Comments on: MSU Students Want Hate Speech Defined

By: Steve Farrell

Steve Farrell — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:05:52 +0000

I agree with Amfortas and Mark, asking for a definition from these folks is not the answer – even if the answer, for now, were a good one. Law needs to keep its focus on prosecuting those whose actions infringe upon the rights of others.

Motives, on the other hand, traditionally are taken into account in only one place in the law, the sentencing phase of trials. The Constitution refers to this as equity, and contrasted with the law. The Constitution says of the courts: “The Judicial power of the United States, both in law and equity, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Again, equity is applied, during the sentencing phase, i.e.: “Okay, we’ve proved he killed the guy … but it was a crime of passion, or self-defense, or he was insane, or drunk, or afraid, or too young, or just plain reckless, let there be mercy;” or on the other hand, it could go the other way, the prosecutor claiming that “it was premeditated, motivated by a deep hatred for this or that, or him or her, let there be no mercy.”

If I understand law vs. equity properly, the full brunt of the law applies unless the court may find extenuating circumstances, and if so, a more lenient sentence may be imposed. But not stiffer penalties, and an entire different set of laws for motives; which will then, as we are seeing, go after free speech as a result.

By: jjtaup

jjtaup — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:58:31 +0000

“The resolution to this problem is multi-faceted, beginning with the abolition of all hate laws…and finally, with the passing of legislation from Congress that limits the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court away from public and private education.”

Badabing, badabang, badaboom! Problem solved.

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:56:13 +0000

Hate speech is the language that the first amendment was designed to protect. language that people do not like. no reason given, just that they dont like it and it isnt slander… its protected.

after all, who needs an amendment to protect the language you like?

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:44:01 +0000

The problem with restricting speech is the group allowed the authority to decide what is and isn’t protected versus censored speech. We have only to look at other countries restrictions on speech to see what will eventually happen if we censor speech for being unpopular, provocative, or offensive. The people making the distinctions will slowly but surely prohibit all speech they dislike. And our First Amendment will be dead along with the rest of the Constitution.

Our form of government was designed to protect individual liberty, not the collective group rights of marxist thought. Group rights never protected rights for any individual.

By: TheManOnTheStreet

TheManOnTheStreet — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:03:39 +0000

It’s quite good to hear them demanding an actual definition. That way they cannot flip-flop as it suits them….

Plus, it will put their policies under scrutiny. ANd set up themselves for potention liability if it is nothing else BUT freedom for all speech!

TMOTS

By: amfortas

amfortas — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:27:53 +0000

Asking for a definition is a bit like asking Ms Dracula which blood group she prefers.

By: steven deluca

steven deluca — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:28:15 +0000

As long as you target the appropriate groups for denigration:Men, Christians, Conservatives and whites, you really don’t have to worry about it being charged with hate speech so what’s the concern? Those people really shouldn’t be on campus anyway, what have they ever contributed to American culture that’s worth keeping anyway?