Hindus and Baptists

[Steven D. Jamar]

If one tries to use the term "hate speech" as the test itself for what is
proscribed rather than as the shorthand conclusion after application of a more
rigorous test, then Vance's points are correct.  He is also correct that it is
a matter that can be abused.

But I don't think one needs to approach free speech as the U.S. does to
preserve freedom of speech.

Germany is generally recognized as good on free speech - but it
Constitutionally bans the Nazi party and advocacy of such ideas.  Indeed, I
recall a news report about U.S. Nazi visiting Germany  being arrested in
Germany for a website published in the U.S.

I don't downplay the problems, but I don't downplay the problems of the current
regime either.

Steve Jamar

Vance R Koven wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Steven D. Jamar wrote:
>
> > Hmm.  Just because Russia and China don't respect the right to free speech
> > and the right to religious freedom hardly constitutes an argument that the
> > U.S. should not regulate hate speech.
>
> My point was only that "hate speech" regulation looks good on paper, but
> "hate speech" is only what those with political power (including judges)
> say it is. Given that the "hate" component requires measuring both the
> intent of the speaker and the sensitivities of the listener, that's too
> much ad hominem, "spot zoning" regulation for something as precious as
> freedom of speech. Incitement and "fighting words" as narrowly defined in
> a previous post are hard enough to control as concepts; hate speech is a
> much looser concept by far. Personally, I'm extremely suspicious of
> countries with, shall we say, a limited history of free speech tolerance,
> telling the US when to regulate speech.
>
> Example: Joel Sogol's sensibilities on the subject of Baptists praying for
> his conversion are rather thin and brittle; Jeff Jacoby, who has written
> about this in the Boston Globe (don't know if he's carried elsewhere) just
> shrugs his shoulders and says "thanks, Baptists, for caring enough to want
> to pray over it, even though I think it's unnecessary" [my paraphrase].
> How much consensus on a point is needed before something becomes "hate
> speech," or do we use the "eggshell skull" theory that speech is hate
> speech even if only the most brittle sensitivities are harmed by it?
>
> Vance
>
> ******************************************************************
> * Vance R. Koven                  * phone: 617-482-3852          *
> * attorney at law                 * fax: 617-482-4972            *
> * 20 Park Plaza Ste. 633          * net: vrkoven at world.std.com   *
> * Boston, MA 02116                *                              *
> ******************************************************************

--
Steven D. Jamar
Professor of Law
Director LRW Program (http://www.law.howard.edu/lrw/)
Howard University School of Law
2900 Van Ness Street NW
Washington, DC  20008

vox:  202-806-8017   fax:  202-806-8428
mailto:sjamar at law.howard.edu

He who loves the law dies either mad or poor.

Thomas Middleton, "The Phoenix," c. 1607