Transcript The evolution of Hate speech legislation

HATE SPEECH
Group 2
Joel Jensen ~ Kellie Tyrrell ~ Chandelle Hunt ~ Stephanie Bolton ~ Sarah Benson
Braydon Hanks ~ Daniel Awtrey
THE EVOLUTION OF HATE SPEECH
LEGISLATION
Apart from the Law, Hate Speech is any form of communication that
denigrates or belittles a person or a group based upon
characteristics such as:
• Race
• Sexual Orientation
• Religion
• Education
• Ethnicity
• Class
• Gender Identity
• Income
• Disability
THE EVOLUTION OF HATE SPEECH
LEGISLATION
• Within the Law, the definition of Hate Speech can be widened
to include not only speech, but:
• gestures,
• conduct,
• writing,
• and other displays of communication,
that “may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a
protected individual or group”
(answers.com, 2012)
UTAH POLICIES
• 1992
• 2006
• First attempt at creating • Utah State Legislators passed a
hate speech legislation
bill allowing judges and the Board
of Pardons to consider bias
• Vague
against the victim as an
• Misguided
aggravating factor
• Lacked classification
and clear legislative
intent
• The Utah Bureau of Criminal
Investigation defines hate crime as
a “criminal offense against a
person or property which is
• Should have been titled
motivated…by the offenders’ bias
“Exercise of Rights”
against race, religion,
statute
ethnic/national origin”
ACTS OF THE SUPREME COURT
• The U.S. Supreme Court has issued six major landmark
rulings on hate speech;
• Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)
• Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
• National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)
• R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
• Virginia v. Black (2003)
• Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
ACTS OF THE SUPREME COURT
• The Supreme Court’s main goal was and is to regulate hate
speech without infringing upon freedom of expression.
• This goal is complicated by the fact that the First and
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution run contrary to
each other.
• The Supreme Court walks a fine line balancing the
regulation of freedom of expression and ensuring that all
citizens are afforded equal rights.
ACTS OF THE SUPREME COURT
• The Supreme Court Justices’ ruled in the Terminiello case to
protect freedom of speech overall unless it was found to
exhibit “a clear and present danger …that rises far above
public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.”
• This ruling set the tone for Hate Speech cases, but the view
has been refined over the years and motivation behind the
act is now considered when prosecuting the law.
Virginia v. Black
• The Supreme Court had to
consider the constitutionality of a
Virginia law which prohibited
cross-burning as a form of
intimidation and hate speech.
• The defendants were Barry
Black, Richard Elliot, and
Jonathan O’Mara.
Barry Black in Klan regalia
• Elliot and O’Mara were charged
with setting fire to a cross in the
backyard of Elliot’s neighbor, an
African American .
VIRGINIA V. BLACK
• Black was charged with violating the Virginia law against
cross-burning when he held a rally supporting Elliot and
O;Mara on private property during which a cross was
burned.
• Neighbors, fearing for their safety, called the police.
VIRGINIA V. BLACK
• Each of the three cases was taken to the Court of Appeals
and on the third attempt the state Supreme Court overturned
the convictions and ruled the Virginia statute violated the
First Amendment by regulating speech on the assumption of
hostile intent.
VIRGINIA V. BLACK

In a plurality opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day
O’Conner, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is lawful to
prohibit certain forms of expression. Due to its historical
context, this can include cross-burning when committed “with
the express intent to intimidate.”
VIRGINIA V. BLACK
• The U.S. Supreme Court did require Virginia to
revise a portion of its state statute as it
automatically assumed ill intent and did not make
exceptions for cross-burning as “a show of
support for a particular ideology” or a sign of
symbolic meaning.
VIRGINIA V. BLACK
• Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, “That cross
burning subjects its targets, and sometimes, an unintended
audience … to extreme emotional distress, and is virtually
never viewed merely as ‘unwanted communication,’ but
rather, as a physical threat…”
• The court found that the law violated Black’s First
Amendment rights because he did not act with malicious
intent.
• The Supreme Court overturned the convictions of Black,
Elliot, and O’Mara.
CONCLUSION
• This case resulted from a conflict of values.
• The activity, cross-burning, remained the same.
• Each group had a different criteria to evaluate the activity.
• One group viewed it as a show of support.
• The other group viewed it as hostile and extremely troubling.
• These views are obviously based on identity.
CONCLUSION
• Coercive and positional power is entrusted to the U.S.
Supreme Court to interpret the law using the Constitution as
framework and putting personal feelings aside.
• This decision had enormous potential to impact two
fundamental rights as outlined in the Constitution; Freedom
of expression and Equality.
• We agree with the Supreme Court ruling. With their ruling
they were able to provide protection to racial, ethnic,
religious and other groups, while maintaining freedom of
expression.
CONCLUSION
• What the ruling means to us
as citizens, is that we are
allowed to state our opinion at
any time, or any place as long
as we do not intimidate, harm,
threaten, or have the intent to
intimidate, harm or threaten
another person or group.
QUESTION
• Do you agree with the
Supreme Court ruling in
Virginia v. Black?
• Why or Why Not?
GROUP PROCESS
• We used consensus and compromise
• We found that effective communication was difficult as it is
tied to each individual to participate.
• Group unity was hard to maintain; may be attributed to size
of group or lack of buy-in.
• A future approach may be to place greater emphasis on
communication and to address individual goals.
WORKS CITED
•
ACLU of Utah. (2004). Hate Crimes. Retrieved from acluutah.org:
http://www.acluutah.org/hatecrimes.htm
•
answers.com. (2012). hate speech. Retrieved from Answers.com:
http://www.answers.com/topic/hate-speech#ixzz2CoO7nGfq
•
Ariadne. (n.d.). Legal History. Retrieved from Ariadne's Thread:
http://mysite.verizon.net/jdehullu/speech/sphist.htm
•
Burton, L. N. (2012). Types of Power ppt. Retrieved from Canvas:
https://slcc.instructure.com/courses/101446/wiki/unit-8-power-and-conflict
•
Encyclopedia Britannica. (2012). First Amendment. Retrieved from britannica.com:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/208044/First-Amendment/296554/Permissiblerestrictions-on-expression
•
Galegroup.com. (2011). Virginia v. Black (2003). Retrieved from Gale Opposing
Viewpoints in Context:
http://ic.galegroup.com.dbprox.slcc.edu/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWi
ndow?failOverType=&query=&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displa
yGroupName=Reference&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=&source=&sortBy=&di
splayGroups=
WORKS CITED
•
Head, T. (2012). Hate Speech Cases. Retrieved from About.com:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-Cases.htm
•
Linder, D. (2012). Regulation of Fighting Words and Hate Speech. Retrieved from
exploring Constitutional Conflicts:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm
•
Nobis, L. (2012). Conflict Analysis Diagnosis Before Treatment. Retrieved from Conflict
AnalysisPP.ppt.
•
Nobis, L. C. (2012). Group Processes Types, Benefits, Pitfalls ppt. Salt Lake.
•
Utah, T. L. (2006, September). Hate Crimes Study. Retrieved from
http://www.lwvutah.org/Studies/Hate%20Crime%20Study%202006.pdf
•
Welling, A. (2003, September 25). Utah hate-crime law constitutional, judge rules.
Retrieved from deseretnews.com: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/515034219/Utahhate-crime-law-constitutional-judge-rules.html?pg=all