Those Backwards Northern States

[shmogie]

People here always be dissing southern states as backward inbred racist rednecks.
Well, it's time to balance that with the batshirt crazy antics in the north.

Illiberal liberal unconstitutional anti-free speech authoritarianism is the them in this news item.
UConn students' arrest over racial slur prompts review of state's ridicule ban
HARTFORD, Conn. — Free speech concerns that were raised following the arrests of two University of Connecticut students accused of saying a racial slur have led state legislators to consider repealing a century-old law that bans ridicule based on race, religion or nationality.

The episode on campus involving two white students in October was recorded on video and sparked protests against racism. Many people applauded their arrests, but civil liberties groups condemned them as an affront to First Amendment rights.

Police said the students, Jarred Karal and Ryan Mucaj, uttered the racial slur several times while walking through the parking lot of a campus apartment complex and were recorded by a black student. They said that they were playing a game that involved saying offensive words and that it was not directed at anyone in particular.

They were charged under a 1917 law that makes it a misdemeanor for anyone who “ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons.”


A bill before the legislature's Judiciary Committee would repeal the law, which has been criticized by law professors around the country and other groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which said the students' conduct was offensive but not criminal.

A public hearing on the bill was scheduled for Friday.

“I know the title sort of sounds like, whoa, what are they doing,” said state Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. “But ... the issue as to whether someone can really face criminal charges for something that has some real questionable constitutionality. I think is at least worth discussing at this point in time.”

According to state court records, the ridicule charge, which carries up to 30 days in jail, has been filed 40 times since 2012, resulting in 10 convictions. Only one of the convictions included jail time.

Critics say the law appears to be among only a few such state laws in the country.

“It is so clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment that it's hard to believe that it's still on the books,” said William Dunlap, a professor at the Quinnipiac University School of Law in North Haven, Connecticut. “It punishes speech based on the content of the speech, and that it is one of the key concepts of the First Amendment — that the government cannot punish speech based on its content.”

Douglas Spencer, a UConn law professor, added the state ridicule law, in theory, could be used to arrest comedians who make fun of others.

“I don’t think the old statute would survive a constitutional challenge,” Spencer said.

Scot X. Esdaile, president of the Connecticut State Conference of the NAACP, said that the bill to repeal the law raises serious concerns and that he will seek opinions from civil rights lawyers and NAACP officials about the proposal.

The state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities has asked the Judiciary Committee to reject the repeal bill, in written testimony for the hearing.

“At a time when hate and bias incidents are on the rise, it is critical that the state not remove these types of prohibitions that aim to deter or punish this unacceptable behavior,” the commission said.

Karal, of Plainville, has been granted a probation program that could result in his criminal charges being dismissed, while the criminal case is pending for Mucaj, of Granby.

The two students have filed a federal lawsuit against the university, saying they were being punished in violation of their free speech rights. A judge ruled last month that the school cannot discipline the students, including barring them from student housing, while the criminal cases are pending.

Free speech is free speech. No one can be hurt by it, unless they allow themselves to be hurt.

 

[columbus]

Free speech is free speech. No one can be hurt by it, unless they allow themselves to be hurt.

I don't think that's true.
When someone with authority says something false and violent, they can cause a lot of damage.
Tom

 

[shmogie]

I don't think that's true.
When someone with authority says something false and violent, they can cause a lot of damage.
Tom

The law recognizes area's where speech is restricted and is illegal. Inciting to violence, conspiracy, and demonstrable harm.

 

[columbus]

The law recognizes area's where speech is restricted and is illegal. Inciting to violence, conspiracy, and demonstrable harm.

I don't recall using the term law.

You know, according to the law people can get an abortion up until the end of pregnancy. Is that the law you are using to validate your opinions?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

By definition, racial hatred is a threat to minority's civic rights, especially in a context like the US where many minorities had to fight tooth and nail to gain those civic rights in the first place.

Would you illegalize hatred itself? Just expressing it?
Against whom...just minorities? Women?

PS: I don't think race is conflated with religion or country of origin though in my countries hate speech toward those two other groups is also prohibited (though religion is a bit in weird spot where you can call to hatred for the faith, but not the faithful)

Even so, if we had hate speech laws against race,
religion would certainly be added to that. That's
how things went with housing & employment laws.

 

[Revoltingest]

Free speech is free speech. No one can be hurt by it, unless they allow themselves to be hurt.

What an obsolete old school attitude, fellow dinosaur.

 

[epronovost]

Would you illegalize hatred itself?

You can't make a thought illegal so you can't "illegalize" hatred. Expression of hatred, specifically expression of hatred made in the public sphere and doubly so if such public expression of hatred is made by someone with influence and power is illegal in my country (and most other democratic nations). The classes are covered by canadian restriction on hate speech are race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and handicap. Belonging to certain hateful political groups like the KKK or a variety of neo-nazi groups can also lend you trouble, but those are often covered, not unjustly, as terrorist groups too.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can't make a thought illegal so you can't "illegalize" hatred.

It can be effectively illegalized by treating it as a motive in an otherwise legal act.

Expression of hatred, specifically expression of hatred made in the public sphere and doubly so if such public expression of hatred is made by someone with influence and power is illegal in my country (and most other democratic nations). The classes are covered by canadian restriction on hate speech are race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and handicap.

Expressing hatred can be illegal here if made by someone in the course
of some offering of public accommodation, eg, landlords, employers.
But heaven forbid that we ever place such restrictions & sanctions
upon ordinary people.

 

[shmogie]

What an obsolete old school attitude, fellow dinosaur.

Yeah, to think that in our day college kids were demonstrating for and demanding the they be allowed free speech.

 

[shmogie]

You can't make a thought illegal so you can't "illegalize" hatred. Expression of hatred, specifically expression of hatred made in the public sphere and doubly so if such public expression of hatred is made by someone with influence and power is illegal in my country (and most other democratic nations). The classes are covered by canadian restriction on hate speech are race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and handicap. Belonging to certain hateful political groups like the KKK or a variety of neo-nazi groups can also lend you trouble, but those are often covered, not unjustly, as terrorist groups too.

Muslims are pretty regular expressers of hate in the public sphere. Canada seems to accept that, no?

 

[epronovost]

It can be effectively illegalized by treating it as a motive in an otherwise legal act.

It's considered an aggravating factor in crimes, but "hatred" doesn't make a legal act illegal. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, could you provide an example to illustrate the concept?

But heaven forbid that we ever place such restrictions & sanctions
upon ordinary people.

In Canada we pretty much did, as did many european countries, and we are better for it. If you let hateful bigots spit their venom to minorities in public you basically give "carte blanche" to bullies to make a tolerant society where everybody can enjoy equal rights, liberties and happiness a pipe dream instead of a reality.

 

[epronovost]

Muslims are pretty regular expressers of hate in the public sphere. Canada seems to accept that, no?

Actually no, several muslim clerics have been banned from public speaking in Canada because they were preaching hatred toward homosexuals, women and Jews. Several non-cleric muslims have been accused of similar infractions too following campaign of harrasment on the web amongst other things. The vast majority of muslims and muslim clerics in Canada aren't hateful bigots though. The most famous is a cleric of Quebec City and is known to be an advocate of tolerance and "liberal islam" so to speak. His speach after his Mosque was attacked by an alt-right scum made him quite famous. It was a very good speach. I can try to find a translation for you if you want.

 

[shmogie]

I don't recall using the term law.

You know, according to the law people can get an abortion up until the end of pregnancy. Is that the law you are using to validate your opinions?
Tom

Techy, techy, techy. I was simply pointing out some applicable law that addresses some harm you implied in your post.

Goodness, grab a glass of wine and chill.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, to think that in our day college kids were demonstrating for and demanding the they be allowed free speech.

And minor issues like not being drafted into a war.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's considered an aggravating factor in crimes, but "hatred" doesn't make a legal act illegal.

I'm speculating that it could become that...or might already be
in the CT case in the OP. If the insulting terms said were found
to be legal because they played a game, & weren't expressing
hatred, then the hatred itself would be the crime.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, could you provide an example to illustrate the concept?

See above,

In Canada we pretty much did, as did many european countries, and we are better for it. If you let hateful bigots spit their venom to minorities in public you basically give "carte blanche" to bullies to make a tolerant society where everybody can enjoy equal rights, liberties and happiness a pipe dream instead of a reality.

I'd rather not become as forced into politeness &
political correctness as British subjects or Europeans.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

They mostly concern special holidays that they can be enjoyed with family etc. without the consumerism and debt collectors etc.

Of course, the problem with that is if we all have to share the same holidays to enjoy with family, etc., then the parks and beaches will be filled to overflowing (and therefore totally unenjoyable) on those days, and pretty much empty on the rest. Which is really, really dumb and a stupid use of scarce resources.

Let everybody holiday (or vacate, or worship, or whatever) when they want, so as to spread the load. That way, those resources we most enjoy when we holiday will not be so over-crowded as to be unpleasant -- and those same resources can earn a decent living each and every day.

 

[epronovost]

I'm speculating that it could become that...or might already be
in the CT case in the OP. If the insulting terms said were found
to be legal because they played a game, & weren't expressing
hatred, then the hatred itself would be the crime.

In a sense I think you are correct and that the intent is important, actually central, in cases of hate speech. In Canada, for hateful speech to be considered as such it needs to be made with an injurious, harmful or political aim. There is all sorts of derogation for the purpose of art, education and satire.

Should the two idiots have been playing a game I don't think it should be considered hate speech, but it was a form of public disturbance.

I'd rather not become as forced into politeness &
political correctness as British subjects or Europeans.

I'd rather not live in a pseudo-democracy where neo-nazi, neo-confederate, zealotic homophobes and misogynists actually have political clout and can impose their behavior in public space and in political arenas. I'll take the slight reduction of my personnal freedom to be a hateful moron in public in exchange of being able to live in a country where my daughter doesn't have to fear as much for her civic freedom and her dignity.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd rather not live in a pseudo-democracy where neo-nazi, neo-confederate, zealotic homophobes and misogynists actually have political clout and can impose their behavior in public space and in political arenas.

What does "impose their behavior" mean?
Something more than expressing themselves...perhaps
forcing others to behave in some manner?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you arguing that insulting speech should be punished with jail time, as is done in CT?
There's a huge problem with that, aside from the Constitution.
It would give government great power to curb speech it doesn't like.
We see this in many Islamic theocracies.
Would you want to see Trump with such power?

You are so very correct! We are allowed, any way you look at it, to insult one another. What we are NOT permitted to do is to incite violence against one another, and I think that's reasonable.

Now, what I just said does allow government to curb some speech, but that is only speech that incites. I'm happy to be able to say I think Trump is a terrible President, and I've never *****ed when people complained about how awful Hillary was (though I never really understood it, either).

That last point brings up another issue, however. Remember Trump, during the last election, leading chants of "lock her up." Isn't that incitement? Wouldn't she have to be convicted of something, first? And isn't that a terrible example of the hypocrisy I so dislike?

 

[shmogie]

It's considered an aggravating factor in crimes, but "hatred" doesn't make a legal act illegal. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, could you provide an example to illustrate the concept?



In Canada we pretty much did, as did many european countries, and we are better for it. If you let hateful bigots spit their venom to minorities in public you basically give "carte blanche" to bullies to make a tolerant society where everybody can enjoy equal rights, liberties and happiness a pipe dream instead of a reality.

But, of course, minorities have the right to say what they want, as well.

How do you define tolerant? To me it means to allow what you might not like.

I am tolerant of my mother in law, though she can infuriate me.

Totalitarian regimes are big on controlling any speech, and the government decides what is good, and bad speech.

Many European nations became totalitarian governments and did control speech, fascists or nazi's.

I thank God that the Founders of my country ensured we had the right to speak freely, the British government really wanted them muzzled, and felt hated and offended when they wouldn't shut up.

Speech should never be controlled by the government, and it should be tolerated by the populace.

In America, we understand this, and we tolerate it.

Christians know perversions of Christian symbols is free speech, we hate it, but we tolerate it.

Politicians hate being savaged by the press, but they tolerate it. Trump gives it back to them, but he has not taken one significant step to limit them, he just has to take it.

In a city in my state a couple of years ago, a man exercised his right of free speech on a public sidewalk, in front of a mosque. He burned a koran in a flagrant way, then dropped it to the ground and stomped on it till it was out. Muslims in the mosque watched, and used some free speech as well. A police officer was there to keep the peace. No Muslim died, or was wounded by this display of free speech, after he was done, the guy left, the cop left. the folk went back into the mosque.

What you want is an intolerant society, controlled by the government, so you don't have to tolerate anything, with everyone walking around terrified that they might express what they think and get nailed for it by the speech police, or in a sugary haze of mediocrity.