STILLWELL: When Speech Becomes a Crime

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 6/28/6 | Cinnamon Stillwell

[SmithL]

• Roman Catholic Robert Smith is fired from an appointment on the Washington Metro transit authority board by Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich for the crime of saying that he doesn't approve of homosexuality.

• Journalist and author Oriana Fallaci cannot visit her native country of Italy for fear of being thrown in prison because of a lawsuit brought against her by the Italian Muslim Union for the crime of "defaming Islam."

• British neo-Nazi David Irving is sentenced to three years in prison in Austria for a 1989 speech in which he committed the crime of Holocaust denial.

• College Republican Steve Hinkle is found guilty by California Polytechnic State University (San Luis Obispo) for "disruption" for the crime of putting up a flyer advertising a black conservative speaker.

What do the above examples have in common?  They are the logical outgrowth of a dangerous trend sweeping the Western world: the criminalization and censorship of speech.

Outright censorship and draconian speech codes have long been a staple of Third World authoritarian regimes. But Western democracies and in particular the United States (where the First Amendment is supposed to reign supreme) have always prided themselves on protecting free speech. Yet because of the creeping reach of political correctness, one can now be put in prison, lose a job, be kicked out of school or be otherwise censored simply for uttering an unpopular opinion.

It's called hate speech. If there ever were a more Orwellian concept, it would be difficult to find. For much like the concept of  "thought crimes" in George Orwell's novel "1984," hate crimes and hate speech suppose intent on the part of the "perpetrator" that may or may not have any basis

[steve-b]

Show me where and/or how the 1st Amendment stops at the doorways of private institutions.

Simple. Follow these steps:

1. Get a job at (say) a retail counter.
2. Tell the first customer you see, "hey, @$$hole, I'm on break."
3. Contest your firing on First Amendment grounds.
4. Get laughed out of court.

[Carry_Okie]

the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private institutions

Really? How so?

It's a matter of private property rights. The private employer may be hiring a person to say (or to not say) specific things. If employee violates that contract, the employer has a right to withhold further employment. It is, after all, their money. We don't have laws forcing employers to pay for whatever employees may want to do or say.

[shempy]

What you say is true, but the 1st Amendment still applies to the employee. As an American, you have the right to tell your boss he is an ass-wad, and he has the coresponding right to can you. Just like in the rest of society, you are free to speak and others are free to judge.

[freedumb2003]

What you say is true, but the 1st Amendment still applies to the employee. As an American, you have the right to tell your boss he is an ass-wad, and he has the coresponding right to can you. Just like in the rest of society, you are free to speak and others are free to judge.

And your boss has the freedom to fire you if you do call him an @ss-wad.

[oh8eleven]

I think applying the 1st Amendment to state and local governments completely subverts the original intent of the amendment, which was to keep the federal government OUT of local affairs, not to give federal courts the power to micromanage local affairs such as high school commencement speeches.

I believe the original intent of the 1st Amendment was to avoid the exact situation we now see where it's okay to display religious materials in public in some states, but not others.

[oh8eleven]

It's a matter of private property rights.
Oh, so as a "private business" I can also ignore the 13th Amendment too?

[oh8eleven]

Thanks for your input.
If the erosion of our Constitutional Rights wasn't so serious, it might have been funny.
Not.

[Carry_Okie]

As an American, you have the right to tell your boss he is an ass-wad, and he has the coresponding right to can you.

Correct. Stillwell is saying it is somehow unjust.

[massgopguy]

None of the four examples are Private Property. They are all government institutions. It should also be noted that a Truro MA firefighter was fired for signing the petition to put Gay Marriage on the ballot. He signed it at his Catholic Church.

[Carry_Okie]

Oh, so as a "private business" I can also ignore the 13th Amendment too?

Do you always resort to idiotic questions when you haven't got a point to make?

Nobody is going to deprive anybody of freedom to say what they want, even in private business. However, a private business is under no obligation to allow employees to say whatever they want and remain on their property, much less pay for it. If you can't live with that, go find some fascist police state to enforce your preferred speech code.

[Carry_Okie]

I believe the original intent of the 1st Amendment was to avoid the exact situation we now see where it's okay to display religious materials in public in some states, but not others.

Well you are dead wrong, again. Maryland was Catholic, Pennsylvania was Quaker, New England was largely Anglican, and Virginia was Protestant. People preferred it that way as a matter of free association, the ability to constitute a community reflecting common values and beliefs, a freedom which you would clearly repress.

Until the rulings of the Warren Court, citing the Orwellian concept of "selective incorporation" pursuant to the 14th Amendment, it was entirely permissable under the Constitution for a State to have an official religion. The several States which ratified that document, each with their dominant and disparate religions, would have had it no other way, which is why they restricted specifically the Congress in the First Amendment.

[oh8eleven]

Nobody is going to deprive anybody of freedom to say what they want, even in private business.
Are you sure? Are you really sure? See post 49

If you can't live with that, go find some fascist police state to enforce your preferred speech code.
Javol, mein herr! Gee, and all along I thought I was DEFENDING the 1st Amendment.

[AppyPappy]

British neo-Nazi David Irving is sentenced to three years in prison in Austria for a 1989 speech in which he committed the crime of Holocaust denial.

The one difference being that Austria was involved in the Holocaust. If some guy in China does it, no one cares.

[american spirit]

In my opinion the issue of what is officially labeled a "hate crime" is the most troubling because it seems as though the only time it seems to capture the attention of the media et al is when a white person is the perpetrator on a gay or minority and the spectre of it being a hate crime is raised immediately without fail.

Conversely, when the situation is reversed and some type of event occurs, very rarely will any type of minority on white attack be labeled a hate crime.......it's as though the person(s)in charge of determining such have to be totally pinned down before they attach the official "hate crime label".

[Carry_Okie]

Javol, mein herr! Gee, and all along I thought I was DEFENDING the 1st Amendment.

You are defending YOUR PREFERRED UNDERSTANDING of the First Amendment as been horribly distorted by and since the Warren Court, which has been used to virtually destroy the right of free association.

Just shows how clueless you really are.

[tophat9000]

But we need to be mindful that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private institutions, such as businesses and private schools

You are correct in your statment

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Jim Verdolini]

You forget campaign finance reform legislation where the court has clearly advised that the 1st amendment really says congress can restrict freedom of speach.

[tophat9000]

You forget campaign finance reform legislation where the court has clearly advised that the 1st amendment really says congress can restrict freedom of speach.

Not really, we can all read the 1st amendment for our self and see the court was full of shit on that ruling....the disconnect between what the law stated states in plan language and the grotesquely twisted distortions that lawyers and judges can pull out of there ass at there whim is just the way of the world

[oh8eleven]

You are defending YOUR PREFERRED UNDERSTANDING of the First Amendment
Mine and the Founding Fathers.

... the Warren Court, which has been used to virtually destroy the right of free association.
You must mean like the Boys Scouts and Augusta National Golf Club.

[oh8eleven]

Not really, we can all read the 1st amendment for our self and see the court was full of shit on that ruling.
Not really? It's REALLY still the law (which I vehemently disagree with).