Should offensive speech be classified as hate-speech?

[purduejake]

For example, some people have basically accused professors of being communists and taped a red star to the outside of the door and I CAN NOT BELIEVE the number of DU-ers who want to SHUT THEM UP for "hate crimes" and "hate speech?" I'm just wondering if I was in an oddly hostile room since I normally agree with everybody and never thought I'd be related to a Nazi!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1633999

Am I wrong to think that's fascist?

I use hate speech every day of my life. I hate Bush and he is a fascist war-criminal. Some people would find that offensive, and I would be willing to die for my right to say that without fear of being prosecuted for a hate crime because it is offensive to some.

Your thought please... If you want to attack something, go after the idea, please -- not me. We're here for debate not for exchanging insults! =)

edit: I am not upset that people disagree with me -- I can handle that. It's the personal attacks that just bring emotion and irrationally into debates and transforms them into mud-slinging fests. I'm not loosing any sleep over this =)

[realisticphish]

1. i, for one

thank you. as a member of the aclu, i totally agree with what you're saying.

it is the people with unpopular views that need the freedom of speech most

[purduejake]

2. Thank you very much...

I was thinking about what the ACLU would do in this case and I thought about their defense of the slime ball Rush Limbaugh. I agree that the ACLU should have helped him fight that battle because it protects all of us from the government over-stepping it's bounds to get personal info or in this case to stifle unpopular views.

[realisticphish]

3. right

the problem we're getting into here is that people only want THEIR unpopular views to be protected, and stifle the others. it kills me to defend some of the people we defend, but we HAVE to, or else we're just heading toward's facism by a different route

[purduejake]

6. Well... fascism is great...

If you get to be the fascist. I am horrified if that is what these people are thinking?!? Gawd.

[realisticphish]

9. odd...

didn't bush say something to the effect of "a dictatorship would be good, as long as i were the dictator?"

interesting

[NightTrain]

4. Fuck no!!!

;)

[Dookus]

5. anonymously marking professors door

with the equivalent of a yellow star is not "speech". It's harassment, and it's cowardly.

[purduejake]

7. Consistently calling Bush a Nazi...

is harassment... and it's cowardly. If you are going to criticize a person, do it to his or her face or call the person on the phone instead of talking behind their back. Now explain to me the difference. You don't get a free-hypocrite pass just because you're to the left of center.

edit: found a better example.

[NightTrain]

11. What a load of crap!

How the fuck do you criticize Bush to his face? That spinless prick has more security around him than any U.S. president in recent memory.

Besides, "consistently calling Bush a Nazi" in a public forum like DU hardly counts as talking behind his back.

[purduejake]

14. So the rules only apply to those less fortunate...

who cannot afford a security team and secretaries to take our phone calls?

edit: I got off topic there for a second. Okay, let's say that you disagreed with your landlord and repeatedly called her a fascist and accused her of discriminating against jews just like Hitler did. Is that hate speech? Please define hate speech to me that applies to neo-cons AND you.

[ComerPerro]

21. Well, to be fair, his relatives did financially support Germany

even when we were at war with them. They were busted by the US Government for doing so, actually.

[purduejake]

31. My relatives may have fought for the South.

Does that make me a slave-driver?

[ComerPerro]

33. A lot of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves

Many had no opinion whatsoever on slavery.

Plus, the Civil War and slavery would be removed by at least six generations, most likely.

I see your point, though.

[purduejake]

37. Although it is beside my original point...

I do call Bush a Nazi, even though I don't really think he is one. I just say it because it is the closest word that's out there for him as he definitely does have countless similarities to the nazis. He might not be as bad... or he could be worse in the end. While there are many parallels, he is definitely a different breed than Hitler. Unfortunately, he is more powerful to begin with.

[Misunderestimator]

71. But, but, but... you just said that calling him a Nazi is bad...

I don't get it... :shrug:

[mondo joe]

36. Wrong. Calling Bush a nazi is not harrassment

Because no one here calling him a nazi has the potential to harm in any way by doing so.

[Misunderestimator]

70. Aha... Didn't take long to come out with your hidden agenda...

What is cowardly about pointing out the examples of history as they relate to our current fascist government?

[realisticphish]

8. you should know

that "speech" doesn't mean talking. it means talking, writing, art, music, and political opinions. they stated their political beliefs on public property, which is legal. cowardly, stupid, disgusting, yes. illegal, no

[Dookus]

10. I never said it was illegal

but then, hate speech is not illegal, either.

[purduejake]

12. Harassment can be illegal...

And some hate speech is illegal. But what those students did was not illegal. What are you trying to prove?

[Dookus]

15. I'm not trying to prove anything

beyond the fact that the kids who did that were sniveling cowards.

What kind of hate speech is illegal?

[purduejake]

16. Well, who was disagreeing with you that these young adults

were cowards? Why would you feel the need to prove that? Hate speech calling for harm to a group of people is illegal. Burning a cross in front of somebody's house is probably illegal. Uh, I am sure there are many more.

[Dookus]

17. Burning a cross

is not illegal in and of itself. If you do it in somebody's yard, though, you might be charged with trespassing and arson.

I feel the need to demonstrate their sniveling cowards because you feel the need to defend them.

[purduejake]

19. Okay, I ranted about this in the other thread...

DON'T TELL ME HOW I FEEL, WHAT I THINK, OR JUST MAKE UP POSITIONS FOR ME THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH.

You don't need to demonstrate they are sniveling cowards! Nobody has ever disputed that!!! I am NOT and NEVER have defended them against being called cowards, like you suggest. I am defending their freedom of unpopular speech.

edit: people typically mis-state things and accuse people of saying things they didn't when they cannot defend theirselves or have no good arguement. Either that or they are cold-blooded neo-cons... or both.

[Dookus]

26. I have no idea

what other thread you're talking about, but you seem to be a little overwrought and taking it out on me. Relax.

[realisticphish]

29. the thread in the OP nt

[purduejake]

30. haha, I apologize

But that doesn't mean I think your post was correct. You're still an internet-friend even if I scream at you -- seriously.

[realisticphish]

24. whoa whoa whoa

saying that what they did isnt illegal, or isnt hatte speech, doesn't mean one doesn't OPPOSE it. Someone saying "liberals suck" is not hate speech, yet i do not agree. no controdiction there, right?

so, just because they are indeed sniveling cowards, and morons, does NOT make what they say hate speech.

[purduejake]

27. It would be nice if everything we didn't like to hear was considered...

hate speech. Imagine how we could use the laws to shut people up. That would be so nice.

[realisticphish]

13. well ok then

sorry, i assumed you held the opinion of the other people in that thread.

i also really don't see it as hate speech. it is not the equivalent of marking jews. they are labeling professors as communist

i see a difference between labeling and marking, but i understand that some might not :shrug:

[purduejake]

18. People were arguing that calling somebody a communist is hate speech...

but I fail to see how it is any different than me calling somebody a neo-con, which I have done on several occasions and KNOW many people on this board have, too. Nobody wants to be called a neo-con that I know of.

[realisticphish]

20. i agree

they are assuming that being communist is something to be hated, for one thing :shrug:

[purduejake]

23. I'm not a communist like most of these other DUers ..

but I've sure as hell been called worse and would be laughed out of town if I called the police every time somebody called me a dickhead and used their finger to draw a big, crooked penis on my windshield. In that case, I can understand the thoughts of chasing somebody down with a baseball bat (I mean really, if you fuck with a dude's car, you're asking for it). Anyway, that would be worse than being called a communist and having something taped to the outside of my door.

[mondo joe]

38. Labelling them communists in a state with regulations regarding teaching

communism.

You don't see the threat? "We'll identify you as communists, get you charged with violating the regulations, and even if you don't lose your job we'll make life hard for you."

How about putting newspaper reports about murdered abortion providers on the front doors of people who work at Planned Parenthood - would that constitute harrassment? Or free speech?

[purduejake]

44. Lets put this into context...

Threats of this type are not illegal. Labeling somebody as a communist is fine -- people are unfairly called names every day. As adults, most learn to deal with it. Neo-cons make life hard for everybody, especially women, gays, minorities, foreigners, athiests, and countless other people. If a few fringe crazies want to accuse me of being a communist, I don't give a damn and neither should the professor. As if some students implying that tenured professors are communists is REALLY going to cause them to loose their job. Highly unlikely.

I am amazed that somebody to the left of center would compare these 2 different scenarios, but I believe you did it in good faith and for the subject of good debate, so I will reply. Posting a red star on your door implies that you may be a communist. Posting a hit list on your door implies that you are next. If you don't see the difference, I can't do anything to help you.

[mondo joe]

55. The context is they are branding the professors essentially criminal

Threats and intimidation need not include violence.

It's interesting that you can see the IMPLIED threat in the one example but not the other.

[purduejake]

63. Yea, and I accuse people of criminal acts...

I just accused my landlord of it the other day and it was a threat -- if she continued, I would have her prosecuted. That is NOT illegal!

The interesting part about me is that I can differentiate between a real threat of violence and pure offensive speech.

[mondo joe]

65. But all threats are not threats of violence

A threat to harass someone at work, to strike at their livlihood or to defame them is not a threat of violence.

Given that communists have been the subject of a notable blacklist, it's not an unreasonable interpretation to see the threat of blacklisting in this case.

[purduejake]

66. I thought people were supporting these professors...

and ridiculing the people who did this. I see no indication or threat of being blacklisted from the academic community. In fact, I would say the people who did this are now going to have their livelihood attacked -- at least they would if people in here had their way.

[mondo joe]

72. They are essentially accusing the professors of violating regulations

hence threatening their livlihoods - not through a legitimate process of filing a complaint and going through the system, but through vague innuendo.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. I fully agree.

Nevertheless, I will fight to the death to defend your right to do it. Freedom of speech (and marking professors' doors is a form of speech in this context) is worthless unless if it comes with qualifiers like "brave people only".

And I thought it wasn't anonymous - didn't the student behind it talk to the press about it?

[ComerPerro]

22. I agree that the College Rethugs should be allowed to do this, but

I find it to be a symptom of a very disturbing trend. These cowardly jerkoffs are trying to shut down all opposition, and are trying to use intimidation and harassment to suppress free thought.

Plus, imagine the reaction if you put Swastikas on their dorm room doors.

[purduejake]

25. I agree... I am very disturbed as well...

but whenever you try to shut them up, they use it to draw attention and gain the support of all the dumbasses out there looking for a fight just for the sake of fighting. It's best to ignore them or quietly protest it... somebody suggested having all reasonable faculty posting red stars to their own doors to show that they are not afraid. I think it would be a lot more effective at thutting the rethugs up, too.

[realisticphish]

28. precisely

i'm not saying we shouldnt keep one hell of an eye on them, or not slam them as soon as they cross the line. but the line HASN'T been crossed....yet


interestingly, i'm pretty sure that there would be no "hate speech" connected with putting swastikas on their doors. swastikas are not banned, rather using them as a way to attack minorities IS

[purduejake]

34. Technically I don't think it would be hate speech...

unless you knew the person was a minority who would have been terrified by the sight, but if they would really be pushing it if they hung swastikas... especially if one of them turned out to be Jewish because it just LOOKS like a hate crime at that point.

edit: typo

[realisticphish]

35. o yeah

im not saying it would be a good IDEA, but just that it would be legal

[purduejake]

39. I know that =)

But I've become addicted to these damned threads and can't wait to get my 2 cents in even when I agree with you! hehe


I am going to head out soon though... it was a pleasure debating together... as well as with the others who attacked ideas and not me. Regardless, I always walk away from these things learning a lot... and sometimes even with a different opinion. Take care!

[mondo joe]

32. Offensive speech, no. Harrassment, yes.

And I'd say the college repyblicans in the red star incident were not simply offensive, but attempting to harrass and intimidate.

[purduejake]

40. If it was an attempt to harass and intimidate...

do you think that this case was illegal? Just wondering... It's past my bedtime so I will be sure to check on this lively debate later. Have a great night!

[mondo joe]

41. I don't know enough about the case, the state law or the school codes

of conduct to render a judgment.

But it is my impression that the red star incident was an act of intimidation and harrassment.

In a state in which teachers "indoctrinating" students into communism, and noting it with the red stars, the message to the professors is clearly that action may be taken against them if they don't behave themselves in a way that satisfies the college republicans.

[purduejake]

43. You're right...

but if you break down what is going on, it's clearly not illegal. You have people who are unhappy with the professors and may truly believe the professors are pushing the line or violating regulations. It is perfectly appropriate and even decent of somebody to tell you if they feel you are out-of-line before they do something like file a formal complaint against you. Perhaps these people saw many ideas that these liberal professors shared with communists and tried to play on their emotions by including the red star. A reasonable person would not feel physically threatened in this case. They may feel intimidated and decide to educate themselves to make sure they are in compliance with the regulations. I realize that I am "defending" these sick individuals, but when I try to look at this objectively, I HAVE referenced my school's regulations and told professors they were dangerously close to crossing the line. I even related one of the professors to fascists. They were intimidate, I threatened action if the rules were broken (again) and if I was not satisfied, I took it to the next level. I mean, this is how the world works! For people (not you, but others) to pretend these acts somehow constitute a hate crime and warrant suspension from COLLEGE is ridiculous when I am certain every single one of them have intimidated somebody else before. It's life and there are legal ways to do it -- basically by not threatening to do anything illegal to them. The rest of it is pretty much fair game.

I'm not an attorney, but I do study this stuff in my free time as the logic behind law is very good to know and has allowed me to push the line a few more times than I probably should have without getting in trouble.

[mondo joe]

53. Well now you're changing your question.

You asked if offensive speech should be classifiied as hate speech.

Now you're talking about whether or not this act was legal. The two issues are not the same.

And there is a world of difference between one person telling a professor they think they are skirting the line, and a virtual gang labelling doors in the night.

[purduejake]

64. "Virtual" is the key word in your post above.

It implies exagerration, which I have been complaining about the whole time.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. To me the act was very much tantamount to burning a cross on a lawn

and the USSC last year stated that speech was not protected speech.
See Virginia V Black.

[purduejake]

45. How was this act very much tantamount to burning a cross.

I am offended by that statement and I am not even black. A few people with non-violent pasts post symbols on your doors suggesting that your are a communist, God forbid. Can you honestly tell me that you would feel threatened like you would if a bunch of screaming masked men with a violent history were standing in your front yard lighting fires to objects - something that they customarily do before a lynching? Suggesting these are on the same level is unrealistic and unreasonable.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

47. Not necessarily. Marking doors could be perceived as a threat or

fighting words.

The same was said about cross burning for years and in an earlier case, the USSC even bought it. Are you young? The RED THREAT ruined people's livelihoods and careers. Many had to leave the country and their families were intimidated.

This can be considered a benign prank or a marking equivalent to a threat.

[Maddy McCall]

76. Exactly, and therefore these Repub. students' actions are antithetical

to the first amendment. They are trying to silence professors through intimidation.

Can't believe any enlightened DUer would defend these students....but then, maybe I am giving some DUers more credit for being enlightened than they deserve or have demonstrated.

[mondo joe]

54. I don't know why you think violence is the only threat

Violence is not the only threat used to intimidate.

People in the workplace who have never physically harmed a fly are often guilty of intimidation and harassment -- look at sexual harassment cases.

The real question is: is there an implied threat in the act.

I would saay there was.

[mondo joe]

61. How about putting pictures of the World Trade Center on 9/11

On the front doors, or office doors of Muslims neighbors or workers?

Is this a threat? Harassment? Free speech?

[purduejake]

62. Sounds like harassment to me.

I'm not from the area, but I don't see how a picture of a building could be conceived as a threat, especially since a lot of people still have posters up around here with a pic of the burning buildings with an American Flag as a backdrop.

Now, if it was known that a picture of a burning building posted to a Muslim's door meant that they were going to be "hit" then it would be a hate crime.

[mondo joe]

67. But implied threats are by definition not absolute declarations

A swastika on a Jew's door is an implied threat. A cross burning is too.

A picture of a burning WTC placed on a Muslim's door may be perceived as a threat of retaliation for perceived association with the event.

That's what makes any implied threat so difficult - the threat can be argued to be there or not.

[purduejake]

69. Right... so you have to look at cases individually...

There has always been much debate and discussion about hate crimes. You cannot always prosecute somebody for killing a gay person. You can only speculate about "WHAT THEY WERE THINKING" and punish them for their intentions of sending a message out to terrorize other gays. But the thing is that other homosexuals need a "reasonable" cause for their concern. These are all gray areas and can be debated in a different thread.

[mondo joe]

73. Actually you can prosecute someone for killing a gay person.

But what I'm talking about here are implied threats and intimidation.

You can't say simply because there was no overt message there was no threat or intimidation. If that were the case, burning crosses and swastikas wouldn't be considered threats.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. How's about...

What if liberal students were posting Swastikas on conservative professors doors? Would that be appropriate? Would it be hate speech/action?

[GiovanniC]

60. Exactly... I Want to Know What the Difference Is

In each case, a group of students label a group of teachers in a way to identify them with brutal regimes that were responsible for the slaughter of millions. I have heard from the same people who are cool with the red stars that the swastikas would be bad. Why the double-standard?

And to these moronic college republicans: "At long last, have you no shame?"

[Seabiscuit]

48. "Hate-speech" is a media phrase... used to condemn whatever they imagine

it's popular or acceptable to condemn when they use it. "Hate crimes" is another media buzz-phrase generally used to describe physical attacks on minorities, including gays.

"Hate speech" is not really defined anywhere, so I wouldn't worry my head at all about it.

Let's not confuse that kind of media mish-mash with the constitutional limitations on free-speech - defamation, incitement to riot, shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc.

There's nothing wrong with carrying a sign that says "Fuck Bush" in an antiwar rally, no matter what some a-hole media pundit wants to call it.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. Hate crimes

Do you not think that attacks on gays or other minorities, where that is the sole reason for the attack, are not hate crimes?

[Seabiscuit]

50. Perhaps you misunderstood my post, which admittedly wasn't very clear

"hate crimes" is a phrase invented by the media to describe criminal actions (physical attacks) on minorities, including gays. As far as their being crimes, there are already plenty of laws on the books that make such actions crimes. There may be a few states where legislatures have written special codes for crimes against minorities and gays where the phrase "hate crime" appears, but the phrase "hate crimes" originated with the MSM.

[FreedomFry]

51. If it's OK to mark someone's office door today, what's next?

Yellow stars on arm bands tomorrow?

The problem is, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Where would you draw the line? Because allowing things like this to happen in this country -- especially now, with a citizenry so divided -- is to invite further harassment.

Where do you draw the line between what these students did and terrorism?

[MissMillie]

56. Who gets to decide what's offensive?

I hope it's me!!!

If people are defacing property with these red stars, that's vandalism.

If a professor's reputation is tarnished due to libel, the professor can take legal action.

[steve2470]

57. I agree with you.

I am not too sure about taping red stars to professor's doors, since that could be viewed as harassment, but I guess it is classified as political speech, which is certainly protected under the First Amendment. Those students are entitled to their opinion, even though they're wrong. Actually, the profs could sue them under "intentional infliction of emotional distress" conceivably. What are we coming to ? Having to videotape all college lectures so they can pass some sort of "anti-communist" litmus test ? Egads.

[Rabrrrrrr]

58. No, speech is just speech. It's all allowed under the first amendment,

except for some obviously felonious speech - yelling "fire" when there isn't one, perjury, conspiracy.

But otherwise, speech is just speech. To label it "hate speech" is to give it power.

Those who want to label everything they disagree with as "hate speech" are people with poorly developed emotions and a restricted maturity, not quite ready for the grownup world of opposing ideas and debate.


Now, that said, putting yellow stars on professors' doors is both vandalism and a rather poopy-headed way of joining "debate".

[mondo joe]

59. Jake, I think you've conflated several issues

Should offensive speech be considered HATE SPEECH
and
Should offensive speech be ILLEGAL

"Hate speech" is not necessarily illegal.

Also:

SHOULD it be illegal
and
IS IT illegal

Your opening post asks if certain things SHOULD be considered this or that, but follows up with statements about certain language NOT being illegal as a defense.

[Zenlitened]

68. Hate speech, stupid speech, pointless drivel speech...

... it's all in the eye of the beholder, really.

Others in this post have pointed out that there are legal mechanisms already in place to determine when someone has crossed the line.

But if you're asking whether we should have laws in the US similar to those in other countries, which basically ban saying "mean" things about certain groups... I'd answer "no."

That's just such a slippery slope. To shut a few nutbars up, we'd jeopardize one of our most fundamental rights -- the right to speak our minds without fear of being rounded up the police.

One of the prices of freedom, I suppose. And worth paying, in my view.

[Maddy McCall]

74. Can't believe you are defending these cowards who did this.

You are reaching really, really far to find a defense for them.

If these dumbasses disagree with a professor, then they should have the cajones to face him or her, instead of sneaking in during the stealth of night to deface the prof's door.

This is a form of intimidation that is being spearheaded by adults who are pushing the college students to oppose "liberal professors."

You want to defend this, then fine, but don't expect THIS professor to agree with you.

[Maddy McCall]

75. And let me add that what you are defending is NOT free speech.

You are defending the people who are attempting to silence the professors through this idiotic form of intimidation.

If these students have something to say, they should say it in class, where I am sure their free speech has been allowed.

Instead, they are trying to silence these profs' free speech by intimidating them to shut up.

And you defend this? What you are defending is antithetical to the first amendment, friend.

[EstimatedProphet]

77. Locking

continuation of another thread in LBN forum. Please continue the discussion there.