Woman Fined for Homophobia in Poland

[4PointOh]

This could probably never happen in the U.S. because I think hate-speech is protected by the First Amendment, but I would be a rich man right now if I was allowed to sue and win against people who called me racially or sexually derogatory terms and "infring[ed] [upon my] dignity":

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid103833.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8189324.stm

[Charles RB]

An emotional Mr Giersz said he was very happy with Tuesday's verdict, adding that he may use the damages payment to buy a bigger flat away from his neighbour.

He is a smart man.

[the4thpip]

This could probably never happen in the U.S. because I think hate-speech is protected by the First Amendment,

Considering that the Polish slur "pedal" is derived from "pedophile" one might make the case that she is falsely accusing him of a serious crime and get her on slander.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Freedom of expression is all nice and dandy but I wish hate speech was outlawed.

[friginator]

Hate speech should be protected, because it's arbitrary. Anything anyone says could be seen as hate speech. It's not even a slippery slope. That's exactly what's going to happen. People are going to start suing each other like crazy using hate speech as a justification. People are going to profit off of nonexistent hate speech.

[Lester C.]

Freedom of expression is all nice and dandy but I wish hate speech was outlawed.

Freedom of speech in a democracy is easy if you agree with the person. The true test of that freedom, as well as democracy itself, is when a person says something you find utterly vile but nevertheless you support their right to say it because it is their right.

[friginator]

Freedom of speech in a democracy is easy if you agree with the person. The true test of that freedom, as well as democracy itself, is when a person says something you find utterly vile but nevertheless you support their right to say it because it is their right.

Exactly. For example, Phil Donahue did an experiment to see just what people's reaction to the darker side of free speech would be. So he brought in the 2 Live Crew to perform the song "Face Down, Ass Up" in the middle of the show, just to show his audience what real free speech looks like. The awkwardness of it all was hilarious.

[4PointOh]

Are there, or should there be, any limits to free speech? For instance, are obscenities covered? I'm not certain they are because I think you can be arrested for cursing in public in some places in the US.

[CaptainCanada]

Are there, or should there be, any limits to free speech? For instance, are obscenities covered? I'm not certain they are because I think you can be arrested for cursing in public in some places in the US.
It's a bit variable; public airwaves are censored, but that's because they're publicly owned/whatever. Legal censorship of art for obscenity has otherwise totally collapsed over the last half-century, apart from things like child pornography, where the state's compelling interest is on the part of the abused children.

In general, swearing at people won't get you into any legal trouble (among other things, the courts just couldn't handle the volume); if you make a big enough ruckus, generally you'd get arrested for causing a public disturbance or something like that.

I generally favour as little restriction as possible on speech.

[friginator]

Are there, or should there be, any limits to free speech? For instance, are obscenities covered? I'm not certain they are because I think you can be arrested for cursing in public in some places in the US.

The first amendment says, very simply, "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." There are exceptions, but they're not in the first amendment. Exceptions include obscenity, pornography, threats, and solicitation in the context of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Censorship is almost entirely on a state level according to the tenth amendment, unless the Supreme Court gets involved or the constitution is amended.

[Spike-X]

Hate speech should be protected, because it's arbitrary. Anything anyone says could be seen as hate speech. It's not even a slippery slope. That's exactly what's going to happen. People are going to start suing each other like crazy using hate speech as a justification. People are going to profit off of nonexistent hate speech.
Do you have anything in the way of facts to back this up? Because I live in a state with hate speech laws, and this hasn't happened.

[Tobias March]

Wait. I watched the PM of Poland give a speech in Dublin Castle loudly declaring homosexuals to be criminal and debased.

When does he get sued?

[Charles RB]

Why did he go to Dublin to do that?

[Nate Grey]

Why did he go to Dublin to do that?

The acoustics of the castle?

[FeminineMystique]

Why did he go to Dublin to do that?

Because he wants to waste his peoples money on holidays abroad?:tongue:

[lexid523]

It sounds to me that she wasn't fined for "hate speech" as much as harassment. It just happened to take the form of homophobic slurs. Likely she would have faced the same consequences even if they hadn't actually been gay.

[Cam63]

Wait. I watched the PM of Poland give a speech in Dublin Castle loudly declaring homosexuals to be criminal and debased.

When does he get sued?

Hopefully, he gets a late night visit from a lesbian ninja.

[friginator]

Do you have anything in the way of facts to back this up? Because I live in a state with hate speech laws, and this hasn't happened.

Could you define "hat speech laws"? No US state has completely banned hate speech, which is what I'm talking about. What state do you live in?

[Cam63]

Spike is Australian.

[Spike-X]

Could you define "hat speech laws"? No US state has completely banned hate speech, which is what I'm talking about. What state do you live in?
Victoria, Australia, The World.

[Sabrinaset]

Could you define "hat speech laws"?

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/sabrinaset/Talktothehat.jpg

[friginator]

From my cold dead hands!!

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr286/Friginator369/frommycolddeadhatscopy.jpg

[JTPencils]

Freedom of expression is all nice and dandy but I wish hate speech was outlawed.

I agree with you in theory Eli, but who is going to be the judge and arbitrator of what is hate speech or not? It falls into the category of censorship and "who set's the bar" as to the language allowed, and not allowed.

The risk of free speech, is that sometimes, you're not going to like what some have to say. But just as you wouldn't want your own ideas and thoughts to be censored, neither do they. It's a fine line to walk.

[the4thpip]

Do you have anything in the way of facts to back this up? Because I live in a state with hate speech laws, and this hasn't happened.

Nor has it happened in mine.

[carabas]

I agree with you in theory Eli, but who is going to be the judge and arbitrator of what is hate speech or not? It falls into the category of censorship and "who set's the bar" as to the language allowed, and not allowed.All of that seems pretty decently codified in hate speech laws in countries that have them.

The risk of free speech, is that sometimes, you're not going to like what some have to say. But just as you wouldn't want your own ideas and thoughts to be censored, neither do they. It's a fine line to walk.Nono. The real risk of unfettered free speach is that unscrupulous, demagogue politicians will use it to undermine democratic principles until demacracy just is just an empty shell.
It's what the Insane Right in America has been getting away with for years.

[Grazzt]

I agree with you in theory Eli, but who is going to be the judge and arbitrator of what is hate speech or not? It falls into the category of censorship and "who set's the bar" as to the language allowed, and not allowed.

The risk of free speech, is that sometimes, you're not going to like what some have to say. But just as you wouldn't want your own ideas and thoughts to be censored, neither do they. It's a fine line to walk.

Well, that's an easy one. If it would be considered libel or otherwise criminal speech against an individual, it should count as hate speech.

I wouldn't let anyone accuse me of being a pedophile, why should I stand by when someone says that about all gays? Likewise, if someone said they wanted to murder Typo Lad, they would be put in prison. Why should they be allowed to say "Death to Jews"?

[beetlebum]

Actually, you wouldn't be put into prison is you said something like "kill all Jews."

The only way you would is if you acted upon it.

And having hate speech laws will not always prevent the nutters from getting elected. (see the late Jorg Haider.)

Instances of incitement only qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent (and I rather like it that way.)

And -- in regards to constative and performative speech -- Derrida raised an interesting point when he demonstrated how the relationship between the constative and the performative is one of mutual contamination: any so-called constative statement will have a performative element, if only in so far as it is readable or intelligible.

Thus every definition in a dictionary is not simply constative but performative, generative, in collusion with chance, one might say--except that this collusion can never simply be foreseen or calculated.

So in other words: The lines between the two can be blurred (and most of what would constitute hate speech would be considered performative, anyway.) Which I think brings up another problem with hate speech laws.

I mean, I'm sure you get the message someone is trying to impart and the hatred in someone's voice when they say "I'm going to kill you." But only in a few instances do they act upon it.

I can certainly understand firing someone who is harassing their co-workers, (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) but jail time, or imposed fines?

Not sure I can get behind that.

[spoon_jenkins]

Well, that's an easy one. If it would be considered libel or otherwise criminal speech against an individual, it should count as hate speech.
Whose libel laws? Because, for instance, there's a big difference in between defamation law in the U.S. and the U.K. The British approach to defamation is pretty tough on the defendant and it's provoking a debate about whether it needs to be reformed. Science journalist Simon Singh is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association for statements in an article criticizing chiropractic. An idea such as the scientific validity of specific alternative medicine treatments need to be fought out in the field of ideas, not chilled because those who favor a certain POV (and may in term be favored by whoever is governed at the time) want to silence criticism.

[ScottyQuick]

Actually, you wouldn't be put into prison is you said something like "kill all Jews."

The only way you would is if you acted upon it.

But you will get in tons of trouble if you post on the internet "I'm going to KILL Johnny Smith. He stole my girlfriend!", won't you?

[beetlebum]

But you will get in tons of trouble if you post on the internet "I'm going to KILL Johnny Smith. He stole my girlfriend!", won't you?

You could get into some trouble, depending on who sees it.

But my point is: YOU WILL NOT [ALWAYS] GO TO PRISON FOR IT.

At least not in the United States.

EDIT: Someone else (not you Scotty) brought this up: My point is the utterance itself won't get you into trouble, only if there is an intent to follow through on the threat, and if it is followed through.

Hence, what I said:

Instances of incitement only qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent (and I rather like it that way.)

[JTPencils]

Well, that's an easy one. If it would be considered libel or otherwise criminal speech against an individual, it should count as hate speech.

I wouldn't let anyone accuse me of being a pedophile, why should I stand by when someone says that about all gays? Likewise, if someone said they wanted to murder Typo Lad, they would be put in prison. Why should they be allowed to say "Death to Jews"?

But you see, saying you wanted to murder Typo Lad could be a result of... you walk into your house/room/flat, Typo sprays you with extremely cold water as a gag... you shout "you jerk, I'm gonna kill you". Should this AUTOMATICALLY be considered hate speech? What I'm trying to say mostly is... there are degrees to some comments, and you have to be so careful as to what you consider "hateful" "playful", "dangerous" or not! I'm not saying it's easy or fair... just.. that's how it goes.

I don't muck like the idea of "Death to Jews" being protected either... so instead, I'd try to use MY right to speak out, to showcase why and how those folks are SO wrong in their thinking. But I feel BOTH of us deserve to be heard, even if their opinion is completely the opposite of my own.

Sadly, I also think that a lot of P/C thinking has been like a censorship, slowly eating away at our freedom of speech as well. But I'll leave it at that for now.

[Michael P]

You could get into some trouble, depending on who sees it.

But my point is: YOU WILL NOT GO TO PRISON FOR IT.

At least not in the United States.

Actually, you might, if they determine it's a serious threat.

[Matt Algren]

Actually, you might, if they determine it's a serious threat.
Oddball example: RENO 911!, 5th season. Big Mike and Stuart form an angry mob. (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=163023&title=angry-mob)

The combination of the torch and the funny accent creates a potential hate crime.

[beetlebum]

Actually, you might, if they determine it's a serious threat.

Which is why I said "if you acted upon it" in an earlier post.

Reading comprehension is your friend!

[the4thpip]

Which is why I said "if you acted upon it" in an earlier post.

Reading comprehension is your friend!

It can be considered a serious thread even without you acting on it. For example if you have a prior history of violence.

See how snarkiness can make you look bad when you don't think your points through?

[section 8]

Actually in some states (yes in the US) not only CAN you go to jail for it, but they could pile the charges on (Felony Menacing, Communicating a threat of death, conspiracy to commit murder, to name a few) to put you away for a while

You could EASILY end up doing more than ten years for these combined charges.

[Charles RB]

The British approach to defamation is pretty tough on the defendant and it's provoking a debate about whether it needs to be reformed.

It does. We've got law firms who seem entirely devoted to using libel laws to silence journalists - any time it comes out that someone rich is suing a journalist or paper, Carter-Ruck or Schillings will most likely turn up as the law firm involved.

[4PointOh]

Minneapolis-St.Paul, Minnesota:

Student faced gay slurs by teachers, state says

The Anoka-Hennepin school district agreed to pay a family $25,000 after two teachers allegedly harassed a boy because of his perceived sexual orientation.

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/53083997.html

[Matt Algren]

Minneapolis-St.Paul, Minnesota:

Student faced gay slurs by teachers, state says

The Anoka-Hennepin school district agreed to pay a family $25,000 after two teachers allegedly harassed a boy because of his perceived sexual orientation.

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/53083997.html
Somebody's not reading my blog (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/08/lgbt-teens-cant-even-trust-teachers/)!

Among the allegations (which the school investigation itself found to be true):


When Cleveland learned that Jason was doing a report on Ben Franklin for her class, she made comments in front of the class that implied that Jason had a “thing for older men”;


When Cleveland’s class was watching the 1989 film, Christmas Vacation, Cleveland covered the screen during a swimming pool/bathing suit scene and commented, “It’s OK if Jason watches this because he isn’t into that sort of thing anyway… maybe if it was a guy.”

When another student presented a report in Filson’s class regarding a deer that had been molested, a student said, “Hey, Mr. Filson, doesn’t that sound like something Jason would do?” Filson allegedly agreed and laughed.

After students came to Filson’s classroom seeking male participates (sic) for a fashion show, Filson stated, “Take Jason because he enjoys wearing woman’s clothes… he would love to be in the show.”

[4PointOh]

Somebody's not reading my blog (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/08/lgbt-teens-cant-even-trust-teachers/)!

Well, now. I didn't even know you had a blog!

That has been hardily corrected. I am now a follower!


Among the allegations (which the school investigation itself found to be true):

When Cleveland learned that Jason was doing a report on Ben Franklin for her class, she made comments in front of the class that implied that Jason had a “thing for older men”;
When Cleveland’s class was watching the 1989 film, Christmas Vacation, Cleveland covered the screen during a swimming pool/bathing suit scene and commented, “It’s OK if Jason watches this because he isn’t into that sort of thing anyway… maybe if it was a guy.”
When another student presented a report in Filson’s class regarding a deer that had been molested, a student said, “Hey, Mr. Filson, doesn’t that sound like something Jason would do?” Filson allegedly agreed and laughed.
After students came to Filson’s classroom seeking male participates (sic) for a fashion show, Filson stated, “Take Jason because he enjoys wearing woman’s clothes… he would love to be in the show.”Isn't it just lovely when people use their freedoms to oppress others?

[Charles RB]

Among the allegations (which the school investigation itself found to be true):


Presumably that whole "bullying is a bad thing" was something they felt applied to other teachers.

[Matt Algren]

Presumably that whole "bullying is a bad thing" was something they felt applied to other teachers.
Rule #3 (http://www.anoka.k12.mn.us/education/sctemp/484b33efad8bfb2a79b37b8ef14e117f/1250271805/Class_Rules.pdf) (pdf) in Mr. Filson's class:

No slanderous or derogatory remarks to other student or teachers. No abusive, insulting or demeaning statements. (Remember, it is not what you say, it is what the other person hears that determines the meaning.)

And in case anybody missed it, Mr. Filson teaches the vocational school's Law Enforcement classes.

Yeah. I'm getting irony all over the place here.