1 / 4

St. Paul Hate Speech Law

St. Paul Hate Speech Law.

ariane
Download Presentation

St. Paul Hate Speech Law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. St. Paul Hate Speech Law “Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization, or graffiti, including but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, religion, or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” St. Paul MN Legis. Code, Section 292.02 (1990)

  2. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul • The odious crime • The trial court results • The appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Ct. • On to Washington: The Supreme Court • Decision, 9-0 • When is unanimous not unanimous? • The next logical step…What about hate crime penalty enhancements? Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)

  3. Arguments in favor of regulating hate speech • Demonstrates an organizational commitment to diversity and respect • Hate speech is not a mere insult • Bad ideas exist; can be regulated • The 1st amendment shouldn’t trump 14th • Hate speech silences other voices, regulation enhances free speech • Universities have a special responsibility to make all feel welcome

  4. Arguments against regulating hate speech • A policy will chill other “non-hate” speech • A policy will drive hate underground • A policy stigmatizes people as “victims” who must be protected • A policy will ultimately be turned on those it was meant to protect • A policy makes content distinctions on speech and leads to further censorship (Doe v. University of Michigan)

More Related