In Jena, Louisiana three years ago, a group of young men hung a noose on a tree in a schoolyard to intimidate black students and touched off a firestorm. After that there have been copycat episodes, but are symbols like these hate speech?
Some years ago cross-burning was found to be hate speech, but now another symbol, nooses, is being examined in order to refine hate laws in California.
Legislators in California are reviewing the issue of hate speech with the possibility of a new bill. It is bringing about considerable discussion among lawyers. The Supreme Court held that some things by their very nature are considered outside the boundaries of what the First Amendment meant. Justice Potter Stewart’s remark is often quoted as defining hate speech, originally made about obscenity, that it is something we might not know exactly but “we know it when we see it.”
California is looking at making the symbol of the noose a hate symbol, part of the designation of hate speech and a crime with a penalty under the State’s Penal Code. It would include anyone who hangs a noose on public or private property in order to terrorize another person.
…show more content…
The issue is discussed by attorneys but not yet decided by the Supreme Court in terms of how the First Amendment might impact the Internet. This is an area that many people consider the Wild West of sorts. What type of symbols might be used as hate speech on the Internet? For example, if the law is passed in California, and someone sends an email to a person of color with the drawing of a noose or a cross on a lawn, would this constitute hate speech? What about a swastika? Such questions as these are being reviewed by attorneys in connection with this law and