Group 2

Joel Jensen ~ Kellie Tyrrell ~ Chandelle Hunt ~ Stephanie Bolton ~ Sarah Benson

Braydon Hanks ~ Daniel Awtrey

HATE SPEECH

• Race

• Religion

• Ethnicity

• Gender Identity

• Sexual Orientation

• Education

• Class

• Income

• Disability

THE EVOLUTION OF HATE SPEECH LEGISLATIONApart from the Law, Hate Speech is any form of communication that denigrates or belittles a person or a group based upon characteristics such as:

THE EVOLUTION OF HATE SPEECH LEGISLATION

• Within the Law, the definition of Hate Speech can be widened to include not only speech, but:

• gestures,

• conduct,

• writing,

• and other displays of communication,

that “may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group”

(answers.com, 2012)

• 1992 • First attempt at

creating hate speech legislation

• Vague

• Misguided

• Lacked classification and clear legislative intent

• Should have been titled “Exercise of Rights” statute

• 2006 • Utah State Legislators passed a

bill allowing judges and the Board of Pardons to consider bias against the victim as an aggravating factor

• The Utah Bureau of Criminal Investigation defines hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property which is motivated…by the offenders’ bias against race, religion, ethnic/national origin”

UTAH POLICIES

ACTS OF THE SUPREME COURT• The U.S. Supreme Court has issued six major landmark

rulings on hate speech;

• Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)

• Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

• National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)

• R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)

• Virginia v. Black (2003)

• Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

ACTS OF THE SUPREME COURT• The Supreme Court’s main goal was and is to regulate hate

speech without infringing upon freedom of expression.

• This goal is complicated by the fact that the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution run contrary to each other.

• The Supreme Court walks a fine line balancing the regulation of freedom of expression and ensuring that all citizens are afforded equal rights.

ACTS OF THE SUPREME COURT• The Supreme Court Justices’ ruled in the Terminiello case to

protect freedom of speech overall unless it was found to exhibit “a clear and present danger …that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.”

• This ruling set the tone for Hate Speech cases, but the view has been refined over the years and motivation behind the act is now considered when prosecuting the law.

• The Supreme Court had to consider the constitutionality of a Virginia law which prohibited cross-burning as a form of intimidation and hate speech.

• The defendants were Barry Black, Richard Elliot, and Jonathan O’Mara.

• Elliot and O’Mara were charged with setting fire to a cross in the backyard of Elliot’s neighbor, an African American.

Virginia v. Black

Barry Black in Klan regalia

VIRGINIA V. BLACK• Black was charged with violating the Virginia law against

cross-burning when he held a rally supporting Elliot and O;Mara on private property during which a cross was burned.

• Neighbors, fearing for their safety, called the police.

VIRGINIA V. BLACK• Each of the three cases was taken to the Court of Appeals

and on the third attempt the state Supreme Court overturned the convictions and ruled the Virginia statute violated the First Amendment by regulating speech on the assumption of hostile intent.

VIRGINIA V. BLACK In a plurality opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day

O’Conner, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is lawful to prohibit certain forms of expression. Due to its historical context, this can include cross-burning when committed “with the express intent to intimidate.”

VIRGINIA V. BLACK

• The U.S. Supreme Court did require Virginia to revise a portion of its state statute as it automatically assumed ill intent and did not make exceptions for cross-burning as “a show of support for a particular ideology” or a sign of symbolic meaning.

VIRGINIA V. BLACK• Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, “That cross

burning subjects its targets, and sometimes, an unintended audience … to extreme emotional distress, and is virtually never viewed merely as ‘unwanted communication,’ but rather, as a physical threat…”

• The court found that the law violated Black’s First Amendment rights because he did not act with malicious intent.

• The Supreme Court overturned the convictions of Black, Elliot, and O’Mara.

CONCLUSION• This case resulted from a conflict of values.

• The activity, cross-burning, remained the same.

• Each group had a different criteria to evaluate the activity.

• One group viewed it as a show of support.

• The other group viewed it as hostile and extremely troubling.

• These views are obviously based on identity.

CONCLUSION• Coercive and positional power is entrusted to the U.S.

Supreme Court to interpret the law using the Constitution as framework and putting personal feelings aside.

• This decision had enormous potential to impact two fundamental rights as outlined in the Constitution; Freedom of expression and Equality.

• We agree with the Supreme Court ruling. With their ruling they were able to provide protection to racial, ethnic, religious and other groups, while maintaining freedom of expression.

CONCLUSION• What the ruling means to us

as citizens, is that we are allowed to state our opinion at any time, or any place as long as we do not intimidate, harm, threaten, or have the intent to intimidate, harm or threaten another person or group.

QUESTION• Do you agree with the

Supreme Court ruling in Virginia v. Black?

• Why or Why Not?

GROUP PROCESS• We used consensus and compromise

• We found that effective communication was difficult as it is tied to each individual to participate.

• Group unity was hard to maintain; may be attributed to size of group or lack of buy-in.

• A future approach may be to place greater emphasis on communication and to address individual goals.

WORKS CITED• ACLU of Utah. (2004). Hate Crimes. Retrieved from acluutah.org:

http://www.acluutah.org/hatecrimes.htm

• answers.com. (2012). hate speech. Retrieved from Answers.com: http://www.answers.com/topic/hate-speech#ixzz2CoO7nGfq

• Ariadne. (n.d.). Legal History. Retrieved from Ariadne's Thread: http://mysite.verizon.net/jdehullu/speech/sphist.htm

• Burton, L. N. (2012). Types of Power ppt. Retrieved from Canvas: https://slcc.instructure.com/courses/101446/wiki/unit-8-power-and-conflict

• Encyclopedia Britannica. (2012). First Amendment. Retrieved from britannica.com: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/208044/First-Amendment/296554/Permissible-restrictions-on-expression

• Galegroup.com. (2011). Virginia v. Black (2003). Retrieved from Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context: http://ic.galegroup.com.dbprox.slcc.edu/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=

WORKS CITED

• Head, T. (2012). Hate Speech Cases. Retrieved from About.com: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-Cases.htm

• Linder, D. (2012). Regulation of Fighting Words and Hate Speech. Retrieved from exploring Constitutional Conflicts: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm

• Nobis, L. (2012). Conflict Analysis Diagnosis Before Treatment. Retrieved from Conflict AnalysisPP.ppt.

• Nobis, L. C. (2012). Group Processes Types, Benefits, Pitfalls ppt. Salt Lake.

• Utah, T. L. (2006, September). Hate Crimes Study. Retrieved from http://www.lwvutah.org/Studies/Hate%20Crime%20Study%202006.pdf

• Welling, A. (2003, September 25). Utah hate-crime law constitutional, judge rules. Retrieved from deseretnews.com: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/515034219/Utah-hate-crime-law-constitutional-judge-rules.html?pg=all