Poll: Free To Express Racial Hate?

Matt Huffman
11/14 02:35 AM

Just wanted to point out that the things written on campus were not a hate crime since no actual crime occurred.  Although they may have been in poor taste, offensive, racist or ignorant, to call them a hate crime is to offend actual crimes where minorities are targeted.

David
11/14 03:39 AM

But the question of whether they are in fact a crime is exactly what is being debated on campus right now.

Jeff S
11/14 04:44 AM

First, I think it was inappropriate to post racial comments in the tunnel.

That said, I do not think they should be expelled. I might feel differently if the police had determined that a crime was committed.

They didn’t expel Brian Reid when he killed someone. The sentiments that this is a public safety issue seems overblown.

Amy G.
11/14 09:17 AM

While it was offensive, no actual crime occurred.  Their names should be released and they should have to put up with the social consequences of their actions.  That will be punishment enough and perhaps they will learn that our community does not tolerate racism.

BWL
11/14 11:14 AM

I am simply scared of the fact that this is being taken so seriously.  Free expression is free expression!  So, poor taste won’t be tolerated if someone doesn’t agree?  That is hogwash!  There should be absolutely NO DEBATE over this! The Free Expression Tunnel Hate Crime Act?  I am appalled!  Even the name suggests a contradiction.
One of the largest benefits of going to college is the exposure to many types of people, ideas and the differing ways of thinking.
Believe me, as a young gay guy attending State, I had to endure many, many “fag messages” written on the tunnel (usually no better than those in question here). I probably wouldn’t have liked the person(s) who wrote ‘em, but I would fight for their freedom to say whatever they want.
I gotta side with the boys here. Hopefully, the NCState Senate will agree.

No Name Given
11/14 11:34 AM

The free speech commentators are correct.  If the NAACP wins out, the State is going to decide what speech is illegal and what speech is not.

“Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

—Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

Jake
11/14 12:19 PM

As reprehensible as the comments were, this is a slippery slope that should be avoided at all costs. Bigoted people are going to say bigoted things; if they can’t put them up in the “Free Expression Tunnel” (really, this is ridiculous), where are they going to go with it? I hate that people maintain these awful sentiments, but you can’t set up a safe haven and then pull a stunt like this. Isn’t that entrapment to some degree?

Most importantly, if State sets this precedent, where will we Carolina fans put our hate speech next week?

JC
11/14 12:42 PM

This situation is indeed a slippery slope for NCSU.  While the comments left in the Free Expression Tunnel are disheartening and socially unacceptable in our campus environment, they remain protected free speech. 

One would hope that the political science major that sponsored this bill would have researched the Constitution and federal case law before pushing so desperately for a bill that has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Courts.  In the late 80s and early to mid 90s Universities across the country attempted to enact laws governing speech on public university campuses—the federal courts found that the governance of speech on public university campuses is unconstitutional (See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Doe v. University of Michigan, and UMW Post v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin).  The test for illegal speech still lies in the clear and present danger test, or that of libel and/or slander, and defamation, etc. but these are almost always cases of civil and common law and not of criminal law.  Speech that causes offense is not a crime.

NCSU is clearly attempting to operate outside of its jurisdiction in this case. While the acts are obviously despicable and deserving of social outcast—this is the limit.  The US Secret Service found that no law was broken. Furthermore, the University and its Student Senate are in no position to create any such “law” period—much less ex post facto—as it would open the door for a substantial federal litigation on Constitutional grounds.

Jerimee
11/14 01:04 PM

I want to know what genius thinks that “Shoot Obama” (or “Shoot Bush”) is free speech.

Those that encourage violence in a free society endanger democracy and thereby compromise civil liberty.

Betsy
11/14 01:21 PM

@JC—Nice work laying out the legal framework in which this must be viewed.  And, if I may be so bold, bonus points for the “ex post facto” catch. 

The speech is morally despicable, but Constitutionally protected.

Acree
11/14 01:44 PM

If authorities punish these kids it’ll only make martyrs out of them.

Michael
11/14 02:08 PM

Speech and action are not the same thing. Painting “shoot Obama” is not the same as conspiring to make it so. It’s better that these students are allowed to speak their minds so their ideas and arguments can be countered rather than suppressing their speech until resentment leads them to action.
Kudos to JC and Thomas Jefferson.

Jerimee
11/14 02:17 PM

for real?  I’m all for students speaking their minds, but I thought the line was clearly drawn at calling for assassination.  If I wear a t-shirt that says “assassinate the president” or “kill Bill Clinton” I’m not breaking the law?

MMI
11/14 02:24 PM

Probably not, Jerimee, but you would be opening yourself up to what I call the “dumbass tax.”  You can do it, but you’re going to have to suffer certain consequences of your actions.  In that situation, I’m sure the hassle you’d receive would serve as disincentive from wearing the shirt again.

prohiphop
11/14 02:37 PM

I don’t know how the Secret Service handles graffiti but I imagine they would like to talk these guys.  Especially if it gets much public attention.

They routinely investigate things like people shouting “shoot the president” or sending such mail even if it doesn’t necessarily break the law.

For example:
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/10/secret-service-looking-into-potential-threat-on-obama.php

I’m certainly no fan of intelligence agencies but I wouldn’t get mad if the Secret Service was poking in these people’s business.

Lisa Jeffries
11/14 02:39 PM

^ Hmmm… I recognize that name. You must be the same one who wouldn’t quit emailing me on behalf of a certain political organization…

In other news, why won’t this darn topic just DIE already?

Is there nothing else going on at our higher education institution?

It’s like I told a friend the other day - our university has 10+ major programs that need to be focusing on curing cancer, developing alternative fuels sources, figuring out how to best education at-risk youths, and planning for running businesses effectively in a slow economy.

Can we please move on to what it is that we do best? (And no, soapboxes are in fact, not what we do best.)

Jerimee
11/14 02:42 PM

I wonder how the law determines between self-expression and intent/desire.  If it’s a prank, or an “artistic” statement, then it’s despicable.  If it’s a political statement, I think it ought to be illegal.  The intent should matter, right?  I imagine those boys want for Obama to be shot.  And they acted, in a small way, on that desire.  I’ve done plenty of stupid things, and I think that a free society needs to take action against violence.

prohiphop
11/14 02:57 PM

“Can we please move on to what it is that we do best?”

I think it’s great to see people trying to improve all their skills.

Isn’t that what education’s about?  At least in part.

JC
11/14 03:25 PM

Jerimee, clearly the US Secret Service would have taken these students into federal custody upon the completion of their official investigation—which included search warrants—if they found that these individuals had committed a crime. 

The whole backbone of this great democracy we live in is the right of every individual member of society to be free to express his or her opinion (whether it be artistic, political, biased, hateful, joyful, funny, etc.).  Amendment I of the Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the freedom of speech… or the right of people peaceably to assemble…”  I think you will be hard pressed to find another statement that has been so vehemently protected by the Courts.  The suppression of statements of political nature, though they may be offensive or extremist, by law would go a great distance to undermine this quintessential block in the foundation of our government.  The “chilling effect” produced such a limitation would undoubtedly curtail the general public’s confidence in the protection of speech in general out of fear of prosecution (in that anything they say may be deemed offensive and thus illegal). 

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential LIberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither LIberty nor Safety.”  This quote echoed by Thomas Jefferson who added, “and will end up with neither.”

Jeff S
11/14 03:43 PM

I’m not sure how I’d forgotten about the anti-gay stuff that appeared in the tunnel from time to time. That alone should set the precedent for dropping this.

Clearly certain minority groups have the ear of the media more than others.

David
11/14 04:23 PM

This comments on the tunnel wall, although extreme, if censored, could give way to “less extreme” comments being censored.  Universities already have enacted speech codes and various forms of “re-education” and indoctrination programs.  Suppression of freedom of thought is just around the corner. 
It is no wonder the Founders in their day had such difficulty getting their voices heard for fear of reprisal by the government. If given no alternative, as stated in our founding docs, it may become necessary to overthrow the current representatives and replace them with others. 
In the end, the comments should not be suppressed but should give way to a healthy discussion about them.

Jerimee
11/14 04:40 PM

Right, and I thought the line was drawn at assassination speech.  You can speak about Bush is evil, Bush is the devil, Bush should be sent to Guantanamo, etc. but it is illegal to encourage others to assassinate Bush. It sounds like I am mistaken.

prohiphop
11/14 04:48 PM

I’m dismayed at what I’ve heard prior to this discussion about the conditions gay activists face at NC State.  As I’ve mentioned at some other post possibly at some other blog regarding that situation, there are plenty of people like myself who support the gay community in becoming more militant and in contacting the press.

This is hate speech.  Whether or not it’s a hate crime would be based on particular legal decisions.

Some of it is assassination speech, so to speak, and doesn’t have to be a crime to be investigated.  If you can’t function as an activist without making such a stupid blunder, then you deserve to be taken out of the game by the Secret Service.

Or getting a beatdown.  Whichever comes first.

Michael
11/14 05:02 PM

When did people become so weak of conviction and constitution that they have to be protected from hateful words?  No one has a right to do direct physical harm to you, but everyone has the right to say whatever they feel about you as long as it is not slander.

The designation of “hate crime” needs to be done away with. The penalty for harming someone should be the same no matter what the motivation. A victim is a victim.

BWL
11/14 05:34 PM

Nicely said, Michael!

Sue
11/14 05:47 PM

The students didn’t “merely” paint racial slurs, as this article suggests—they also called for the assassination of President-Elect Obama. It’s been reported that the Secret Service determined this was not a serious threat, but you all should keep in mind that there are statutory limits on free speech. See for example 18 USC Sec. 871, which states that “...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

prohiphop
11/14 05:57 PM

As is quite obvious, I believe that those being addressed with hate speech should respond militantly but I actually have real concerns with how hate speech is being handled by our institutions.

To me, the left/lib response to hate speech, banning it with legal moves, is similar to the attempt of activists who try to keep the Klan from marching by attempting to have their permits revoked.

I believe in giving the Klan the permit then meeting them in the streets.

If you attended the historic reemergence of the KKK in NC in the late 80s and their march in Durham, met by a problematic silent protest, followed by a march in Chapel Hill, where they were attacked in the streets by the combined force of militant activists and folks off the street, then you know what I’m talking about.

“It’s like bringin’ 88 back!”

Cool Kids

reptileslacks
11/14 06:02 PM

I think we all should know exactly what it was that was painted-I found some info at the blog below.  I agree that kicking them out of school is not a solution- these students CLEARLY need additional education.

I hope that they at least get some sort of community service that can have a positive impact.

Go here for more info:
http://thelatestoutrage.blogspot.com/2008/11/wave-of-racist-terrorism-follows-obama.html

*read the post, but be sure to scroll down for the mention of NCSU

Michael
11/14 06:07 PM

“Calling for the assassination” of someone suggests a more organized and determined effort than buying a couple of cans of spray paint. If the students conspired to organize others or offer incentive to others or supply others with the means or weaponry needed to carry out an assassination, then we’re talking crime. But sayin’ ain’t doin’.

prohiphop
11/14 06:09 PM

reptileslacks:
Good to hear a positive suggestion and thanks for that link.

If there were more like you, maybe there would be no need for people like myself.

These right wing nutcases have no idea how many people are getting ready to get back in the game including retired nutcases like myself.

By the way, have you heard the latest?  After the Inauguration, Obama’s building reeducation camps!

lol!

JC
11/14 07:56 PM

The issue at hand isn’t a fact finding mission as to whether or not these students violated a state and/or federal statute, common law, or otherwise committed an offense punishable by law.  The issue at hand also is NOT whether NCSU can regulate the communication of threats against the President, President-elect, or any other individual. 
The question being raised here is whether or not the NCSU SG has the jurisdictional authority to justify the creation of a limit on the expression of speech, specifically hate speech, on a _public_ university campus in direct contradiction of precedent put in place by the federal judiciary.

Betsy
11/14 08:49 PM

JC homes in on the precise issue:  On the issue of what speech is allowed, the Constitution trumps everything.
-

And on the interpretation of the Constitution, the federal courts trump everyone—even so august a body as the NC State student government.

prohiphop
11/15 03:15 PM

Obviously I’ve gone a bit off-topic, but I do want to say that, despite my interest in confrontational tactics, I believe that groups like the KKK should be clearly labeled as domestic terrorists by the Federal government and pursued as such.

Given their history there isn’t a definition of terrorist that I can find, especially those of the U.S. government, that they don’t fit.

And that’s a different issue than freedom of speech so I’ll leave it at that.

Jeff S
11/15 04:11 PM

Given their history, I could say the same thing about the Catholic church.

prohiphop
11/15 04:23 PM

Interesting point.  Thanks for joining me off topic, Jeff!

The Catholic Church could claim that was all behind them, in a manner that most people would find convincing, if it wasn’t for that darn pedophile issue.

I wonder what my liberation theology contacts from the 80s, particularly those involved with the struggle against U.S. intervention in Central American, are doing with that revelation?

David
11/15 11:39 PM

Catholic church a domestic terrorist org? Seriously? Not the complete antithesis of evil?
Speaking of extreme speech needing to be protected…
Back to reality and the original post, case law generally distinguishes between specific threats intending to incite others to take a specific action against a person to fall outside the bounds of protected speech.  With that said, for criminal purposes, your own words plus initial steps all the way to substantial steps taken toward completing a crime are required for attempt.  This doesnt prevent the secret service from paying you a visit of course, but the goal is to protect as much speech as humanly possible.

prohiphop
11/16 01:45 AM

David, since you ventured away from the core and joined us here on the fringe, I don’t think of the Catholic Church as a domestic terrorist organization nor the core root of all evil although, as an institution, it’s got a nasty history and I believe there’s much more to be uncovered internationally regarding priests’ abuse of children.

So I’m sympathetic to such views, even if I don’t hold them, but I’m serious about the KKK as a domestic terrorist organization.  Given that part of the hatred against Barack is based on his name and on lies about his background, it’s important that we remind ourselves that terrorism is separate from particular ethnicities and naming practices.

NPD
11/18 02:58 PM

I am sure anyone who is going to assisinate a world leader is not going to spray paint it on a wall. This is an example of a hypersensitive group not understanding what free speech is unless it suits their needs or doesn’t hurt their feelings.

Colin
11/18 06:04 PM

Michael,
when you point out that:
“The designation of “hate crime” needs to be done away with. The penalty for harming someone should be the same no matter what the motivation.”  Do you forget that in a murder trial motivation is always taken into account.  Which is why we have 1st/2nd degree murder charges.  You can be convicted for conspiracy to commit murder.  Lighter sentances will be handed down for someone who murders out of passion or insanity than out of malice.

Jeff S
11/18 06:09 PM

Colin, are you disagreeing or agreeing? To me, your comments are further proof of the pointlessness of the hate-crime laws.

Michael
11/19 12:17 PM

Taking into account the degree of malice and premeditation in a crime is perfectly reasonable, because it evaluates the criminal. Making a distinction like “hate crime” is not reasonable or fair because it evaluates the victim.

Kate NCSU Student
11/19 05:05 PM

Okay, I walked through the free expression tunnel today and found “KILL CAROLINA” “F*** Carolina” etc.. because we have a game against them this Saturday. Are those that spray painted this responsible for motives to actually physically murder Carolina students and/or football players? Absolutely not.

Some students hate Carolina. Some hate John McCain. Some people hate Obama. How often do you get angry at someone and say “I could just kill them!” and never really mean that you have the intentions of carrying out your statement? In the weeks/months leading up to the election, “I hate Obama” and “I hate McCain” were up everywhere. Nothing was said. It’s free to hate on them at that point, right?

Police determined it was not a crime. Secret Service determined it was in fact, not a crime. So how can a University student government condone it as a crime?  I don’t support what was spray-painted in the expression tunnel, and I don’t ever wish for anything negative to happen to the President-elect, but what these students said is merely offensive to the highest degree, and is Constitutionally protected.

Might I also add, that by releasing the names of these students to the public, you’re encouraging violence. I can only imagine that every person offended by these statements wants revenge. I can only imagine that those who are not civil in reacting to the statements would prove to be a physical threat to the 4 students. Release their names, and they’ll be in danger.

Francis Marion
11/22 03:41 AM

The most important speech to protect is the unpopular sort.

If unpopular speech is banned, then there truly is no such thing as free speech anymore.