Teacher tweets against gays, is her job safe via First Amendment?

[VerseD]

In my mind, actual instances of bullying or unequal treatment do not matter. A teacher who states that homosexuality is a sinful perversion in a forum where her students are present and aware of those comments -- that teacher can no longer create a comfortable environment, conducive to learning and self-development and expression, for homosexual students or students with homosexual parents. She can, in my opinion, no longer do her job; if I had children I would not want them in her class.

Schools, especially public schools, are different than businesses; young students are different than customers; and teachers necessarily have more restraints on their behavior and conduct than someone who is a clerk or construction worker. Their function is not merely to distribute and grade Scantron tests while preventing students from assaulting each other, but to tap into the potential of their students and to make them knowledgeable, confident, and courteous individuals, both in the classroom and and by setting a good example. Failure to do so is, in this profession, as much grounds for termination as incompetence.

I realize that this is a gray issue. Because I value education and tolerance, I put the rights of students to a comfortable learning environment, where they have the freedom to express themselves, above the rights of a teacher to say hateful things; and because I am often disgusted by the treatment of homosexuality in political discourse and of homosexuals in schools, I am more inclined to consider this teacher's actions an "obvious gross violation."

Originally Posted by Ox

As for your critique of those who are interested in these speech cases -- I, for one, take great exception to your claim that everyone who objects to constitutional violations equally objects to mere opprobrium. You may define "political correctness" as merely being polite, and indeed political incorrectness is almost always rude; but there's a difference between condemning someone as rude and instituting legal action against a person.

I shudder to suggest it, but you might try listening to a harangue by Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh on the subject. I am sure they are more enraged by liberal legal actions than by liberal outspokenness; but once you reach such heights of rage, it is difficult to distinguish between the degrees.

Originally Posted by Ox

Could the schools have acted differently? Of course they could have. In Webber's case, the school could simply have said, "Webber is a fucking bus driver. You don't like how he decorates his truck. Feel free to tell him that, but don't expect the world is going to be full of people who express themselves in ways you like." Sounds like a valuable lesson they're going to have to learn sometime.

I never thought of it, but I suppose that advice from Bambi of, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all," was a violation of Thumper's right to express himself. I certainly would not want that broadcasted to students; better put on Louis CK and callous them against offensive comments as early as possible.

[VerseD]

Originally Posted by Ultima Thulian

I think you are highly exaggerating what constitutes as victimization. Merely holding an ill opinion of somebody or a group of people is hardly victimization. Indeed, in what way are black people being victimized by some dorky redneck's pickup-truck?

In this case, the Confederate flag has been used not only as the sign of the opponents of the Civil Rights movement, but more recently and locally has become the banner for for Neo-Nazi, Aryan Nation, and white supremacist groups in eastern and southern Oregon. I know that this bus driver is probably just an idiot, but at the same time I can understand why a school where 37 percent of students are minorities, in a community where racism is more common than you would hope, would not want a banner with those associations flying in the parking lot.

I don't like dealing in hypothetical, but I admit that if this redneck were to park his car behind some office where he worked, I would not care, and might even defend his right to do so. But you have to understand that a school is different, that minors need to be protected in ways that adults do not, and that our rights are necessarily diminished around schools to make that a safe and welcoming environment.

This is not a black-and-white principle -- both the meaning of the Confederate flag and the rights of free speech in schools are ambiguous and have been issues of legal contention for decades. I disagree with anyone who thinks a Confederate flag should fly above a school or state building, but I can understand where they are coming from.

As a sidenote, the Supreme Court in a way agrees with me: they dismissed the case of Barr v. LaFon, which had students contesting their right to wear shirts with the Confederate flag to school (admittedly they were banned not to avoid offending anyone, but to stymie ongoing racial tensions at that particular school), and refused to hear the case of a boy suspended for drawing a Confederate flag in math class.

Originally Posted by Ultima Thulian

But you say cannot understand those who make hurtful statements, nor can you understand why someone gets angry when called a bigot. Isn't bigot a hurtful statement? Perhaps we should call them those that are "sensitivity impaired," instead.

Practice what we preach -- I get what you're saying. There are limits to courtesy, as much as there are limits to freedom of speech.

[MagGnome]

Originally Posted by Ox

Well, this has implications for me, as I alluded earlier. Do you guys think I'm a bad advocate for people because I disapprove of them? What should I do about that?

If you came out and said "I fucking hate black people!" and you were subsequently let go by the firm you work for, I wouldn't bat an eye.

If you kept your prejudices to yourself, then nothing would happen, because no one would know. However, if you hated black people, I can't imagine that you would represent them as well as you would represent a white person.

Originally Posted by BigJonno

This isn't some kind of thought police case. Her opinions don't particularly matter; the important point is that she voiced them to her students.

Exactly. This is what it boils down to. She told her students that she strongly disapproves of gay people. That is not appropriate for a person in her position. If one of my teachers publicly voiced his disapproval of my "lifestyle", or any other sexual or racial group for that matter, you can bet I would be filing a complaint with the administration and trying to at least get that teacher reprimanded.

[Shieldmaiden]

Regarding the flag, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of categorising symbols based on what some people might use them to represent. Through re-enactment and LARP, I know a lot of Germanic neo-pagans and it's absolutely disgusting that their religious symbols are categorised as white supremacist hate symbols by the likes of the Anti-Defamation League.

[MagGnome]

Originally Posted by Ox

Muddi, I've been pretty clear about my feelings toward certain clients. For one, some of these people are so evil that I'm hardly alone in disliking them. For another, I have told some that I would turn them over to police if they took a particular course of action.

Those clients have hired you directly. If you tell them that you dislike them, then they can choose to get rid of you and hire another lawyer. These students can't "fire" their teacher, but if enough of them (and their parents) complain, then they can try to get the teacher fired, which is what is happening here. Your analogy to your law position isn't all that different.

[MagGnome]

Originally Posted by BigJonno

Regarding the flag, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of categorising symbols based on what some people might use them to represent. Through re-enactment and LARP, I know a lot of Germanic neo-pagans and it's absolutely disgusting that their religious symbols are categorised as white supremacist hate symbols by the likes of the Anti-Defamation League.

In that case, it's all about the context in which the symbols are used.

[VerseD]

Originally Posted by BigJonno

Regarding the flag, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of categorising symbols based on what some people might use them to represent. Through re-enactment and LARP, I know a lot of Germanic neo-pagans and it's absolutely disgusting that their religious symbols are categorised as white supremacist hate symbols by the likes of the Anti-Defamation League.

That is fair to say. Some of Oregon's Aryan Nation groups also fly the Christian cross and the Stars and Stripes, alongside the Confederate battle flag and the Swastika; it may be insincere to claim that some of those symbols are tarnished beyond use by their associations, while others are merely misappropriated. Like Mags says, it depends on context.

In one of the legal cases I mentioned, those who defended the school's decision to ban the Confederate flag pointed out that the flag was not banned because it was a racist symbol, but because it had been adopted as a symbol of racist feelings by some students and because it offended other students to the point of violence. The case in Oregon is less cut and dry: although racial issues are a problem there, discriminatory violence is not impending, and Mr Redneck says he was using the symbol to show his backyard, beer-drinking culture (if you can call it that).

What does the symbol actually mean in this context? Is that meaning determined by a majority or a minority? Does the intention behind the symbol matter more than our perception of it as hateful or not? Pertinent questions, I suppose.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by VerseD

I never thought of it, but I suppose that advice from Bambi of, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all," was a violation of Thumper's right to express himself.

You really, really, really want to conflate criticism and punishment. I'm not sure why you are so insistent on doing that. I suppose it's possible that Rush Limbaugh doesn't see a distinction between the two, although I have my doubts. But I request that you do me the minimal courtesy of addressing my actual argument rather than putting me in that box. For someone who keeps insisting that the law should mandate courtesy, you don't seem to keep to the rule very well yourself.

Originally Posted by MagGnome

Those clients have hired you directly. If you tell them that you dislike them, then they can choose to get rid of you and hire another lawyer.

First, that's untrue: most of the people whose interests I represent do not have authority to fire me if they dislike me. Second, it's irrelevant: I'm not asking whether my clients are justified in disliking me and wanting me to get fired. Obviously I expect that, when I insult people to their faces, they take offense. The question is whether I am incapable of representing them fairly. I believe I'm capable of putting aside my personal feelings about someone and treating his case in a professional and competent manner. Indeed, so much do I believe this that I refuse to take on cases involving close friends or family: I worry that my strong affection for these people would distract me from evaluating their cases critically and lead to misjudgment.

I hope my clients recognize that, much as I might loathe them, I do good work for them. Some don't recognize that, which is too bad but (because they can't fire me) I cheerfully say "Fuck 'em." But if I thought I was doing a worse job simply because I don't like a particular person, that would call all my professionalism into question. That would be disturbing to me, even if not to anyone else.

[Ultima Thulian]

Originally Posted by BigJonno

Regarding the flag, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of categorising symbols based on what some people might use them to represent. Through re-enactment and LARP, I know a lot of Germanic neo-pagans and it's absolutely disgusting that their religious symbols are categorised as white supremacist hate symbols by the likes of the Anti-Defamation League.

I've seen several black people wear Confederate Flag items on their person. Tshirts, belt buckles, etc. As you said, symbols are far-reaching. In any case, VerseD has yet to convince me what exactly we are protecting children and minorities from in this particular instance. What threat does a Confederate Flag on a man's pickup truck parked on school grounds pose to a child?

Originally Posted by VerseD

As a sidenote, the Supreme Court in a way agrees with me: they dismissed the case of Barr v. LaFon, which had students contesting their right to wear shirts with the Confederate flag to school (admittedly they were banned not to avoid offending anyone, but to stymie ongoing racial tensions at that particular school), and refused to hear the case of a boy suspended for drawing a Confederate flag in math class.

The Supreme Court grants certiorari for less than 5% of all cases brought to it. How does that lend credence to your position? Am I misunderstanding something?

As you inadvertently point out, the symbols in and of themselves were of little consequence. The problem is that they were, supposedly, inciting racial tensions. Is this man's pickup truck inciting racial tension? Doesn't seem so.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Ultima Thulian

The Supreme Court grants certiorari for less than 5% of all cases brought to it.

Actually, of the 7,000 - 10,000 or so cert petitions filed every year, the Supremes grant less than 100.

Besides, Verse completely mischaracterizes the legal holding in Barr v. LaFon, when the Sixth Circuit addressed it on the merits. As that court noted, the flag was barred in a viewpoint-neutral manner to prevent racial tension, not because it was a symbol of racism. If the school had banned the flag as a symbol of racism, that would have been viewpoint discrimination and evaluated under a much more stringent legal standard. Indeed, the Sixth Circuit's decision goes to some length to analyze its own (rather confusing) caselaw on the matter to distinguish Tinker-style speech restrictions that happen to also be viewpoint discriminatory from simple discrimination based on viewpoint.

To apply this rationale to the Knox case, the school there would have to have a policy of firing any teacher who comments publicly on homosexuality, even merely telling students that being gay is nothing to be ashamed of or that DADT was unjust discrimination. I'm fairly confident the school in the Knox case did not have such a policy, and I very much doubt Verse would endorse it if they did.

EDIT: From the Sixth Circuit opinion:

Were there evidence that the school in practice enforced the dress code against the
Confederate flag but not against other racially divisive symbols, we would need to reverse the grant of summary judgment for the school. But Plaintiffs-Appellants have produced no more than “a scintilla of evidence” that the school fails to enforce the dress code against racially divisive symbols other than the Confederate flag. Both parties construe Malcolm X iconography as the ideological counterpoint to the Confederate flag, and thus we would have to reverse the grant of summary judgment were there evidence on the record that the school failed to enforce the dress code to prohibit clothing with Malcolm X iconography. In contrast to Castorina, in which there existed a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the school refused to ban apparel celebrating Malcolm X, there is no similar issue of fact in the instant case. Lafon attests that other flags and symbols would fall under the ban “if they are disruptive. . . . a Malcolm X shirt or some national flag, Mexican flag might possibly be, different things from that standpoint that whatever would cause a disruption.” Lafon attests, however, that “[t]here have been no reported incidents of students wearing clothing emblazoned with Malcolm X words or caricatures, or international flags.

This is the Tinker rule: no speech about controversial stuff, even if you are a good person. That's not what Verse or anyone else here endorses.

[Panthera]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

To make that distinction, you've got to declare certain opinions as definitively harmful, which is the exact opposite of what the First Amendment is supposed to do.

That's not what you asked and that's not what I claimed.

[VerseD]

Originally Posted by Ox

Besides, Verse completely mischaracterizes the legal holding in Barr v. LaFon, when the Sixth Circuit addressed it on the merits.

Well, to be fair, I did clarify later; and to answer you, I would disagree with a Tinker-style law. I wonder, though, if you see some compromise between banning everything controversial and allowing everything, no matter the controversy, that does not incite racial tensions or intentionally intimidate. A welcoming environment, free of potential hate speech, seems like a fair and decent goal for a school, and I think that schools should be entitled to place greater restrictions on free speech rights to achieve this.

I wouldn't apply this precedent to the Knox case. In agreeing with her dismissal, I was going by your own definition of the free speech protections for government employees.

Originally Posted by Ox

You really, really, really want to conflate criticism and punishment. I'm not sure why you are so insistent on doing that.

As I said above, teachers have more limitations on their freedom of speech because of the nature of their profession. The Bambi reference was more of a joke; complaining about conservative outrage over political correctness was my most immediate reaction and a separate issue. If you want to know my opinion about the Knox case itself, you can read it here -- I was addressing your questions.

[VerseD]

Originally Posted by Ultima Thulian

I've seen several black people wear Confederate Flag items on their person. Tshirts, belt buckles, etc. As you said, symbols are far-reaching. In any case, VerseD has yet to convince me what exactly we are protecting children and minorities from in this particular instance. What threat does a Confederate Flag on a man's pickup truck parked on school grounds pose to a child?

Well I doubt I can convince you. I do empathize with minority children who feel alienated at their school. Mine is a very white state with several lingering racial issues, especially with African Americans. I remember there were only around five black students at my high school, out of six hundred kids, and they more-or-less excluded themselves, felt their minority status, were identified as black before everything else in most of our bemused considerations. I was always sensitive to that. I can't imagine how they would react to some oaf brandishing a Confederate flag. Although perhaps I would only make a fool of myself by crusading to make my school a more inoffensive place, offend more with my firebranding than someone else would by their unintentionally intimidating flag.

If Oregon can be characterized by its lack of diversity, it can also be characterized by the picaresque and embarrassing desire of the white majority to attend to all minority needs. I'm not certain if that's a good or a bad thing, or if it was legal for the Grant's Pass school to dismiss their bus driver, although my understanding and interpretation of the law says this was the right thing to do. Anyway, that's where I'm coming from.

I remember reading a relevant short story by Percival Everett: "The Appropriation of Cultures," about a black man who buys a redneck's old truck, painted with the battle flag of the Confederacy, and refuses to remove the symbol of his old oppression. In fact, he carries it with pride, despite the prodding of some white folks at a gas station, gets other southern blacks to do the same, and soon the only ones to keep flying that flag are black. A little silly, but it is interesting to consider how tenuous these symbolic meanings can be.

Originally Posted by Ultima Thulian

As you inadvertently point out, the symbols in and of themselves were of little consequence. The problem is that they were, supposedly, inciting racial tensions. Is this man's pickup truck inciting racial tension? Doesn't seem so.

I've been thinking of something else that inadvertently condemns me: I recall that old controversy over Mark Twain's use of the "N-word" in Huckleberry Finn, and how outraged I was when his literature was edited, the word changed, to suit the sensibilities of a few foolish parents. Yet now, this dumb redneck does not deserve the same consideration as the great author, only because he is less tasteful? In truth, I'm almost sorry I brought it up. The story raised up a lot more snagging issues than the right of school personnel to do offensive things.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by VerseD

I wonder, though, if you see some compromise between banning everything controversial and allowing everything, no matter the controversy, that does not incite racial tensions or intentionally intimidate. A welcoming environment, free of potential hate speech, seems like a fair and decent goal for a school, and I think that schools should be entitled to place greater restrictions on free speech rights to achieve this.

Well, part of my hangup is that I don't think we sit down and try to figure out a priori the best way of structuring speech law. As a lawyer, I don't sit around and talk about what I think the law ought to be, like some fucking Frenchman. I am a priest in a religion of prophets; my job is to parrot what some wrinkly guy in a black dress said.

Now, I actually have sympathy with Clarence Thomas and Oliver Wendell Holmes: neither children nor government employees were necessarily intended to be protected by the First Amendment. Unfortunately, I'm not a professional cross-dresser. As such, I don't get to tear down existing doctrines like that. Within the constraint of what's practical, I think there's some value in trying to use incentives to maintain a civil and respectful environment. But prohibiting certain types of speech is difficult legally -- not impossible, but tricky -- and ultimately not particularly effective. I remember enough of high school to remember that it's not necessary to use a slur to make someone uncomfortable. And on the other side, your position exhibits a terror of speech, of disagreement, that school should try to defeat. You are terrified of -- what? A piece of cloth with a variety of symbolic meanings to different groups? This is not exactly the same as what the Little Rock Nine experienced. The Tinker Court went to great lengths to discuss how unrealistic it is to expect teenagers to lead coddled, silent lives until 18 and then suddenly expect them to be full-fledged members of a democratic community. You're afraid kids might discover there are viewpoints they won't like. That's not doing them any favors.

I mean, do you really want to be involved in policing what speech is "hate speech" in school? Doesn't it sound like you might get involved in a lot of difficult line-drawing? Do you even pretend to have a guiding principle besides the threat of disruption, or are you interested in just banning whatever speech strikes you in your wisdom as over the line?

[VerseD]

That's a fair question, and the simplest answer is yes. I find it as impossible as you do to describe a sand-line or articulate a principle behind my own opinion here. Certain symbols become hate speech when intended to intimidate or when they have the possibility of creating racial tension -- the motive and the end can transmute that fabric from something protected into something that is not. You can get lost in that vagueness, and there is to much haze to mark a straight line through it. It seems that the only way is to take it case by case.

With the Rebel flag, I agree with you that it does seem silly and perhaps even unconstitutional to ban a truck's decoration from the backlot, but I also understand that there is a context of racism and white supremacy within that town that could potentially justify such a decision, as there was with Barr v. LaFon. I haven't heard anything from the school, as most of the articles focus on the ridiculousness of the man himself; it is possible that his dismissal was overprotective of the students at the expense of his rights. It is also possible that the school administration found (in their wisdom) a legitimate, precedented exception to the rule. It is not so outlandish to imagine.

As for Knox, I went with your introduction of the legal issue, especially this:

Originally Posted by Ox

3. Does the speech actually substantially affect the employee's ability to perform his or her job? (Possible here, but you can't just assume someone can never be a teacher if one made anti-gay comments once on her Facebook profile and subsequently deleted them).

There is no single, certain principle here, no more than in many instances where an employee's ability to perform the job comes under question -- even you call it possible that Knox went too far. Although it would be an assumption, it is also difficult to gauge how this will affect her students, and it seems cruel to me to wait for gay students to raise red flags. It is not a matter of being offended; if students of a minority are unable to express themselves in a class for fear of their teacher's publicized hatred of that minority, then the school is not fulfilling its purpose.

The inoffensive teacher might seem like a ridiculous standard, but I do not think so: of all the teachers I've had, the only ones I could ever imagine saying something as hateful and intolerant as this ended up losing their jobs for misconduct or quitting in disgruntlement. There is surely, however elusively, a standard that teachers must meet to keep their job. By the nature of that job, that standard includes a teacher's conduct before students, in and out of the classroom.

That the issue is homosexuality, which is so contentious politically and so commonly discriminated against, makes Knox's conduct more egregious, and, in this profession, less professional.

Anyway, it is a gray and sensitive area, and I feel less certain about this than I do about most things I argue on. I see good reasons and potential ones that these two expressions should not be protected as free speech, that the two dismissals could be justified, but I don't know for sure. Because a principle seems impossible, I'd prefer to wait for a judge and jury, with more knowledge of the law and the facts, to discern the truth. (I will read the judge's opinion, and then I shall get into a conversation and shout about it in a French fashion, because I admit I prefer that to all the statutory dryness.)

Originally Posted by Ox

Unfortunately, I'm not a professional cross-dresser.

Indeed!

[muddi900]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

Or perhaps we should wait until she actually does something wrong at her job, not fire her for having the wrong ideas, however abhorrent we find those ideas to be?

One of my good friends is a teacher, and he hates some of his kids for various reasons, because teachers do not get to pick their students, and everybody dislikes certain kinds of people. Should we fire teachers for disliking emo kids, jocks, nerds? I think you could construct an argument that many of these qualities are at least as inborn as homosexuality, and we don't police to make sure that teachers have the right opinions about these students. Teachers aren't going to be perfect, and we should punish obvious gross violations, but we don't have that here.

What if she has said she thinks 15 year olds are sexy?

Again has your friend ever voiced his opinion in such a public manner about nerds or jocks or goths, addressed to his students? Ask him if he can even do so without facing any consequences? Even if their isn't any disciplinary action, those words will be easily used against him whenever a goth or nerd or jock gets a C-. Whether he does anything wrong or not, his credibility is in question now, which hinders his effectiveness as a teacher.

Nobody interviewed the woman about her opinions. No one is actively policing the opinion of teachers at that school. Viki Knox said what she said on public forum of her choosing in her private time, where she chose to include her students. She had the right to express her opinion and she has it now, and she is not facing any criminal charges for what she said. People have been fired for saying a lot less on facebook.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by VerseD

You can get lost in that vagueness, and there is to much haze to mark a straight line through it. It seems that the only way is to take it case by case.

A common concern mentioned by courts in First Amendment cases is the possibility of a "chilling effect". Essentially, if the line between legal and illegal speech is unclear, rational people will be reluctant to say even probably-legal things because it's not worth the risk that they guessed wrong. This risk is compounded by the high cost of litigating a speech claim all the way through a jury trial, which can be many thousands of dollars; very few people have opinions so strong that it's worth speaking if there's even a slight risk of having to spend that kind of money.

Courts generally regard this effect, which by definition affects even speech that is perfectly legal, as a bad thing. Do you agree? It seems that you'd like to ban a lot of speech that you can't easily define. So a regime of legal uncertainty and high costs for legal speech might be the best way of achieving your goal. That way, you can claim to be permitting all sorts of speech while simultaneously frightening people so much they don't actually open their mouths.

EDIT: Actually, I'm reminded that you do place a high value on the chilling effect for certain types of speech. You were concerned that Congressional hearings into radicalism in the Islamic community would intimidate innocent Muslims into silence. But knowing there are Congressional hearings imposes far less cost than actually being embroiled in a lawsuit or losing your job. You seem very inconsistent in your evaluation of the harms involved in intimidating people into silence.

[VerseD]

That is a good point, but not limited to hate speech. You could also expect that uncertain laws against libel would keep journalists from speaking with total freedom about what they might not be sure of, or that laws against obscenities chill the mouths of our live comedians; but I expect there is more legal certainty over what constitutes libel and obscenity. A chilling effect is possible, but practically these restrictions accomplish what we intend them to; they protect people from the potential damages of completely free speech.

Is hate speech different from libel, slander, and obscenity because it is intrinsically more vague, or because courts have yet to fully address and make legally certain a problem that emerged only recently, in the wake of the Civil Rights movement?

Originally Posted by Ox

Actually, I'm reminded that you do place a high value on the chilling effect for certain types of speech. You were concerned that Congressional hearings into radicalism in the Islamic community would intimidate innocent Muslims into silence. But knowing there are Congressional hearings imposes far less cost than actually being embroiled in a lawsuit or losing your job. You seem very inconsistent in your evaluation of the harms involved in intimidating people into silence.

I remember that argument, and I suppose it is broadly inconsistent to say, "To make teachers legally afraid to perpetuate prejudice against a minority is good," while also saying, "To make Muslims culturally afraid to show signs of being a Muslim is unjust;" but I think you'll find my ends are closely aligned: namely, the defense of the weak, the voiceless, the afflicted.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by VerseD

That is a good point, but not limited to hate speech. You could also expect that uncertain laws against libel would keep journalists from speaking with total freedom about what they might not be sure of, or that laws against obscenities chill the mouths of our live comedians; but I expect there is more legal certainty over what constitutes libel and obscenity.

Yes, this argument is equally applicable to libel and obscenity law. Hence why the Supreme Court sharply restricted libel law in New York Times v. Sullivan and obscenity law in Miller v. California. That's why libel and obscenity are more certain legally: we don't let people like you craft it.

Is hate speech different from libel, slander, and obscenity because it is intrinsically more vague, or because courts have yet to fully address and make legally certain a problem that emerged only recently, in the wake of the Civil Rights movement?

Hate speech is different because it's perfectly legal. Libel, slander, and obscenity are all, by definition, illegal. But hateful speech is never prohibited on that basis. You realize that, right?

I think you'll find my ends are closely aligned: namely, the defense of the weak, the voiceless, the afflicted.

Bullshit. You're defending the groups you sympathize with. Compare the political influence and popular sympathy innocent Muslims have with, say, openly anti-Semitic hate groups, and you'll quickly realize you don't actually give a shit about the genuinely weak groups in society. It's to America's credit that the people who are really politically powerless deserve to be. But stop draping yourself in the cloth of Atticus Finch while employing the tactics of every petty tyrant.

EDIT: None of which is to necessarily criticize the groups you side with. There's no moral value in being weak and pathetic. A group does not somehow become more deserving of your support because it's despised. But it is obnoxious to claim to be siding with the weak when that's not the metric you use to determine who to support, and then to get holier-than-thou about your falsified motive.

[muddi900]

Anti-semitic groups are weak in America?

I guess Ox needs to visit more parts of America.


Edit: you meant neo-nazi groups?