Chapters of Hate Speech, Fight Words, Obscenity and Child Porn
Chapters of Hate Speech, Fight Words, Obscenity and Child Porn COM 250
Popular in Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Communication Studies
This 7 page Bundle was uploaded by Natalie Land on Thursday October 29, 2015. The Bundle belongs to COM 250 at University of Miami taught by Samuel Terilli in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 115 views. For similar materials see Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics in Communication Studies at University of Miami.
Reviews for Chapters of Hate Speech, Fight Words, Obscenity and Child Porn
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/29/15
Freedom of Expression Fighting Words and Hate Speech Can words or speech provoke violence A fight 0 Childhood playground examples vs adults provoking violence 0 If I were to use words to provoke someone to hurt me with a beer bottle I Should these words be identified and then prohibited I What happens I The law didn t accomplish prohibiting these words in the first place 0 Words that by very use of word I would provoke violence are a problem I Fighting words have no role in discussion of ideas if I call you a name how is that free speech Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 0 Who was he I A Jehovah s witness which was a minority from Rochester New Hampshire 0 What happened I In town goes yelling at commissioner of town calling him gd damn fascist and Racketer then he gets charged with disturbing the peace and gets convicted this goes to the supreme court 0 SCT reasoning Is there words that exist that are so dangerous that inflict injury and we can list these words by words that they should then be prohibited 0 Opinion by one student in class no because depends on context 0 Calling someone a Brazilian piece of shit is hurtful depends on who The governments interest is protecting the actual violence that occurs when using these words not the words themselves If I go to an African American and say nigga and he punches me is that allowed 0 Who is at fault 0 Government can t prohibit that word completely its in question of context 0 Charged not with the word but everything else to provoke the violence Name calling has no value in the search for truth so why protect someone from saying quotfascistquot to someone Also government has interest in preserving peace and preventing fights this is their main goal 0 These words that by very use inflict injury or violence have no value so we allow government to prohibit them for every use I In this case they aren t looking at context but the worlds themselves Dicta stuff that court says that didn t need to say its just helpful Did mr chaplisnky really inflict injury Were we in danger Nothing to show a yes to these questions Terminello 0 Father terminello was a rascist catholic priest holding a rally in Chicago he begins to say things bad about jews and blacks 0 Good people get mad and throw rocks at him They arrest him for disturbing the peace 0 Supreme Court reverses this conviction and say I That too is protected because function of free speech is to invite dispute we value and protect unless there is truly a clear and present danger has to be more annoying and offensive etc o The court is picking up on context now got to look at the context for example in Chaplisnky he would have been convicted I Crowd outside was out of control not the followers inside that terminello was talking to but the ones throwing rocks 1960 Cohen v California 0 Cohen in a court room wearing a jacket that says fuck the draft 0 He gets arrested because this might provoke violence David Chapel Video 0 White supremist I At a blind home they told black kids hes white and he starts speaking against jews blacks and anyone that isn t white 0 Could this video done by a white comedian rather than black I Does it matter who is delivering the message the comedy I What if you are Cuban and you make a joke about a Cuban its kind of okay This is the different between both fthere is subdivision of people but it comes from an outside source there is greater possibility that it can hurt and be insulting Majority directed at minority does cause us to step back Hate Speech might start fight but its more of an emotional pain not speech we like Fight words words that when said would start a fight Gooding V Wilson 0 Who we are talking to I Must consider the person addressed notjust the socalled average man in society the context I We can use these words legally except in certain context I Its an ethics question morality notjust legality The motherfucker cases 0 Use of contextual approach by the Supreme Court 0 Use of motherfucker I Mom used this in school board meeting I They arrested her under state law I And there is also a case where a guy is talking bad about cops at university chapel he gets arrested and convicted I Theres also mom s son who gets arrested for calling cop a mother fucker I All cases are vacated and remanded O There is a concurring opinion The STC says this should be protected speech We have to look at context notion that all words are protected but we have to look at the context Supreme court during the 605 o RAV v city of st paul Hate Speech 0 0 Kids burn cross in neighborhood in a fenced yard of an African American family Trespassing got prosecuted under ST pauls ordinance if you use language symbols to express hatred on certain criteria such as race religion gender you can get charged with other crimes and enhances the penalty This goes to the supreme court Bottom line result court throws out the conviction 0 Accept the Minnesota state laws interpretation 0 This law only prosecutes fighting words Scalia law professor says that accept the Minnesota statute but still throws out the conviction His logic is Fighting words have no essential value whatever the value is it is outweighed by the conviction By prohibiting fighting words we are allowing government to discriminate against certain type of words on basis of context allowing government to engage in content discrimination should not be allowed if government can pick and choose which fighting words to prohibit than it is disfavoring we prohibit quotniggaquot etc but we allow gays Fighting words those that have little or no value Scalia says it has to be across the road cantjust be one word etc Speech on someone s race or religion is really bad but what about speech on sexuality if it s a fighting word than it s a fighting word doesn t have to be limited to just those two categories Fighting words document is different than hate speech Today it has to be speech directed at a specific small group or individual with purpose of provoking violence The fighting words document is a very narrow document today Hate Speech insults slurs directed to a group of people based on a shared characteristic Its just hateful and merely distasteful Do we prohibit hate speech by law Virginia v Black I Rally on park property against Clinton 25ft cross burn it and its on private property and its next to a highway I Someone went on someone s private property and burned cross A symbol which began at first as something else Resist giving rights to black who were violent 5 grant went to congress and got permission to go after the clan o Clan went quiet but ws very violent o This was different than an industrial flag being burned because it was more directed towards one specific person the neighbor I Court decides to go through history of burning cross where it began etc I Burning flag showed to not always be a symbol of racism but it often is I Cross burning in our society has a certain meaning If in a neighborhood a new black family moves in and go in the street and I burn a cross and shout at them to go back home 0 Its directed at somebody 0 When its directed at somebody its legality can be questioned Court said we cant deny the secondary meaning of the cross burning but it doesn t mean we can make every racism language illegal but if cross is burned with intent to a specific group and to intimidate than its bad Intention in this case was to intimidate I Go into a store and shout nigga this is fighting word that gets punished the ones who started the violence I Fighting words equals provoking illegal behavior Search for fighting factors 0 Campus speech and Academic environment I Is there a way of protecting type of speeches on campus that goes along with the first amendment IE a rally anti Colombia on breeze way and there is a lot of Colombians What do you do IE Donald trump comes to UM and says we should build a wall and we should send back all non citizens 0 Would our hate speech policy not allow Donald to do this 0 What do you do do you make it a private event 0 Private vs State Universities I What if the speech is not directly directed at you It clearly is if for example you say hitler was right etc etc How do you write a rule of conduct that s specific and not vague You cant write a speech code because everyone has a different view on what is hate speech I Doe V University of Michigan UMW post v Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin Arguments Pros and Cons Hate Speech 0 Hate Speech Sometimes hate speech really does hurt Hateful speech does also because it silences others pints of view if people feel they aren t valued Hate speech laws that have been challenged do not survive 0 Five Basic Themes Religion Sacred Monarchies Divinity Significant role in hate speech 0 Majorities Vs Minorities How do we protect rights of dissenters Blasi s Pathological Perspective when were nervous its harder to tolerate free speech Obscenity and Child Porn 0 What is obscene speech Obscenity and indecency Obscenity narrower category defining its categorical exceptions to first amendment Things that are so inappropriate that they are beyond unspeakable and should be banned 0 Porn Indecency broader subject not everything that s indecent is by law obscene Obscene not protected by first amendment So low It has no value Can be made criminal how do we define what is obscene Protection of Morality in Society 0 Porn leads men to think of women as a subject of sex Does porn encourage promiscuity infidelity does it lead us to viewing women as inferior Roth v United States 0 That begins porn issue 0 Court goes back and says we could regulate obscenity 0 Average person the jury has to figure person of average sensibilities 0 Contemporary communication standards today if case is being filed in Miami than local jury and Florida standards is what you use 0 In general you have to look at the whole theme Ginzburg Case 0 Even if we are not sure content of movie is obscene but the actual ads are obscene we use that Current law is Millel V California 0 In 505 and 605 I It had to be utterly without any redeeming value I Society was not sync with what the court said 0 Miller v California I Nixon administration some of the guidelines are right out of Roth but new stuff says that whether work as a whole lacks artistic political or scientific value It has to lack serious value but what does this really mean Obscenity and Pornography US vs Extreme Associates 0 First major case on obscenity after a long time went to the federal court was this case Miller v California 0 Before the internet existed 0 Individual community had different values about pron so each community could make their own laws 0 Most porn today can g to someone home without involving the entire community now it is a private individual with use of internet and media Child porn as abuse 0 Current law is miller v California I Culture technology business interest I Should government be involved look at market size etc its such a big business what do you do I Is there anything left to the question of obscenity If you produce a video and they can convince jury that 0 As a whole lakcs literary artistic value 0 Work describes in an offensive way sexual conduct defined as applicable by state law 0 Whether average personorn with community standards believes video as a whole has excessive interest in sexual matters 0 Child porn I If you use real children of course its illegal I New York vs Ferber Said child porn isn t speech The whole notion of creating porn is that its created by consenting adults and bought by consenting adults But child porn they are too young to sign a contract and give consent Child abuse is a crime that has nothing to do with first amendment 0 Ohio v Osborn I Stanley vs Georgia Guy got arrested because he had a bunch of Child porn films o Kept illegal the production and sale of porn but obsession of it was legal In Ohio v Osborne Osborn simply possessed it he didn t produce it Ifyou have porn of children courts will come down on you because its viewed as child abuse trying to kill market for it now a days You can have child born that isn t obscene but its still illegal 0 You can have pictures of naked children that doesn t constitute obscenity or abuse or child porn Child porn prevention act of 1996 2002 arms around internet expanded applicality of federal law to all of forms of porn on internet etc court said law of 1996 was unconstitutional they said the whole point of feiber law was that real children were being abused if your film on the other hand uses adult actors that look like kids this by feiber isn t considered bad this is only persecuted with the miller test court agrees with congress and says that if your using an eighteenyearold to look like a twelve year old and your advertising campaign and target audience has intent of making people believe its children this is considered illegal because the intent is to make it believable
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'