Hate Speech

[Nareissa L. Smith]

Actually, Professor Silverberg, I think that is an interesting and complicated question.  I think that this will be an emerging issue in fighting words jurisprudence.  The answer turns in part on the issue of "reclaimed" words - words that have been used to harm members of oppressed groups, but have subsequently gained favor *within* those groups as a way of taking some of the sting off the of the word.  Many in the sociological community debate whether such a phenomenon exists.  However, assuming it does, I believe the proper result in your sceanrio would require an examination of the intent behind the use of the word.  Thus, a person who is an outside to the group at issue would be presumed to possess malintent, but a person who is a member of the group would not necessarily be absolved, provided the requisite showing of "hostile intent" or whatever could be shown.   I doubt this would satisfactorily end the issue for all time and likely raises other issues, but these are my initial thoughts. 

NLS

-------------------------

Nareissa Smith
Assistant Professor 
Florida Coastal School of Law
8787 Baypine Rd. 
Jacksonville, FL  32256
(904) 680-7674
________________________________________
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene [VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:10 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Hate Speech

        There is no liability for "hate speech," nor a hate speech
exception to the First Amendment.  Certain kinds of bigoted speech may
be covered by some constitutionally permissible speech restrictions --
e.g., bans on threats, fighting words, and so on -- just as certain
kinds of nonbigoted speech may be covered by such restrictions.  So I'm
not quite sure what to make of the question, but if a specific statute
and a specific statement are given, I think we should be able to give an
answer.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-
> bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Silverburg, Sanford R
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:44 PM
> To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Hate Speech
>
> Could a self-identified, self-hating member of a
racial/religious/ethnic group who
> issues a remark towards a member of the same group in accordance with
criteria
> set forth in R.A.V., be held liable for hate speech?
>
> Sanford Silverburg
>
>
> Sanford R. Silverburg, Ph.D
> Professor
> Department of History and Politics
> Catawba College
> Salisbury, NC 28144
> US
> ssilver at catawba.edu
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
forward the
> messages to others.

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.