Updated: 02/13/2004

Let me just say right up front that this lecture is going to deal with sensitive topics.  These topics will include abortion, racism and homosexuality.  Our discussion is not about a specific position on any of these issues, but rather about the freedom to express an opinion about them.  So, whatever our personal thoughts on any of these issues might be, let's focus on expression of the topic and not the topic itself in this discussion.  

HATE SPEECH

Over the years, one of the areas in prior restraint has been attempted is in the area of Hate Speech.  But the questions are two:  

• what is it?
• should we restrain it?

In 1999, John Rocker of the Atlanta Braves caused an uproar when he commented about why he didn't want to play baseball in New York City.  "Imagine having to take the (No.) 7 train to (Shea Stadium) looking like you're (in) Beirut next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDs, right next to some dude who got out of jail for the fourth time, right next some 20-year-old mom with four kids.  It's depressing...The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners....You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English.  Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there.  How the hell did they get in this country?"  While he later apologized, (Associated Press, 1999)  he was subsequently suspended in response to the furor his comments aroused.  The Atlanta Braves sent a clear signal to their players (and other athletes) that they'd better watch what they say.  The Braves were within their rights as a private organization to set standards for team members.  However, what the Braves did is very different from making what Rocker said illegal by classifying it as "hate speech" and establishing legal penalties against it.   

Hate Speech: (def) "insults, slurs, or epithets directed to a group of people, based on a shared characteristic of that group." (Fraleigh and Tuman, p. 171) Hate speech is usually directed at a specific race, religion or gender, but it has also been directed at individuals or groups because of sexual orientation, ethnicity, or other group membership.

In an excellent chapter on the topic, Fraleigh and Tuman discuss the harms of hate speech.

• Hate speech targets immutable characteristics - those which cannot be changed. (There might be some disagreement about that point with regards to specific groups. ) There can be specific negative effects of this type of speech: It can lead to self-hatred. It can cause serious psychological problems including nightmares, difficulty sleeping, breathing, and even physiological problems such as high blood pressure.
• It occurs in the context of prejudice - the target of the speech cannot escape the social, historical and cultural context in which the speech occurs. In light of activities of the K.K.K.  historically, a cross burned in the yard of a black family has much deeper meaning. 
• It may be associated with violence and intimidation and reinforces the subordination of minorities or other groups which may have been oppressed historically, and thus violates the principle of equal protection and citizenship guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.     (Fraleigh and Truman;  Roleff, 2001)

The American Psychological Association has a number of resources which provide information about the harms of hate crimes and motivations of those who commit them them.  See:  "Hate Crimes Today: An Age-Old Foe in Modern Dress" at http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/hate/ and for more resources, search their site for "hate crimes."  

The case history concerning hate crimes and hate speech goes back a long way..

• 1952:  Beauharnais v. Illinois  was a case concerning a leaflet encouraging white people to fight desegregation of Chicago neighborhoods.  A portion of publication said, "[i]f persuasion and the need to prevent the white race from being mongrelize by the negro (sic)  will not unite us, then the aggressions....rapes, robberies, knives, guns and marijuana of the negro surely will."  By a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that this was group libel and constituted "fighting words" as stated in Chablinsky v. New Hampshire.
• 1964:  Times v. Sullivan:  While this case is considered a libel case, it expanded the concept of free speech.  As a result of this case, public officials could not sue anyone who criticized them unless they could prove both falsity and malice.  As we will learn in our next unit, that makes it practically impossible to for a public official to sue and win. What it did was free the public to criticize those in public office without fear of being sued for everything they own. Some would argue that the civil rights movement could never have gone forward without this ruling..
• 1969:  Brandenburg v. Ohio:  As you know, this case concerned a Klu Klux Klan rally in which a cross was burned and Brandenburg made a speech urging "revengence" and sending the Blacks back to Africa.  While he was initially convicted under an Ohio law which made it illegal to advocate the use of violence for industrial or political change, the Supreme Court over turned the case, because the speech did not advocate "imminent" violence.  
• 1977:  Collin v. Smith:   Here a court of appeals held that while the Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois would cause emotional distress, the harm was not sufficient to warrant abridgment of the First Amendment.  The court held that the townspeople were not a captive audience and that speech could not be halted merely because we find it offensive.  The Supreme Court would not hear the case on appeal.
• 1992: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul:  In this case a group of students burned a wooden cross in the front yard of a Black family.  The court said while the concept of "fighting words" was still good law, the city ordinance in question was trying to limit a select type of speech and could have prosecuted the teenagers for arson, trespassing or other violations. (Rolef, 2001)

We can all share concern for those whose lives have been disrupted by hateful words and actions. I ask you to remember the discussion we had in Com 310 about the components of attitude and their subsequent impact on value.  Consider the role of the affective, cognitive and behavior in the attitudes and value formation associated with this discussion.   Can our concern about such harms be taken "too far?"  Some would say it may have already been taken too far.

I think one way to approach this issue is to share a speech with you.  It was made my Charleton Heston to the Harvard Law School Forum on Feb. 16, 1999.  It's title is "Winning the Cultural War" and you can find the text at  http://www.save-now.com/news/archives/Charlton-Heston.htm .   You should consider this required reading, if you did not hear the speech in class, please read it before you go on with the lecture.

Mr. Heston provides several examples of political correctness operating in several contexts. Consider that political correctness is a form of informal prior restraint, and in some cases, it hasn't been quite so informal.  

In 1998, there was a bill before Congress which would have made penalties harsher for "hate crimes."  The Hates Crimes prevention Act of 1998 would have separated so-called hate crimes from other forms of criminal behavior.  How do we know if a crime is a hate crime?  Obviously we have to figure out what the perpetrator was thinking, and that might be discerned not only from what acts are committed but by what words are spoken, and there was concern that S1529 could bring the full power of the federal government against individuals or groups who advocate a position  that other individuals or groups find offensive or hateful in some way.   Consider the response to a statement made by Senator Trent Lott based on his religious beliefs:

• "Trent Lott's backward and hate-filled thinking ...."  Matt Foreman, Exec. dir., Empire State Pride Agenda

• "Where does this pain, self-hatred and suffering originate? From hateful comments like Senator Lott's." C.Ray Drew, Exec. Dir., Gay & Lesbian Parents Coalition International

• "Trent Lott's bigoted beliefs about homosexuality should not be allowed to affect anyone else." Nacy Nangeroni, Exec. Dir., International Foundation for Gender Education  

What did Trent Lott say?    [Paraphrase:  That he didn't advocate being unkind to homosexuals, but as a Christian we should love them and try to help them with their problem, much like one would help someone who had another problem like drinking, etc.   While that statement certainly offers a different perspective from the one held by the gay and lesbian rights' movement, it does stem from Senator Lott's religions beliefs, and, as you saw in class,  it was not spoken in a hateful way or with any malice.]

(Schwalm, 1998)

Some documentation indicates that informal prior restraint or silencing is the goal of some groups.  

• Parents, Friends and Families of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) launched an advertising campaign in the mid 1990s to "condemn hate speech."  The group chose a tactic described in a book by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear of Gays in the 90's.  A quote from the book states the strategy: "The best way to make homohatred look bad is to vilify those who victimize gays.  The public should be shown images of ranting homohaters whose associated traits and attitudes appall and anger Middle America...."  I could go on, but I won't.  The goal is to make the opposition so uncomfortable with opposing, that it will be silenced  completely. One of the commercials which eventually ran on television featured a dramatization of a young gay man being chased by a group and then beaten.  That scene was followed by video clips of comments from Rev. Pat Robertson and Sen. Jesse Helms.  (Wilke, 1995; Kirk and Madsen, 1989 pp 189-90 )  

• Rev. Mel White, a homosexual, referred to Jerry Falwell's reference's to homosexual behavior as "sin"  as "spiritual violence."  Another spokesperson,  Rev. Jimmy Creech said: "Spiritual violence is an assault upon the integrity and dignity of a person when that person is told that because of who she or he is, she or he is not loved and accepted by God, and is in fact rejected and condemned by God.....Damning and judgmental words cause massive and deep wound that are hard to heal."  (Culture Facts, 10/27/99).   Given this definition, how could any pastor preach a sermon against sin of any kind without committing such "spiritual violence?"  Does that mean than religious people should no longer have freedom to articulate their beliefs if those beliefs are based on a hierarchy of behaviors or right and wrong? 

• Consider what happened in 1999 when the Southern Baptist Convention planned an evangelical outreach in Chicago. Chicago was selected as a focus city where they would share faith with others, "love them, pray for them," and feed and clothe them.  The Council of Religious Leaders, which represented the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago as well as several other Christian and Jewish groups, wrote the SBC and asked them not to come because their evangelistic efforts might cause "hate crimes."  The letter to the SBC said, "While we are confident that your volunteers would come with entirely peaceful intentions, a campaign of the nature and scope you envision could contribute to a climate conductive to hate crimes."   (Culture facts, 12/1/99)  So does any form of evangelism create a climate conductive to "hate crimes?"  We'll come back to this concept a little later.

Some individuals and groups might prefer Pat Robertson,  Jessie Helms and Senator Lott not speak their minds. While those groups' response and criticism may be designed to "chill" future comments of which they disapprove (a form of informal prior restraint), legal prior restraint issues do exist and offer perspective:

• In Germany it is illegal to distribute un-annotated hate literature, and Hitler's Mein Kampf is illegal.  In August, 1999, Betelsmann, the publisher, pulled Mein Kampf from its online bookstore, as did Barnesnoble.com. A complaint had been filed with the German justice ministry which accused Barnesnoble.com and Amazon.com of violating German law.  This can get "dicey" for international e-commerce. (Kaufman, 1999). 

Certainly we can understand how sensitive the German people would be toward Hitler's writings.  And we can understand why people have legitimate concerns for the ugly sentiments expressed by hate groups and even some calling themselves Christian people.  When Matthew Sheppard was killed, the following website appeared ( I didn't check to see if it's still there...) "Perpetual Gospel Memorial to Matthew Shepard.....Matthew Shepard has been in hell for 184 days"  ( I assume there was a counter on the site).  The url was even worse with  "godhatesf-gs" in the web address.  At Shepard's funeral a group from a church in Topeka, Kansas demonstrated against homosexuality.  (CNN, 1998)  These kinds of behaviors encourage those who would welcome hate speech laws.     

More examples of prior restraint....

• In 1999, the California Supreme Court upheld an injunction that prohibited a car rental employee from using racial slurs in his place of employment. While there were five separate opinions from justices, a concurring opinion found the injunction could be valid if it included an "exemplary" of forbidden words... (Mitchelll, 1999) 

• Another court approached the issue of racial slurs a little differently.  In this case a man said the police officer who detained him used a racial slur.  But the court said unless it was accompanied by physical harassment, it was not a violation of the man's 14th Amendment rights of equal protection under the law. (Koppel, 1999) 

• Physical contact made the difference in another case. "Spitting can be a hate crime"  -- So says the title of a January, 2000 article in the New York Law Journal.  If it is racially motivated, spitting on a person can be criminally prosecuted in New York City. The case involved a man uttering a racial epithet while spitting on an African American person.  Spitting was deemed to be physical contact and thus fit the statute. (Riccardi, 2000)

• Some clarification concerning the hate crimes issue came in July of 2000 when the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a part of New Jersey's hate crimes laws which allowed for tougher sentences for crimes which were racially motivated. (Apprendi v. New Jersey,) ("Short Take..., 2000)

Some of the primary focus on the issue of hate speech and informal prior restraint has been in the area of speech codes and political correctness on the campuses of colleges, universities and other schools.    

• One of the editors of the University of Maryland  Diamondback was forced to resign after publishing a letter to the editor critical of the gay lifestyle.  The letter appeared after the paper had run a number of pro-gay articles and columns.  It was written by a non-student under an assumed name  and editors didn't discover that until later, but the content caused more problems for the paper than the deception.  The paper had hoped to stimulate discussion on the topic, but did not anticipate the hostility which ensued.  The paper was accused of having "ethics in the toilet" and publishing a "hate column."   Former managing editor of the paper, Daryl Kahn commented: "We are at a time in history when free speech is being besieged everywhere. I don't understand ow so many people can equate a column like that with criminality.  Just because we publish it doesn't mean we are homophobic.  The idea was to provoke a discussion.  And we did."   (Wolper, 1999)

• In Florida, the state legislators wanted to investigate whether a Florida State professor presented his views that blacks were less intelligent than whites.   The professor had done controversial research for nearly 20 years, some of it designed to show that blacks were inferior to whites.  The FSU administrators were defending the professor's academic freedom while personally opposed to some of his ideas. (Associated Press, 5/3/99)

• The American Center for Law and Justice filed an appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals on behalf of a biology teacher who had been barred from teaching biology because he had criticized Darwin's evolutionary theory. The teacher did not want to teach creationism per se, nor did he refuse to teach Darwinism.  Rather he merely wanted to point out that not all scientists agree on the matter. (ACLJ, 2000) 

• A fraternity and sorority both lost their charters at Colorado State University after a homecoming float appeared with an anti-gay slogan pinned on a scarecrow.  The scarecrow had been part of the float's design and was supposed to represent the opponents in the football game.  However, Matthew Shepard had been assaulted only a day or two before and had been mistaken for a scarecrow because he was so badly beaten and tied to a fence.  The scarecrow would have probably been in bad taste, but the "I am Gay" sign and the epithet were over the line.  The fraternity said the float had been vandalized, the scarecrow had been removed, but then it was placed back on the float by someone.  (Associated Press, 10/13/98)

Why have colleges and universities found it necessary to enact speech codes?  

• In addition to the psychological and physiological harms mentioned above

• Advocates of speech codes hold that hate speech allows an atmosphere of intimidation which limits a student's ability to learn

• Minority students will feel more free to speak out in an atmosphere free of hate speech

• Racism and other forms of discrimination are a failure of democracy and to leave their victims to fend for themselves only furthers the injustice

• Failure to regulate hate speech disrespects the victims of it

• Other types of speech are restricted (defamation, copyright, state secrets, plagiarism, disrespectful speech to a judge or other person of authority, etc.), so why not this form as well?  

But critics of the codes offer some other points of view:

• The codes tend to create and "us versus them" mentality which is divisive to the campus and the society

• Some proponents advocate radical means to halt hate speech, including declaring hate speakers mentally ill, government monitoring of groups and individuals who advocate it, and punishing all forms of hate speech in all media

• Hate speech laws in other countries haven't necessarily stopped hate in those places

• Hate speech is difficult to define

• Once defined in law, how is it applied and by whom?  The hate speech laws can be used to silence the people they are designed to protect. For example, civil rights opponents could have said civil rights demonstrations where hate speech against the white people of the south.

• Inadvertent harm an inevitable part of the concept.  Trent Lott's comments were not motivated by a desire to hurt anyone's feelings, but that was the inadvertent result.  That can cut both ways.  Are the criticisms of Senator Lott now hate speech because they hurt his feelings?

• Believe it or not, there are benefits to hate speech and hate speech laws would eliminate them.  What are those benefits?

  • It uncovers the haters

  • It exposes ignorance

  • It warns and prepares the targets of such speech

  • It provides police with evidence and suspects in event of a crime

  • It demonstrates our devotion to free speech values

• Speech codes do not change beliefs or stop hatred, but rather suppress the symptoms of serious problems

• Adopting speech codes is an easier strategy than actually dealing with changing attitudes (Roleff, 2001)

Be sure you have read the material in your text about this issue as well.

For More discussion on these issues, see the following links:

• See the article at Freedom Forum Online to find out why the University of Wisconsin abolished its speech codes after eighteen years:  http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1999/3/2wispeechcode.asp   and...

• For an excellent discussion about why hate speech codes are a problem, see : http://www.freedomforum.org/first/2000/1/17ombudsman.asp  for an editorial at the Freedom Forum Online.

• The American Association of University Professors has a clear policy statement on the issue.  See it at http://www.lib.udel.edu/ud/freedom/aaup.html  

• American Civil Liberties Union. "Hate Speech on Campus." ACLU Briefing Paper. 1996  Retrieved at http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp16.html 

Religious Freedom:

Another area where speech has been limited on campuses concerns religious freedom.  Very often the "separation between church and state" is misunderstood.  Students and faculty have far more religious freedoms in the workplace and on campus than they often realize.  For some solid information about your rights, see the following links:

• "Student's Rights of Free Speech"  at http://www.aclj.org/publications/kyr/schools.asp 

• "Students Right in the Public Schools: Section 2" at http://www.aclj.org/publications/srps/section2.asp 

• "The Rights of Christians in the Workplace" at http://www.aclj.org/issues/emplrght.asp   

You will probably find out some things you didn't know.

Matthew Shepard, Truth in Love and an "atmosphere of hate."

One of my personal greatest concerns about the issue of 'hate speech' is the argument that it creates an environment of hate that encourages and fosters mean or even criminal acts against minorities or individuals who are different.  I hadn't even considered this issue until Matthew Shepard was viciously murdered in 1998.  That act was horrible and inexcusable, and the perpetrators have been rightly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  However, in the days after the crime, the nation was in distress over the murder of this young man because he was homosexual.  Emotions ran very high, and what followed illustrated to me very clearly the problems with this issue:

Basically, this is what happened:

• In the summer of 1998, a group of conservative groups including American Family Association, Christian Coalition,  Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, National Legal Foundation sponsored a series of ads and television commercials offering information for individuals who might want to leave a homosexual lifestyle. The ads featured individuals who testified that they had left homosexuality and their lives had been changed.  You will be able to read for yourself the content of these ads and the fact their focus is on hope and information, not condemnation.

• Matthew Shepard was murdered in the fall of 1998.

• Critics of the ads and their content charged that the ads had created an environment of hate and thus were in some way responsible for Shepard's death.  One particularly egregious interview occurred on the Today program in mid-October.

At no time did any of the ads or organizations advocate violence or even unkindness toward any gay or lesbian person.  However, in Focus on the Family was accused of contributing to this "atmosphere" when it did not even sponsor the ads. In the following list of web links you will find a letter from Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family explaining the accusations which occurred on TODAY including transcripts of the interview, the ads, a Frank Rich op-ed piece which appeared in the New York Times , and a news report from the Washington Times.  Consider the following links required reading:

• Dobson, James.  November, 1998 letter.  Dr. Dobson's Study.   Focus on the Family web site at http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a00003274.html  [link no longer active]

• "Toward an open debate on homosexual behavior."  Citizen Link Research Papers.  9/15/98.  at http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0002800.html  This is the primary link for the ads.  Go to the bottom of this web page and the other ads in the series will be linked. An additional ad which ran in July, 1998, featured  John Paulk, a staff member at Focus on the Family.  You can find that one at http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0002272.html    Be sure to look at all of them.

• Rich, Frank. "The Road to Laramie"  The New York Times 10/14/98  at http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily....A+rich~homosexual%Egay~hate  In this editorial Rich discusses the Truth in Love campaign this way: "But it's really about stirring up the feat that produces hate.  If these ads were truly aimed at gay people, they wouldn't be broadcast at extravagant cost to the wide general audience general audience reached by TV.....The ads themselves, despite the sugar-coating of "hope," ooze malice.  In one of them, homosexuality is linked to drug addiction and certain death by AIDS; all of them implicitly posit that homosexuality is itself a disease in need of a cure...Matthew Shepard has now been "cured" that's for sure."   [This link no longer available or active.]

• Duin, Julia.  "Criticism of homosexuality is being suppressed as "hate speech".  Washington Times . 10/27/98 at http://www.americansfortruth.com/Crit3008.html   This article documents the criticism of the Truth in Love campaign, and other examples you will find enlightening.

• Graham, Tim. "A Tale of Two Killings" Focus on the Family Citizen  2000. at http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0009916.html   This article compares the coverage of the Shepard murder and to another horrible murder which occurred about the same time. 

The Family Research Council, which was a sponsor of the ads, put together some facts about the events surrounding the ad  controversy and the Shepard case.  This is an excellence and concise summary of the events previously described. Consider it required reading at :  http://www.frc.org/papers/infocus/index.cfm?get=IF98K1&arc=yes  or go to FRC.org and search for "hate crimes"  and go to "Facts Contradict 'Gay' Party Line on Hate Crimes."

• The police did not call the incident a "hate crime."

• There was no evidence linking the assailants in any way with the "Truth in Love" campaign which did not run in Wyoming.  Nor did they have any connection with the groups sponsoring the ads.

• At least one of Shepard's assailants had a criminal record and both had been involved previously in a violent incident.

• The assailants could face the death penalty under Wyoming statutes without a hate crime law.

• There has never been a study which shows a correlation between church participation and belief with violent attacks on homosexuals.  Rather church participation is an indicator of reduced likelihood of any criminal activity.  (Schwalm, 1998)  

There do seem to be some double standards about hate speech.  Alec Baldwin, in an appearance on the Conan O'Brien Show in December, 1998, made the following statement:  "If we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together,...we'd go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death!"  He made an additional comment about Hyde's children.  (Bauer, 12/18/98)  I can't begin to share some of the other literature I have found from gay authors.  

But let's not be mistaken.  The issue of hate speech is not just about homosexuality.  There are two other significant cases which have occurred in the last few years.

Matt Hale, the self-appointed leader of a hate group which he calls the Church of the Creator.  He received his law degree from the University of Illinois law school, but the Illinois Bar refused to allow him to pass the bar, based on his racist views.  He sued, and Alan Derschowitz agreed to represent him.  This was ironic because Derschowitz is Jewish, and Hale is an avowed anti-semite.  Things got more complicated when a member of Hale's "church" went on a shooting spree and shot and killed a black man, wounded six Orthodox Jews and shot at an Asian-American couple.  The man killed himself.  Derschowitz ultimately bowed out of the case, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case after the Illinois Supreme Court supported the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court.  You can find out  more about this case at the American Civil Rights Review site at http://webusters.anet-stl.com/~civil/acrr-matt-hale-situation.html  

Nuremberg Files:  This controversial web site was shut down by its Internet Provider because of controversial content.  MindSpring representatives said the site was knocked off because it violated company policy regarding "threatening or harassing language."  They said they terminate sites "all the time" because policy violations.  In this case, the site had received national attention for listing the names of abortion providers and judges who supported abortion.  No addresses were given, only the state of residence. I was able to print the page before it was pulled by the ISP.  Poster like pages were presented and names crossed off when a provider was killed. This is the legend above the chart with the names:  "Legend: Black font (working); Greyed-out name (wounded); Strikethrough (the word had a line through it) (fatality)."   A federal jury awarded a $107 million verdict against the anti-abortion activists who ran the site, saying the site amounted to a terrorist threat.  (Hudson, 1999)  

So what about hate crimes and hate speech laws?    On first exposure they may sound like a reasonable limit on anti-social and hurtful expression.  Yet the issue is rife with inconsistency and ambiguity.  Senator Edward Kennedy remarked in a Judiciary Committee hearing on hate crimes that some  rapes were not "hate crimes."  He was in support of a a proposed hate crimes prevention bill, and said that if the crime were directed at a single member of a gender rather than the whole group, then the rape was not a hate crime.  (FRC, 5/13/99) Yet what woman who has been raped would say the crime was not one of hate?

In testimony before that same judiciary committee, Robert Knight articulated several strong reasons why hate crimes legislation should not become law.  Read his testimony at : http://www.frc.org/papers/testimony/index.cfm?get=TS99D1&arc=yes  [Link no longer active]

In summary, some of the points he made were:

• It sets up special classes of victims

• It would make prosecutors concerned about which cases were more politically significant

• It would add nothing to prosecutions of real crimes of violence, etc. which are covered by existing state and federal laws

• It would expand the power of the judiciary as they interpret what is "hate" and what is not -- assault? intimidation? name-calling? 

• It would have chilling effect on speech by making unpopular ideas a basis for harsher treatment in criminal trials or proceedings 

• Hate is very hard to define.

Be sure you read his testimony at the site listed above.  

The American Civil Rights Organization has a site with lots of resources and links.  You ca find it at http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/ 

Finally,..... We have spent a lot of time on this issue.  I believe it is a very significant one and one that is not often well understood.  We are, as a whole, compassionate, caring people.  We do not condone malicious hurtful acts and most of us want to do something to try to stop them.  You need to look at the evidence presented and figure out what YOU think about this, but be able to support your position.  You do not have to agree with mine, but you DO need to express your ideas clearly and with support.  I hope I have given you enough resources to do that adequately, but feel free to find more!  Roleff's book, Hate Crimes address both sides of the issue and is a good place to start.   And please remember to keep your discussion on the issue of freedom of expression.  This lecture is not about homosexuality or racism or abortion.  It is about our freedom to discuss those issues fully and hopefully without causing pain  or injury to people who hold different view points than our own.

I don't know when I've worked harder on a lecture.  I don't know when there has been one which is more important.   Last fall, (2002) hate speech legislation was introduced in Congress.  It will merit our attention to see what happens.... 

Dr. Mc

Paul McMasters writes, "Punishing speech is not the same thing as curing hate.  Ultimately, anti-hate speech laws would silence the voices they would help a well as those who would help them.  They would be enacted with the best intentions and with the worst of results." (McMasters, 2001.)

Additional Resources:

• American Association of University Professors.  "On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes." University of Delaware Library.  http://www.lib.udel.edu/ud/freedom/aaup.htm 

• American Center for Law and Justice.  "ACLJ Files Appeal in Case of Minnesota Biology Teach Removed for Criticizing Darwin." ACLJ News Release. July 24, 2000.  American Center for Law and Justice website at http://www.aclj.org/news/nr_000724.asp 

• American Center for Law and Justice. "The Rights of Christians in the Workplace." Issue Spotlight: American Center for Law and Justice. 2000  http://www.aclj.org/issues/emplright.asp  [No longer active]

• American Center for Law and Justice.  "Student's Rights in the Public Schools: Section 2"  Publications: American Center for Law and Justice. 2000.  http://www.aclj.org/publications/srps/section2.asp 

• American Civil Liberties Union. "Hate Speech on Campus." ACLU Briefing Paper. 1996  Retrieved at http://archive.aclu.org/library/pbp16.html   

• Associated Press.  "Anti-Gay Float Mocks Wyo. Victim."  USA Today.  10/13/98

• Associated Press.  "Florida Senators to Investigate State University Professor's Controversial Views." Freedom Forum Online. 5/3/99 http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=10625 

• Associated Press.  "Student Claims State Won't Issue Law License Because of His Racist Beliefs"  Freedom Forum Online. 2/2/99 http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1999/2/9ilracistatty.asp 

• Associated Press. "University of Wisconsin Faculty Senate Abolishes Speech Codes."  Freedom Forum Online 3/2/99 http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1999/3/2wispeechcode.asp 

• Associated Press.  "Victim: Gunman Had 'Predator' Look"  AOL News. 7/5/99.

• Associated Press. "White Supremacist Sues University After Lecture Called Off." Freedom Forum Online. 1/22/99. http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1999/1/22/lecturecanceled.asp 

•  Associated Press, "Rocker Blasts NY Gays, Immigrants, then Apologizes."  12/23/99.  Retrieved at http://www.msnbc.com/news/349374.asp   on 2/11/00.  [No longer available.] 

• Current Events.  "Hate Crimes Legislation: History, background information and current events onhate crimes legislation."  Retrieved 2/24/03 at http://racerelations.about.com/library/weekly/blhatecrimesleg.htm?terms=Hate+Crimes 

• "Falwell Loves Homosexuals." Culture Facts.  Family Research Council. 10/27/99.

• Hate Crimes: A.K.A.  Evangelism?"  Culture Facts.  Family Research Council.  12/1/99.

• Heston, Charleton.  "Winning the Culture War."  Speech to the Harvard Law School Forum.  February 16, 1998.

• Hudson, David.  "Internet Service Provider Pulls Plug on Nuremberg Files." Freedom Forum Online.  2/5/99.  http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1999/2/5abortion.asp 

• Kaufman, Joshua.  "The Mein Kampf Minefield."  Legal Times. September 7, 1999.

• Kirk, Marshall and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Overcome Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's  (New York: Doubleday, 1989), p.. 189-90.

• Knight, Robert.  "Testimony of Robert H. Knight ..(.before) Senate Committee on the Judiciary Regarding the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999, May 11, 1999.  http://www.frc.org/papers/testimony/index.cfm?get=TS99D1&arc=yes [No longer available on line.]

• Koppel, Nathan.  "Court Rejects Isolated Racial Slur."  Texas Lawyer.  August 2, 1999.

• McMasters, Paul.  "Must a Civil Society Be a Censored Society?" Freedom Forum Online. 1/17/99 http://www.fredomforum.org/first/2000/1/17ombudsman.asp   {No longer available on line]

• McMasters, Paul. "Hate Speech Should Not Be Restricted." in Roleff, Tamara L. Hate Crimes.  Current Controversies: San Diego, CA, 2001.

• Mitchell, Greg. "Court Upholds Hate Speech Gag."  The Recorder/Cal Law. August 3, 1999.

• "New Details Emerge about Suspects in Gay Attack." CNN Interactive. October 13, 1998.   Retrieved at http://www/.cnn.com/US/9810/13/wyoming.attack.02/index.html      

• "Perpetual Gospel Memorial to Matthew Shepard." http://www.godhatesfags.com/memorial.html    [Be forwarned, this one is rough, and it illustrates the hate in the concept of hate crimes.]

• Riccardi, Michael. "Spitting Can Be A Hate Crime."  New York Law Journal.  January 25, 2000.

• Roleff, Tamara L. Hate Crimes.  Current Controversies: San Diego, CA, 2001.

• Schwalm, Steven.  "S. 1529, The "Thought Crimes" Bill.  In Focus. Family Research Council. IF98G2HS. 1998.

• Schwalm, Steven. "Facts Contradict 'Gay' Party Line on Hate Crimes"  In Focus.  Family Research Council, 1998. 

• Sekulow, Jay Alan.  "Students' Rights of Free Speech." American Center for Law and Justice.  1996. http://www.aclj.org/publications/kyr/schools.asp 

• "Short Take: 'Apprendi' Sentencing Ruling to Have Dramatic Effect." Current Events: Law.  About.com. Retrieved at http://law.miningco.com/newsissues/law/library/briefs/b1070200.htm 

• "Some Rapes Not 'Hate Crimes,' Says Kennedy"  Culture Facts.  Family Research Council. 5/13/99

• Verhover, Sam Howe.  "Creators of Anti-Abortion Web Site Told To Pay Millions." New York Times.  2/3/99 .

• Wilke, MIchael.  "Ads Strike Out at Gay Bashing."  Advertising Age. November 20, 1995, p.26.

• Wolper, Allan.  "Anti-Gay Column Sparks First Amendment Deate: Universiity of Maryland Newspaper at Controversy's Center. " Editor and Publisher Interactive.  1/29/99 http://mediainfo.com/ephome/newshtm/stories/012999nl.htm

Copyright 2004

Dr. Janet McMullen

Associate Professor of Radio-TV-Film

University of North Alabama

Email Dr. Mc at jlmcmullen@una.edu