Homework 1 (Tips) :

You can refer to “After all, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” to help yourself write your decision. “The Supreme Court’s decision does suggest, though, that any future attempts to limit symbolic speech will have to be based on genuine threats of harm to public safety and not merely on the assertion that the speech is offensive or unsettling. In the Court’s own words, “the First Amendment does not permit such a shortcut.”

When symbols threaten: the line between speech, intimidation

Now, remember, I can encourage you to visit a page to curb your judgment, in the case I do so what counts the most? I do so which isn’t right or can it be right if my intent is in my view sincere, generous and noble?

Homework 1

The most recent headlines related to the topic were :

• Pastor Jones after a five hour trial burns a quran. (here) and (here)
• The John Galiano boosing outburst (here)
• Eric Zemmour speaks of the french crime statistics (here french)) French stats are here at the paragraph called “Une Surdélinquence des jeunes issus de l’immigration” (You’ll interestingly enough note that while this document is a very official report, it does mention French and Maghreb as ethnics which they are not as you know, France on its own counts at least 8 different ethnics)

 

First part :

One only of these stories is directly related to the first Amend. State your pick and explain why, with just a few words why the two others don’t. Do you think these stories can be compared?

Second part :

The Florida’s Pastor has been heavily criticized for his action and blamed for some violent demonstration that lead to a few deaths. Laura’s comment on this was  “Florida Pastor Terry Jones claims to be a Christian, yet he burned a Qur'an in protest last week. Muslims responded in Afghanistan by brutally murdering and beheading several UN workers. Instead of denouncing the radical Islamists across the Middle East, everyone from Democrats to General David Petraeus to Senator Lindsey Graham is denouncing the pastor. Is he really to blame for murders he did not commit? And what are the limits of free speech?”

According to you, has the pastor gone beyond the limits of free speech? (1000 words)

Has the Pastor broken the law? Explain.(2000 words)

From the Supreme Court most recent decisions what do you think the Court would decide? Write the decision.

A few days later on a show, coming short of any plausible explanation or at least something to allow the public to understand the court’s decision, an expert tried the journalist’s tone. Yes, his tone. It may be not so much his words anymore but his tone… You, I do, may ask, were his words on that day an expression of a built argument to illustrate, justify or promote the benefit of racial hatred and the racial policies the benefit inspires, after all, what defines “incitement” or wasn’t his words any of that whatever his tone may have been?

Recommended

Freedom of Expression

Fighting racism through freedom of expression Dr. Agnes ...

Government and Racism by Ron Paul

It is unfair to leave Elisabeth on her own 3 verses 1, too often the case. It doesn’t help the debate to be balanced and confortable.

First Amend Center, a great place to go.

You’d think you have seen it all. Well, not quite and the best is still to come by the day, should you show some patience.

The now convicted journalist of something pretty disturbing, I mean “incitement to racial hatred” the court decided, something that can be opposed to him anytime, employers, some have of course asked for his firing of his actual positions, he tomorrow decides to turn his career around and applies for a position at CNN, let me introduce myself, I’m an ex con but I have paid my debt to society, oh yeah, hum, what was it about? racism…. (silence) hum yes, (may be not) Thank you for applying, we were pleased to meet you and we’re sure there is a very successful future ahead for a qualified journalist such as yourself with a very exciting overall knowledge of the profession and we wish you all the best… Thank you. Anyway, a few days later he was invited to speak at a french right wing gathering partly to take advantage of the sympathy the public showed, the court’s decision being considered crazy, partly because common sense, his books and writings in newspapers testify for him making a so serious conviction look a nonsense.

I guess it’s alright and at the same time, weird, letting me with some strange mixed feelings. Culture? I can’t prevent myself to question the interest of turning the criminal justice into a circus after what has been a difficult period with the public infuriated following several disturbing crimes on parole released convicts committed and a kind of equivalent of a probation officer had declared on tv that over a hundred thousand convicted criminals that should be in prison are in fact on the loose.

I don’t know what to think of the choice to criminalize hate speech because of the legal challenge it represents, the need of very talented and experienced judges you inevitably need and the specific risk each case brings to ridicule the criminal justice society needs to rely on, trust and revere. But if you do (criminalize hate speech) you’d expect special interests organizations to be extremely selective and show extreme restraint to make sure the legislation intended goals to protect society of ideologies of hatred and death are never ridiculed. Obviously, to use it to shut up a journalist over a few disliked words disconnected of any such ideology is a terrible mistake and show the choice to criminalize hate speech isn’t and can’t be a substitute to the free speech of the sometimes difficult relations between communities, conflicting interests and the need to be true about demands as well as objections.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/03/05/hate_speech_society_steps_in_even_if_law_doesnt/

Above, “But in voting 8-1 that Constitution protects the group’s self-expression, the court wasn’t just acknowledging the far reach of the First Amendment.The ruling also reflects a faith in Americans’ ability, independent of any government action, to condemn loathsome speech.” and I’d say underlines powerfully the Founders faith in the People and the Bill of Rights ability to teach was the right bet.

Once explored the circumstances around the incriminated words, I’m left with the most disturbing. You have one side ready to exploit in a partisan way the incident and the court‘s decision and on the other side an enterprise of silencing whoever may disagree with their political rhetoric aimed too often at hiding communities conflicts of interests. If the freedom of speech isn’t a french thing, to choose to promote it through a controversial issue around the transparency of crime statistics is I am afraid a little partisan. To be honest, that kind of political divide doesn’t help to overcome the passions that lead to the all incident on both sides, and worse, prevent to pay an extra attention  to the conditions under which one is convicted under the french laws and how works the french judicial system, obviously the criminal trial brought into light.

A first conclusion has to be the lack of public guidelines and knowledge of the legislations goals.

Looking at it and the debates that surrounded the legislation when it was adopted, the article under which he was declared guilty had nothing to do with the situation the court had to judge. How he was charged with “incitement to racial hatred” looks a mystery to me.

The legislation and the article more specifically aimed at criminalize the “incitement to racial hatred” answer to some specifics not met here. The legislation, you may understand under the historical references the law makers made when it was adopted, targeted “any propaganda tool and propaganda” serving an ideology of hatred, racial and else. The obvious conclusion, it was designed to allow courts to silence any individual or group promoting racial hatred in public using writings, public speeches, screams?, graphics and else aimed at spreading, support and explain with arguments to justify the ideology involved.

Anyhow you look at the incident involved in the case, you are miles away to me from the legislation intended goals? The conversation involved was about statistics and unless proved otherwise, the trial didn’t, the suspect does not belong to any organisation promoting an ideology of hatred and death, never promoted such an ideology, no more was any reference made during the incriminated conversation to such an ideology directly or else.

How he was charged and convicted of the crime is still by far the most interesting.

It looks that both the prosecutor who charged the suspect and the court that declared him guilty chose to assume that any form of transparency of the crime statistics up to just mention some partial results can only lead the potential audience of the show on that day to the conclusion that “genetics”, race or else is involved in defining who commit crimes, meaning their guess of the potential show’s audience interpretation and understanding of the statistics has been defining whether or not the suspect did actually commit the crime?

(Comment : Defining the suspect’s guilt through a second guess of a tv show’s audience ability to demonstrate or feel inappropriately is just insane)

Welcome to the most insane conversation I never thought I would have in my lifetime. In fact it crossed my mind that in a way I was lucky to be able to witness how Capt Dreyfus was condemned... Well, well... isn't that a bit too much? Yes and no, of course it is, the circumstances are different, the consequences? Not even close... but what about the motives and the principles of guilt in the justice system?... that's a different story much closer than it may appear at first.

What do we have? Let's put it that way, a tribunal found a man guilty because the judge considered the words he used on a tv show may have or may have not suscitated, as far we know, unless the Court had some evidence of the audience's minds of that day...? tell me, they didn't, in one or more member's mind of the audience's show of that day an "illegal thought"(not clearly defined by law), or, may have or may have not sucitated one or more member of the audience the thought to act unlawfully towards any member of the community. . . Just tell me? You're watching that in a movie, you'll go hey that's nut? Right? Well, anyway, the man was found guilty.
Guess what, all those so fast any day to fight the heretic suddenly cheering up with the pleased mob, the man was silenced...
And me asking, what aren't you ready to do to please the mob? How far are you ready to go giving up one of the most precious gift of democracy, principles guiding the quest for truth to satisfy the requirement that guilt is proved "beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial, not to mention that in this case the man wasn't judged for what he did but what others may have thought following what they heard.
Me asking, don't you think the price is much too high just to silence someone? Beyond the fact, you don't like the guy, or may be, you don't like what he says or how he says it, do you really understand the nature of that kind of trial? Don't you think such a serious step, a criminal trial should be saved for serious offenses such as calls to commit crimes or true hate speech calling for violence?
I was stunned at the lack of reaction and the very few I heard were about free speech. Very disturbing, better than nothing I guess. What was disturbing was in fact the feeling the defense was about free speech regardless of what he said and not so much about the principles at stake at the very heart of the judicial system and its key role in society.
Me asking, if you accept to see someone found guilty under these circumstances and treated like that, doesn't it cross your mind you may be next? How many of you with your words can be found guilty of, may have or may have not suscitated "illegal thoughts"?
Now, are you looking for a tip to deter "vichystes"? I know you love the game now it is such an easy thing to do, look among the mob pleasers at any price cheering up at a lynch.
A breach of Human Rights? I think it is. The European Court of Human Rights will say if it is.
Insane, it is insane and may be laughable if at the end the guy didn't end a convicted criminal. Because that's what he is, a convicted criminal. What you wonder right now is what did he do to put himself in this situation? He must have done something... He actually did something but prior to that it is necessary to know he is a journalist but does a lot of guest appearances in a variety of shows where he has the role of the bad guy. Zem has always the role of the right wing loose screw invited to expose his views or reactions and then be mocked for his out of date old fashioned french ways for the great pleasure of the other guests and audience left wing swingers delighted at the ridicule he represents. To be honest, the all thing not always but sometimes looked pretty sour as it is too obvious he’s voluntarily put in situations alone against guests and the audience, some guests being very aggressive. Well anyway, now that you know that, on that particular day, he was invited to be just that once more. As the debate slipped to the police accused of racism for checks on minorities, he tried an explanation, the police checking on individuals most likely to bring up their performances  by making more arrests based on their experiences of who may be more likely to be engaged into illegal activities according to the area they’re in. The method being empiric as opposed to any state organized racism in the police. Was he exposing his personal views on race? No. Was he exposing to the audience any phony theory on race and crimes? No. Was he asking the audience to agree and caution his attempt to explain why the police perform these checks? No. It was a debate and he tried an explanation of the police behavior. That’s all he did.

The Guardian reported, "Zemmour, a well-known media commentator and columnist for Le Figaro, prides himself on his outspoken defiance of what he deems political correct, woolly liberals.
He appeared on a chat show last year when the debate turned to the question of the French police's excessive use of stop and search powers against minorities. He said: "But why are they stopped 17 times? Why? Because most dealers are blacks and Arabs. That's a fact."
According to the French model, where everyone is theoretically equal under a state blind to race or religion, it is illegal to count ethnic minorities or race statistics. So there are no figures on the ethnic identity of criminals."

Zemmour was also fined for telling another TV channel that employers "had a right" to turn down black or Arab candidates. Job discrimination over race and ethnicity is thought to be widespread in France.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/french-journalist-racism-drug-dealer

His second remark was an answer to an increasing number of legal liability threats made to employers when turning down a candidate. He emphasized that it is possible to turn down a Black or Arab candidate, I guess he should have added not because he or she’s Black or Arab but there is no legal obligation to hire someone not suitable for the job just because he or she belongs to a minority and that’s what he actually meant. He was made a criminal for that too…. I mean.

The problem is so widespread that a lot of small to medium size businesses don’t want make anymore their available positions public as the harassment and level of threats from some of these groups are so violent when they can’t get their followers hired that it is not manageable what triggered his remark.

Zem's looses the court case

Right or wrong, as a journalist on air, his words are clearly condemned by the french law... My apology, I mean, it's stunning, I thought they heard wrong, never thought they may have that kind of law which is extremely dangerous (and we're checking but can’t fit the EU law on Human Rights) as he wasn't condemned based on his words, was it a call to breach the law or wasn't it but was based on what the listeners or viewers may have understood, how they may be inspired, how they may act. Who decides what kind of feelings, inspirations the incriminated words may provoke with the viewers or listeners seems to be left with the court...?!? Sounds soviet...
Here is a french lawyer analysis about the law which found its first client with Zem "La Loi PLEVEN insère dans la Loi du 29 Juillet 1881 qui organise les infractions commises par voie de presse et notamment la diffamation un nouvel article qui instaure un délit spécifique: la provocation à la discrimination, à la haine ou à la violence à l'égardd'une personne ou d'un groupe de personnes à raison de leur origine ou de leur appartenance ou de leur non-appartenancee à une ethnie, une nation, une race ou une religion déterminée qui est punie d'une peine d'emprisonnement d'un mois à un an et d'une amende de 2000F à 300.000F ou l'une de ces deux peines. L'infraction se commet par "des discours, cris ou menaces proférés dans des lieux publics, soit par des écrits, imprimés, dessins, gravures, peintures, emblèmes images ou tout autre support de l'écrit, de la parole ou de l'image vendus ou distribués, mis en vente ou exposés au regard du public". L'infraction suppose une certaine publicité et ne peut être constituée en privé. A la différence de la loi qui condamne la provocation aux crimes et délits, le législateur n'a pas retenu la formule "directement provoqué". La provocation peut donc être indirecte et n'a pas à être effectivement suivie d'effet pour être coupable. Il suffit que le propos tenu puisse être simplement susceptible de provoquer chez celui qui lit ou écoute un sentiment de haine, une volonté de discrimination ou de violence.It’s a bit contradictory, but the same analysis concludes “C'est pourquoi,lorsqu'une personne soutient par exemple que "la race blanche est supérieure à toute autre" sans qu'il faille pour autant en tirer une quelconque conséquence sur le principe de l'égalité des droits, la Loi est impuissante.”
Do you mind checking that one non urgent as it appears to me that the above contradicts the first assertion leaving to the judge to evaluate what the the incriminated words may inspire..?
Perben - Pascal COBERT for the full text.
No hurry, but once you have checked cause it sounds crazy doesn't it I mean to leave to the judge to evaluate through his or her own set of values and personal views the ability of the audience to act unlawfully following what they heard.... I mean sounds crazy doesn't it... I can't believe I'm actually writing that about a legislation an educated parliement voted... I leave it here for now.
Don't forget the numbers I asked for that's urgent...