United States Is An Outlier In Its Tolerance Of Hate and Racism – But Why?Posted on May 13, 2011http://medialiteracyproject.org/blog/united-states-outlier-its-tolerance-hate-and-racism-%E2%80%93-whyHot off the presses, the University of Pennsylvania’s Spring 2011 Edition of its Journal of International Law features an article from Professor Tanya Katerí Hernández. The article goes beyond traditional comparisons of hate speech laws in Europe and the US, incorporating the Latin America perspective (it is aptly titled, “Hate Speech and The Language of Racism in Latin America: A Lens for Reconsidering Global Hate Speech Restrictions and Legislation Models”).As someone who has been advocating against hate and racism for the entirety of my short legal career, this is a piece after my own heart. Here’s a short excerpt:“In Latin America, like many countries in Europe, hate speech is prohibited. Yet Latin America is rarely included in the transnational discussion regarding the regulation of hate speech. Instead, the discourse focuses on a comparison of the advisability of Europe’s hate speech regulations and free speech acceptance of hate speech in the United States. … It is especially critical to broaden the hate speech debate now that we are seeing an apparent rise in the occurrence of hate speech worldwide.”Hernández cites NHMC’s Petition for Inquiry on Hate Speech in Media as evidence that hate speech is on the rise. Then, in examining international norms, Hernández observes that the “significant harms hate speech incites have engendered a widespread international consensus that it should be illegal” but that the United States is “the extreme exception with an absolutist vision of free speech where much of hate speech is tolerated despite the fact that actual First Amendment doctrine does permit speech regulation in other contexts.” Now, before you misunderstand my intentions, please hear me out for a moment. NHMC has said time and again, it IS NOT seeking and it WILL NEVER seek anti-hate speech laws and regulations in the US. So that’s not where I’m going with this. However, I can’t help but fascinate over why we the people of the US, have decided that hate speech is part of free speech.Most of you probably know that not all speech is Constitutionally-protected. The obvious – and in my opinion, overused – example is that one cannot yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater. But there are many more. To name a few, journalists can be prevented from disclosing military information in war time; obscene, indecent and profane material may not broadcast between 6am and 10pm; and conversations that rise to conspiracies are criminally punishable. None of these exceptions to free speech originated in the US Constitution. Rather, they were developed through legislation, administrative orders and court decisions, melding to the desires of the people. Striving for balance between free speech and other extremely important concerns, such as public safety, troop safety, child protection and crime prevention.Recognizing that various exceptions to free speech have been created through the people’s will, and not the Constitution, is it so wrong for me to ask: why do people in this country work so hard to protect the haters and the racists? Do we really believe that hate speech significantly contributes to our democracy? Even to the extent that hate does have a role in our society, does that outweigh the grave harms that hate speech poses? NHMC’s Petition

1

for Inquiry notes a number of those harms, including dramatic increases in hate crimes against people of color, LGBT people, people of certain religions and other targeted groups, immense psychological damage to hate speech targets (particularly to children and teens), along with the legitimization of racism and intolerance of those perceived to be “the others”.Hernández teaches us that the international community sees it differently. In protecting hate speech, the US parts ways with the United Nations, and the majority of Latin American and European countries (most of which also have freedom of expression laws). As Hernández reports, these countries chose to enact hate speech laws because “there is little social value in racist speech whose basic purpose is to degrade others, deny them their identity as human beings, exclude them from the entitlements of the basic social and constitutional covenant, and expose them to violence. By denying human dignity to some people, hate speech attacks the very basis of democratic systems.”Hernández goes on to discuss the growing international trend of rejection of racism and hate. So is the US behind the times? Over two years ago, NHMC asked the federal government not for regulation, not for legislation, but rather to merely EXAMINE this issue and to start a public dialogue about civil discourse. Yet the two main federal agencies under which this issue falls, the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, have done NOTHING. Thousands in the US have lost their lives to hate in the intervening time period. If you’d like the US to keep up with the times, please subscribe to this blog so that you can stay up to date on what NHMC is doing to eliminate hate and racism in the US, and so that you can add your name to the growing list of people, organizations and countries that oppose hate.Jessica Gonzalez is the Vice President of Policy and Legal Affairs at the National Hispanic Media Coalition. You can see the original post at the National Hispanic Media Coalition blog.

A right to offend?Onora O'Neill - The Guardian, Monday 13 February 2006http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/13/mondaymediasection7The decision by a Danish newspaper to print cartoons of the prophet Muhammad provoked protests around the world and a debate about freedom of speech. Philosopher Onora O'Neill considers the limits of libertyFlemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, intended to make a point about free speech when he commissioned and published the now notorious cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. As he saw it, free speech in Denmark was at risk not from censorship, but from self-censorship. Danish writers and artists had become reluctant to write or speak openly about Islam or about Muslim immigration into Denmark. Publishing cartoons of the prophet would supposedly exemplify and reaffirm rights of free speech.Four months after they were first published, after millions of words of commentary, countless protests and denunciations, energetic exacerbation of the dispute by zealous advocates both of free speech and of restraint of speech, several burnings of embassies, much violence and around a dozen deaths (so far), Flemming Rose has expressed regret about what happened. However, he

2

maintains that: "We do not apologise for printing the cartoons. It was our right to do so." (The Times, Feb 1 2006). Sage remindersThis standard liberal view is often tempered with sage reminders that it would be better if rights to free speech were used "responsibly". Many moderate Muslims, and others, have claimed that this particular exercise of free speech, far from being responsible, was unacceptable because it was offensive, insulting or provocative. Some more extreme Muslims have used the free speech they enjoy in western countries to urge that those who published the cartoons be punished, even executed.Most defenders of free speech think that the advocates of "responsible" free speech, of legal restraint on free speech, let alone of execution for (what is deemed) unacceptable speech, simply fail to understand what rights to free speech are for. Flemming Rose's recent comments are typical: "I think some of the Muslims who have reacted very strongly to these cartoons are being driven by totalitarian and authoritarian impulses, and the nature of these impulses is that if you give in once they will just put forward new requirements." (The Times, February 1 2006)Yet even committed liberals don't seriously think that rights to free speech are unlimited or unconditional, although they seem to be unsure about which limits should be set. They are often torn between an aspiration to justify free speech as minimal and uncontroversial, and a contrary belief that free speech matters because it is not minimal but powerful. This double vision is well reflected in contemporary tendencies to construe freedom of speech as freedom of expression. Freedom of expression sounds so harmless: merely a matter of expressing oneself, seemingly no more than an aspect of individual privacy. Yet most speech acts are not merely expressive. They are intended to communicate, and may affect, even harm others. The nursery jingle "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" is palpably false.The tradition of justifying free speech as a minimal, uncontroversial freedom has very respectable origins. Immanuel Kant called free speech the most innocuous freedom, and tried to persuade enlightened despots to respect it. John Stuart Mill equated free speech with freedom of expression, as no more than self- regarding action. Yet both of them accepted that most speech acts are not mere self-expression, and that many are far from innocuous. They both argued that some speech acts can harm and must be restricted to protect others and their rights.Kant argued that the free speech for officials, clergy and others who exercise authority may be far from innocuous, so may be legitimately controlled and restricted. Mill argued that free speech does not entitle us to perform speech acts that harm others, concluding that there is no right to defame others, or to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre (causing panic, and perhaps deaths).Rights to free speech have always been seen as limited by other serious considerations, and must often be so restricted if we are to respect other rights. Nobody thinks that a right to free speech confers an unconditional licence to intimidate, to incite hatred, to defraud, to deceive or the like, and nobody thinks that the law should protect speech acts that harm, injure or put others at risk.It is a pity that the Millian conflation of (seemingly innocuous) freedom of expression with (sometimes injurious) freedom of speech has now been entrenched in the vocabulary of human rights conventions, and in wider discussions of free speech. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights, Art 10, i, proclaims a right to freedom of expression, characterised as "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers". This formulation suggests

3

that free speech is for individuals, whose self-expression it protects against state power, and in particular against censorship. So far, so fine.However article 10 is taken to apply just as much to speech and publication by those with power to reach and affect the world at large. Yet any thought that the speech of the powerful is no more than self-expression is implausible. According the local, relatively powerless press of Mill's day the same freedom of expression as individuals may have seemed uncontroversial. A free press was then often seen as the champion of the weak, and as augmenting and giving voice to the powerless.Conferring the same freedom of expression on more powerful organisations, including media organisations, is now less easily justified. Once we take account of the power of the media, we are not likely to think that they should enjoy unconditional freedom of expression. We do not think that corporations should have unrestricted rights to invent their balance sheets, or governments to damage or destroy the reputations of individuals or institutions, or to deceive their electorates. Yet contemporary liberal readings of the right to free speech often assume that we can safely accord the same freedom of expression to the powerless and the powerful. Tough questionsHowever, even if we conclude that freedom of expression should be accorded to institutions as well as to individuals, the publication of the Danish cartoons raises tough questions. The second part of article 10 the European convention sheds some light on them. It sets out the basis for legitimate restrictions on freedom of expression: "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."While the European convention assigns "freedom of expression" both to individuals and institutions, it balances that freedom with rights to set conditions on its use. In effect it proclaims not an unrestricted right to freedom of expression, but a defeasible right - essentially, one that may be overridden to protect other important rights.The publication of these cartoons was clearly acceptable under Danish law, even if they were seen by some as offensive, provocative, insulting or blasphemous. Yet their publication was certainly no mere act of self-expression. Flemming Rose's intentions in publishing were apparently to provoke self-censoring Danes. He may not have intended to provoke Muslims. (However, Jyllands-Posten had a certain reputation in this area: a 2004 report by the European Network Against Racism concluded that the paper devoted disproportionate time and space to negative reporting on ethnic minorities.) With help from others who publicised the cartoons, including from many who supposedly opposed their publication, a provincial provocation was magnified into global insult.It is standardly said that free speech must include a right to say things that are offensive or provocative, but not rights to defame, insult, let alone intimidate. These supposed distinctions are inevitably unclear because interpretations of speech acts vary with audiences. Danes might read the cartoons as no more than mildly provocative and offensive; many Muslims have read them as insulting and defamatory. If we think of speech as mere self-expression, we are likely to think

4

that what has happened is in no way the responsibility of Jyllands-Posten or of Flemming Rose. But if we think of free speech as exercised in communicating with audiences, and remember that audiences vary greatly in the way they will read what is said and written, we may find reason to be more circumspect.Jyllands-Posten could have communicated legitimate worries about self-censorship in ways that would have found resonance and respect. The way in which they chose to convey their worries were likely to be read by some as offensive, insulting and defamatory. The same is true of the speech acts both of those who publicised the cartoons in the name of free speech, and of those who publicised them to oppose free speech.· Onora O'Neill is professor of philosophy in Cambridge and principal of Newnham College

Anti-Bullying Laws Get Tough With Schoolsby Emily Bazelon - September 17, 2011http://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/

New Jersey's Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, considered by many as the toughest legislation against bullying in the nation, went into effect this month. Host Scott Simon talks with Emily Bazelon of Slate Magazine about bullying laws, where they're working and where they're headed (hint: the Supreme Court).

Suicide of Megan Meierhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_MeierMegan Taylor Meier (November 6, 1992 – October 17, 2006), was an American teenager from Dardenne Prairie, Missouri, who committed suicide by hanging three weeks before her fourteenth birthday. A year later, Meier's parents prompted an investigation into the matter and her suicide was attributed to cyber-bullying through the social networking website MySpace. The mother of a friend of Meier, Lori Drew, was later indicted on the matter in 2008, but in 2009, Drew was acquitted.[1]From the third grade, Megan had been under the care of a psychiatrist. She had been prescribed citalopram, methylphenidate and ziprasidone.[2] She had been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and depression, and had self-esteem issues regarding her weight. [3] She was described by her parents as a "bubbly, goofy" girl who enjoyed spending time with her friends and family.[4]The account through which the bullying of Meier took place purportedly belonged to a 16-year-old male named "Josh Evans." However, Lori Drew, the mother of a former friend of Meier, later admitted creating the MySpace account with her daughter and Ashley Grills, Lori Drew's 18-year-old employee. Several people contributed to running the faked account, including Drew. Witnesses testified that the women intended to use Meier’s e-mails with "Josh" to get information about her and later humiliate her, in retribution for her allegedly spreading gossip about Drew's daughter.

Megan Meier's story was first reported in the St. Charles Journal, and reader comments focused on unnamed adults implicated in the hoax — who were later revealed to be Lori and Curt Drew.[18] Later, the focus was on the St. Louis Suburban Journals's decision not to print the name of the Drews. The reporter stated in an interview that the names were withheld out of concern for the minor child of the hoaxer.[20] However, the identity of the chief perpetrator, Lori Drew, was quickly revealed by webloggers, who reported finding the names of the parents within minutes from the information given in the article,[25][26] followed by the media eventually revealing Lori Drew's name and photograph.[15]

5

Banas said he was aware of the national outrage against the Drews, which originated on the Internet in response to the Steve Pokin article in the O'Fallon Journal.[16] The Drews have had their home and work addresses, phone and cell phone numbers, and aerial photos of their home posted on the Internet. The Drews' property had also been vandalized. Banas said some of these actions against the Drews could constitute Internet stalking.[16] "Because we can’t prosecute somebody it certainly does not justify violating the law," Banas said. "We live in this country by the rule of the law." He described Lori Drew as "upset, cautious and guarded" when he interviewed her. Banas said that Mrs. Drew felt "terrible" about Meier's death.[16] A vigil was held for Megan Meier on November 24, 2007. The crowd gathered in a near-by parking lot and walked past the homes of the Meiers and the Drews. A small piece of ground adjacent to the Drews' house was the scene of remembrances by friends of the Meiers.[27] The case has caused several jurisdictions to enact or to consider legislation prohibiting harassment over the Internet. The Board of Aldermen for the City of Dardenne Prairie, passed an ordinance on November 22, 2007, in response to the incident.[28] The ordinance prohibits any harassment that utilizes an electronic medium, including the Internet, text messaging services, pagers, and similar devices. Violations of the ordinance are treated as misdemeanors, with fines of up to $500 and up to 90 days imprisonment. The city of Florissant, Missouri also passed a "Cyber Harassment" law, with other municipalities, counties, and states considering following suit. The state of Missouri is to revise its harassment laws in response to the case,[29] updating them to cover harassment through computers and mobile phone messaging, and creating a new crime to cover adults 21 and over harassing children under the age of 18. The new legislation went into effect on August 28, 2008. The bill was a reaction to Missouri police's inability to comprehensively prosecute Lori Drew for cyberbullying and harassment by computer.[30] According to the St. Louis Daily Record, the "new language expands the definition of the crime of 'harassment' to include knowingly intimidating or causing emotional distress anonymously, either by phone or electronically, or causing distress to a child." It also "increases the penalty for harassment from a misdemeanor to a felony, carrying up to four years in prison, if it’s committed by an adult against someone 17 or younger, or if the criminal has previously been convicted of harassment." This is one of the first comprehensive cyberbullying and cyberstalking state laws that protects children and adults from harassment on social networking sites. The bill is a reaction to Lori Drew's case dismissal[31] and Governor Matt Blunt, the politician who signed the law into effect states, "[Missouri] needs tough laws to protect its children." A bill was introduced in the 111th Congress on April 2, 2009 as H.R. 1966. Both houses of the Missouri State Legislature voted unanimously on May 15, 2008 to criminalize usage of the internet to harass someone, the existing statute was expanded to prohibit abusive "communication by any means..." and is known as "Megan's Law."[32] (not to be confused with New Jersey's Megan's Law). On May 22, 2008, Congresswoman Linda T. Sanchez introduced H.R. 6123 as the "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act" to "amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying."[33][34][35][36] Tina Meier started the Megan Meier Foundation, headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri.[37] The organization states that it exists to promote "awareness, education and promote positive change to children, parents and educators in response to the ongoing bullying and cyberbullying in our children’s daily environment."[38]

Verdict in MySpace Suicide Casehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/us/27myspace.htmlLOS ANGELES — A federal jury here issued what legal experts said was the country’s first cyberbullying verdict Wednesday, convicting a Missouri woman of three misdemeanor charges of computer fraud for

6

her involvement in creating a phony account on MySpace to trick a teenager, who later committed suicide.The jury deadlocked on a fourth count of conspiracy against the woman, Lori Drew, 49, and the judge, George H. Wu of Federal District Court, declared a mistrial on that charge.

Although it was unclear how severely Ms. Drew would be punished — the jury reduced the charges to misdemeanors from felonies, and no sentencing date was set — the conviction was highly significant, computer fraud experts said, because it was the first time that a federal statute designed to combat computer crimes was used to prosecute what were essentially abuses of a user agreement on a social networking site.

Under federal sentencing guidelines, Ms. Drew could face up to three years in prison and $300,000 in fines, though she has no previous criminal record. Her lawyer has asked for a new trial.

In a highly unusual move, Thomas P. O’Brien, the United States attorney in Los Angeles, prosecuted the case himself with two subordinates after law enforcement officials in Missouri determined Ms. Drew had broken no local laws. Mr. O’Brien, who asserted jurisdiction on the ground that MySpace is based in Los Angeles, where its servers are housed, said the verdict sent an “overwhelming message” to users of the Internet.

“If you are going to attempt to annoy or go after a little girl and you’re going to use the Internet to do so,” he said, “this office and others across the country will hold you responsible.”

During the five-day trial, prosecutors portrayed Ms. Drew as working in concert with her daughter, Sarah, who was then 13, and Ashley Grills, a family friend and employee of Ms. Drew’s magazine coupon business in Dardenne Prairie, Mo. Testimony showed that they created a teenage boy, “Josh Evans,” as an identity on MySpace to communicate with Sarah’s nemesis, Megan Meier, who was 13 and had a history of depression and suicidal impulses. After weeks of online courtship with “Josh,” Megan was distressed one afternoon in October 2006, according to testimony at the trial, when she received an e-mail message from him that said, “The world would be a better place without you.”

Ms. Grills, who is now 20, testified under an immunity agreement that shortly after that message was sent, Megan wrote back, “You’re the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over.” Megan hanged herself that same afternoon in her bedroom. Although the jury appeared to reject the government’s contention that Ms. Drew had intended to harm Megan — a notion underlying the felony charges — the convictions signaled the 12 members’ belief that she had nonetheless violated federal laws that prohibit gaining access to a computer without authorization. Specifically, the jury found Ms. Drew guilty of accessing a computer without authorization on three occasions, a reference to the fraudulent postings on MySpace in the name of Josh Evans.

Legal and computer fraud experts said the application of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, passed in 1986 and amended several times, appeared to be expanding with technology and the growth of social networking on the Internet. More typically, prosecutions under the act have involved people who hack into computer systems.

“Keep in mind that social networking sites like MySpace did not exist until recently,” said Nick Akerman, a New York lawyer who has written and lectured extensively on the act. “This case will be simply another important step in the expanded use of this statute to protect the public from computer crime.”

7

Other computer fraud experts said they found the verdict chilling. “As a result of the prosecutor’s highly aggressive, if not unlawful, legal theory,” said Matthew L. Levine, a former federal prosecutor who is a defense lawyer in New York, “it is now a crime to ‘obtain information’ from a Web site in violation of its terms of service. This cannot be what Congress meant when it enacted the law, but now you have it.”

Ms. Drew, who showed little emotion during the trial, sat stone-faced as the clerk read the jury’s verdict and left the courtroom quickly, her face red and twisted with rage. Her lawyer, H. Dean Steward, said outside the courthouse that he believed the trial was grandstanding by Mr. O’Brien in an effort to keep his job, with the coming change in the White House. “I don’t have any satisfaction at all,” Mr. Steward said of the verdict.

Judge Wu scheduled a hearing on the request for a new trial for late December.

Since the story surrounding the suicide became public last year, Mr. O’Brien has discussed with his staff how his feelings as a parent motivated him to bring the charges against Ms. Drew. He alluded to those feelings on Wednesday at a news conference.

“This was obviously a case that means a lot to me,” he said. The case has been a collection of anomalies. Judge Wu appeared ambivalent regarding some key issues at the trial, like whether any testimony about Megan’s suicide would be allowed (he did allow it) and how to rule on a defense motion to throw out the charges (he had not ruled as of Wednesday).

Judge Wu was appointed to the federal bench less than two years ago, and it is difficult to establish his sentencing record. But Mr. Akerman, the computer fraud expert, said jail time was common even for first-time offenders in computer fraud cases. “If I were her,” he said of Ms. Drew, “I would not be celebrating over the Thanksgiving weekend.”

Tina Meier, Megan’s mother, said in a news conference after the verdict that she hoped Ms. Drew would serve jail time, and that she felt satisfied. “This day is not any harder than the day when I found Megan,” Ms. Meier said. “This has never been about vengeance. This is about justice. For me it’s absolutely worth it every single day sitting in that court hoping there was justice.”

Megan Meier Foundationhttp://meganmeierfoundation.cwsit.org/missionStatement.php"Bringing awareness, education and promote positive change to children, parents and educators in response to the ongoing bullying and cyberbullying in our children’s daily environment."

Missouri Revised StatutesChapter 565

Offenses Against the Person Section 565.225

August 28, 2010

8

Crime of stalking--definitions--penalties. 565.225. 1. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean: (1) "Course of conduct", a pattern of conduct composed of two or more acts, which may include communication by any means, over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of course of conduct. Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests; (2) "Credible threat", a threat communicated with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her family, or household members or domestic animals or livestock as defined in section 276.606 kept at such person's residence or on such person's property. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause physical injury to, or the kidnapping of, the person, the person's family, or the person's household members or domestic animals or livestock as defined in section 276.606 kept at such person's residence or on such person's property; (3) "Harasses", to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person under the circumstances to be frightened, intimidated, or emotionally distressed. 2. A person commits the crime of stalking if he or she purposely, through his or her course of conduct, harasses or follows with the intent of harassing another person. 3. A person commits the crime of aggravated stalking if he or she purposely, through his or her course of conduct, harasses or follows with the intent of harassing another person, and: (1) Makes a credible threat; or (2) At least one of the acts constituting the course of conduct is in violation of an order of protection and the person has received actual notice of such order; or (3) At least one of the actions constituting the course of conduct is in violation of a condition of probation, parole, pretrial release, or release on bond pending appeal; or (4) At any time during the course of conduct, the other person is seventeen years of age or younger and the person harassing the other person is twenty-one years of age or older; or (5) He or she has previously pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of domestic assault, violation of an order of protection, or any other crime where the other person was the victim. 4. The crime of stalking shall be a class A misdemeanor unless the person has previously pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, or of any offense committed in violation of any county or municipal ordinance in any state, any state law, any federal law, or any military law which, if committed in this state, would be chargeable or indictable as a violation of any offense listed in this section, in which case stalking shall be a class D felony. 5. The crime of aggravated stalking shall be a class D felony unless the person has previously pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, or of any offense committed in violation of any county or municipal ordinance in any state, any state law, any federal law, or any military law which, if committed in this state, would be chargeable or indictable as a violation of any offense listed in this section, aggravated stalking shall be a class C felony.

9

6. Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section. 7. This section shall not apply to activities of federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement officers conducting investigations of violation of federal, state, county, or municipal law.

(L. 1993 H.B. 476 & 194 § 1, A.L. 2002 S.B. 969, et al., A.L. 2008 S.B. 818 & 795)

Cyber Bullies Harass Teen on Facebook Before, After Her SuicideStaff reporter - 4:14 a.m. PDT, March 25, 2010http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-facebook-suicide-bullies,0,133841.storySUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. -- Police are investigating a series of vicious Facebook messages posted before and after a popular teenager committed suicide.Even after 17-year-old Alexis Pilkington died, the harassing internet messages keep coming, posted on a page meant to stand as a tribute. "If they broke it down and they found these cowards ... there's probably a handful of them, maybe five maybe ten, who knows, but I'm also a karma guy," Thomas Pilkington, Alexis' father told PIX News. "What goes around comes around."Some of the Facebook messages are disrespectful, others are cruel and hurtful, but the family of Alexis Pinkington wants her friends and classmates to just ignore them."Their world has been rocked, let alone with Alexis' death but with what has now come on the internet afterwards," the teen's dad said. "We don't want to give these people an audience.""Children don't go there, don't go there," said Paula Pilkington, Alexis' mom, "She's gone forever and now we have to deal with the heartache."Michael Stracuzza is the father of one of Alexis' friends.He says he's sending prosecutors information on all the harassing posts put on a Facebook memorial site. Stracuzza says that neither he nor Alexis' family thinks the internet posts led to her suicide. But he says they want the responsible parties prosecuted because of the pain that the messages are now causing those Alexis left behind when she was found in her bedroom Sunday.

'Took all my pills, bye bye': Woman commits suicide on Facebook... and none of her 1,082 online friends helpBy Daily Mail Reporter - Last updated at 3:14 AM on 6th January 2011http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344281/Facebook-suicide-None-Simone-Backs-1-082-online-friends-helped-her.htmlA depressed charity worker killed herself as Facebook users mocked a suicide note she left on the social networking website. So-called Facebook ‘friends’ of Simone Back responded with cruel messages after she posted a message that read: ‘Took all my pills be dead soon so bye bye every one.’ One user replied calling her a liar who ‘overdoses all the time’ while another said it was ‘her choice’. Miss Back, 42, is thought to have been dying of an overdose as the messages were posted on Christmas Day.

Yesterday Miss Back’s mother demanded to know why none of her daughter’s 1,082 Facebook friends tried to save her. Jennifer Langridge, 60, said: ‘Nobody told me anything about it until the following day

10

when I was sent a text saying “Get help”. I am disabled so can’t get up the stairs to Simone’s flat so I called the police straight away. It is upsetting to think nobody did anything for my daughter.’

Miss Back’s friend, Samantha Owen, said: ‘Everyone just carried on arguing with each other on Facebook like it wasn’t happening. Some of those people lived within walking distance of Simone. ‘If one person just left their computer and went to her house her life could have been saved.’

Miss Back posted her final status update at 10.53pm on Christmas Day. At 11pm, one of Miss Back’s friends wrote in response: ‘She ODs all the time and she lies.’ An hour later a Facebook user wrote: ‘Did you catch the part about Simone taking pills?? .. the ‘bye bye’ part?? Did anyone go by personally and check on Simone.. or call 999?? what’s wrong with you people??’

The first friend responded: ‘She does it all the time, takes all of her pills,’ adding: ‘She’s not a kid anymore.’ Another Facebook user replied: ‘If any of you lot actually call yourself a friend one of you should call around and see if she’s ok, so glad I don’t personally know any of you, heartless.’After the discovery of Miss Back’s body on Boxing Day, Mrs Langridge posted a message on her daughter’s page: ‘My daughter Simone passed away today so please leave her alone now.’Miss Back, from Brighton, is thought to have had relationship troubles.

A spokesman for the site insisted the safety of its users was of “paramount importance”.A statement said Facebook was “deeply saddened” to hear of Ms Back’s death. 'We have a close working relationship with the Samaritans and have a process in place whereby friends and family who are concerned about someone can report it to us through the help centre,” it said. 'A team of trained professionals are then able to review the case and the Samaritans will make contact with the person at risk.'For confidential support call the Samaritans on 08457 90 90 90 or visit a local Samaritans branch, see www.samaritans.org for detailsTHE CRUEL TAUNTS AS SUICIDE WOMAN LAY DYING Simone Back's last message was posted on Christmas Day.At 10:53pm she posted: 'Took all my pills be dead soon bye bye everyone.'11.01pm Friend A: 'She ODs all the time and she lies.'11.02pm Friend B: 'I hope that she is lying about this or you're going to feel guilty tomorrow.'Boxing Day, 12.09am Friend C: 'Did you catch the part about Simone taking pills?? .. the 'bye bye' part?? Did anyone go by personally and check on Simone.. or call 999?? what's wrong with you people?? is the gossip really more important than her??'12.56am Friend A: 'She does it all the time, takes all of her pills. She's not a kid anymore.'12.01pm Friend D: 'She has a choice and taking pills over a relationship is not a good enough reason.'Miss Back's mother Jennifer Langridge later posted on her daughter's Facebook page: 'My daughter Simone passed away today so please leave her alone now.'

11

commentary

Richard Kyte: Corrosive speech is responsible for our contentious climateBy Richard Kyte | The Ethical Life | Posted: Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:45 amhttp://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/article_9e9e0aa0-d029-11e0-80cc-001cc4c03286.htmlOver the past several weeks I’ve heard numerous discussions about why the political climate in Wisconsin and the nation has become so contentious.One explanation comes up over and over again: “The main reason,”someone will say,” is that Citizens United allows outside interest groups to spend huge sums of money on political attack ads.”The explanation refers to the U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election commission, a 5-4 ruling that declared certain provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act unconstitutional. In the year since the decision, there has been a noticeable increase in TV and radio ads just before elections, funded by special interest groups, most of them negative in content and tone.But is this really why the political climate is so contentious?Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion in Citizens United, wrote that curtailing campaign ads would run the“serious risk of chilling protected speech ...” and, quoting Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that First Amendment standards “must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech.”The majority opinion is certainly correct in noting that the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech. And whatever one thinks about the societal effects of unregulated campaign ads, one must admit that they constitute political speech.But it is important to note that campaign ads are a mode of speech that proves more effective at tearing down than building up.For any issue, whether it is global climate change, economic reform, education funding or agricultural policies, to make one’s position seem reasonable takes careful and detailed explanation. But to make the same position seem ridiculous can generally be done with just one artfully crafted phrase.This is the case not just with political issues but with almost anything we do: “Golf is the sport of chasing a little white ball;” “Fishing is just sitting in a boat waving a stick;” “Bankers steal from the poor and give to the rich;” “Farming is the art of harvesting subsidies from taxpayers;” “Those who can’t do, teach.”The problem with using words to ridicule people and activities is that it is possible to make anything we do — anything we care about — appear foolish.We saw the outcome of the politics of ridicule in the recent debt-limit negotiations on Capitol Hill. When politicians are elected by belittling their opposition, the result is that any compromise

12

implies a willingness to make concessions to fools. Yet, compromise is the heart of politics. It is the only way democracies get things done.To engage in compromise requires that one see the possibility of merit in the opposition’s view. That such merit is always a possibility is actually the justification for free speech in the first place.Consider the words of Learned Hand, a staunch defender of free speech and widely regarded as one of America’s greatest jurists:“The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias ...”James Madison, who penned the Bill of Rights, understood that free speech should be a constitutional right, not because all speech is morally permissible, but because government should not be the sole arbiter of moral permissibility.Madison believed that citizens themselves must take seriously the obligation to monitor their own speech. He wrote: “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks — no form of government can render us secure. To suppose liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”If negative campaign ads are having a corrosive effect on our nation’s politics, it is not because the Supreme Court protects them.It is because we citizens are not vigorously defending true freedom, by supporting the organizations that fund corrosive speech and electing the politicians that benefit from it.Corrosive speech is part of what is protected by the First Amendment. But that doesn’t mean it is ethically defensible. It doesn’t mean we should meekly accept it as something worth listening to.The Ethical Life is a series of reflections on the ways ethical thinking influences our actions, emotions and relationships. Richard Kyte is the director of the D.B. Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership at Viterbo University.

. . . noted that many others have this same idea -- that our Constitutional protection of freedom of speech means we should feel free to speak without any sense of self-restraint. It is a guarantee of our right to be disrespectful, unfair, erroneous, ill-informed, obscene, and inflammatory. It's an invitation to join with groups of like-minded individuals -- rhetorical gangs -- to 'defeat the enemy' using whatever verbal 'weapons' are at one's disposal. This view is especially evident in forums where contributors can hide behind anonymity to avoid responsibility for their remarks.

http://www.civilpolitics.org/content/free-speech-and-responsible-speech

13

Statement of the Alumni for Responsible Speech For Immediate Release — April 1, 2008

We, the Alumni for Responsible Speech, stand committed to the principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom.

At the same time, we believe that we all have a responsibility to ensure that these freedoms are used responsibly. We oppose irresponsible free speech, and the misuse of academic freedom.

Alumni for Responsible Speech believe that universities should tolerate free speech as long as it doesn’t upset anyone, but we also believe that universities, as public institutions, have a duty to ensure a safe learning environment for students and faculty, and to take corrective action when free speech or academic freedom are misused in an irresponsible way.

Accordingly,

• We support the University of Toronto faculty members who have called on the university to ban events criticizing Israeli apartheid.(1)

• We applaud the administrators at McMaster University who acted to ban the use of the term “Israeli apartheid” on their campus.(2)

• We commend the University of Toronto for asking permission from the Toronto Police Department before making meeting rooms available to groups expressing controversial opinions about Israel.(3) We deeply regret that the Toronto Police told the University that they saw no grounds for laying charges at this time against individuals who criticize Israel.

Alumni for Responsible Speech strongly support banning the use of the term “Israeli Apartheid”, as well as the banning of any events which criticize Israel. Such action would be positive first steps for the University to take.

However, Alumni for Responsible Speech believe that further measures are needed to stamp out the threat of divisive or unconstructive free speech which jeopardizes a safe learning environment through the promotion of harmful ideas.

We believe that most reasonable people would agree that free speech is irresponsible and should be prohibited:

1) If it offends one or more faculty members, administrators, or university funders, or if in the view of the university authorities there is a real and present danger that an event might be used to express opinions that might offend a funder or a member of the university community.

14

2) If it is used to make negative or disparaging statements about any of the university’s corporate partners, funders or sponsors, or about their labour practices, environmental records, or illegal activities.

3) If it is used to state facts which are unpleasant and which might, if stated publicly, make some members of the university community uncomfortable.

4) If it is used to criticize Israel’s human rights record or Israel’s violations of international law.

We therefore support the banning of words and phrases such as “Israeli apartheid” whose use clearly violates the principles of responsible free speech.

Additionally, we call on the University to ban other harmful or offensive language (see list below) and to prohibit all campus events at which these banned words and phrases might be used.

The university has a duty to provide students and faculty with a safe learning environment. It is therefore incumbent on the university administration to take pro-active measures to protect students and faculty from being confused or offended by exposure to incorrect or harmful ideas, and to ensure that only safe ideas are taught. Alumni for Responsible Speech believe that the following measures should be implemented immediately in order to safeguard the integrity of the campus environment:

Initiate disciplinary action against any student organization, student newspaper, campus radio station, faculty member, or individual student, who engages in or facilitates criticism of Israel, or any other form of irresponsible speech, in a newspaper article, poster, leaflet, radio broadcast, website, Facebook group, scholarly journal, text message, public meeting, lecture, tutorial, or any conversation taking place on university property.

Amend the University’s Code of Ethics to make it the duty of every member of the university community to report any instance of the use of banned phrases such as “Israeli apartheid” to the proper authorities. The use of these terms should be clearly identified as thought crimes and should be dealt in the same way as hate speech.

Cleanse the university’s libraries of books which misuse academic freedom to document unpleasant facts about Israel.

Reconfigure the University's computer networks to block access to Internet sites critical of Israel, since such sites by definition violate the principles of responsible free speech.

Prohibit guest lectures by visiting professors who are known to abuse academic freedom by criticizing Israel.

Mandate the University's Department of Acceptable Truths to establish a permanent Un-Israeli Activities Committee to ensure the responsible use of academic freedom

15

on topics related to Israel. The committee would have the power to investigate anti-Israel statements or thoughts, compel testimony, administer loyalty oaths, and where necessary recommend the banning of books, websites, and individuals found to be in violation of university standards.

Appendix I - Terms to be Banned

Israel’s failure to comply with UN resolutions — inconvenient truth, therefore referring to it is anti-Israel propaganda.

Israel’s failure to comply with Geneva convention governing the treatment of civilians in occupied territories— referring to the fact that collective punishment is immoral, as well as illegal under international law, is a particularly pernicious form of anti-Israel propaganda.

Israel’s political prisoners — any mention of the 10,000 Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli jails is unacceptable.

Israel’s systematic use of torture — some people are offended by this, so mentioning it, or the fact that Israel has been condemned for this by Amnesty International and other respected human rights groups, is contrary to the obligation to maintain a safe learning environment.

Israel’s nuclear weapons — any mention of Israel’s nuclear arsenal or Israel’s overwhelming military superiority is anti-Israel because it contradicts the picture of Israel as a small threatened country.

State terrorism — unacceptable because it suggests that using airplanes and tanks to kill Palestinian men, women, and children in the Occupied Territories is somehow wrong.

Occupation or Occupied Territories — referring to Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory is anti-Israel because it implies that Israel should have to abide by international law and totally withdraw from the territories it has occupied.

Gaza ghetto — anti-Israel because it implies that there is something wrong with imprisoning people in a ghetto, shutting off their access to the outside world, and choking off their supplies of water, electricity, medicines, and other vital supplies.

Israel’s Borders — this phrase is anti-Israel because it implies that Israel should accept defined international borders and stop building settlements outside its borders.

Mutual recognition — anti-Israel because it implies that if Israel wants Palestinians to recognize Israel’s

16

right to exist as a state, then Israel is equally obligated to recognize Palestine ’s right to exist as a state.

Two-state solution — anti-Israel because it implies that Israel should withdraw from Palestinian territory and permit the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

One-state solution — anti-Israel because it implies that Jews and Palestinians should live together in a single democratic secular state.

The movement against apartheid in South Africa — should not be mentioned because so many leaders of the movement, including Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and leading Jewish anti-apartheid activists in South Africa, claim that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is as bad as, or worse than, South African apartheid.

Rachel Corrie — anti-Israel because of the implication that there is something wrong with using bulldozers to kill peace activists.

Appendix II - Books to be Banned: A Partial List

As stated, it will be necessary to cleanse the university’s libraries of inappropriate books. Alumni for Responsible Speech have identified the following books as a few of those that need to be cleansed immediately in order to guarantee a safe learning environment. No doubt the Un-Israeli Activities Committee, ably assisted by university librarians, will find it necessary to add many others to the list. In keeping with the University’s strong commitment to environmental responsibility, which we share, and in order to avoid contributing to global warming, we believe that these inappropriate books should not be disposed of in the traditional heat-producing way. Instead, they should be converted into biofuels to be used in Israeli bulldozers so that the Israel Defense Forces can flatten Palestinians homes and international peace activists in an environmentally friendly way.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. By Ilan Pappe, Oneworld, 2007This book by the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe describes the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians from Israel during the war of 1948. It is a prime example of a book that needs to be banned for documenting unpleasant facts.

Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine. By Joel Kovel. Pluto Press, 2007Joel Kovel argues that the inner contradictions of Zionism have led Israel to a 'state-sponsored racism’ fully as incorrigible as that of aparth**d South Africa and deserving of the same resolution and that only a path toward a single-state secular democracy can provide the justice essential to healing the wounds of the Middle East. Unacceptable ideas throughout: should be banned.

17

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. By Jimmy Carter. Simon & Schuster, New York, 2006Former U.S. President Carter calls Israel’s treatment of Palestinians "aparth**d" and identifies continuing Israeli control of the occupied territories as the primary obstacle to peace. Uses the banned word aparth**d, therefore should be banned.

Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. By Norman Finkelstein. University of California Press, 2005Finkelstein's books on Jewish history and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians are especially dangerous because his rigorous scholarship has been praised by leading scholars of Jewish history such as Raul Hilberg and Avi Schlaim and because the facts he reveals are irrefutable. There is no place for this book in a safe learning environment.

The Other Side of Israel: My Journey Across the Jewish/Arab Divide. By Susan Nathan. Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, New York, 2005.Explores the unequal treatment of Palestinians living in Israel as second-class citizens in a theocratic state that discriminates against Israel’s Palestinian citizens in many ways. Offensive because it undermines Israel’s claims to be a western-style democracy; should therefore be banned.

Sharon and my Mother-in-Law: Ramallah Diaries. By Suad Amiry. Granta, 2003.A diary of everyday life under Israeli military occupation in the West Bank, depicting the Kafkaesque absurdities and injustices Palestinians are forced to live with. Should be banned because it depicts Palestinians as human beings suffering under the Israeli occupation.

Appendix III - Websites to be Blocked: A Partial List

In order to prevent students from being exposed to forbidden words and harmful ideas about Israel on the Internet, the University will need to block the following websites on all the University's servers. We recommend the use of software developed in China to ensure safe Internet use. This software can also be used to monitor E-mail, IRC, and Facebook, and can be used in conjunction with search engine software to detect searches for banned words and ideas.

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions — www.icahd.orgAn Israeli direct-action group working to oppose and resist Israeli demolition of Palestinian houses in the Occupied Territories, also engaged in resistance activities in other areas - land expropriation, settlement expansion, by-pass road construction, the wholesale uprooting of fruit and olive trees and more. Could expose students to unpleasant facts and harmful ideas.

Physicians for Human Rights - Israel — www.phr.org.il/phrAn Israeli organization that condemns Israel’s human rights violations. Accessing their site could expose students to very unpleasant facts.

Gush Shalom — http://gush-shalom.orgAn Israeli organization working to influence Israeli public opinion and lead it towards

18

peace and conciliation with the Palestinian people. Could expose students to unpleasant facts and harmful ideas.

B’Tselem — www.btselem.orgThe Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. Could expose students to unpleasant facts.

Refuser Solidarity Network — www.refusersolidarity.netSupports Israelis who refuse to serve in the Occupation. Could expose students to dangerous ideas.

Electronic Intifada — http://electronicintifada.net/Palestinian portal for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its depiction in the media. News, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unsuitable for a safe learning environment because it exposes students to a Palestinian perspective.

Jewish Voice for Peace — www.jewishvoiceforpeace.orgJewish organization founded to “support the aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians for security and self-determination”. Could expose students to the dangerous idea that Jews and Palestinians have a common future sharing the same land in peace and equality.

Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid — http://caiaweb.orgUses the banned term “Israeli Aparth**d” in its name, and supports Israel Aparth**d Week.

Connexions — www.connexions.orgThis website is a chronic violator of the principles of responsible free speech. It maintains an extensive selection of so-called “Resources for peace, justice, and human rights” including articles, books, videos, organizations, and websites, and claims that “a solution to the conflict is possible only on the basis of justice, mutual recognition, equality, and an end of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.” The content of this site is incompatible with a safe learning environment. Furthermore, Connexions has also been guilty of publishing and disseminating offensive satires.

Contact:Ulli DiemerFounding PresidentAlumni for Responsible Speech

E-mail: www.connexions.org

Footnotes

1) National Post, March 22, 2008.2) Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid website: www.caiaweb.org. “Campus Repression at McMaster”.3) Canadian Jewish News, April 3, 2008. “U of T faculty ad calls for Israeli Apartheid Week ban”.

19

Robert Steiner, a U of T spokesperson, is quoted as saying: “A couple of year ago, we sent the words ‘Israeli Apartheid’ to the Toronto police, to the hate crimes unit, for their assessment and investigation because we were ready to do whatever we needed to do if they assessed that it crossed the line [into hate speech], and they came back and said they had no basis on which to see this as hate speech.”

Related Articles:

‘Free Speech’ – As long as it doesn’t offend anyoneTactics of Desperation: Using false accusations of “anti-Semitism” as a weapon to silence criticism of Israel’s behaviourFree Speech for me – you shut up

‘Free speech’ – as long as it doesn’t offend anyone

By Ulli Diemer

http://www.diemer.ca/Docs/Diemer-FreeSpeech.htm

“Some want a full censorship, others a half censorship; some want three-eighths freedom of the press, others none at all. God save me from my friends!”- Karl Marx‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Last April Fool’s Day, I added my two cents’ worth to the ongoing debate about ‘Israeli apartheid’ by writing and distributing a statement purporting to come from an organization called ‘Alumni for Responsible Speech’.As part of my work with Connexions (www.connexions.org) I maintain an online compilation of resources on Israel and Palestine, so I have become quite aware of the extent to which the tactics of the pro-Israel lobby are now aimed at shutting down criticism of Israel, rather than attempting to rebut it.I have tended to see this as an indication that they know they are losing the debate. Faced with declining support for Israel’s behaviour even among Jews, and finding it increasingly difficult to come up with plausible arguments to defend Israel’s human rights abuses and violations of international law, they

20

are resorting to straightforward attempts at intimidation and censorship – including the old stand-by of labelling any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic.The ‘Alumni for Responsible Speech’ satire took particular aim at recent developments at several Canadian universities, where administrators and faculty who like to pose as valiant defenders of academic freedom and free speech were showing themselves to be proponents of prohibition and censorship when it comes to ideas which they – or the university’s funders – find unpalatable.At the University of Toronto, for example, pro-Israel faculty took out a full-page ad in the National Post urging the university administration to ban ‘Israeli apartheid week’ events from the campus. The U of T administration tried to get the Toronto police to do their dirty work for them by soliciting a ruling on whether it is ‘hate speech’ to accuse Israel of practicing apartheid. This craven eagerness to abandon the university’s responsibility to defend freedom of expression backfired when the cops proved to be more liberal than the university’s bureaucrats, telling the university that they saw no problem.At McMaster University, the administration tried to ban the very use of the term “Israeli apartheid” on campus. This led to vigorous protests, including one from the student union at York University (which was also hosting Israeli Apartheid Week events) calling for the ban to be rescinded “in accordance with a basic commitment to freedom of expression and organization in the democratic context of the public university.” They went on to state that “This strange and unprecedented ban is a blatant violation of democratic freedoms of speech and dissent, and an attack on students’ right to organize. It is the position of the YFS and GSA that universities are sites where discussions and debates about difficult geopolitical questions should be promoted, not stifled. International controversy about use of the phrase ‘Israeli Apartheid‘ cannot be resolved through repression, but through ongoing intellectual exchange.”My Alumni for Responsible Speech “statement,” on the other hand, mischievously took the position that universities should “tolerate free speech” only “as long as it doesn’t upset anyone.” It called on university administrations to “protect students and faculty from being confused by exposure to incorrect or harmful ideas” and suggested a number of pro-active measures (largely inspired by George Orwell’s 1984) including a University ‘Department of Acceptable Truths’ “to ensure that only safe ideas are taught”, as well as strong measures against “thought crimes”.“The Alumni for Responsible Speech” satire made the rounds on the Internet, circulated on number of campuses, and received praise from people who enjoyed the way it skewered people who ‘support freedom of speech’ only for views they agree with.Beyond satire

21

In our times, however, satire has little chance of competing with reality. The battle over ‘Israeli apartheid week’ on campus had barely subsided when the York student union quoted above (“universities are sites where discussions and debates about difficult geopolitical questions should be promoted, not stifled”) waded back into the free speech fray. This time round, the same people who had fulminated about the “democratic freedoms of speech and dissent” and condemned those who would infringe “students’ right to organize” were deciding, by a unanimous vote, to prevent anti-abortion groups or individuals affiliated with them from organizing, leafleting, speaking, holding meetings, or engaging in other anti-choice activities. “Such activities,” they elaborated, “would be defined as any campaign, action, distribution, solicitation, lobbying efforts, etc., that seeks to limits the individual’s right to choose what they can or cannot do with one’s own body.” Explaining the apparent inconsistency in the student union’s position on free speech, the vice-president explained that “We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they’re sexist in nature... Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women’s rights.” So much for the individual’s right to choose what she can or cannot do with her own mind.Anyone who has followed the censorship wars knows that this blatant display of double standards is no isolated incident. It is, on the contrary, typical of much of the left as well as of the right.On the one side of the political spectrum, the right constantly proclaims its devotion to freedom of speech, and never tires of denouncing those who, so they claim, infringe on freedom of speech in the name of ‘political correctness.’ Meanwhile, they engage in constant campaigns to censor dissenting voices.On U.S. campuses, they have orchestrated a series of attacks on the academic freedom of scholars who have dared to criticize Israel. One of the most notorious was DePaul University’s outrageous politically motivated denial of tenure to Prof. Norman Finkelstein, a leading scholar in his field whose crime is that he is an outspoken critic of Israel’s exploitative treatment of Holocaust survivors as well as its oppression of Palestinians.Here in Canada, the CanWest media empire launched a nasty lawsuit against activists who distributed a parody of the Vancouver Sun which satirised CanWest’s extreme pro-Israel bias. This is a well-known technique known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) used by corporations to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that can bankrupt them.At the same time, CanWest has also been busy defending itself against multiple complaints to various human rights commissions across Canada – the equivalent of several SLAPP suits – brought against it by a group of law students from York University’s Osgoode Hall. The students want the human rights commissions to punish Maclean’s and journalist Mark Steyn for publishing an article by Steyn that portrayed Muslims in a negative light.

22

Perversely, some of the same individuals who spoke up to defend the publication of the Vancouver Sun parody have expressed their approval for the attack on Maclean’s right to publish what it wishes.Pleading with the state to censor us‘Progressive’ apologists for censorship like to make the point that some people – the owners of the corporate media and the commentators they employ, for example – are more able to make their views heard than ordinary citizens, and that therefore our ability to exercise our right to free speech is limited in any case. That’s true enough. But how on earth does that lead to the conclusion that we should therefore invite the state to impose even more limits on what we can say or write? Wasn’t there a time when progressives saw their role as mobilizing people to fight for their rights, rather than pleading with the state to censor us?At first blush, it may seem that those who passionately support freedom of expression one day, and just as vehemently oppose it the next, are simply hypocrites. But really it’s more than that: it’s what George Orwell, in 1984, called doublethink: “holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”The truth is that on this issue most of the right and much of the left are in agreement, and so too are many liberals, activists, and human rights apparatchiks who can’t properly be labelled as belonging to either the left or the right. They hold essentially the same position on freedom of expression – they are for it ‘in principle’, but only so long as it isn’t used to express views that they find unacceptable or offensive.What they disagree about is merely who gets to decide what ideas are unacceptable, i.e., who gets to censor who.Wannabe totalitarians left and rightThis in fact is the classic position of wannabe totalitarians everywhere, including the ‘progressive’ ones: people can’t be trusted to think ‘correctly’, so we, the superior ones, the ones who always know best, have to suppress anything that we consider to be offensive or dangerous.The trouble is that this condescending and cynical attitude amounts to a betrayal of everything that progressive people should stand for. In the York University case, how can you defend ‘choice’ by denying people the right to choose what opinions and debates they will listen to? What could be more insulting, and more anti-woman, than the attitude that women have to be protected from being exposed pro-life propaganda because they aren’t smart enough or strong enough to think it through and reject it on their own?The glaring lack of respect for the intelligence of other people comes through loud and clear, of course. It is a very effective way of communicating two unintended messages. One, that there must be something very compelling about the censored views, otherwise ‘they’ wouldn’t be seeking to ban them.

23

And two, ‘they’, the censors, don’t have any effective arguments against the banned views, which is why they have to resort to censorship instead.The effect is almost invariably to increase the allure of whatever is being banned, and to greatly increase the traffic of the Internet sites where it can be found.Handing our enemies more weapons to use against usWhat it also does is to hand our enemies more weapons to use against us. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s ‘progressive’ pro-censorship people targeted pornography. Future historians will be amazed to learn how much energy was devoted to attempting to regulate what images and fantasies men should be permitted to contemplate while they masturbate. The Internet more or less put that debate on the back burner, but not before the anti-pornography laws were put to exactly the use that opponents had predicted: harassment of gay bookstores like Little Sisters and Glad Day, and persecution of artists who depicted the wrong kind of sex in the wrong way.The frame of the censors has now shifted to identity politics. The new sin is to say anything that might be ‘offensive’ to any identifiable group, be it an ethnic group, a religion, people with a disability, sexual orientation, etc.What is at stake here is not good manners – being civil, treating people respectfully even while disagreeing with them, etc. – admirable precepts, but surely not ones to be enforced by the state. No doubt it would be good if we all tried, as a matter of common decency, to avoid giving needless offense to others, and the level of debate would certainly improve if people recognized that the rudeness and nastiness which characterize so much of the blogosphere, for example, are counterproductive and inconsistent with principled political debate.The right to express offensive opinionsHowever, principled political debate does mean criticizing ideas, ideologies, social structures, cultural practices and behaviours which, in our view, are harmful or wrong. In fact, criticism of what exists is essential to all movements for social change. If we are serious about working for social change, we are obligated to criticize what exists, even though some people will inevitably find our opinions offensive. They are free to criticize what we say if they don’t like it. That is what free speech is all about.Yet today, many people have come to believe that it is unacceptable to express opinions that some group may find offensive. This is the issue in human rights cases brought against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s: Steyn’s article said things about Muslims that some people found offensive, and which, they claim, therefore violated their supposed human right not to be offended.Of course, not all Muslims share this view. As Sohail Raza said on behalf of the Muslim Canadian Congress: “This is Canada, not Sudan, Egypt or

24

Pakistan, where the press is stifled. There is absolute freedom of expression and people have an opportunity to voice their opinion.”However, one of the consequences of the idea that it is wrong to give offense to any group is to strengthen the most reactionary conservative elements in those communities at the expense of the more progressive currents, since the reactionaries are always the ones who can be depended on to be offended by any criticism, including criticism from dissenters within their communities.What we all need to understand is that the right to express offensive views is at the very heart of the principle of freedom of speech. As Fran Liebowitz says, “being offended is a natural consequence of leaving the house” when you live in a modern society.The truth is, every conceivable opinion about every important subject will be always offensive to some people. Evolution, feminism, gay rights, criticism of Israel, atheism, secularism, anti-capitalism – these are all extremely offensive to many people. Do we want to encourage those who find them offensive to appeal to the human rights commissions to suppress those ideas? Is that the precedent we want to set?I don’t think so. As George Orwell said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” The way to deal with offensive ideas is to argue against them and attempt to refute them, not to ban them.The problem of hate speechThere are those who would agree with much of what I have written above but who argue that ‘hate speech’ is a special case that does require censorship. Hate speech is a particularly troubling issue, and I don’t want to dismiss it lightly. Certainly clear threats of violence or incitements to violence should be treated as crimes. I also believe it is appropriate for institutions and organizations to implement their own individual policies against hate speech, e.g. for an organization to refuse to rent space to a speaker or group that promotes hatred, or for a website to refuse to post submissions promoting hatred. But that is different from laws against hate speech. These are almost invariably misused – for example, the current attempts to suppress criticism of Israeli apartheid as ‘hate speech.’ I think the reasons for denying the state the power to regulate speech greatly outweigh the arguments for wanting to hand the state that power.One also observes that laws against hate speech usually serve only to catch (and provide free publicity to) marginal cranks: the smart hatemongers know how to code their message in ways that don’t cross the line while still making the intent clear. The British National Party, for example, has taken to packaging its message in the fashionable language of identity politics: i.e., ‘every culture is unique and has a right to its own values and autonomous

25

existence, and that includes white European values and white European culture.‘I think the answer to hate speech has to be political, i.e. exposing it, refuting it, and organizing politically against the hatemongers. The state is far too blunt and dangerous an instrument to be used to legislate our individual and collective responsibility to treat others with respect and decency. We can’t let hate speech serve as an excuse to expand the repressive powers of the state.

This article was first published in the January-February 2009 issue of Canadian Dimension.

26