Is speech mocking certain groups "core protected speech"?

[Volokh, Eugene]

        Hank Chambers raises the intriguing possibility that certain kinds
of speech mocking certain groups forms another exception to 1st Am
protection, or at least a zone of diminished 1st Am protection.

        Hank, might I ask you what the scope of this exception might be?  Is
speech mocking a particular person also excluded (cf. Hustler v. Falwell)?
What about speech mocking a religious group?  What about speech mocking a
gender, e.g., "101 ways that cucumbers are better than men" (the title of a
book I saw about 15 or 20 years ago) jokes?  Also, does the proposed new 1st
Am exception extend merely to "mockery" (or "speech designed simply to
mock"), or does it also extend to bitter condemnation (cf. Cantwell v.
Connecticut) and to advocacy of eventual violent action against the group
(cf. much Communist advocacy which advocates eventual violent action against
"class enemies")?

        It just seems to me dangerous to buy a pig and a poke:  Before
accepting a new exception in order to get certain results in a particular
case, it would be helpful to have a sense for what other results one is
likely to get as a result of it.

        Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chambers Jr, Henry L. [SMTP:ChambersH at MISSOURI.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:46 AM
> To:   CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject:      Re: May Massachusetts law bar racially offensive displays in
> bars ?
>
> I asked whether mocking black people is core political speech precisely
> because based on what I have heard, I am not sure what the purpose of the
> display is.  The owner says that the display is just a jungle theme and
> mocks no one.  Others disagree.
>
> The display may just be a jungle themed display.  The display may mock MLK
> and Black History Month.  Conversely, the display may mock black people
> indirectly through the vehicle of mocking MLK and Black History Month.
> The
> display may mock black people directly with the context being MLK and
> Black
> History Month.
>
> So the questions I ask are important (I think) because if mocking
> black people directly is at the core of First Amendment protection, there
> may not be much new legal analysis left to consider. Conversely, if
> mocking
> black people (particularly in an attempt to demonstrate that they are
> unwelcome at one's bar/restaurant) is not core political speech, there is
> a
> reason to continue this thread.
>
> -Hank Chambers, U. of Missouri
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Duncan [mailto:conlawprof at YAHOO.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:12 AM
> To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: May Massachusetts law bar racially offensive displays in
> bars ?
>
>
> --- "Chambers Jr, Henry L." <ChambersH at MISSOURI.EDU>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > 1) Is speech/action designed simply to mock black
> > people deemed political
> > speech at the core of the First Amendment?
>
> Black History Month and the
> MLK holiday are designed to change the attitudes of
> the public on matters of great public concern (civil
> rights, multiculturalism, etc.). To mock these efforts
> to influence attitudes on political and social issues
> most certainly is speech at the core of the First
> Amendment. Mr. Chambers and I may disagree with this
> speech and find it offensive and ignorant, but our
> disagreement does not alter its character as political
> speech at the core of the first amendment. The
> government has no business using its power to suppress
> political and social viewpoints with which it
> disagrees. --Rick Duncan
>
>
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20000316/9c455997/attachment.htm