Daily Archives: April 23, 2017

Even after almost two days of experts attempting to explain it, Howard Deanapparently stilldoesnt understand how the First Amendmentworks.In fact, the former Vermont governorcited anirrelevant Supreme Court decision when doubling-downed on his argument thathate speech isnt protected by the Constitution. First, though, lets review the timeline of Deans mistake. Then lets see where he went wrong.

This whole thing started Thursday night, when he made this claim.

This references something awful Ann Coulterreportedly said in 2002: My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.

Does it meet colloquial definitions of hate speech? No. Is it terrible? Yes. Is it Constitutionally protected? Yuuuuuuuuuup. So is hate speech, sadly. Thats what commentators tried to drill into Deans head. Politifact got in on it. So did Vices Sarah Jeong,and others.

One counterargument caught Deans attention, however. AFriday op-ed from UCLA law Professor Eugene Volokh. This constitutional scholar and First Amendment expert took pains to explain how Free Speech works. Whats moreimportant, and possibly useful to non-lawyers, is his explanation of fighting words. [Emphasis mine]

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with hate speech in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for fighting words face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isnt limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible.

He also pointed out other exceptions, like true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future. But the fighting words exception is key here because of how Dean later responded.

Howard Deana former presidential candidate, and long-time power player in Vermont politicstried to prove that hate speech isnt protected, but instead cited a Supreme Court case that absolutely has nothing to do with hate speech.

1942s Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire turned on fighting words. In a unanimousruling, justices upheld the conviction, under state law, of a man who used abusive language to provoke the listener to an act of violence.

From the holding:

2. The Court notices judicially that the appellations damned racketeer and damned Fascist are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.

Now this is where I may lose some of you. What about racial slurs? Yes, if someone hurls a bunch of insults in such a way as to provoke a fistfight, then its outside of the First Amendments protection.But it wouldnt be unprotectedbecause its a slur. Its unprotectedbecause it, specifically, would cause violence soon, if not here and now. Volokhs explanation must be repeated here: Fighting words are face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. It has nothing to do with the speech being bigoted. Its all to do with the immediate incitement to violence.

Volokh wrote a rebuttal essayto Deans second tweet on Saturday morning. One line sums it up.

So Chaplinsky doesnt hold that Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.

And even after all that, heres the governors most recent tweet on the matter.

Its unclear if Deanhas read Volokhs rebuttal.

[Screengrab via MSNBC]

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

Read this article:
Howard Dean Doesn't Get That First Amendment Protects Ann Coulter's 'Hate Speech' - LawNewz

First Amendment Day, which will be celebrated at Iowa State on Thursday, is a time to appreciate some of the freedoms that Americans possess every day.

The First Amendment is one of the founding principles of the United States. It provides five essential freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. College campuses provide settings where these freedoms, especially freedom of speech, can be exercised.

[Iowa State University] is a governmental agency, so we have to act within the bounds of both the federal and Iowa Constitution, meaning we arent allowed to put in place restrictions that would violate the First Amendment, said Michael Norton, Iowa States legal adviser who oversees the universitys counsel office.

Iowa States Facilities and Grounds Use policy states that ISU embraces the sharing of knowledge and ideas through public discourse and free speech.

And even though what someone says might be rude, disgusting or upsetting, it can still be said legally, according to the Constitution.

Hate speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment, said Ken Paulson, dean of the College of Media and Entertainment at Middle Tennessee State University and president of the First Amendment Center.

Free speech is not entirely inclusive, however.

Over the years, the U.S. courts have found that obscene speech, speech that incites action to harm others, speech that promotes illegal drug use at school events and articles in student newspapers objecting the school administration are not allowed.

Iowa State has run into its own issues regarding free speech.

There have been two separate incidents at the university where posters were found on campus, each featuring messages that could be interpreted as hateful, yet that alone did not cause them to violate free-speech rules.

The content of the posters, while repugnant and personally reprehensible, are clearly protected speech, so if [the university] were to act on that speech based on content, that would violate First Amendment rights, Norton said.

The university does, however, have some right to place policies restricting the time, place and manner of any speech that happens on campus, Norton said.

[Iowa State] is allowed to restrict speech that interferes with the regular responsibilities of the university, not based on the content alone, such as speaking with a bullhorn outside of a classroom, Norton said. There are no restrictions on what you can say. It's only where, when and how you say it."

Natasha Oren, multicultural liaison officer for the Iowa State Police Department, said hate speech can still have real consequences.

In Iowa, you cannot threaten violence toward another legally, or you could be charged criminally, Orensaid.

Orenadded that harassment is illegal as well.

If what youre saying causes fear for someone else, and they believe you can carry out what youre saying, that isnt allowed, Oren said.

While what one says may be free speech, if what they're saying is considered assault, harassment or a discriminatory threat toward someone else, they could face criminal charges.

The Iowa State Police Department strives to help and protect people, Oren said, and even if something is said that is legally free speech, the department will try to make any party feel safe if need be.

Freedom of speech continues to play an integral role on campuses, and during the 2016 presidential election cycle, posters and messages could be spotted all across Iowa State.

Free speech needs to be protected above all else, Paulson said. Schools often need to act as an epicenter of free thought and expression. With the polarization of the country right now, it takes more and more effort to find the truth, because anyone can say what they believe."

One problem that surfaced during the last election cycle was fake news, which is an issue students must sift through to determine what is correct in the media.

Fake news is completely protected by free speech, but consumers of news have to think for themselves, Paulson said. I believe fake news is a product of intellectual laziness.

At Iowa State and other colleges, Paulson urges students to read the news and understand for themselves what is going on.

We cant have news portrayed through memes," Paulson said. "You have to put in effort and consume real news sources. It worries me when people say their main news source is social media."

Free speech extends to social media and internet platforms the same way it does anywhere else.

Iowa State doesnt constantly monitor social media use by students and staff, but it is still responsible for keeping an eye on any harm that may arise from what someone says online.

If free speech crosses lines that make it harassment or discrimination and social media is used as the tool for that harmful speech, [Iowa State] would investigate and respond if appropriate, Norton said.

Norton said police have a bigger role in monitoring any harmful speech that may happen online, and they report it to the proper offices for handling of the situation.

Oren said the main goal of the police, and certain policy restrictions by the university such as the time, place and manner rules, are ultimately in place to protect students.

There is a reason free speech is protected, and speaking out against anothers speech is the best way to disagree with it, but speech, both with criminal and civil repercussions, can affect the campus climate negatively, which isnt good for the community, Oren said.

The goal of the university, Norton said, is never to restrict speech, especially not to restrict speech based on the content of what is said.

We have to be able to run the school in a way that allows people to achieve their educational goals as well, Norton said.

Read the rest here:
Understanding the First Amendment and its role on campus | Politics ... - Iowa State Daily