Commentary
In House primary, hate speech was given a chance to cloak itself as a campaign ad
by S.J. SchwaidelsonS.J. Schwaidelson is a Minnesota writer who blogs at The Wifely Person Speaks.
This is what I get for watching television in the afternoon.
During the recent primary campaign, a local TV station ran an ad for a guy who was running against Rep. Keith Ellison. His name is Gary Boisclair, he calls himself a Democrat/Tea Party candidate, and the ad he ran that day bordered on hate speech.
No. It was hate speech.
In the ad, Boisclair said, "Congressman Ellison swore an oath to uphold the Constitution on a Quran. The Quran says Christians and Jews are infidels ... ."
He went on to say that the Quran says Christians and Jews should be killed, maimed and crucified, while gruesome black-and-white photographs appeared in the background with text from the Quran and what purported to be English translation. Except that the English quotes didn't seem to match up with the Quran, and weren't even really partial quotes, and were completely out of context.
But that's not the point. Boisclair went on to say, "Do you really want someone representing you who swears his oath on a Quran, a book that undermines our Constitution and says you should be killed? I'm Gary Boisclair and I approved this message."
What Boisclair was spewing was right up there with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: libelous, hideous and patently inflammatory. He was using the guise of running for Congress to spread hatred and fear. His ad was basically an incitement to riot.
I'm a Jew. I lost family members in the World Trade Center and a friend on one of the planes. I have family and friends in Israel who live with the daily danger of homicide bombers and missiles from the Gaza Strip. But does one condemn an entire faith system and its adherents because people do things in the name of Allah? How about the Spanish Inquisition? Or The Troubles in Northern Ireland?
Can you imagine the outcry if Gary Boisclair had said, "Jews use the blood of Christian babies to make Passover matzo," or "Catholic priests seek out young boys for demonic rituals?" Would a television station run such an ad?
Well, apparently it would have to. My call to the TV station's news desk confirmed what I suspected to be true: No matter how disgusting the ad was, the station was required by law to run it. I asked the nice guy who answered the phone, "When does it constitute hate speech?" He didn't know.
There actually is an answer. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration defines hate speech as:
Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.
Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes.
Based on the second definition, I think we have a winner in Mr. Boisclair. The FCC, though, does not permit television stations to edit the content of ads for candidates running for office.
I would defend to the death the right of free speech. I believe that we need a diversity of opinion. I may not share your belief, but it is your right to have it. To assemble. To parade. To have a website. To do just about anything ... except yell fire in a crowded theater.
For better or worse, Boisclair's ad falls under the category of protected speech. He received only a minuscule percentage of the vote on Tuesday. But we will have to wait to see if his message takes root, and what it spawns.
Comments (6)
I think what you meant to say was, "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater", and though a subtle difference, it matters.
By attempting to quantify hate speech, or hate crimes, society is making new classes of victims, and we don't really need more classes of victims.
Boiclair's speech is reprehensible, but he has a right to say it, just as we have the right to ignore it, but to apply more laws because some people are offended is wrong. The First Amendment does not, nor should it, limit speech because someone finds that speech offensive.
Hate speech and hate crime laws border too closely on thought control, and that is a place we as a society do not want to go. THe law already provides protection and penalties for crimes, those penalties should not be increased because the perpetrator was thinking "hateful" thoughts.
So, S.J., this candidate that you don't like committed the crimes of Hate Speech and Incitement to Riot?
Then you should run right down to the United States Attorney for the district of Minnesota and show him your evidence that proves these crimes. Indeed, it is your DUTY as a U.S. citizen to do so.
Trouble is, tho, S.J., you DON'T have any proof of these crimes, as the crimes never happened. You see, the U.S. Attorney has to go by the LAW, not by your feelings. There is a difference. A big difference.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has held that government may not prohibit speech that advocates illegal or subversive activity unless "such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). Applying the Brandenburg test, the Court ruled that the government could not punish an anti-war protester who yelled, "[W]e'll take the f****** street later," because such speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time" (Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 94 S. Ct. 326, 38 L. Ed. 2d 303[1973]). Nor could the government punish someone who, in opposition to the draft during the Vietnam War, proclaimed, "[I]f they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want in my sights is [the president of the United States]L.B.J." (Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 89 S. Ct. 1399, 22 L. Ed. 2d 664 [1969])."
See?
That last quote ends with, "Such politically charged rhetoric, the Court held, was mere hyperbole and not a threat intended to be acted on at a definite point in time."
So you see, S.J., your feelings do not match up with the legalities of the situation.
On the other hand, Mr. Boisclair could sue you for libel. He wouldn't have a hard time proving the libel, as it is evident in this "Commentary", but he probably could not prove any damages.
It may be wise of you to be more prudent in your future Commentaries in order to avoid legal problems.
I had never heard of this fellow before reading your commentary, and certainly don't agree with his point of view, but, unlike you, S.J., I actually do defend his right to say what he wants to say.
I have no problem with Keith Ellison. He is just another ordinary Democrat whose mission is to take money from the middle class and give it to those who vote for him, in order to keep those folks voting for him (and other Democrats).
Business as usual for Democrats. No big deal.
You claim to believe that we need a diversity of opinion. If that is true, then leave people alone when they give their opinion, instead of trying to censor them.
Don't worry. The people will discriminate between the good and the bad opinions. Without any help from your "feelings".
The comment that Boisclair could sue under libel is not quite right. He could sue, but he would lose. Libel is very difficult to prove, and that Boisclair is a public official makes that bar even higher. All you need read is Falwell v. Flynt (1984) and you will understand the Court, rightfully makes this type of suit very difficult to prove and prevail.
The 1st embraces all comers, and as mentioned, BOisclair's views are reprehensible, but by writing this piece, he has voice again (I had already forgotten about him and his ads). I am going to try to forget him and his particular brand of hate again.
I guess Mr. Franklin didn't read the next to last graph. The lady said, "I may not share your belief, but it is your right to have it. To assemble. To parade. To have a website. To do just about anything ... except yell fire in a crowded theater."
I also think she gets to ask the question. Hate speech is a slippery slope. No one could watch that Keith Ellison ad and not wonder. The definition she quotes states hate speech is something that "creates a climate of hate or prejudice...." The ad targeting Congressman Ellison did exactly that.
We live in vitriolic times. Debate is good. Actually reading the essay, however, is probably a good idea, too.
It's interesting how you claim the ad to be hate speech.. Did it ever occur to you that the Quran is full of hate speech? Have you ever read the Quran? Because I have and Boisclair speaks the truth. Jews and Christians are said to be infidels and that they are to be killed. Somehow as a Jew, you can accept this and essentially defend it?..
The bottom line is, Islam is a narrow- minded religion with clear hate-driven statements in the Quran and physical actions in the world, sept 11th being just one of them. It's really sad that you especially, can't uphold your friends and family's honor in the wake of their passing..
The U.S. and the constitution was intended to be upheld with an oath on the Bible to which this country was built on. Whether Muslim, christian, Jewish, Buddhist or an atheist, if you live in this country you should and will uphold this. A free country does not entitle individuals to act as they would like. In my opinion, our government needs to stand up to the Muslim community rather than just sitting by and allowing them to walk all over us and our laws out of fear, like so many officials and leaders currently do.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
