By Jim Geraghty
Monday, April 24, 2017
On MSNBC yesterday, former Vermont Governor and DNC Chair
Howard Dean elaborated on his argument that Ann Coulter’s upcoming speech at
Berkeley does not have to occur because “hate speech” is not protected by the
First Amendment:
Okay, several things to think
about. One, the United States has the most far-reaching protections on speech
of any country in the world. Two, it’s not absolute. Three, there are three
Supreme Court cases you need to know about. One, the most recent, a John
Roberts opinion, the Phelps people, that church out in Kansas, had a right to
picket horrible offensive signs at military funerals. Well, two, in 2002, the
Supreme Court said cross burning was illegal because it could incite violence.
And three, Chaplinsky, the Chaplinsky case in 1942 said that speech
was not permitted if it included fighting words that were likely to incite
violence.
This is not a clear-cut carrying on
the way the Right does. The Right loves to be able to say anything they like,
no matter how offensive it is. Well, Ann Coulter has used words that you cannot
use on television to describe Jews, blacks, gays, Muslims immigrants, and
Hispanics. I think that there’s a case to be made that that invokes the Chaplinsky decision, which is “fighting
words,” likely to cause violence. I think Berkeley is within its rights to make
the decision that it puts their campus in danger if they have her there. I’ll
be the first to admit it’s a close call.
Actually, it’s not a close call; Dean is making the wrong
call under the Constitution. Dean’s entire answer piles wrong argument atop
wrong argument until he completes a Dagwood sandwich of wrong.
Dean cites three court cases, and he mischaracterizes the
decisions in all of them. The first case he references, Snyder v. Phelps, was an 8 to 1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist
Church’s freedom to chant the horrible slogans and hold up the horrible banners
it favors at a military funeral. If the church is free to protest at a military
funeral, it makes no sense to argue that Ann Coulter is not free to give a
speech at Berkeley. Dean is perhaps unknowingly citing a case that argues the
reverse of his position.
The second case Dean cites, Virginia v. Black, struck down a state law that deemed
cross-burning a prima facie attempt at intimidation. The decision was
complicated, with multiple justices concurring in part and dissenting in part,
but its upshot was that if prosecutors wanted to charge someone with a crime
for burning a cross, they had to prove that the cross-burner intended his
action as a threat.
“Criminal threats”, “intimidation” and criminal
harassment are already crimes on the books in many states. If Ann Coulter
explicitly threatens an individual in her speech, she can be charged with a
crime for that. But whatever her flaws, Coulter is unlikely to make an explicit
incitement to violence in a speech at Berkeley.
The third case Dean cites, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, has come up a bit more frequently as
of late. Eugene
Volokh points out that while the Chaplinsky
precedent hasn’t yet been struck down, subsequent decisions have drastically
narrowed its definition of “fighting words.” In 1971, the court ruled that a
vulgar phrase on a jacket didn’t fall within said definition because it was
unlikely that any “individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably
have regarded the words” to be “a direct personal insult.” In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Court
struck down a hate-crime statute, decreeing that the state can restrict speech
to a certain “time, place, or manner,” but only if those restrictions were
“justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.” (I.e.,
the government can ban flag-burning by, say, banning all outdoor fires in
certain areas, but not explicitly because it dishonors the U.S. flag.)
Without knowing what Coulter would say in her speech,
Dean suggests that it would contain “fighting words,” given her history of
using “words you can’t say on television” to describe minorities. Given the
“words you can’t say on television” have no bearing on the constitutionality of
an (as-yet-undelivered) speech at Berkeley, the one-time front-runner for the
Democratic presidential nomination seems to be insisting that just by being
offensive, Coulter’s words incite violence and must be restricted and banned.
It is fair to ask Dean and his ilk why they are so focused on restricting and
punishing speech that supposedly “incites” violence and much less focused on
punishing those who actually commit violent acts.
If Dean’s real desire is to ban speech that he doesn’t
like, he should just say so.
No comments:
Post a Comment