalistic because it is based on the
  presumed best interest of the protected group
  (Civil Liberties 31)
• Minorities have made the most advancement when in
  defiance of the First Amendment
• Ex slavery
• Civil Liberties Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego
  Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1999.

6
The More SpeechTalk Back Solution

• Minorities should talk back to their aggressors
• Nat Henthoff antiracism rules teach black
  people to depend on whites for protection (Civil
  Liberties 33)
• Actually unsafe
• Often times seen as a challenge to the one in
  power

7
Pro-Restrictions Summary

• Censorship and governmental involvement are not
  concerns when speech is private
• Uncontrolled speech is merely an exercise in
  control
• Greek term hubris defined by Kenneth J. Dover
• The crime of believing that one may treat other
  people just asa one pleases, with the arrogant
  confidence that one will escape any penalty
  (Civil Liberties 35)

8
Arguments Against Restricting Hate Speech

• ACLU that government censorship is in violation
  of the Constitution that more speech is the
  answerthe best revenge
• If hate is in the open, people can see the
  problems that exist
• Symbols are also protected
• Speech codes will NOT end bigotry
• Speech vs. Conduct
• Combat hate speech with education

9
Why the ACLU Defends Hate Speech

• Free speech rights are indivisible theyre there
  for everyone
• Restricting one group or individual hurts
  everyones rights in the end
• Defending First Amendment rights for the enemies
  of civil liberties and civil rights means
  defending it for you and me (Civil Liberties 38)

10
Protection of Non-verbal Symbols

• Symbols are protected if they are worn or
  displayed before a general audience/in public
• No protected if used to destroy private property
• such as burning a cross on someones lawn
• R.A.V. vs. City of St.Paul
• Prosecuted for criminal trespassing/harassment
  laws vs. the content of his act

11
Ineffective Laws

• Defamation laws have proven to be
  ineffective/counter-productive
• Why
• Because the right to decide whats offensive and
  whos the authority has been the governmentnot
  victims of hate speech

12
Speech Codes Cant End the Problem

• Deterring people from saying what they feel will
  only force the biasees undergroundthey cannot be
  addressed

13
Speech and Conduct

• Speech becomes conduct when it targets a
  particular individual and when it forms a pattern
  of behavior that interferes with a persons right
  to participate in life (adapted from Civil
  Liberties)
• ACLU advocates punishing conduct that are acts of
  violence, harassment or intimidation, and
  invasions of privacy