Friday, May 9, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Beyond the First Amendment

- Spheres of Discourse (Video)
- Cases and Articles ("Cursing at Toilet Not Illegal" Article)
- U.S. Knowledge (Citizenship Quiz)


Flag Burning

- History of the Issue (History)
- Moral Panic (Overview & Links, Video: Moral Panic! at the Disco)
- Legal Brief of Landmark Case (Texas v. Johnson 1989)
- Authoritarian Aesthetic
- Nativism and Flag Burning (Overview with Links)
- Academic Freedom (How Free Should We Be?)
- Flag in Pop Culture (Video)
- Question on the Quad (Poll and Video)


Campus Hate Speech

- Initial Arguments (Initial Arguments)
- Campus Speech Codes (Is There A Solution?)
- Scenarios (Quiz)
- Landmark Cases Briefed (Doe v. Michigan 1989, UWM Post v. The Regents of the University of Wisconsin 1991, Iota XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University 1991, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul 1992, Dambrot v. Central Michigan University 1993, Robert Corry, et al. v. Leland Stanford Junior University 1995)
- Open Debate on College Campuses (Bradley Smith on Phil Donahue)


Holocaust Denial

- Arthur Butz (Scholarly Holocaust Denier?)
- Denying the Holocaust (Campus and Education)
- Holocaust Museum (About the Museum)
- Landmark Case Briefed (Mel Mermelstein v. the Institute of Historical Review 1985)
- Holocaust Deniers (Links)

Open Debate on College Campuses

Bradley Smith on campus on Phil Donahue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7S8zDDzPNI

Denying the Holocaust - Campus & Education

Holocaust denial is an “other side” of history – ugly, reprehensible, and extremist – but an other side nonetheless. As time passes and fewer people can personally challenge these assertions, their campaign will only grow in intensity. To begin illustrating this notion, the impact of Holocaust denial on high school and college students cannot be definitively argued. At a Midwestern university when a history instructor used a class on the Napoleonic Wars to argue that the Holocaust was a propaganda hoax designed to vilify the Germans, and that the whole Holocaust story was a ploy to allow Jews to accumulate vast amounts of wealth. The instructor defended himself by arguing that he was presenting “two sides” because the book only offered the “orthodox view.” The school dismissed him on two accounts: teaching material that wasn’t relevant or of any “scholarly substance.” Some students argued that he had been treated unfairly because “he let us think” and “he brought articles that proved his point.” There was a feeling that somehow firing him violated that basic American ideal of fairness- that is, everyone has a right to speak his or her opinion (these students seemed to not grasp that a teacher has a responsibility to maintain some fidelity to the notion of truth).

Is there a solution for Campus Speech Codes?

Organizations such as FIRE aim to diminish the ambiguity that inhabits this topic:
The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/4851.html?PHPSESSID=6a2ef7539c7a4a2b78d222055d64c8ab

The on going debate is highlighted in the following headlines:

On campus: Free speech for you but not for me?
Where Mary Beth Marklein, of USA TODAY explores the underlying debate that claims Colleges “seek to privilege one predominantly leftist point of view,” says Thor Halvorssen of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a Philadelphia-based non-profit founded four years ago. “Universities should welcome all perspectives, no matter where on the political spectrum.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-02-free-speech-cover_x.htm


The Unmentioned
"It is always the unreadable that occurs." -- Oscar Wilde
Posted by ChrisU on September 21, 2005
I agree with the decision of the courts on this particular speech code – “The Supreme Court has consistently held that statutes punishing speech or conduct solely on the grounds that they are unseemly or offensive are unconstitutionally overbroad.” After all, it's hardly constitutional to punish people for simply holding certain beliefs or opinions of others.

http://blogs.setonhill.edu/ChristopherUlicne/coursework010891.html

University of Delaware: On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes

Freedom of thought and expression is essential to any institution of higher learning. Universities and colleges exist not only to transmit existing knowledge. Equally, they interpret, explore, and expand that knowledge by testing the old and proposing the new. This mission guides learning outside the classroom quite as much as in class, and often inspires vigorous debate on those social, economic, and political issues that arouse the strongest passions. In the process, views will be expressed that may seem to many wrong, distasteful, or offensive. Such is the nature of freedom to sift and winnow ideas. Where banning speech often avoids consideration of means more compatible with the mission of an academic institution by which to deal with incivility, intolerance, offensive speech, and harassing behavior:

1. Institutions should adopt and invoke a range of measures that penalize conduct and behavior, rather than speech, such as rules against defacing property, physical intimidation or harassment, or disruption of campus activities. All members of the campus community should be made aware of such rules, and administrators should be ready to use them in preference to speech-directed sanctions.

2. Colleges and universities should stress the means they use best -- to educate -- including the development of courses and other curricular and co-curricular experiences designed to increase student understanding and to deter offensive or intolerant speech or conduct. Such institutions should, of course, be free (indeed encouraged) to condemn manifestations of intolerance and discrimination, whether physical or verbal.

3. The governing board and the administration have a special duty not only to set an outstanding example of tolerance, but also to challenge boldly and condemn immediately serious breaches of civility.

4. Members of the faculty, too, have a major role; their voices may be critical in condemning intolerance, and their actions may set examples for understanding, making clear to their students that civility and tolerance are hallmarks of educated men and women.

5. Student personnel administrators have in some ways the most demanding role of all, for hate speech occurs most often in dormitories, locker-rooms, cafeterias, and student centers. Persons who guide this part of campus life should set high standards of their own for tolerance and should make unmistakably clear the harm that uncivil or intolerant speech inflicts.

http://www.lib.udel.edu/ud/freedom/aaup.html

American Civil Liberties Union: Hate Speech on Campus (12/31/1994)
In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States. Among the settings of these expressions of intolerance are college and university campuses, where bias incidents have occurred sporadically since the mid-1980s. Outrage, indignation and demands for change have greeted such incidents -- understandably, given the lack of racial and social diversity among students, faculty and administrators on most campuses. Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

How Free Should We Be?

It is an unfortunate fact of our constitutional system that the ideals of freedom and equality are often in conflict. The difficult and sometimes painful task of our political and legal institutions is to mediate the appropriate balance between these competing ideas.
-Judge Cohn

Timothy Shiell claims that no policy, no matter how sophisticated, no matter how well grounded in history or law or philosophy or politics, will leave something to be desired. We have to make a decision about how we handle campus hate speech because right now we are in the middle with no real answers- because even though free speech is an important moral and political value, hate speech should not be tolerated on college campuses. The task of analyzing the campus hate speech debate is an overwhelming one. The attempt is to draw a line between individual liberty and state regulatory authority, and this is one of the problems of politics, law and philosophy. How free should we be? Within our constitutional democracy, when does my conduct and speech go so far as to require government intervention? Samuel Walker, an authority on the history of hate speech in America, discusses how “tolerant” we should be of the “intolerance.”
If a regulatory code is adopted, what should it prohibit? And why? What exactly are we hoping to accomplish through such a code? How effective will codes be in attaining their goals? Are there more effective ways to promote and attain their goals? Will adoption of such a code open the door to self-righteous censors who simply want to silence their opponents? Will a hate speech code wrongly impinge on student and faculty academic freedom?
Should people be free to assert “fighting words?” what are fighting words? Should citizens be punished for racists libels? Can we identify and punish “bad” speech without chilling “good” speech? Should citizens be punished for proclaiming politically unpopular, even “un-American,” speech? These questions are joining a continuing debate over two fundamental American values, equal opportunity and free speech.
Some defenders of speech codes may be out to silence political opponents, while some would rather provide a mechanism for the protection of individual rights guaranteed by law. The p.c. objection falsely ascribes evil intentions to all of its opponents (they’re ALL ideological thought police), when the intention of many defenders of speech codes is to design a public policy sensitive to the requirements of both free speech and equal opportunity, not to silence political opponents. Ideally, if an advocate’s position is being rejected, it must be because he or she has failed to offer logically compelling arguments for the position, not because you disapprove of or dislike the arguer or suspect bad motives. Thus we must always look beyond people’s motives or agendas (with out ignoring them) to determine whether the arguments for the proposed case pass our shared tests of sound public policy.
How we respond to hate speech depends largely on the vague definitions associated to hate speech acts. There is a need for definitions of: harm, hostile environment, academic freedom, fighting words…etc. The new debate being fought: the law of hostile environment. Since hostile environment harassment based on race, color, sex, religion, or ethnicity has been rules illegal by United States Supreme Court, but there is still a need to focus on the relationship of hate speech and hostile environments. The law changes constantly - this is a fact of all legal systems – the law evolves in response to social and political pressures as well as technological innovations. William Rehnquist says that the constitution is a “living document.” Moreover, the law must be sensitive to contexts, and it is not a settled conclusion that all form of offensive speech should be. What complicates this further is that what was once protected may not be in the future and what was once unprotected may well become protected at some future point (stability becomes instability).
The question still remains: how free should we be? What does free mean? And who decides?

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Spheres of Discourse Video

Campus Hate Speech- Initial Arguments

Why is hate speech harmful? What legal and moral reasons lend support to campus speech codes? Legally, every U.S. citizen is entitled to equal opportunity in education and employment regardless of race, sex, religion, or ethnic background. Yet also, every U.S. citizen is guaranteed freedom of expression under the First Amendment. What happens when an expression is harassing and seems to deny equal individual opportunity?
The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and the University of Wisconsin system were highly influential in the development of hate speech codes on campus. A series of events led them to develop a policy, which identified three tiers of speech. The tiers included student newspapers, public parts of the university, and educational and academic centers. The policy stated that students were subject to discipline for any behavior that victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, or Vietnam-era veteran status. It also stated that discipline would be taken for sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, etc. which victimizes an individual on the basis of sex.
The codes outlined above were met with no opposition to campuses. It should be noted, however, that the interest administrators had in the development of the policies was that they were to protect themselves from lawsuits. Experts have noted the problems inherent in designing policies in response to public events- rushed policies are typically bad.
To justify having a speech code, universities needed to show that the speech caused serious harm and needed to be addressed. They developed the deterrence argument, which states that campus hate speech causes harm and are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal rights guarantee. Such violations should be deterred, and are done so by a speech code.
Hate speech can cause emotional distress, can result in disorders and in some cases even suicide. It is also very noteworthy to mention that the United States is virtually the only country which thinks that hate speech should be legal. One suggestion is looking at hate speech itself, rather than looking at the consequences of hate speech. Looking at hate speech through the philosophical lens of Kant, it fails both of his tests. In the end both consequentialist and nonconsequentialist arguments are strong and prove the immorality of campus hate speech.
Another argument against hate speech is that often bigotry escalates beyond speech, and is often acted out- sometimes in the form of destroying property, physical assaults, and even murder. Critics of speech codes agree with condemning hate speech, but believe codes risk opening doors to other types of censorship.
The first amendment argument for speech codes include using the example of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which upheld a state ban on words that inflict injury by their very utterance. The court has also noted that only fighting words directed at an individual can be regulated, leading to codes that target speech against individuals rather than a group. The group libel model targets this, by stating that the First Amendment does not protect group libel, and because some hate speech constitutes group libel, it should be prevented. Finally, social science states that antiracism rules will deter speech promoting racial hatred. In this way, speech codes can be considered effective in that they deter racist acts that would occur in the absence of campus speech codes.

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html
The ALCU website. Includes an interesting Q and A section that addresses questions such as: why protect racist speech? Don't speech codes protect minority groups?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes
This page provides an overview on protecting speech on campuses. Cites some interesting court cases that are worth a read.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163705,00.html
Story that includes involvement by FIRE. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is a group that exists "to defend and sustain individual rights at America's increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtuCk6BDZSU

Video of a hateful speech against Israel at a University of California campus. What are your thoughts on this speech? Should their right to express themselves be protected?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvEzs6AXXTo
A different type of speech on campus- evangelistic. Is this man's speech hate speech? Should he be allowed on college campuses?

Arthur Butz: Scholarly Holocaust Denier?

Arthur Butz is distinguished from all the previous deniers by his scholarly background- he graduated from MIT and received his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. His book, The Hoax of the 20th Centurey, showed an understanding of scholarly debate and academic structure. His book was also different in that he confronted issues untouched by previous deniers. He even admitted that as many as a million Jews may have been murdered by the Nazis. However, over time in his book Butz resorts to rhetoric that matches previous deniers, as he claims that the story of Jewish extermination was propaganda and that the stories of survivors were just “tall tales.”
Butz’s book sympathized with the Germans and the Austrians, and it also describes the Jews as one of “the most powerful groups on earth” with the ability to manipulate governments and control the media. His description goes on say that because of the nature of the Jews, any anti-Semitism by the Nazis was justified. Butz attempted to defend his stance by saying no other scholars would take up the denier position because the topic is so well established.
Since Butz’s book was published, he has been associated with extremist and neo-Nazi groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, which distributed his book. Despite the seemingly scholarly and academic nature of his book, it is full of conspiracy theory and anti-Semitism not unlike the pamphlets that preceded him.
Among groups he blames for the “hoax” are the Zionists, Communists, and even the U.S. government’s War Refugee Board and Office of Strategic Services. The key, according to Butz, is the forgery of many documents by the Allied governments. According to him, hundreds of trained people were sent to Euorpe immediately after the war to create documents of the concentration camps and massacres. They even went so far as to create false speech recordings of Nazi leaders. Butz even interprets Hitler’s very words “the destruction of Jewry” not to mean the killing of Jews, but the “destruction of Jewish influence and power.”
There were several other key pieces that needed to be addressed by Butz, especially Hitler’s last will. In it he said the Jews were “the race that is the real guilty party in this murderous struggle”. Butz ineffectively tried to claim that although it is signed by Hitler, the document had been tampered with.
To convince readers, he had to find ways to show that the Holocaust was a hoax, which included proving that testimony is inferior to documents. He then could prove that documents were potentially tampered with, and were thus considered forgery. He even gets creative by claiming that anyone who claimed to have witnessed killing or Hitler’s talk of exterminating Jews were tortured to admit it. He also posed that man of the confessions were due to the fact that they did not comprehend the questions they were being asked.
Butz did not use any independent sources of evidence in his book to support his conclusions. This is a deviation from scholarly research that looks to hard data for support. He offers countless explanations for what happened to the Jews who had “died” such as that they remarried and thus became part of the “hoax” in their new life. Despite the many problems and holes in his work, sadly it continues to be cited by may groups including the KKK and neo-Nazis.

http://100777.com/node/1542
On this web page, Arthur Butz himself attempts to explain his position and the "evidence" that supports his claims. In particular, notice that he cites Timothy Ryback's infamous study of the Auschwitz gas chambers, where he claimed no poisonous gasses had been ever used at the site. This "study" was discredited due to Ryback's inexperience in the field of science.

http://media.www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2006/02/07/Campus/Butzs.Denial.Of.Holocaust.Irritates.Nu-1920811.shtml
This interesting web page is an article from the Northwestern campus paper. Despite how students may feel regarding Butz's stance on the Holocaust, as long as he abstains from discussing his stance in the classroom, the University allows him to remain.

http://www.amazon.com/Hoax-Twentieth-Century-Extermination-Holocaust/dp/0967985692
Here (if you really wanted to) you can order Butz's book. Take a look at the comments and see what people are saying about his work, especially regarding his right to free speech. A good question to ask is: If he is deliberately swaying evidence and bending the truth, should that speech be protected as well?

http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/butz.html
This page gives a brief overview of Butz's life, as well as his journal publications. Notice the line where it states his "Repercussions."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6_Myh2sDhk
Video of Butz on the O'Reilly Factor. Clearly Holocaust deinal is located in the sphere of deviance- the message is that Butz should not be allowed to debate the topic at all. Best line of the video: "Somewhere in Hell, Hitler was smiling".

Monday, May 5, 2008

MORAL PANIC: FLAG BURNING & BEYOND

MORAL PANIC:
FLAG BURNING & BEYOND



According to Stanley Cohen, moral panic is anything that becomes a threat to societal values or interest. Moral panic has much commonality with civil religion in that they share the mutual interest of constructing the difference between right and wrong for society.

Moral panic can be recognized by five indicators:
1. Concern- heightened concern over the behavior of others and the estimated results of such behavior
2. Hostility- increased hostility towards an identifiable group of people who, as a result, become social outcasts
3. Consensus- when there is an agreement that something is a threat to society, and action needs to be taken
4. Disproportionality- the perceived danger is greater than the actual harm
5. Volatility- the ability for an issue to explode into a larger situation

Players in the “drama” of moral panic
1. The media- popular news media is an institution that tries to balance providing information while simultaneously providing entertainment. Stories about incidents such as flag burning become “good versus evil” tales, with the desecrators depicted as the villain
2. The public- when people notice any of the indicators of a threat to societal morals, they tend to participate in the escalation and prolonging of the issue
3. Law enforcers- these are the authorities who are called in to directly deal with problem situations. They interestingly thrive during times of moral panic, because they are rewarded with greater funding during these times
4. Lawmakers & politicians- often when groups attempt to stifle actions by banning them, it causes more problems. When attempts were made to pass flag protections laws, cases of flag burning skyrocketed

Congress engaged in one of the most expensive legal disputes of all time over the issue of flag protection laws!

Often issues when moral panic sets in can be very complicated because people look through a lens of morality. In the case of flag burning, because of the symbolic nature of the flag, those who fought to protect it were seen as heroes, while desecrators were considered to be immoral.


________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
Constructivism argues that social problems are the products of collective definitions. When collectively defined, often society looks for a scapegoat. In most moral panic issues there is some entity that the finger gets pointed at.

Grassroots perspective- moral panic comes from anxieties from the masses. The media plays a role in hyping the panic, but they do not created it

Theory of elitism- proposes that a group at the highest step of the social ladder initiates moral panic. The theory states that elites are motivated to do this to protect their own interests


________________________________________________________________________



________________________________________________________________________

EXAMPLES OF MORAL PANIC ISSUES:
• Flag desecration
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RedYYfDKGMU
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysHYyflqS6k
• Sex on college campuses
o http://www.alternet.org/rights/26131/
• Drug influence on culture & youth
o http://www.slate.com/id/2124160/
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfI5lCoA3b8&feature=related
• Obesity in society
o http://www.reason.com/news/show/33259.html
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6DDWTWVxvk
• Pornography
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Q6kIaL7lM
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crANCYTQ2sI
• Children & sex education
o http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E4DD153CF930A25757C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
• Violence in video games
o http://www.gamebits.net/other/mqp/
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCT7-ZMpxKE
o http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4438385028535987830&q=moral+panic&total=80&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6
• Social-networking sites
o http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/17266/
• Migrant Workers
o http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/22/EDGHGDRSV41.DTL

Hate Speech Scenarios Quiz

In order for speech to be sanctioned it must:
1. Be directed at a captive audience;
2. Be intended to harm or otherwise interfere with the education or employment of the targeted individual or identifiable small group; and
3. Be judged by reasonable person in light of all the relevant particulars to be severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile or abusive environment

See if you can differentiate the difference between hate speech and protected speech

1. In a class discussion concerning women in the workplace a male student expressed his belief that women are by nature better equipped to be mothers than executives, and should not be employed in upper level management positions. Can this be enforced upon by the university?
2. A student living in a university dorm continually calls a black student living on his floor “nigger” whenever they pass each other in the hall way. Is this hate speech and can action be taken upon by the university?
3. Students form a White Supremacy Council and hold meeting on the campus lawn at which they display a swastika, protest affirmative actions, and use racial epithet to express their feelings and opinions
4. Someone enters a room of two black college students and scrawls a note on the mirror, “African monkeys, why don’t you go back to the jungle?”
5. A group of white male students follow a black female student across campus shouting racist and sexist epithets and suggesting the possibility of imminent sexual assault
6. White students draw a blackface cartoon of the composer Beethoven and post it on the bulletin board of a predominantly black dormitory.


Click here for Quiz Answers

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Holocaust Denial Links

Holocaust Denial Links: Prominent Figures in Holocaust Denial


Arthur Butz is an American Holocaust denier who is also a professor of engineering at Northwestern University (he has had tenure since 1974).

Arthur Butz on Bill O’Reilly

Arthur Butz, Northwestern statement

Arthur Butz page


Misha Defonseca is a writer, originally from Belgium and now living in Massachusetts, who wrote a Holocaust memoir which has been revealed to be fake.

Misha’s Holocaust hoax


Deborah Lipstadt is a historian and professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University and the author of Denying the Holocaust.

Deborah Lipstadt on Bill O’Reilly


David Irving has written over 30 historical books and unsuccessfully sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel after she discussed his Holocaust denial in a book.

Pro David Irving video


Fred Leuchter is an execution technician who has defended Holocaust deniers.

Fred Leuchter speaking


Bradley Smith is the founder of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.

Bradley Smith on campus on Phil Donahue

Bradley Smith blog


Additional links:

Denial video

Persecution of revisionists

CASE BRIEF: Mel Mermelstein v. The Institute for Historical Review (1985)

Mel Mermelstein v. The Institute for Historical Review (1985)


Title and Citation

Mel Mermelstein v. The Institute for Historical Review, No. C 356 542 (July 22, 1985)


Facts

William David McCalden (who served as the director of the IHR from 1978-81) offered a fifty thousand dollar reward to anyone who could prove that Nazis operated gas chambers to kill Jews. McCalden and the group sent “contest applications” to Holocaust survivors, challenging them to prove that what they went through was real with diaries, photos, or other forensic evidence. One recipient, Mel Mermelstein, did send McCalden detailed accounts of his experiences and the names of other witnesses. When Mermelstein requested payment, McCalden informed him (and everyone else, via the Journal of Historic Review) that the whole thing was a publicity stunt and was just a trap that they used to lure in naïve men. Mermelstein filed charges.


Issues

1. Is the Holocaust a subject for dispute?

2. Was McCalden's $50,000 offer a legally binding promise?


Held

1. No; the events of the Holocaust are "simply a fact".

2. Yes; Mermelstein was owed the promised $50,000 based on his participation in the contest.


Reasoning

The judge proclaimed that the events of the Holocaust were not “subject to dispute” and that they were “simply a fact”, and that McCalden falsely promised a $50,000 payout that was now owed to Mermelstein.


Decision

The court found in favor of the plaintiff, Mel Mermelstein. IHR and McCalden were ordered to pay Mermelstein the original $50,000 promised plus an additional $40,000 to compensate for pain and suffering.


Significance

The judge disregarded Holocaust denial and said the events of the Holocaust were not "subject to dispute".

The Holocaust Museum

ABOUT THE MUSEUM
A living memorial to the Holocaust, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum stimulates leaders and citizens to confront hatred, prevent genocide, promote human dignity, and strengthen democracy. A public-private partnership, federal support guarantees the Museum’s permanence, and donors nationwide make possible its educational activities and global outreach.Located among our national monuments to freedom on the National Mall, the Museum provides a powerful lesson in the fragility of freedom, the myth of progress, the need for vigilance in preserving democratic values. With unique power and authenticity, the Museum teaches millions of people each year about the dangers of unchecked hatred and the need to prevent genocide. And we encourage them to act, cultivating a sense of moral responsibility among our citizens so that they will respond to the monumental challenges that confront our world. Today we face an alarming rise in Holocaust denial and antisemitism—even in the very lands where the Holocaust happened—as well as genocide and threats of genocide in other parts of the world. All of this when we are soon approaching a time when Holocaust survivors and other eyewitnesses will no longer be alive.The Museum works closely with many key segments of society who will affect the future of our nation. Professionals from the fields of law enforcement, the judiciary and the military, as well as diplomacy, medicine, education and religion study the Holocaust, with emphasis on the role of their particular professions and the implications for their own responsibilities. These programs intensify their sense of commitment to the core values of their fields and their roles in the protection of individuals and society.In addition to its leadership training programs, the Museum sponsors on-site and traveling exhibitions, educational outreach, Web site, campus outreach and Holocaust commemorations, including the nation’s annual observance in the U.S. Capitol. Our Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies works to ensure the continued growth and vitality of the field of Holocaust studies. As a living memorial to the Holocaust, we work to prevent genocide in the future through our Academy for Genocide Prevention which trains foreign policy professionals. Working with Holocaust survivors and an array of organizations, the Museum is a leader in galvanizing attention to the crisis in Darfur.Since its dedication in 1993, the Museum has welcomed more than 25 million visitors, including more than 8 million school children and 85 heads of state. Today 90 percent of the Museum’s visitors are not Jewish, and our Web site, the world’s leading online authority on the Holocaust, had 15 million visits in 2006 from an average of 100 different countries daily. With hundreds of thousands of online visitors from countries with majority Muslim populations, translating our Web site into Arabic and Farsi is a top priority; already, portions are available in more than 20 languages. For more information, please visit www.ushmm.org.

CASE BRIEF: Robert Corry, et al. v. Leland Stanford Junior University (1995)

Robert Corry, et al. v. Leland Stanford Junior University (1995)


Title and citation

Robert Corry, et al. v. Leland Stanford Junior University,
Case No. 740309 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 1995)


Facts

The issue began in an African American-themed dorm, where several students got into an argument about the race of Ludwig van Beethoven. A group of drunk white students drew Beethoven in a black caricature and posted it near the room of a black student who claimed Beethoven was mulatto; later, a black-fraternity poster was vandalized, with the word “niggers” being scrawled across it. The student who defaced the poster was not sanctioned, but simply moved to a different dorm. In response to the overarching issue, the University adopted a policy for racial harassment disciplinary action in 1990. Though no one was ever punished under the policy, four years later the University was sued by four students who challenged the policy, saying that is lowered the quality of education by not allowing the discussion of important issues.


Issues

1. Does the policy violate the First Amendment?


Held

1. Yes; the policy does violate the First Amendment based on the decisions in the earlier cases.


Reasoning

The court ruled that the policy did in fact violate the First Amendment, based on the rulings in earlier cases, and determined the policy as overbroad and content-biased.


Decision

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Robert Corry et. al.


Significance

This case upheld the precedents set in the prior cases.

CASE BRIEF: Dambrot v. Central Michigan University


Dambrot v. Central Michigan University


Title and citation

Dambrot v. Central Michigan University, 1995 FED App. 0168P (6th Cir.)


Facts

The issue was basketball coach Keith Dambrot repeatedly using the word “nigger” as a “motivational tool” during private team practices. Once it became known by officials that Dambrot used the term, he was investigated, coinciding with the filing of a complaint by a former player, and Dambrot was informed that his use of the word violated the University’s anti-harassment policy. As punishment, he accepted five days without pay. Once bad publicity had built up from the community in regard to the issue, the athletic director told Dambrot that his contract would not be renewed. Dambrot filed suit against the University, claiming that his rights to free speech, academic freedom, and due process had been violated.


Issues

1. Does Dambrot's use of the word "nigger" constitute harassment within the university's policy?


Held

1. No; the policy does not specifically identify an offensive environment.


Reasoning

The court found that the University’s policy was overbroad and void for vagueness because it does not specifically identify an offensive environment.


Decision

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Keith Dambrot.


Significance

This case discusses the need for specificity in campus speech policies and again cites the void-for-vagueness issue when analyzing the speech code.

CASE BRIEF: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul 1992

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul 1992


Title and citation

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377


Facts

In 1990 the city of St. Paul, MN adopted a hate speech ordinance that prohibited placing graffiti or other forms of offensive items such as a burning cross or swastika, which would likely incite anger or create a hostile environment, on public or private property. A minor, Robert Viktora, was charged with violating the ordinance by participating in a cross-burning on the property of an African American family. Viktora did not argue with the facts of the case but challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional because it censored expressive conduct.


Issues

1. Does the ordinance censor expressive conduct?


Held

1. Yes; the code was overbroad and censored selectively, and content-based speech codes are not constitutional.


Reasoning

The Supreme Court decided that the ordinance was overbroad and based on content (it only included specific, racial and religious fighting words and not others, such as political affiliation and did not ban fighting words against bigots, only by them).


Decision

Though lower courts dismissed the case and ruled that the city ordinance was not overbroad, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Robert Viktora (R.A.V.).


Significance

This case set the precedent against content-based speech codes.

CASE BRIEF: Iota XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (1991)


Iota XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity
v. George Mason University (1991)




Title and citation

Iota XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (1991),
773 F. Supp. 792, 795 (E.D. Va. 1991), aff’d 993 F. 2d 386 (4th Cir. 1993)


Facts

Student leaders implored the dean to sanction Sigma Chi after a student wore blackface and a black wig with curlers, as well as pillow stuffing in the breast and buttocks area, during a spirit week. The student leaders said the display was offensive and promoted racial and sexist stereotypes. The dean prohibited Sigma Chi from holding sports and social events for two years and, during that probationary period, required them to get approval from the university to hold other planned activities. In response, Sigma Chi sued the University, claiming that their free speech rights were being violated by this sanction.


Issues

1. Can a university sanction language for being offensive?


Held

1. No; it is not lawful to punish speech simply because it may be offensive to some people.



Reasoning

The court held that the students' speech or the use of blackface cannot be banned simply because some people find it offensive, especially since GMU did not even have a hate speech code to base their decision on.


Decision

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity.



Significance

This case, with the two preceding cases in 1989 and 1991, set a precedent for universities, that in order to regulate hate speech a code cannot punish protected speech, must be very clear about what is prohibited or punishable, and cannot base punishment on content of speech.

Video: Flag in Pop Culture

Here is a short video compiling 4 references to the flag in pop culture:


CASE BRIEF: UWM Post v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin (1991)

UWM Post v.
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin (1991)



Title and citation

UWM Post v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin,
774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991)


Facts

This case involved a hate speech code that was intentionally reworked and clarified following the University of Michigan decision - it was clear and narrow, explicitly stating the behaviors and speech that were off-limits as part of the code. Still, a suit was filed against the University within a year of the policy’s inception, by the student newspaper. The newspaper, the UWM Post, argued that the policy was overbroad and vague, which violated their free expression rights. The University rebutted that the policy fell under the umbrella of fighting words, and that the court could narrow it if it was found to be overbroad.


Issues

1. Is the code overbroad or vague?


Held

1. Yes; the code does not fall under the fighting words umbrella, and does not specify whether intent is required in the instance of fighting words.


Reasoning

The court determined that the code was overbroad and vague, and did not fit the requirements of the fighting words doctrine (fighting words being speech that will likely lead to a breach in the peace, not just speech that harms) - the code was also vague because it didn’t clarify whether intent to create a breach of peace would count as fighting words, or if a hostile environment must actual be created by the speech to count as fighting words.


Decision

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the UWM Post.


Significance

Even though the aforementioned code was revamped after the Michigan decision, it was still too broad and too vague to be constitutionally protected. This demonstrates just how specific and definitive these codes must be in order to hold up to court scrutiny.

Question on the Quad Poll!

We asked 50 random students at the University of Maine in Orono, ME this question:

"Do you think it should be illegal to burn an American flag?"

22 students responded yes, it should be illegal.

28 students responded no, it should not be illegal.



Video: Question on the Quad!

We asked students at the University of Maine if they think that it should be illegal to burn an American flag. Here are some responses:

CASE BRIEF: DOE v. MICHIGAN

CASE BRIEF: DOE v. MICHIGAN (1989)


Title and citation

Doe v. Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich 1989)


Facts

In 1989, the plaintiff Doe filed suit against the University of Michigan, claiming that their year-old hate speech code was unconstitutional because it violated free speech rights of students. As a teaching assistant who talked about potentially sensitive subjects he wanted to have the speech code dismantled before he could be charged with violating it.

Issues

1. Is a campus speech code constitutional?

2. Can a university regulate obscenity?


Held

1. Yes; the university can have policies to protect against harassment, discrimination, threats, and assault as long as they are specific and do not extend to censoring speech based on opinion or arbitrary reasoning.

2. Yes; as long as the university specifically defines "obscenity" and offers specific parameters, giving the faculty and staff fair warning of what is punishable under the policy.


Reasoning

The court stated that the code was overbroad and vague, so that officials could pick and choose which speech to prosecute and sanction those who used speech they did not like. The judge recognized the University’s right to have policies on discrimination, harassment, threats, and assault but that that did not extend to censoring speech that the University simply did not agree with or that did not fit into their desired message or found it offensive. The court found that the University must also give fair warning as to what is prohibited under the policy and what is protected. The University cannot regulate “obscenity” without going on to define what qualifies as “obscene” within the policy. If the policy does not offer parameters, then the students and faculty cannot be expected to abide by it because they have no way of understanding which behaviors and speech are prohibited and therefore punishable.


Decision

The court ruled in favor of Doe.


Significance

The ruling in this case sets a precedent for requirements of speech codes on campuses, maintaining that all provisions must be specifically outined and defined and that students and faculty must be given fair warning of what is considered punishable.

First Amendment in Action

This seemingly humorous article from December illustrates just how far the First Amendment reaches in terms of protecting the speech rights of citizens:

Pa. Judge: Cursing at Toilet Not Illegal

Click the link above to be taken directly to the article.