pageok
pageok
pageok
"Hate Speech":

I often hear people arguing that some speech is unprotected under current First Amendment law because it's "hate speech," or asking "Is [X] free speech or is it hate speech?" That, it seems to me, is a mistake.

"Hate speech" is not a legal term of art under U.S. law, nor an exception from First Amendment protection. Some of what some label "hate speech" may, depending on the circumstances, fall within the generally quite narrow exceptions for fighting words, threats, incitement, or certain kinds of false statements of fact. But if one thinks a particular scenario or incident is unprotected on those grounds, one needs to mention the specific exception, and explain how the speech fits within that exception.

Of course, one could argue (though that's not what the people I'm referring to above are doing) that the Supreme Court should create a new "hate speech" exception from First Amendment protection -- that the speech is currently protected, but ought to become unprotected. But then one needs to explain precisely how one would define this new exception, since "hate speech" doesn't have a clear and well-accepted definition. And of course one should then respond to the foreseeable arguments about why this exception would be unacceptably vague or broad.

Simply asserting that some speech is unprotected under current First Amendment law because it's "hate speech" doesn't demonstrate much of anything -- except that it demonstrates to those readers who are familiar with First Amendment law that the speaker isn't making a sound First Amendment argument.

Brian G (mail) (www):
Hate speech = Speech that liberals disagree with
6.7.2008 5:58pm
Gabriel Malor (mail):
Some conservatives may disagree with it too, Brian.

Just, so ya know...
6.7.2008 6:11pm
zippypinhead:
Of course, "hate speech" is already significant in criminal law, at least in one respect:

a crime, when accompanied by speech indicating a discriminatory mens rea, can become a "hate crime" -- and be punished more severely than the same crime without the speech component attached.
6.7.2008 6:18pm
Jerry F:
It is of course only a question of time before the Supreme Court, following on the Canadian and European models, rules that "hate speech" is indeed unprotected by the First Amendment. Already, "speech that liberals disagree with", even when it falls well short of being hateful speech, is not constitutionally protected in the workplace. If statements to the effect that, e.g., homosexuality is immoral are not protected by the First Amendment in the workplace, it is not that much of a stretch to extent this ruling beyond the workplace context.
6.7.2008 6:18pm
Jerry F:
To me the interesting question is, will the Supreme Court rule that statements criticizing homosexuality are unprotected by the First Amendment before or after it rules that churches are constitutionally compelled to perform homosexual marriages. Both of these rulings will happen within the next 50 years, I have absolutely no doubt about it; the only question is when.
6.7.2008 6:20pm
Jim Huston (mail):
We started from "Congress shall make no law ..." to "Congress shall make some law ..." This right has been abridged with "conditions" (encitement, fighting words, fire in a theater, etc ) and by "criminalizing" speech itself if deemed discriminatory (racial, religious comments of discrimination). The result: I can now watch a "comedy" special with a racialor religious minority freely using all of the words that I would be arrested, imprisoned, fired or sued for using.

I hope that I never actually see a fire in a theater that may contain those "protected" and priviledged people. I am not sure I want to personally risk warning them...

This is the last thing we need...
6.7.2008 6:21pm
Crafty Hunter (www):
I quite properly define hate speech as that speech which is intended among other things to make me physically afraid of exercising free speech or of exercising other basic Constitutional rights. For example, there is hate speech intended to make me afraid to exercise the right to keep and bear arms in the defense of life, safety and liberty, or the right to sharply criticise the strong radical Mohammedist tendency to refuse to see non-Mohammedists as being full human beings. Actually, I wish to sue people for such hate speech. How can I find a set of attourneys willing to take many, many, many, many "contingency" cases against hate speech perpetrators? I want to begin with the Brady Campaign, and the organisation known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

More generally, I wish to sue anyone who tries or has tried to suppress my free speech in general. Perpetrators of the low-level terrorism known as "political correctness" come to mind.
6.7.2008 6:23pm
30yearProf:
Given the sunken level of public discourse these days, where CS, MF and SOB are in popular music, movies and much informal speech even on college campuses, it's hard to see much room left for the "fighting words" of the nineteenth century cases. It is probably time to abandon that relic of the Victorian Age.
6.7.2008 6:24pm
sbron:
I assume everyone is following the current Canadian Human Rights Commission trial (in absentia) of Mark Steyn, in which he is accused of hate speech mainly for quoting radical Muslims verbatim in his book "America Alone."
Also see www.ezralevant.com for some unbelievable video of the HRC in action.

But as I recall, the Canadian prosecutions for hate speech began with the trial of Ernst Zundel, a notorious holocaust denier. However Zundel was not convicted of "hate speech", but rather for the crime of "spreading false news." There is indeed a slippery slope from falsehood to false news to Canadian political refugees fleeing to New Hampshire.
6.7.2008 6:26pm
cboldt (mail):
The term "hate speech" comes up in Congress from time to time, but not frequently. I found some of the "hits" from this search to be "news" to me, and interesting to boot.
6.7.2008 6:36pm
J. Aldridge:
Isn't "hate speech" used to elevate some crime to the level of a "hate crime"?
6.7.2008 6:37pm
byomtov (mail):
Lots of doughty conservative champions of free speech here, I see. Good.

I, too, hope that pro-censorship types, like Robert Bork, for example, are kept far away from the Judiciary.
6.7.2008 6:41pm
AnonLawStudent:
Given Prof. Volokh's direct reference to this comment in this thread, I can't wait to see what happens when the commenter shows up. Maybe she'll accuse Prof. Volokh of "censor[ing]" her "Fist [sic] Amendment rights." See also here and here (cataloging judicial opinions of her various not-so-successful lawsuits).
6.7.2008 6:46pm
J. Aldridge:
oooops, think zippypinhead already posted my thoughts exactly.
6.7.2008 6:46pm
AnonLawStudent:
Whoops. Make that second one here.
6.7.2008 6:49pm
dre (mail):
"Isn't "hate speech" used to elevate some crime to the level of a "hate crime"?"

You're confusing it with "hate thought". /sarc off
6.7.2008 6:55pm
dre (mail):
"I, too, hope that pro-censorship types, like Robert Bork, for example, are kept far away from the Judiciary."

Is it too much to ask for evidence about this assertion on a blog run by Law professors?
6.7.2008 6:57pm
Ernie G (mail):
My greatest fear is that the outlawing of "hate speech" will be accomplished by means of an end run. No law using the words "hate speech" or "hate" will be passed. Instead, a future Supreme Court will discover the Right Not To Be Offended, if the offense violates the right to be secure in ones person, or some such reasoning.

It's happening in Canada right now.
6.7.2008 6:58pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Hate speech is just a new version of the old blasphemy laws and are to be resisted at every turn. Here is some "hate speech" by John Adams directed against Trinitarian Christianity that could have gotten him executed for blasphemy in Puritan Massachusetts.

“The Trinity was carried in a general council by one vote against a quaternity; the Virgin Mary lost an equality with the Father, Son, and Spirit only by a single suffrage.”

– John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812.

And:

“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”

And:

“If I understand the Doctrine, it is, that if God the first second or third or all three together are united with or in a Man, the whole Animal becomes a God and his Mother is the Mother of God.

“It grieves me: it shocks me to write in this stile upon a subject the most adorable that any finite Intelligence can contemplate or embrace: but if ever Mankind are to be superior to the Brutes, sacerdotal Impostures must be exposed.”

– John Adams to Francis van der Kemp, October 23, 1816.
6.7.2008 6:59pm
Anon Y. Mous:
(hate) + (crime) = (hate crime)

(hate) invariably takes the form of some kind of communication, so (hate) = (hate speech).

Now it makes no sense to say that (hate speech) is protected, otherwise how could you have it as a contributory part as (hate crime)? Therefore, (hate speech) must be unprotected. Q.E.D.
6.7.2008 7:00pm
MQuinn:
Brian G said:


Hate speech = Speech that liberals disagree with


This statement finds no basis is reality. In fact, there are few reliable distinctions between liberal and conservative Justices in first amendment jurisprudence, largely due the fact that the first amendment has a questionable originalist history.

Furthermore, both liberals and conservatives are quite willing to invalidate laws as unconstitutional under the first amendment, which of course negates your supposition that liberals run around the country looking for speech to criminalize. Take the Rehnquist Court as an example. The following Justices invalidated the provided number of statutes on first amendment grounds... Thomas 15; Kennedy 15; Souter 14; Scalia 13; Stevens 12; Ginsburg 11; Rehnquist 9; O'Connor 9; and Breyer 8.

As you probably notice, there is really no pattern in these numbers.
6.7.2008 7:18pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Anon Y. Mous:

I think you have something there. How can one say:
"... since "hate speech" doesn't have a clear and well-accepted definition.
Yet it be a contributory part of a so-called crime?

I also don't quite understand why the First Amendment gets at least partially suspended when I enter my workplace. Or wholly suspended if I enter most any University of California campuses. Why do students have to keeping suing over an over to retain their speech rights?
6.7.2008 7:22pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
I am extremely pleased that rightwingers are embracing free speech as a constitutional right, but it's taking some getting used to.

I am old enough to have observed McCarthyism at first hand.
6.7.2008 7:24pm
bjr:
sbron wrote:
"But as I recall, the Canadian prosecutions for hate speech began with the trial of Ernst Zundel, a notorious holocaust denier. However Zundel was not convicted of "hate speech", but rather for the crime of "spreading false news." There is indeed a slippery slope from falsehood to false news to Canadian political refugees fleeing to New Hampshire."

The offence of spreading false news was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731).

You might be thinking of R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, where the SCC upheld the constitutionality of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group.

These Criminal Code offences are separate from the more controversial (and more idiotic) provisions in the provincial and federal Human Rights Acts, which are being used against Mr. Steyn.
6.7.2008 7:24pm
cirby (mail):
I am extremely pleased that rightwingers are embracing free speech as a constitutional right, but it's taking some getting use


Really? Have you been in prison or something for the last couple of decades?

Look at the suppression of free speech for just the last 20 years, and note that the most famous anti-First Amendment folks are not only Democrats, they're MAJOR Democrats.

Start with the four letters "PMRC," and work your way forward.


I am old enough to have observed McCarthyism at first hand.


...and also old enough to forget that he was a Democrat...
6.7.2008 7:54pm
MQuinn:
cirby,

McCarthy was a Republican.
6.7.2008 8:03pm
Libertarian1 (mail):
and also old enough to forget that he was a Democrat...



He really was elected and served as a Republican. Maybe you looked up Eugene instead of Joseph.
6.7.2008 8:04pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
I am old enough to have observed McCarthyism at first hand.

Not very well, apparently.
6.7.2008 8:06pm
byomtov (mail):

"I, too, hope that pro-censorship types, like Robert Bork, for example, are kept far away from the Judiciary."

Is it too much to ask for evidence about this assertion on a blog run by Law professors?

No. If it's OK, I'll just quote one of our hosts:

In his controversial 1996 book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Judge Robert H. Bork argued that we must adopt extensive censorship of violent and sexually explicit media in order to combat social pathologies such as crime, welfare dependency, and illegitimacy
6.7.2008 8:07pm
Jerry F:
MQuinn: "both liberals and conservatives are quite willing to invalidate laws as unconstitutional under the first amendment, which of course negates your supposition that liberals run around the country looking for speech to criminalize"

Here is a distinction between liberal and conservative views on First Amendment jurisprudence: conservatives believe that the First Amendment's freedom of speech protects all speech, but should not encompass things that have little to do with speech. Liberals, by contrast, believe that the First Amendment's freedom of speech should include non-speech things that they like, but should not protect speech that they don't like.

This is why conservatives are fine with restrictions on flag burning, nude dancing and pornography, and liberals support restrictions on speech critical of abortion or homosexuality, any kind of offensive speech in the workplace, etc.
6.7.2008 8:28pm
ruleswatch (mail):
Are these any help? Isn't the start the proposition of objective legal standards that do engage constitutional liberties protections... and then grow them from there.

Isn't hate incitement just another way of yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

Try these, from the Criminal Code of Canada:

Advocating genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. …
Hate Propaganda
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction..
Warrant of seizure
320. (1) A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is hate propaganda shall issue a warrant under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies.

The legislation comes with detailed definitions and judicially closely watched and refined development over the years.
6.7.2008 8:28pm
zippypinhead:
"Now it makes no sense to say that (hate speech) is protected, otherwise how could you have it as a contributory part as (hate crime)? Therefore, (hate speech) must be unprotected. Q.E.D."
Lots of legal conduct, when carried out in furtherance of a crime, can be a "contributory part" of the crime. For example, in a criminal conspiracy, many overt acts in furtherance of the illegal objective may, in isolation, be legal.

Outside the speech context, I once used this rather preposterous example to explain to a skeptical (new) Judge why some of the elements of a crime can, individually, be legal while in the aggregate constituting a criminal offense: In my state it is legal to open-carry a firearm. It is also legal to walk into a bank or other place of business holding itself out as generally accessible to the public. It is legal to ask people to give you money. But put all three of these legal actions together, and presto, you have bank robbery... [yes, I deliberately left out the essential criminal mens rea which would arguably distinguish armed panhandling (!) from armed robbery, but that wasn't the point].

Perhaps it is more precise in the context of this thread to argue it's not the protected "speech" that is an element of the crime, so much as the "speech" is probative evidence of the underlying motive. You can punch a person standing on the corner and only be charged with simple assault. You can scream the "N-word" and successfully claim that your speech is Constitutionally protected (albeit boorish or worse). But if you're screaming the "N-word" while punching a person on the corner who happens to be African-American, you risk being charged with something considerably worse than simple assault.
6.7.2008 8:31pm
Anonymous #57:
I am old enough to have observed McCarthyism at first hand.

Do you remember the recently-declassified material that verifies the red spy ring he broke up?
6.7.2008 8:31pm
Al Goreski:
Two points.
1) Ask Brigitte Bardot and PETA what they think of her hate speech.
hate speech
2) I thought the whole point of the first amendment was to protect speech that others might object to? Sounds like hate speech to me...
6.7.2008 8:41pm
Jim C. (mail):
Harry Eagar wrote,
I am extremely pleased that rightwingers are embracing free speech as a constitutional right, but it's taking some getting used to.

I am old enough to have observed McCarthyism at first hand.
Not old enough to remember the Hollywood 10, I guess. Or your memory's slipping due to your age.

You believe in freedom of speech for communists because what they say is true. You do *not* believe in freedom of speech for fascists because what they say is a lie.
--John Howard Lawson, head and cultural commissar of the Hollywood division of the American Communist Party, instructing the rest of the Hollywood 10. From Dmytryk, Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten
6.7.2008 9:03pm
billhilly:
I should be able to control the speech on employees on my property to some degree however the government should not be able to. My property, my rules.

I don’t think it’s a liberal vs conservative thing as each has been know to support or attempt to repress speech they disagree with. To me, it is a statist policy right or left.
6.7.2008 9:18pm
Chris Bell (mail) (www):
On PrawfsBlawg today, Rick Hills had a post about Orwell and Orwell's famous essay on politics and language.

Eugene, if you haven't read it you'd love it.
6.7.2008 9:18pm
Ron Hardin (mail) (www):
The hate speech exception to the First Amendment.
6.7.2008 9:40pm
Smokey:
Hate Propaganda
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group...
Anyone can identify a group. In one of my college classes the prof put a big list of terms on the board: "truck, hurricane, idea, bingo, zebra, calculus," etc. He told us to divide the terms into two different and separate groups.

Everyone quickly completed the assignment. The the professor told us, "You can always divide any list of terms into two or more groups." That was the lesson.

See, when the law refers to "distinct groups," there's always a big overlap. What if someone is 2/3 part of a 'distinct group,' and 3/4 part of another group that is supposedly doing the discriminating? It's all very nebulous and subjective, and therefore easily manipulated by the devious folks that Orwell was always warning us about.

The only vaccination against this type of statism is made crystal clear here:

"It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies."

~ William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
6.7.2008 9:47pm
Frater Plotter:
This is why conservatives are fine with restrictions on flag burning, nude dancing and pornography, and liberals support restrictions on speech critical of abortion or homosexuality, any kind of offensive speech in the workplace, etc.

It is true that civil libertarians (not "liberals") have found reason to generalize "freedom of speech and of the press" into "freedom of expression" and thus to take in works of art and performance. However, it is simply, flatly false to suggest that "conservatives" have been defenders of basic, elementary freedom of speech.

The categories of speech most shackled by "conservatives" are sedition, blasphemy, incitement, and profanity. These are acts of speech or writing, not merely "expressive" acts in some more general case.
6.7.2008 10:08pm
Ex-Fed (mail) (www):
1. For those who argue that "hate speech" suppression is a purely liberal phenomenon, I wonder what their position is on the Jason-Vooheeseque flag burning amendment. (The typical parry to that is "that's conduct, not speech" -- which makes me wonder how such people defend, for instance, anti-gay T-shirts or affirmative action bake sales).

2. As to this:

To me the interesting question is, will the Supreme Court rule that statements criticizing homosexuality are unprotected by the First Amendment before or after it rules that churches are constitutionally compelled to perform homosexual marriages. Both of these rulings will happen within the next 50 years, I have absolutely no doubt about it; the only question is when.



Loving v. Virginia was 41 years ago. Can you please direct me to the court decision compelling a church to perform a mixed-race marriage?
6.7.2008 10:16pm
sbw (mail) (www):
You are discussing the symptom, not the problem.

People do not discover in school why unfettered speech is essential. It has no import for them. They don't learn that the strength of democracy is not that the voters get it right, but that it commits to the continuous, everlasting process that the smallest voice is empowered to try to convince the others of the merits of the idea.

It is the humility that humans can't be perfect, can't know where they are wrong, and depend on others who may say something one might not wish to hear, but need to hear anyway.
6.7.2008 10:27pm
Anon Y. Mous:

[...] some of the elements of a crime can, individually, be legal while in the aggregate constituting a criminal offense: In my state it is legal to open-carry a firearm. It is also legal to walk into a bank or other place of business holding itself out as generally accessible to the public. It is legal to ask people to give you money. But put all three of these legal actions together, and presto, you have bank robbery...


Depends on how you "asked". If you requested to withdraw money from your account and gave the teller your bankbook, that's not robbery. What would make it robbery is if you made a demand under threat of violence. And really, there's only two elements in even that example: the robbery itself and the use of a firearm to commit the crime.

It's unfortunate that the left has been all too successful in whittling away our 2nd amendment rights by criminalizing firearms wherever possible. It's not very comforting that they have now turned their attention to speech.
6.7.2008 10:27pm
EPluribusMoney (mail):
I am old enough to have observed McCarthyism at first hand.

Yeah, but did you see when the old Soviet archives were opened we found out they WERE all communists! And on the KGB payroll too.
6.7.2008 10:31pm
Lonetown (mail):
The term "fighting words" used to be used and (I believe) claimed as justification for taking offense physically.

Hate speech concepts, it seems to me, are how we supplanted the "fighting words" concept, making it never OK to take offense physically.
6.7.2008 10:47pm
EricH (mail):
McCarthy didn't go after people because of the words they expressed. He went after people (falsely in too many tragic cases) for being members of the Communist Party.

As Sidney Hook pointed out in "Heresy Yes, Conspiracy No", it is (or should have been) perfectly acceptable to espouse or embrace or promote communist ideas. What was not acceptable was being a member of a conspiracy (the CPUSA) that was actively working on behalf of an enemy of the US and for their benefit.

The McCarthy analogy doesn't work for me.
6.7.2008 10:49pm
fouse, gary c, (mail) (www):
This is an example of true hate speech going on in one of our universities:

Below is a news release from Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)

Also thanks to Jonathan Constantine and Reut Cohen at Red County blog.


Department of Education Reopens Case Against UC Irvine
Posted by: Jonathan Constantine | 06/06/2008 3:27 PM


ZOA has the details:


June 6, 2008

Contact Morton A. Klein at: 917-974-8795 or 212-481-1500

Attn: NEWS EDITOR


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INITIATES NEW INVESTIGATION INTO

UC IRVINE'S RESPONSE TO CAMPUS ANTI-SEMITISM

By letter to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) dated April 25, 2008, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has indicated that it will be investigating several incidents of alleged anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination that occurred in May 2007, at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The ZOA had brought these incidents to OCR's attention almost one year ago, asserting that the incidents show that UCI has continued to respond ineffectively to campus anti-Semitism, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title VI requires that recipients of federal funding (like UCI) ensure that their programs and activities are free discrimination based on "race, color, or national origin." If the recipient is found to have violated Title VI, it can lose its federal funding.

The ZOA first brought UCI's alleged violation of Title VI to OCR's attention in October 2004, when the ZOA filed a Title VI complaint on behalf of Jewish students with OCR, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law. The ZOA's complaint alleged that Jewish students had been facing a longstanding pattern of anti-Semitic harassment and hostility on the campus, and that UCI had failed to respond effectively to the problem, in violation of its obligations under Title VI. After reviewing the ZOA's allegations, OCR decided that an investigation into UCI's conduct was warranted.

In the course of that investigation, the ZOA furnished OCR with evidence about several incidents of harassment that had occurred at UCI as late as May 2007. The ZOA repeatedly urged OCR to interview witnesses with pertinent information about these incidents. Even though these incidents were relevant to the allegations of the ZOA's October 2004 complaint asserting a pattern or practice of anti-Semitic discrimination at UCI, OCR refused to investigate the incidents or to interview crucial witnesses.

OCR typically resolves Title VI complaints within 180 days after they are filed. It took OCR more than three years to issue a decision on the ZOA's October 2004 complaint. In November 2007, when OCR finally issued its decision, it absolved UCI of wrongdoing. It was plain from the decision that OCR had applied a narrower interpretation of Title VI than the one that OCR had said it would enforce when it issued two policy statements in the fall of 2004. At that time, OCR had made it clear that consistent with federal precedent recognizing that Jews were a racial or national origin group for purposes of affording civil rights protections, OCR would likewise protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment under Title VI. Later, under new leadership at OCR, that policy was whittled down, so that Jewish students would no longer be afforded the protections of Title VI as a racial or national origin group.

OCR's decision in November 2007 engendered deep concern from Members of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, which was expressed in powerful letters to U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. In the letter from U.S. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) - all three of whom are Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary - they questioned the decision that OCR reached in the ZOA's case against UCI, and the interpretation of Title VI that OCR had applied in the case. According to the Senators, OCR's conclusion in the ZOA's case "is inconsistent with its prior policy statements." The Senators asked probing questions of Secretary Spellings, including why there were witnesses "that the ZOA proffered . . . whom OCR did not interview."

The letter from Members of the House also raised troubling concerns about OCR's decision in the ZOA's case, and demanded answers from Secretary Spellings about whether OCR's policy for enforcing Title VI was affording Jewish students the protections they need. U.S. Representatives Brad Sherman (D-CA), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), Allyson Schwartz (D-PA), Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) emphasized that OCR's conclusion in the ZOA's case "reversed OCR policy, as clarified in 2004, of protecting Jews against anti-Semitism."

The leadership of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the umbrella group for more than 50 national Jewish organizations across the religious and political spectrums, also criticized OCR's decision in the ZOA's case against UCI. In a letter to Stephanie Monroe, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, the Presidents' Conference urged OCR to reconsider its decision in the ZOA's case. The decision "will affect Jewish students not only at UCI, but also at other colleges and universities across the United States. At a time when reports of anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation on college campuses is [sic] increasing, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), whose mission is to redress racial and ethnic discrimination, should be seeking to expand the protections of the law."

When, in the April 25, 2008 letter, OCR notified the ZOA about the new investigation of incidents that occurred at UCI in May 2007, OCR indicated that it had determined that several of the ZOA's allegations "are appropriate for investigation under the laws enforced by OCR. . . . We will contact you soon to discuss the allegations and complaint resolution process."

Morton A. Klein, the ZOA's National President, and Susan B. Tuchman, Esq., the Director of the ZOA's Center for Law and Justice, said, "We are pleased to know that the Office for Civil Rights is finally looking into incidents that the ZOA brought to OCR's attention almost one year ago. The witnesses who were ready and willing to come forward at that time are just as eager to furnish information to OCR now. As we did during OCR's first investigation, we stand ready to assist the agency in every way possible.

"Since the time that OCR issued its decision in November 2007, OCR has gotten the clear message from Members of the House and the Senate, and from the Presidents' Conference, that OCR's narrower interpretation of Title VI is of deep concern. We hope that OCR will rethink that more restrictive policy. When it conducts this new investigation, we urge OCR to keep an open mind and apply the policy it clarified in 2004 - that OCR would protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment under Title VI. As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recognized in April 2006, Jewish students are entitled to the protections of Title VI, and the Office for Civil Rights should be vigorously enforcing the law to ensure that they are protected."

Fousesquawk comment: This is certainly good news. Hopefully, they will also go into 2008.

gary fouse
adjunct teacher
uci-ext
fousesquawk
6.7.2008 10:51pm
zippypinhead:
Anon Y. Mous: exactly. As noted, the missing link in the non-speech example was criminal intent, but that's exactly why I said the bank robbery hypothetical was "preposterous" -- tho it worked with the Judge for the limited point I needed to make.

However, in the more on-point example (beating somebody up while uttering certain Constitutionally-protected words), the speech itself, while protected, was unequivocal direct evidence of the necessary criminal intent. So in that sense, "hate speech" (however loosely defined) can be relevant to determining if a "hate crime" has occurred.
6.7.2008 10:59pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Loving v. Virginia was 41 years ago. Can you please direct me to the court decision compelling a church to perform a mixed-race marriage
Well, I can't think of any that do precisely that, but in Bob Jones the Supreme Court went out of its way to rewrite the plain language of a statute, and then dismissed the Constitution in about 3 seconds, so that it could authorize punishment of a religious institution for not going along with orthodoxy on mixed-race relationships.

The California courts have ignored religious exemptions written into statutes in forcing Catholic institutions to provide birth control.

And in New Jersey, the government is trying to force a Methodist institution to allow gay civil union ceremonies to be conducted on its property.

And on this very blog, we discussed a photographer compelled to take photographs for gay couples.

So it's hardly a far-fetched concern.
6.7.2008 11:05pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"To me the interesting question is, will the Supreme Court rule that statements criticizing homosexuality are unprotected by the First Amendment before or after it rules that churches are constitutionally compelled to perform homosexual marriages" --->

What's the # count of Supreme Court Justices who are Catholic? I would just LOVE to see the betting odds that the Supreme Court will "rule that churches are constitutionally compelled to perform homosexual marriages."

I think the Supreme Court will rule that the Catholic church must allow women to become priests, before it EVER compels Catholic churches to perform homosexual marriages!

Or, maybe the ruling that compels all other churches to perform homosexual marriages will carve out an exemption for CATHOLIC churches from the rule? ... have to keep the Vatican (and Vatican Bank) happy ..
6.7.2008 11:07pm
RTW (mail):
In the U.S., I think that the concept of "hate speech" is mostly something that is picked up from college campuses.
6.7.2008 11:09pm
Sarcastro (www):
Sweet Jebus, is everyone gonna post now about how McCarthy was a misunderstood hero?
6.7.2008 11:09pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.


1. For those who argue that "hate speech" suppression is a purely liberal phenomenon, I wonder what their position is on the Jason-Vooheeseque flag burning amendment. (The typical parry to that is "that's conduct, not speech" -- which makes me wonder how such people defend, for instance, anti-gay T-shirts or affirmative action bake sales).


Personally I have no problem in restricting flag burning. It's a major symbol of this country and frankly I don't buy the argument that burning the flag is free speech or an expression. You want to write "Down with Amerikkka"? Sure thing. You want to shout "Death to America!". Ok by me.

Now "anti-gay T-shirts"? Free speech. Pro-gay T-shirts? Same thing. "affirmative action bake sales"? Same. Pro-"affirmative action bake sales"? Same again.

But the US Flag is not T-shirt and should be treated with greater reverence than it currently is.
6.7.2008 11:19pm
Hoosier:
"have to keep the Vatican (and Vatican Bank) happy .."

So, is THIS an example of "hate speech"? If so, what are my remedies.

Sarcastro—No, no one is going to say that. But what is wrong with pointing to evidence that we now have concerning attempts at subversion and acts of treason conducted by Americans?

"McCarthyism" really ought still to refer to the smearing of innocent people by calling them communists. NOT to naming actual communists. Geez, no WONDER you were the only student to fail the superhero class.
6.7.2008 11:22pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.


Sweet Jebus, is everyone gonna post now about how McCarthy was a misunderstood hero?


Of course not. He was a politician out looking for a plank to ride to the Presidency.

That does not however negate the Verona Cables.
6.7.2008 11:27pm
Stacy (mail):
sbron: "There is indeed a slippery slope from falsehood to false news to Canadian political refugees fleeing to New Hampshire."

Which will make an interesting political exercise for an American Bismarck, should we happen to have one at the time. 1.) Allow all free-thinking Canadians political asylum in the US, 2.) Close border when they're mostly all here 3.) After letting the dregs fester for a few years, declare a humanitarian intervention 4.) Profit!
6.7.2008 11:31pm
Ex-Fed (mail) (www):
David:

Well, I can't think of any that do precisely that, but in Bob Jones the Supreme Court went out of its way to rewrite the plain language of a statute, and then dismissed the Constitution in about 3 seconds, so that it could authorize punishment of a religious institution for not going along with orthodoxy on mixed-race relationships.


The Bob Jones case involved revocation of tax-exempt status of a university. You can quarrel with the statutory interpretation, certainly. But I'm not sure you can credibly argue that it presages revoking a church's tax-exempt status for core sacramental functions. And extending it to actual compulsion of sacramental functions is ridiculous.

The California courts have ignored religious exemptions written into statutes in forcing Catholic institutions to provide birth control.
Arguable (true as to the effect of the ruling, arguable as to the "ignored" part). But dispensing pharmaceuticals is not a sacrament. Nothing in the decisions credibly suggests that courts will compel churches to administer sacraments in a particular way.


And in New Jersey, the government is trying to force a Methodist institution to allow gay civil union ceremonies to be conducted on its property.


I assume you are referring to this, in which a church which accepts tax exempt status to run a boardwalk as an "open to the public" space is arguing that state antidiscrimination laws should not apply to that space. Once again, I think that's a rather far cry from forcing a church to sanctify same-sex weddings.

And on this very blog, we discussed a photographer compelled to take photographs for gay couples.



Which is arguably a First Amendment violation. But it's not forcing a church to change the rules of a religious rite.



I thought Professor Bainbridge -- who is not exactly a howling liberal -- had a rather convincing analysis of this.


And my comparison stands. If there is a slippery slope to forcing churches to conduct same-sex weddings, can anyone point to a church forced to conduct a multi-racial wedding after Loving v. Virginia?
6.7.2008 11:49pm
Ex-Fed (mail) (www):
Personally I have no problem in restricting flag burning. It's a major symbol of this country and frankly I don't buy the argument that burning the flag is free speech or an expression. You want to write "Down with Amerikkka"? Sure thing. You want to shout "Death to America!". Ok by me.

Now "anti-gay T-shirts"? Free speech. Pro-gay T-shirts? Same thing. "affirmative action bake sales"? Same. Pro-"affirmative action bake sales"? Same again.

But the US Flag is not T-shirt and should be treated with greater reverence than it currently is.



To me, that's indistinguishable from the argument in favor of banning "hate speech." It's a categorical argument -- activity X is just different, because it is, or because it causes huge offense, or because X (where X is racial, sexual, or religious status, or else national symbolism) is uniquely worthy of protection in a way that should create an exception to the First Amendment.

By the way -- if burning the American flag "is not an expression", is burning another country's flag an expression? How about the flag of, say, Iran? Is that expression?
6.7.2008 11:52pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Hoosier:
"'have to keep the Vatican (and Vatican Bank) happy ..'

So, is THIS an example of 'hate speech'? If so, what are my remedies" ---->

Hoosier, that is a purely economic observation of opinion: If the Supreme Court rules the Catholic church is compelled to perform homosexual marriages, the Pope will rule otherwise. The Catholic church has HUGE financial holdings in the U.S., real property holdings and money. The Vatican Bank does what all banks do -- protect funds. Thus, it is just like what would happen if DOJ sued OPEC in anti-trust and froze all OPEC producers assets ... OPEC (and the Vatican) would transfer all funds out of the U.S.

Pretty simple. But, obviously, those who are bent on ideas of entrapment of innocent disabled Americans because they do not like disabled people, do not like the Americans With Disabilities Act, and do not like disabled people speaking about how great the Americans With Disabilities Act is, can conjure up just about anything -- including Foo Foo Dust.
6.7.2008 11:56pm
gustcommenter (mail):
"fighting words"

If I say something "offensive" to you, and you punch me for it, then, by definition, what I said was "fighting words."

Thus, any speech you utter can be hate speech if I am sufficiently offended by it to punch you over it.

Don't you see? Any speech can be "fighting words" if whoever hears your speech will just punch you, or shoot you, or behead you for it.

That's what the Supreme Court said when it made an exception to the First Amendment for "fighting words."
6.7.2008 11:57pm
MQuinn:
Jerry F.,

I fully admit that all too often liberal Justices engage in ideological decision making. It is unfortunate, however, that you actually believe that conservatives are not prey to a similar political bias. You are wrong for this blindness.

Take Justice Thomas as an example. During the Rehnquist Court, Thomas voted to invalidate 15 federal statutes restricting speech. Of these 15 votes, 3 were in favor of invalidating campaign finance laws and 3 were in favor of invalidating commercial speech.

The obvious inference from these numbers wholly undermines your premise. 6 of Thomas's 15 votes are recitations of the GOP's talking points. Thomas's votes are as conservative as it gets, and the same argument can be made for each conservative on the Rehnquist Court. In other words, your supposition that liberals are somehow unique for using their votes to promote a liberal agenda is bindingly biased.

But your own post further undermines its very premise. Again, you argue that liberals are unique because they support the restriction of speech they disagree with. You proceed to give examples of speech that conservatives restrict that you agree with. Namely, restrictions on porn, nude dancing, and flag burning. In other words, restrictions that support the GOPs in-your-fact patriotism and emphasis on religious moral values. Wow, that isn't right down the GOP party line (read sarcasm).

Before I conclude, I want to point out a glaring mistake in your post. You say that conservatives should be held up as heroes for voting to uphold restrictions on flag burning. But your are wrong. Take the leading case, Texas v. Johnson. In Johnson, the majority was joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy. The dissent consisted of Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, and Stevens. In other words, there are no discernible political lines in this case. The second most important case, U.S. v. Eichman, was decided upon the exact same voting record. Thus, conservatives do not as a general rule support restrictions on flag burning.
6.8.2008 12:03am
J. Aldridge:

When someone taped an anti-Mexican flier to Judy Wollowitz's front door Thursday afternoon, the Sommerfeld Avenue resident was upset.

The flier, which was printed with the address of a Border Patrol office in Texas, had a handwritten message scrawled on it: "Join us or be conquered." It claimed innocent people, including several whites, had been "murdered in Watsonville" and blamed illegal Latino immigrants and intoxicated Mexicans for the deaths.

Police are investigating the fliers as a hate crime because of the tone used, according to Sgt. Matt Eller.
6.8.2008 12:21am
Ex-Fed (mail) (www):
The link which J. Aldridge omitted for his hate-crime story above.

Police decide to investigate stuff only to learn that it is not, in fact, criminal all the time.

When I was a fed an NCIS guy conducted a year-long campaign to get me to prosecute some guy living near a naval base who used to fly his American flag at night.
6.8.2008 12:30am
Freedom!:
To me the interesting question is, will the Supreme Court rule that statements criticizing homosexuality are unprotected by the First Amendment before or after it rules that churches are constitutionally compelled to perform homosexual marriages. Both of these rulings will happen within the next 50 years, I have absolutely no doubt about it; the only question is when.

You may be right, but it will not happen with some of use exercising the 2nd Amendment power of Veto.
6.8.2008 12:30am
Dunstan:
Yeah, "Freedom!," try not to drool on your keyboard at the thought of shooting some homosexuals.
6.8.2008 1:16am
pwedza (mail):
one needs to explain precisely how one would define this new exception

The EU 'Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred' has the benefit of being more specific.
6.8.2008 1:38am
Jerry F:
McQuinn: I will not argue with you on flag burning because I agree that this is a difficult issue. But I do think that you are missing the conservative arguments against nude dancing, pornography, etc. The point is that these things are NOT speech. They do not involve communicating an idea. It is not as if conservatives were arguing in favor of, say, anti-blasphemy laws. By contrast, liberals who advocate anti-discrimination laws do not argue that, say, speech disapproving of homosexuality is not speech (which would be wholeheartedly absurd), they say that this speech should just not be protected. And commercial speech is indeed speech, which is why conservatives think that it should be protected.

As for campaign finance laws, not only do such laws interfere with speech, they interfere with political speech, which, along with social criticism, was precisely the sort of speech that the First Amendment was originally intended to protect. Now, I do agree that the First Amendment protection extends beyond political speech and social criticism, but if there is any law today that represents the core of what the First Amendment was intended to protect us against, it would be campaign finance legislation.
6.8.2008 1:46am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Regarding the numerous retaliatory blog posts directly targeting myself made by "AnonLawStudent" and "zippypinhead," I would note that such bait-posts have been made after I called UCLA law school Dean's Office and was assisted to commence making a Title II Americans With Disabilities Act grievance complaint for the onglong disability bashing occuring on this blog pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.107. Such execise of my federal civil rights under the ADA are protected by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12203(a) &(b).
6.8.2008 2:19am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
corr:
"onglong" = ongoing"
"execise" = exercise
6.8.2008 2:21am
Alan K. Henderson (mail) (www):
One problem with the idea of the legal classification of hate crimes (hate assault, hate speech, etc.) is that people often mistake something else - particularly anger or criticism - for hate. One must distinguish between the three:

Hate: an attitude that finds personal insult in the very existence of a person, object, action or situation. Some actions and situations are objectively bad; hating such things is not irrational.

Anger: a negative emotional reaction, directed at a person or object perceived as a source of stress.

Criticism: the belief that some action or situation is inherently bad. Note that when we (rationally) criticise people or objects, we are criticizing the former's actions or the latter's use.

The Bardot case is an example of confusing criticism (allegations of a religion's inhumane treatment of sheep) with hate. Mark Steyn is on trial for criticizing destructive cultural trends. A common political bigotry accuses opponents of certain programs of hating the people those programs are intended to benefit, resting on the false assumption that the opponents actually believe the programs will deliver the promised benefits - that alone should scare people away from supporting "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws.
6.8.2008 2:45am
Dunstan:
Regarding the numerous retaliatory blog posts directly targeting myself made by "AnonLawStudent" and "zippypinhead," I would note that such bait-posts have been made after I called UCLA law school Dean's Office and was assisted to commence making a Title II Americans With Disabilities Act grievance complaint for the onglong disability bashing occuring on this blog pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.107. Such execise of my federal civil rights under the ADA are protected by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12203(a) &(b).


Congratulations, the record shall so reflect. Would you care to explain how any of your civil rights have been violated by "retaliatory blog posts"?

I look forward to your inevitable lawsuit being dismissed.

P.S. You might want to learn the difference between a comment and a post.
6.8.2008 3:16am
JoeB:
Most constitutional jurisprudence would not come to light if any deviation from accepted interpretation would be subject to Eugene's criteria. So it's a bit rich to claim that any further changes must be subject to such stringent bars.
I am thankful for how expansively the First Amendment has been interpreted in the US, but that is partly pure luck. Let us not pretend that the constitution, tradition, or logic can prevent five judges from remaking the constitution as they see fit. Sure, a fig leaf will be used, along the lines of, I don't know, the Commerce Clause, but we know that it was a new politics, not new legal thinking that paved the way to the New Deal and what followed becoming constitutional.
6.8.2008 3:35am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"Would you care to explain how any of your civil rights have been violated by 'retaliatory blog posts'?" --->

In opening, you're anonymity entitles you to absolutely nothing. The cited regulation requires me to file the grievance only with the Title II public entity, in this instance UCLA law school and the Regents of the university of California.

Rather than mocking my autism language impairments by suggesting I cannot differentiate between a post and a comment (I know of no difference), perhaps your time would be better spent learning the difference between a "lawsuit" and a 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.107 grievance.

Peace.
6.8.2008 3:53am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Furthermore, I consider your language "the record shall so reflect" to be a threat to my well-being made in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12203 to obstruct my grievance by intimidating me.
6.8.2008 3:56am
Kevin Murphy:
What is Obama's position on this?
6.8.2008 4:09am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
KM, are you admitting John McCain's take on it is irrelevant, impertinent, and immaterial?
6.8.2008 4:14am
Nathan_M (mail):

Smokey:
Hate Propaganda
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group...

Anyone can identify a group. In one of my college classes the prof put a big list of terms on the board: "truck, hurricane, idea, bingo, zebra, calculus," etc. He told us to divide the terms into two different and separate groups.

Everyone quickly completed the assignment. The the professor told us, "You can always divide any list of terms into two or more groups." That was the lesson.

I agree with you that "identifiable group" isn't very precise. However, it is defined in the legislation as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation." That seems to be precise enough to solve your professor's objection.
6.8.2008 4:21am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
" However, it is defined in the legislation as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation." ---->

Yeah, well, looks like your professor left out "disability" from the protected groups. I think I'd ask for my tuition money back.
6.8.2008 4:27am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
As much as I advocate rights for disabled Americans such as myself, rights for the disabled will all become as irrelevant as the money you think you have in the bank when the polar icesheets melt and the water rises to the projected levels detailed in the Bush Administration's May 29, 2008 Global Warming Report produced under order of Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong.
6.8.2008 4:38am
pmorem (mail):
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano:

1) I am offended by your apparent blanket classification of Autism as a disability. I do not consider myself disabled. You do not speak for me.

2) It appears to me that you are actually seeking out conflict for whatever reasons of personal gratification. Your combativeness reflects on me, and may actually harm my interests. You do not speak for me.

3) Whether by lawsuit or complaint, it appears to me that you seek to censor the speech of others, and impose your will upon their tongues (and indirectly their minds). The price of that has been seen time after time and ignored, while the boons of disagreement get disparaged. I cannot support this. You do not speak for me.

4) "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". All you can do is silence people. You won't actually change minds. You will, however, plant seeds of resentment. You do not speak for me.

5) I understand that your words seem rational and lucid to you. To me, they appear to reflect someone who is not sane, but rather haunted by phantasms of persecution. You may find value in identifying which aspects of your experience and perspective are phantasm. Until you do so, and learn to manage them, they will be visible to others, but not to you. You do not speak for me.
6.8.2008 5:30am
Cornellian (mail):
But I do think that you are missing the conservative arguments against nude dancing, pornography, etc. The point is that these things are NOT speech. They do not involve communicating an idea.

So a novel like "Lolita" isn't speech? I seem to recall it was accused of being pornography back in its day. How about the movie version? If you don't think it's pornography, why not?
6.8.2008 5:59am
Duncan Frissell (mail):
onglong disability bashing occuring on this blog

I didn't know this blog was hosted by UCLA.
6.8.2008 7:42am
PersonFromPorlock:
Nathan_M:

I agree with you that "identifiable group" isn't very precise. However, it is defined in the legislation as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation." That seems to be precise enough to solve your professor's objection.

Would harsh statements about Nazism be "hate speech" under Canadian law, as tending to single out 'Aryans' for obloquy?
6.8.2008 8:45am
Hoosier:
pmorem—Thanks for the post. I also have a cognitive disability. And I have no desire to sue Prof. Volokh—though, now that I think about it, his pockets are certainly deeper than mine. Hmm.

After the Duke lacrosse rape-hoax, I suspect most non-ideologues will be less likely to believe similar claims in the future. Which causes real problems if, in fact, there was a crime.

Similarly, this sort of thing probably makes VC readers less likely to take claims of violations of the ADA seriously. There's a reason why Aesop's shepherd boy who cried "Wolf!" is still an iconic figure after more than 2600 (!) years. We all know precisely what he meant.

By the way, Aesop has another fable, the upshot of which is "Lighten up, Francis."
6.8.2008 9:06am
Henry Chew (mail):
Jerry F:I will not argue with you on flag burning because I agree that this is a difficult issue. But I do think that you are missing the conservative arguments against nude dancing, pornography, etc. The point is that these things are NOT speech. They do not involve communicating an idea. It is not as if conservatives were arguing in favor of, say, anti-blasphemy laws. By contrast, liberals who advocate anti-discrimination laws do not argue that, say, speech disapproving of homosexuality is not speech (which would be wholeheartedly absurd), they say that this speech should just not be protected. And commercial speech is indeed speech, which is why conservatives think that it should be protected.

I am sure M.Quinn can defend this, but you are really misrepresenting the cases regarding pornography.

Pornography: Recent cases concerning child pornography Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2001) , 8 justices agreed that it didn't violate the first amendment. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) , a majorty including Justice Thomas thought that COPA did violate the first amendment. Then in 2004, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, we have another majority including Justice Thomas and Kennedy striking down COPA again, Justice Breyer dissented with Scalia, Rehnquist and O'connor.

None of these cases exhibited the typical liberal-conservative split, even this year's child pornography decision got Stevens and Breyer on board to sign the majority opinion.
6.8.2008 9:08am
ruleswatch (mail):
What about Nazis?

section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides:

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

and the definition is incorporated by reference into the hate propoganda offence-creating provision.

So Nazis don't quite make it. Neither would members of the Democratic Party.

But the more troubling question might be this:

Why does there seem to be such a resistance to trying to "climb into" these sections and the idea of such crimes in this blog.

Some conduct deserves to be criminalized, including hate conduct -- no less than the proverbial fire in the proverbial movie house.
6.8.2008 9:19am
jrose:
The California courts have ignored religious exemptions written into statutes in forcing Catholic institutions to provide birth control.

The "Catholic institution" (Catholic Charities) was (in the words of the court), "a nonprofit public benefit corporation", not a church.
6.8.2008 9:33am
Fub:
Ex-Fed wrote at 6.7.2008 11:30pm:
When I was a fed an NCIS guy conducted a year-long campaign to get me to prosecute some guy living near a naval base who used to fly his American flag at night.
Obviously the NCIS guy was not an originalist:
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.

...

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
6.8.2008 10:19am
Ryan Waxx (mail):

I am old enough to have observed McCarthyism at first hand.


But too young to recognize it in your contemporaries, apparently.
6.8.2008 11:07am
sbw (mail) (www):
Flag burning ought not be a crime, unless you are burining someone else's flag. Americans died to protect the Constitution that the flag represents. Prosecuting flag-burners tramples on the Constitution for which the flag stands.

Please get beyond the symbol to the underlying principles.
6.8.2008 11:11am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Nathan M.
Would straight white males count as a group for purposes of feigning offense in order to shut down argument?
Nah. Why did I bother to ask?
6.8.2008 11:18am
Eugene Volokh (www):
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano: I'm pleased to report that I haven't heard anything from UCLA or any other government body about any complaints you've filed. If I do hear about it, I'll be sure to let blog readers know. You can complain all you want, but speech that criticizes you on this blog, whether related to disability or otherwise, is constitutionally protected, and I'm quite certain that no ADA complaints of yours will have any effect on that. I doubt that any government agency will even try to act on the complaint to restrict speech on this blog, but if some such agency does, I'll be happy to defend against it.
6.8.2008 11:59am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
pmorem
WROTE:
"Mary Katherine Day-Petrano:

1) I am offended by your apparent blanket classification of Autism as a disability. I do not consider myself disabled. You do not speak for me."
--->

I did not state autism was a "blanket classification." I have a "record of" protection under Title II of the ADA under individualized assessments required by the ADA. I did not "speak for you." I spoke for myself and I have a First Amendment right to do so. Lucid enough for you?

pmorem
WROTE:
"2) It appears to me that you are actually seeking out conflict for whatever reasons of personal gratification. Your combativeness reflects on me, and may actually harm my interests. You do not speak for me." ---->

Your take on things/causation argument is a little far fetched, ya think? I believe I signed my post above "Peace," meaning I am simply speaking my own content viewpoint with which anyone is free to respectfully disagree. I am not clear on your message: do you have autism? As far your perception of "combativeness" goes, I am extending my further handshake of genuine goodwill as I have on many other occassions. I did not "speak for you." I spoke for myself and have a First Amendment right to do so.

pmorem
WROTE:
"3) Whether by lawsuit or complaint, it appears to me that you seek to censor the speech of others, and impose your will upon their tongues (and indirectly their minds). The price of that has been seen time after time and ignored, while the boons of disagreement get disparaged. I cannot support this. You do not speak for me." ---->

Regarding your feelings, you have whit and other posters saying they 'have the right to be mean' because of immutable characteristics of a protected individual and/or class of persons and I say that crosses over the line and equates to hate speech to a protected individual and/or even class of persons. Congress has authorized the exercise of grievance rights when such a line is transgressed; have you fully read 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq. and the relevant Title II Code of Federal Regulations thereunder? Your other points are not clear. I come here for discussion, newsworthy knowledge, social interaction, integration, and enjoyment of debating my J.D./M.B.A.-California bar passage peers. I do not "speak for you." I speak for myself and have a First Amendment right to do so.

pmorem
WROTE:
"4) 'A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still'. All you can do is silence people. You won't actually change minds. You will, however, plant seeds of resentment. You do not speak for me." --->

Okay. I do not "speak for you." I speak for myself with my own content viewpoint and have a First Amendment right to do so. Your other points are not clear.

pmorem
WROTE:
"5) I understand that your words seem rational and lucid to you. To me, they appear to reflect someone who is not sane, but rather haunted by phantasms of persecution. You may find value in identifying which aspects of your experience and perspective are phantasm. Until you do so, and learn to manage them, they will be visible to others, but not to you. You do not speak for me" ---->

Your last point shows that you are attempting to practice clinical psychology or psychiatry and make medical diagnoses and prognoses directed to me across state lines into the State of Florida without demonstrating you have a valid Florida medical license to do so, and without my invitation, informed consent, and/or authorization to use and disclose HIPAA and/or Calif. CMIA protected health information. Please provide me your medical license # and State of issue in light of your faulty diagnoses/prognoses contained in your above comment-post directed to me.
6.8.2008 12:23pm
L.A. Brave:
MKDP has to be elaborate flame.

Have you seen where people have developed computer programs which can spout out utter nonsense, but which is indistinguishable from, say, an article published in a random post-modernist academic journal? I'm picturing MKDP as a computer program like that, just loaded with a bunch of legal jargon instead.

Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen
6.8.2008 12:52pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
No, not a computer program, because a computer program cannot 'respond' to other commenters. I grant you that in most cases MKDP doesn't respond in any manner I'd call rational, but the errors are not of the type a computer would make.

My personal theory is it's a troll who has a major axe to grind with the ADA and is trying to be the shrillest advocate for it possible, interjecting it into places where it makes no sense to do so.
6.8.2008 1:18pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Roland Thein, a German businessman allegedly taught his German Shepard, appropriately named "Adolf," to make the Nazi salute (actually this gesture dates to ancient Rome) on command. As one might expect, Adolf, lives in a fortified kennel and had become a attraction for Japanese tourists. Thein was of course arrested as giving the Nazi salute is illegal in Germany even for dogs. Or perhaps Thein is guilty of corrupting the morals of a canine. Initially Thein received a suspended sentence, but now like Adolf he's in the doghouse. Sadly like the children in Texas, Adolf was snatched away from his loving caretaker and sent to an animal shelter for "retraining."

Spokesman Evamarie Konig said: “We are retraining him to stop him raising his leg too high.

“He doesn’t have anything that would make him interesting to Right-wing extremists.

They renamed the dog "Adi." I surprised they didn't pick "Che." Did Thein and his dog engage in hate speech?
6.8.2008 1:28pm
Smokey:
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano:
Regarding the numerous retaliatory blog posts directly targeting myself made by "AnonLawStudent" and "zippypinhead," I would note that such bait-posts have been made after I called UCLA law school Dean's Office and was assisted to commence making a Title II Americans With Disabilities Act grievance complaint for the onglong disability bashing occuring on this blog pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.107. Such execise of my federal civil rights under the ADA are protected by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12203(a) &(b).
Now she's gone and hurt my feelings by leaving me off her list of evildoers. *sniffle*
6.8.2008 1:35pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
LA Brave: the problem with that theory -- as compelling as it would otherwise be -- is that someone is repeatedly filing frivolous lawsuits under that name. A bot that randomly posted comments on blogs wouldn't do that. (Besides, don't you think, just by accident, a computer program might actually get a statement of law correct once in a while, unlike the commenter who uses that name?)
6.8.2008 1:38pm
Nathan_M (mail):

Would straight white males count as a group for purposes of feigning offense in order to shut down argument?
Nah. Why did I bother to ask?

No, they wouldn't, because gender isn't one of the categories. Straight white people would count.
6.8.2008 1:39pm
Jack M. (mail):
1. Not to jump on it, but the hate crime laws, as South Park noted, seem incredibly wrong: they punish you more if you hit someone for being gay/black/catholic/etc. than if you hate them because they are wearing the color red or work for PETA, for instance; both kinds of attack are irrational, yet one person's life is somehow better than another's. You're implicitly saying a gay man's life is somehow better than a non-gay's. They set up classes of people and treat them differently. A savage injustice, indeed.

2. And the laws are set up so that if you get angry with someone, attack them, and then a call them a bunch of names, you're a hate crime artist. Except that when people get angry with another person, you're likely to call them every name you can just to hurt their feelings; it betrays nothing about why you're attacking them. Yet the law is clearly designed so that if you attack them while calling them the n-word, the f-word, etc., you're guilty.

3. And finally, practically speaking, the laws are clearly designed to punish those who would attack traditional minorities and not minorities who attack white straight males. How many rap songs involve violent lyrics towards white males and perhaps inspire racial violence? Yet the chances of a black person being prosecuted under hate crime are low, simply because the law is clearly designed for white straight male oppression of others.

4. The laws are redundant in the abstract, and constitutionally invalid in the concrete. We already have laws punishing murder/rape/assault/etc. We even have add-ons for aggravated or truly heinous crimes. As such, a hate crime law is useless in the abstract--all arguments for hate crime legislation fail when confronted with group-neutral enhancement penalties that already exist. The only reason, therefore, hate crime legislation exists is to target some group(s) for special protection or for special prosection--which violates the 14th Amendment.
6.8.2008 1:41pm
whit:
prof. volokh. thank you so much for this post. i get SO tired of people equating hate speech (so called in most cases) with CRIMES.

heck, i run into this all the time at my job with citizens who seem to think that mean speech, racial speech, etc. is ILLEGAL. don't they teach civics any more.

one of the things that makes us better than europe, etc. is that we trust our citizens - to carry guns, and to have a REAL marketplace of ideas.

any govt. that attempts to protect people from icky ideas (such as many forms of hate speech) vs. letting BETTER ideas win over is treating their citizens like subjects.

spend any time on liberal blogs and it is very disturbing to see how quickly "progressives" are willing to give up the right to free speech all to protect against "hate."

it's disgusting

thanks again.
6.8.2008 1:57pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
'"McCarthyism" really ought still to refer to the smearing of innocent people by calling them communists. NOT to naming actual communists. Geez, no WONDER you were the only student to fail the superhero class.'

Amen.

It sure is hard to compliment rightwingers, though. It appears from the responses to my mild post that a lot of people don't know anything about McCarthy, not to mention the one who didn't know he was a Republican.
6.8.2008 2:29pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
In opening, I wish to express my sincere thanks for the above-posts and comments. Said comment-posts reveal a deep-seated sense of superiority over people who are NOT like yourselves (disabled, disenfranchised, exploited, impoverished, powerless).

I am forwarding the above comment-posts to the House and Senate Judiary Committees, and ABA Judicial Nominating Evaluation Committee.

Thank you, Eugene for alerting voters that our elite crew members were planning on heading our National ship of State for the rocks.
6.8.2008 3:50pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
corr:
"Judiary " = Judiciary
6.8.2008 3:52pm
Cornellian (mail):
Not to jump on it, but the hate crime laws, as South Park noted, seem incredibly wrong: they punish you more if you hit someone for being gay/black/catholic/etc. than if you hate them because they are wearing the color red or work for PETA, for instance; both kinds of attack are irrational, yet one person's life is somehow better than another's. You're implicitly saying a gay man's life is somehow better than a non-gay's. They set up classes of people and treat them differently. A savage injustice, indeed.

Hate crime laws don't punish you more severely merely for hitting that category of person. If someone walks into a store, starts firing randomly, and hits 5 people, he's not going to get a harsher sentence for hitting the black one than for hitting the white or asian or hispanic one.

Also, the criminal law has always taken the identity of the victim into account when sentencing. Hitting a child or a pregnant woman, for example, is judged more harshly than hitting a man. It doesn't mean a man is worth less than a child or pregnant woman.
6.8.2008 4:18pm
L.A. Brave:
MDKP, as far as I'm concerned, anyone with a disability service horse is far from powerless.

Disenfranchised? Gallop on down to the polling place.

Impoverished? Maybe if you didn't spend your time writing long flames on blogs or filing frivolous law suits, you wouldn't be so impoverished.
6.8.2008 4:33pm
Hoosier:
Cornellian—Children—and pregnant women and their fetuses/unborn children—are relatively defenseless. Other minorities? That seems to be what hate crimes statutes imply.

MDKP—From one person with a disability to another: PLEASE stop this crusade of yours. You are going to make it harder for the rest of us to get a hearing. And a job.

I can imagine that people of good will would think before hiring someone with a cognitive disability if he thought that he would face endless harassment claims and costly litigation. I'm currently on the academic job market and, JaysusMaryandJoseph, I don't need that.
6.8.2008 4:39pm
Stacy (mail):
"Hate crime laws don't punish you more severely merely for hitting that category of person. If someone walks into a store, starts firing randomly, and hits 5 people, he's not going to get a harsher sentence for hitting the black one than for hitting the white or asian or hispanic one."

I think everyone gets that. The argument is that unless it were otherwise legal to beat up blacks, jews, etc, the perpetrator is being punished for both committing violence and - separately - for having prejudiced beliefs.

And incidentally, it is actually pretty common for US police departments and/or the media to just assume that a crime committed between dissimilar races is a hate crime.
6.8.2008 4:39pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Hoosier
WROTE:
"MDKP—From one person with a disability to another: PLEASE stop this crusade of yours. You are going to make it harder for the rest of us to get a hearing. And a job." --->

Thank you for your comment-post. I am reminded of Jim Crow days when African-Americans were relegated to servitude second-class jobs and sitting in the back of the bus, etc. There were always persons among African-Americans who rejected the civil right movement because such would "make it harder for the rest of us," as you say.

Fortunately, like myself, persons like Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus.

God Bless you.
6.8.2008 4:54pm
jrose:
The argument is that unless it were otherwise legal to beat up blacks, jews, etc, the perpetrator is being punished for both committing violence and - separately - for having prejudiced beliefs.

Even without an intent to kill, manslaughter becomes murder if the prosecution can prove the perpetrator's state of mind had malice aforethought. But who argues the perpetrator is being punished for committing violence and - separately - for his state of mind?
6.8.2008 5:10pm
jrose:
they punish you more if you hit someone for being gay/black/catholic/etc. [...] You're implicitly saying a gay man's life is somehow better than a non-gay's. They set up classes of people and treat them differently. A savage injustice, indeed.

Hate-crime laws apply equally to acts caused by hatred towards gays and straights, and the other named classifications as well. I suspect anything less than that would be struck down as unconstitutional.
6.8.2008 5:21pm
Federal Dog:
"I am forwarding the above comment-posts to the House and Senate Judiary Committees, and ABA Judicial Nominating Evaluation Committee. "

Why?
6.8.2008 5:38pm
one of many:

Hate-crime laws apply equally to acts caused by hatred towards gays and straights, and the other named classifications as well. I suspect anything less than that would be struck down as unconstitutional.

I'd clarify that a bit, hate-crime laws in theory apply equally... . Not sure what the current practices are, but when states first started to write the modern hate-crime laws the effects were erratic and confused and by no means equal. With regards just to racial hate crime; some jurisdictions charged all violent interracial crimes as hate-crimes regardless of cause, some ignored cases of clear anti-white hate, some routinely ignored interracial hate crimes between non-white races, some disproportionately didn't charge white on other race as hate crimes, others the reverse, etc.. Equal applicability is not the same as equal application / an equal application claim could be possibly still be made to strike down hate-crime laws as unconstitutional but it would have to be made through substantive due process and courts these days are taking a harsh view towards unequal application claims.
6.8.2008 5:42pm
pmorem (mail):
MKDP, I understand you envision yourself as some kind of Rosa Parks. I've looked at the pattern of behavior exhibited by you and your husband. Shirley Phelps-Roper might be a better fit than Rosa Parks.

You do not speak for me.

I believe Hoosier has indicated that you do not speak for him, either.

You insult us both (Jim Crow) for failing to yield to your 'vision'.

I do not seek to prevent you expressing your thoughts. All I am doing is making sure others are aware that not all Autistics think the way you do.

You are welcome to locate your head within whatever portion of your anatomy provides you the stimming you desire. You're even free to speak from that place. You're free to petition the government (like the Judiciary committees) for redress of grievances, even if said greivances exist only in your imagination.

I can't speak for anyone but myself on this (though I suspect others agree). You come across as an ass.

I accept that it's difficult for you to process through and understand how and why they react to you the way they do. I'll give you a hint, though. There's one person who is consistent in all your interactions. I don't recommend your removing that person from your life, so you might consider other ways to alter the person.
6.8.2008 5:42pm
Frater Plotter:
Hate-crime laws apply equally to acts caused by hatred towards gays and straights, and the other named classifications as well. I suspect anything less than that would be struck down as unconstitutional.

Yep. Hate-crime laws have been used in the prosecution of black perpetrators of racist anti-white violence. I haven't heard of any cases of anti-straight violence, so I can't speak to that.

I'm of two minds regarding hate-crime laws. I understand the argument that a person's beliefs should not be themselves criminalized. It would be insane if a Republican administration could make any crime committed by Democrats count more severely than the same crime by Republicans, for instance. But at the same time, there's a good reason to take more seriously an assault which is intended to terrorize a whole sector of the population, as compared to one which is intended merely to hurt one person.

We count terrorism as more serious than ordinary crime. If some loser goes postal and shoots a hundred people, that's not taken as severely as if a Communist or Al-Qaeda cell plants a bomb at a federal building and blows up a hundred people for the purpose of bringing down the government. One act is understood to be a lone nutcase, while the other is part of a systematic attempt to accomplish political change by violent means.

Likewise, if two thugs beat up some guy, that's a crime. But if two black nationalists beat up some guy *in order to scare all the honkies in the city,* that's a more severe crime. The same goes if the perpetrators are right-wingers trying to intimidate gays, or Japanese youth trying to intimidate Koreans, or what-have-you.
6.8.2008 5:52pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
pmorem,

Are you suggesting I "alter" The Rochesterian? You have viciously attacked me by proxy because you wish to attack him? A man who makes it a point to visit the grave site of Frederick Douglas whenever possible?

As for yourself and Hoosier for whom you admit I "do not speak," I guess you two peas-in-a-pod plan on getting used to sitting in the back of the bus, as they say.
6.8.2008 5:53pm
L.A. Brave:
MDKP, how do you get your horse onto the bus?
6.8.2008 5:59pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Frater plotter
WROTE:
"But at the same time, there's a good reason to take more seriously an assault which is intended to terrorize a whole sector of the population, as compared to one which is intended merely to hurt one person." ---->

Are you making a declaration against interest the Bush Administration-McCain Republicans have designated disabled Americans who exercise the civil rights given to them by Congress pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act have been, like the Quakers religion, arbitrarily classified as some sort of "terrorist"? So, in essence, the Bush-McCain War on Terror is really a War on Americans With Disabilities and the Americans With Disabilities Act?
6.8.2008 6:01pm
pmorem (mail):
MKDP wrote:
Are you suggesting I "alter" The Rochesterian? You have viciously attacked me by proxy because you wish to attack him? A man who makes it a point to visit the grave site of Frederick Douglas whenever possible?

Sorry, the one person who is consistent in all your social interactions is you. Apparently that was a bit too subtle for you.
6.8.2008 6:14pm
Hoosier:
Mary Katherine: "So, in essence, the Bush-McCain War on Terror is really a War on Americans With Disabilities and the Americans With Disabilities Act?"

If this is how they "reason" at the front of the bus, I think I'll just mosey off to the back.
6.8.2008 6:17pm
theobromophile (www):
Cornellian—Children—and pregnant women and their fetuses/unborn children—are relatively defenseless. Other minorities? That seems to be what hate crimes statutes imply.

On one hand, I dislike the correlation of women and children (who are, as you point out, physically weaker than their male aggressors, at least most of the time) with minorities and gays, who do not suffer from biological dimorphism.

On the other hand... I imagine that "hate crimes" are not committed by one straight against one gay (or vice versa); it would likely be a situation in which the majority of the people were the aggressors, who are also members of a majority group. (If that makes sense.)

The more sensible solution (not entirely sensible, but more so than a content-based scheme for determining levels of punishment) would be to criminalise acts of group violence (wherein the victim really has no fighting chance, if you will) more heavily than acts of one-on-one violence.
6.8.2008 6:19pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
pmorem
WROTE:
"Sorry, the one person who is consistent in all your social interactions is you. Apparently that was a bit too subtle for you" ---->

So you are making another one of your medical clinical psychologist/psychiatrist findings inferring that I am somehow multiple personalities: "I don't recommend your removing that person from your life."

I did not request you make or provide you informed consent to make a medical dignosis or prognosis of me, and you're sure not Ann Landers.

Your last point shows that you are attempting once again to practice clinical psychology or psychiatry and make medical diagnoses and prognoses directed to me across state lines into the State of Florida without demonstrating you have a valid Florida medical license to do so, and without my invitation, informed consent, and/or authorization to use and disclose HIPAA and/or Calif. CMIA protected health information. Please provide me your medical license # and State of issue in light of your faulty diagnoses/prognoses and defamatory libel per quod contained in your above comment-post directed to me.

The Rochesterian frequently serves as my qualified interpreter and/or support person authorized by the ADA; he has been banned from this blog.
6.8.2008 6:27pm
whit:

Hate-crime laws apply equally to acts caused by hatred towards gays and straights, and the other named classifications as well. I suspect anything less than that would be struck down as unconstitutional


in THEORY. in practice (imo and ime ) not so much.

now, i am against hate crime laws ON PRINCIPLE (even if they were equally applied), and i say this AS a minority that has certainly seen its share of hate crimes...

however...

ime the reality is that prosecutors (especially in politically correct/leftist jurisdictions) are naturally going to be less likely to consider hate crime ENHANCEMENTs/Classification (note that hate crimes are enhanced sentences to things that are already a crime - vandalism, assault, etc.) when the victims are (so called) oppressor class and the perpetrators so called oppressed class.

a wonderful example of this was the seattle mardi gras riots. not only was there strong institutional cowardice most likely based largely on race (where SPD supervisors ORDERED cops not to engage and stop the rioting crowd because it would look bad on CNN), but there was pretty ample evidence that many attacks were racially based.

the more a law encourages prosecutors/cops to look at very subjective aspects of intent (like how much a person likes/dislikes the class of the victim), the closer we come to thoughtcrime(tm) and we are giving too much power/discretion to very subjective aspects of crime.

law enforcement and prosecution is (unfortunately) political enough. hate crime laws up that by a large amount.
6.8.2008 6:29pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Hoosier
WROTE:
"Mary Katherine: 'So, in essence, the Bush-McCain War on Terror is really a War on Americans With Disabilities and the Americans With Disabilities Act?'

If this is how they 'reason' at the front of the bus, I think I'll just mosey off to the back."
----->

If you are admitting the Bush-McCain War on Terror is really a War on Americans With Disabilities and the Americans With Disabilities Act, then this would be a defining moment in the Presidential election of Barack Obama vs. John McCain.

In sum, you don't have to sit in the back of the bus; these right wing libertarians have lost their grip as demonstrated by the Congressional call for appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate top Bush Administration officials' employment of harsh interrogation tactics in the War on Terror.

The libertarian conservatives have already further lost their grip on censoring Global Warming as demonstrated by having to obey the order of United States District Court Judge Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong to produce Bush Administration's May 29, 2008 dire Global Warming Report.

And I won't even get into the recent Congressional finding that the Bush Adminsitration went to their War on Terror in Iraq on false pretenses.

If we soon learn that Bush-McCain Republicans have declared their War on Terror is really a War on Americans With Disabilities and the Americans With Disabilities Act, it would come as no surprise -- Bush's Oedipal complex about his father that some media are reporting motivated this Adminstration's false pretenses rush into Iraq to topple the statue of Sadaam Hussein, may well have carried over into POTUS 43's defiance against his father POTUS 41 for signing the Americans With Disabilities Act into law.
6.8.2008 6:42pm
Hoosier:
"If you are admitting the Bush-McCain War on Terror is really a War on Americans With Disabilities and the Americans With Disabilities Act . . ."

But I'm not. In fact, I have no clue what you are on about. Shall I next admit that robots are stealing my luggage?

"And I won't even get into the recent Congressional finding . . ."
Hoosier [stage whisper] : Maybe ther IS a God.

"Bush's Oedipal complex about his father that some media are reporting motivated this Adminstration's false pretenses rush into Iraq to topple the statue of Sadaam Hussein, may well have carried over into POTUS 43's defiance against his father POTUS 41 for signing the Americans With Disabilities Act into law."

At some point we shall need to clarify who is, and who is not, qualified to diagnose mental disorders across state lines via the internet. As of right now, you would give that authority to . . . you?
6.8.2008 6:48pm
theobromophile (www):
At some point we shall need to clarify who is, and who is not, qualified to diagnose mental disorders across state lines via the internet. As of right now, you would give that authority to . . . you?

Hoosier - I seem to recall that Ms. Day-Petrano attempted to perform an IQ test of me, across state lines, without a license to do such. Maybe I should report that to the bar licensing committee in her state!

It's also news to me that you can't make diagnoses across state lines. I mean, when I went to New England to get medical care, my doctor had to call me in Virginia to give me the results, tell me when to come in next... and she's not licensed in Virginia. What is a girl to do?!?
6.8.2008 6:52pm
Chilled Speech:
Oh no, not again! EV, I'm sorry the discussions on your blog keep getting ruined by the same 1 or 2 hard-core trolls.

It's not enjoyable to even read this sort of serial flaming, let alone try to keep the legitimate discussion going under these conditions.

Time for folks to just walk away from another ruined discussion. Please folks, don't try to debate a troll. That just feeds the troll, and nothing good ever comes from that.
6.8.2008 6:55pm
Hoosier:
theo--Let me guess: She didn't diagnose you with a high IQ?
6.8.2008 6:57pm
jrose:
ime the reality is that prosecutors (especially in politically correct/leftist jurisdictions) are naturally going to be less likely to consider hate crime ENHANCEMENTs/Classification [...] when the victims are (so called) oppressor class and the perpetrators so called oppressed class

I wouldn't characterize this assertion as well researched. I could just as casually, but no more convincingly, charge politically incorrect/rightest jurisidictions with the opposite bias.
6.8.2008 6:58pm
pmorem (mail):
Your last point shows that you are attempting once again to practice clinical psychology or psychiatry and make medical diagnoses and prognoses directed to me across state lines into the State of Florida without demonstrating you have a valid Florida medical license to do so, and without my invitation, informed consent, and/or authorization to use and disclose HIPAA and/or Calif. CMIA protected health information. Please provide me your medical license # and State of issue in light of your faulty diagnoses/prognoses and defamatory libel per quod contained in your above comment-post directed to me.

As for the notion that I have suggested you have multiple personalities, I don't think that's a fair reading of my words. If you have a problem with reading comprehension, perheps you should take that into consideration before reacting. Your emotional responses defects of your own understanding are simply not my problem.

Basically, you're saying that you have determined that my speech is unlawful. Again, I believe that's a comprehension problem on your end. If it's a phrasing problem on my end, well... ADA.

What I say here is my opinion. Apparently you do not respect others rights to have opinions.

I conclude that in your heart you do not actually believe in Free Speech. That to me says everything about you that I really need to know. Until such time as you choose a different way of interacting with people, I have no use for you.

To everyone else:
To the best of my knowledge, MKDP is not typical of people with Autism. There are, unfortunately, some few like her, just as there are Neurotypicals like Phelps and Phelps-Roper. Please do not judge us by her.
6.8.2008 7:05pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Hoosier
WROTE:
"At some point we shall need to clarify who is, and who is not, qualified to diagnose mental disorders across state lines via the internet. As of right now, you would give that authority to . . . you" ---->

Hoosier, I;m only parroting what Patti Davis stated she observed about Bush 41's and Bush 43's interaction while present at her father's funeral following the November 2006 elections. Do you plan on diagnosing Patti Davis' comments to fish for "mental disorders" as well, since she was the originator of the 43's Opedipal complex theory?

theobromophile
WROTE:
"Hoosier - I seem to recall that Ms. Day-Petrano attempted to perform an IQ test of me, across state lines, without a license to do such. Maybe I should report that to the bar licensing committee in her state!

It's also news to me that you can't make diagnoses across state lines. I mean, when I went to New England to get medical care, my doctor had to call me in Virginia to give me the results, tell me when to come in next... and she's not licensed in Virginia. What is a girl to do?!"
---->

I deny your allegations and/or take on things, since my IQ discussion was about my own high autistic savant IQ, not yours. Further, I have a print paper disability and you should know it would be impossible for me to "perform" one of the paper "IQ tests on you" due to the immutable characteristics of my disabilities. It is, in essence, like the blind currency case.

One other difference between your version and mine, is I have not given informed consent to anyone to make any medical diagnoses or prognosses of me via the Internet and/or across State lines directed at me into the State of Flordia in a public forum. I have not retained the services of any out of State medical professional since I have been in Florida.
6.8.2008 7:06pm
theobromophile (www):
theo--Let me guess: She didn't diagnose you with a high IQ?

How did you ever guess?
6.8.2008 7:17pm
KateCoe (mail):
Just dropped in to say hi to Prof. V and marvel at the collection of commenters. You cover the waterfront.
If only this was a Fair Use fight, I could contribute.
6.8.2008 7:18pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
pmorem
WROTE:
"As for the notion that I have suggested you have multiple personalities, I don't think that's a fair reading of my words. If you have a problem with reading comprehension, perheps you should take that into consideration before reacting. Your emotional responses defects of your own understanding are simply not my problem.

Basically, you're saying that you have determined that my speech is unlawful. Again, I believe that's a comprehension problem on your end. If it's a phrasing problem on my end, well... ADA.

What I say here is my opinion. Apparently you do not respect others rights to have opinions."
--->

pmorem, it is a "fair reading" of YOUR words you want? HERE are YOUR words:

"There's one person who is consistent in all your interactions. I don't recommend your removing that person from your life, so you might consider other ways to alter the person."

This riddle of your is subject to one of two readings:
1. You're talking in the third person ("there's one person;" "that person;" "alter the person") about someone other than myself -- referencing The Rochesterian, my attorney-husband, who is "the one person consistent in all [my] interactions" by virtue of frequently serving as my qualified interpreter/scribe/ support person, who has been banned from this blog; OR
2. you're talking in the first person while using third person language as a device to suggest I have multiple personalities.

If it is not #1 or #2, then by all means it can only be "a phrasing problem on [your] end, well ... ADA," NOT a comprehension problem on my end. I DO respect other people's opinion's ... Care to clearly rephrase absent the riddles?
6.8.2008 7:23pm
We want more:
The Rochesterian . . . has been banned from this blog.
Fascinating little fact buried in one of the rants.

EV, we are glad to see that at least you are finally starting to enforce your published comment policy. You know who you need to ban next. Keep going!

In the meantime, do not feed the troll.
6.8.2008 7:26pm
whit:

I wouldn't characterize this assertion as well researched


i didn't say it WAS well researched, fwiw. i said IME - in other words, in my experience.

i gave that caveat for that specific reason.
6.8.2008 7:49pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
we want more
WROTE:
"The Rochesterian . . . has been banned from this blog.

Fascinating little fact buried in one of the rants.

EV, we are glad to see that at least you are finally starting to enforce your published comment policy. You know who you need to ban next. Keep going!

In the meantime, do not feed the troll."
---->

Yes, fascinating that The Rochesterian was banned due to his stated viewpoint content that Congress needs to raise taxes to Eisenhower era levels to rebuild America's transportation infrustructure as a means to get off oil.

The other little problem with Rochesterian's banning is that Eugene has effectively banned my qualified interpreter/scribe/support person in a facial violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131 et seq., and 28 C.F.R. pt. 35. Then comes today's orchestrated anonymous blog ID comment-poster attack on me immediately after my Firday call to UCLA law school Dean's Office and the ADA assistance person I was transferred to for accomodations to make my 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.107 grievance.

Finally, the repeated use of the slang "troll" is highly offense as a disability slur. You might as well be calling me the "N----" word.
6.8.2008 7:58pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
corr:
" Firday " = Friday
6.8.2008 8:02pm
Dave N (mail):
Eugene,

Please, please bad MKDP--your colleague Orin Kerr banned Neurodoc for much, much less. Since she cannot abide by your comment's policy, she has forfeited her right to participate.
6.8.2008 8:08pm
Dave N (mail):
corr:
"bad" = ban.

And NO, she is most definitely not my alter ego.
6.8.2008 8:09pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Dave N
WROTE:
"Since she cannot abide by your comment's policy, she has forfeited her right to participate" --->

How so? How have I not followed the policy (which contains no ADA anti-discirmination notice), when it is extremely subjective and discretionary to the point numerous other comment-posters have been allowed to resort to attacking me? Now there is a suggestion I should not be allowed to defend myself against these attacks? I admit I am not far-right wing conservative libertarian, but content viewpoint censorship is a tad selective in its enforcement, don't ya think?

Why don't you make it REAL simple and put a BIG notice in LARGE FONT at the top of the homepage that "If don't share our libertarian content viewpoints, leave now"
6.8.2008 8:16pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
corr:
"Why don't you make it REAL simple and put a BIG notice in LARGE FONT at the top of the homepage that 'If don't share our libertarian content viewpoints, leave now'" =

Why don't you make it REAL simple and put a BIG notice in LARGE FONT at the top of the homepage that "If you don't share our libertarian content viewpoints, leave now"
6.8.2008 8:18pm
Brian Mac:
So MKDP isn't a libertarian? Who knew?
6.8.2008 8:20pm
Dave N (mail):
Mmmm,

Our high functioning savant evidently has a hard time reading:
We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.

And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
My brother is autistic, I have nieces with Asperger's Syndroms, so please don't lecture with your inanities. She has simply worn out her welcome.
6.8.2008 8:32pm
Hoosier:
Mea maxima culpa!

I have been feeding the trolls. I shall refrain from now on.

I think a few of us VCers-with-disabilities are a bit concerned about being stereotyped as loonies. And I don't want any VCers to think I'm eccentric because of another person. (I want you to do so because of ME, darn it!)

PS—For what it's worth, I am not a libertarian. And this is the only blog I find worth participating in.
6.8.2008 8:32pm
Kirk:
Fub wins the Best Comment award! :-)

Everyone else,

Ahhhh, please, what part of DNFTT don't you understand? This thread had a lot of interesting discussion going, at one time...
6.8.2008 8:34pm
theobromophile (www):
Ahhhh, please, what part of DNFTT don't you understand? This thread had a lot of interesting discussion going, at one time...

Well, let's try to get it back on track. :)

As for me (since I'm taking the above comment as asking for my opinion)... not sure I see the correlation between hate speech and hate crimes (except the somewhat b.s. nature of them both). Speech can always be countered with more speech; the remedy for bad speech is good speech, not silence. The same cannot be said of crimes and violence. We would not stop one group from attacking another by retaliatory physical harm; if there is a way to "win" a violent contest, it is not getting put in a body bag at the end of it. The purpose of hate speech - or of overcoming hate speech - is to convince people of the veracity and legitimacy of your own views, which cannot be accomplished via government regulation.

I'm very sorry if this turns into a gun control debate, but even at that, it might be an improvement. :)
6.8.2008 8:42pm
Dave N (mail):
Kirk,

I agree with your post in its entirety--and I shouldn't have participated in the feeding.
6.8.2008 8:42pm
Abandon:
Such a pity that this thread ended up as a trash talk between one commenter and a bunch of others. I found much more entertaining seeing so many humiliate themselves by professing the historical importance of McCarthyism for the well-being of the democratic institutions. The country wouldn't be the same today without Uncle Joe's inquisition, wouldn't it?
6.8.2008 9:59pm
LM (mail):
MKDP,

You identified yourself with Rosa Parks before, so please take a look at these hypothetical variations of the basic Rosa Parks bus protest scenario:

1. The bus is practically empty, but the driver, who hates black people, happily sends Parks to the back of the bus.

2. The bus is practically empty, but the driver, a nasty jerk who enjoys provoking everyone, sends Park to the back, just like he does everyone else, black, white, or otherwise.

3. The bus has a few empty seats in the front and a few in the back, but the driver's too lazy to turn around and look, so he sends Parks to the back because that's where the empty seats usually are.

4. The driver, who opposes segregation, sometimes seats black passengers at the front. But the only empty seats now are in the back, so that's where he sends Parks.

5. The driver opposes segregation, so he seats her at the front. But he isn't very polite to her while doing it.

I'm sure you agree those examples reflect a range of moral behavior, from reprehensible to nearly exemplary. Strategically, one might be fine to take a moral stand against, and another disastrous. Such discrimination is key to both successful litigation and sensible dialog. And in short, Mary, what the commenters here are telling you is that you're behaving like Rosa Parks would have if she had claimed every one of those examples had been a personal, mean-spirited act of racial discrimination. And no, I'm not exaggerating for effect. I'm afraid some of your comments really do come across as that extreme.

I'm not a mental health practitioner, so this is all just my personal impression, which you're welcome to take or leave. You sometimes seem unable to discriminate between someone whose intentions are benign (yes, there are some -- I'm one), someone who isn't addressing you or the disabled at all, someone who's an indiscriminately nasty jerk to everyone -- and you may be the target of the moment, and someone who may indeed have the particular attitudes you perceive. At times you react to all as if they're attacking you equally. And when you seem unable to distinguish, sometimes lashing out at innocent bystanders or even those agreeing with you, you pretty much destroy the credibility you need to lodge any legitimate grievance.

I don't believe you're knowingly "crying wolf." I believe you're sincere in your complaints and accusations. For one thing, even if I don't know you well enough personally to draw that kind of conclusion, it's evident you're smart enough to understand the harm you'd do to your own interests by accusing and attacking indiscriminately. But there's also your comments like, "Peace," which I suspect are fair-minded attempt to compensate for other excesses. Unfortunately, as long as the unfounded attacks continue, these other efforts look like well-intended stabs in the dark.

So ask yourself, if everyone here more or less agrees with what I just said, what would that mean? Are we all conspiring against you? Are we all just wrong? Can you afford to dismiss the possibility that we're telling you the truth? I'm sure you're aware that perceptual distortions exist which could account for such disputes, and the very fact of the distortions themselves can be invisible to the person experiencing them (i.e., a blind spot). In those cases feedback from others can be the only way to recognize there's a problem. As someone who wishes you well, I hope you'll consider that the feedback you're getting here may indicate a problem it's in your interest to address.

I have no idea whether, and if so, how much of your apparent perceptual distortion is attributable to autism, how much to the emotional ambiguity that bedevils all sorts of internet discussion, and how much to other factors. Regardless, the question is, what can you do? All I can suggest, which doesn't address the cause, but may reduce the effect, is that you find someone you trust outside the sphere of your disability advocacy to "reality test" your perceptions before you respond with accusations, much less carry hostilities to another level. I suppose that might put a damper on your ability to respond quickly in this sort of forum. Regardless, and whether or not that turned out to be a temporary learning process you were eventually able to perform on your own, I think it would be to your benefit to limit your responses to a more accurate take on events than you are now.
6.8.2008 10:39pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Let's review the chronology and timing of who violated Comment Policy by lying-in-wait with a bait-post veering sharply off-topic BEFORE I ever posted on this thread:

AnonLawStudent
WROTE insults and invective against me in violation of VC Comment Policy:

"Given Prof. Volokh's direct reference to this comment in this thread, I can't wait to see what happens when the commenter shows up. Maybe she'll accuse Prof. Volokh of "censor[ing]" her "Fist [sic] Amendment rights." See also here and here (cataloging judicial opinions of her various not-so-successful lawsuits)."
Posted on 06/07/08 at about 5:46 p.m. BEFORE I ever showed up on this thread by AnonLawStudent directly targeting a cyberharassment bait comment-post to myself with links approving and ratifying incitement to death threats made against me on another blog.

When I finally DID show up MUCH LATER on 06/06/08 at about 10:07 p.m., I attempted to make a civil on-topic comment in response to THIS, an on-topic comment-post about predictions if/when the Supreme Court might rule that American churches must perform homosexual marriages:

"2. As to this:
To me the interesting question is, will the Supreme Court rule that statements criticizing homosexuality are unprotected by the First Amendment before or after it rules that churches are constitutionally compelled to perform homosexual marriages. Both of these rulings will happen within the next 50 years, I have absolutely no doubt about it; the only question is when."

Although my comment-post was NOT off-topic, I immediately became gang-attacked/dragged off-topic by numerous comment-posters direct insults and invective attacks on me seemingly incited by AnonLawStudent's initial bait post in violation of VC Comment Policy.

Now, in response to my attempt to defend my professional reputation, safety, and well-being from those direct cyberharassment attacks directly targeting me from thread-to-thread (and blog-to-blog) every time I attempt to post an on-topic comment, Dave N chooses to mock my known vision/reading impairments, and (2.) suggest other comment-posters should be allowed to use insults, defamation, and invective attacks against me, but I should not be allowed a right of reply in defense of my professional reputation, safety, and well-being.

In response to those above cyberharassment attacks by other comment-posters making disability slurs about my autism, Hoosier expresses his "concern" that "a few of us VCers-with-disabilities are a bit concerned about being stereotyped as loonies?"

There is one real easy way to stop the stereotypes -- stop those insulting/invective comment-posters such as AnonLawStudent who come first to a thread and lie-in-wait by posting a bait thread directly targeted to a particular victim (myself) who is to be cyberstalked and cyberharassed by enforcing the VC Comment Policy against THEM when they initiate an aggressor stance, bait another person, and deliberately try to drag the targeted victim's good faith on-topic comment-posts off-topic via their dangerous invective personal attacks.

In sum, looking to the initial timing of the aggressor's initiating bait comment-post, AnonLawStudent who wrote insults and invective against me in violation of VC Comment Policy Posted on 06/07/08 at about 5:46 p.m. BEFORE I ever showed up on this thread, the objections for whom to ban -- as well as "concern" about stereotyping -- should be directed to such aggressor-initiator-insulter-invectivist, to wit: AnonLawStudent and her co-participants.
6.8.2008 10:47pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
corr:
"When I finally DID show up MUCH LATER on 06/06/08 at about 10:07 p.m.," = When I finally DID show up MUCH LATER on 06/07/08 at about 10:07 p.m.,
6.8.2008 10:54pm
Brian K (mail):
Orin Kerr banned Neurodoc for much, much less

neurodoc was banned!? i was wondering why he wasn't posting anymore.
6.8.2008 10:57pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
LM
WROTE:
"I'm sure you're aware that perceptual distortions exist which could account for such disputes, and the very fact of the distortions themselves can be invisible to the person experiencing them (i.e., a blind spot). In those cases feedback from others can be the only way to recognize there's a problem. As someone who wishes you well, I hope you'll consider that the feedback you're getting here may indicate a problem it's in your interest to address" ---->

With regard to your claim of "perceptual distortions," "blind spots," and "a problem it's in your interest to address," please know ALL of my lawsuits mocked as "frivolous" by cyberharassers on this thread and other threads involve the following HARD COLD FACTS:

1. The Florida State Courts System by spokesperson State Court Administrator Elisabeth Goodner admitted in writing that from the effective date of Title II of the ADA to the present the Florida Courts have NOT provided disabled Americans relying upon paperless electronic Internet formats accessible to assistive technologies Access to Florida Courts. Clerk Frederich Olrich for Hon. Chief Justice Ronald M. George essentially stated the same as to California Courts and attorney licensure.

2. Ashraf Hanna, M.D. requires in his medical opinion that I need paperless electronic Internet format access for filing and service and receipt of all pleadings, documents, and other written materials in all Courts, work, and attorney licensure.

Achieving Title II ADA compliance to the paperless electronic Internet access I medically require is the "problem" in my "interest" I and my attorney (Rochesterian who was banned) have tried to "address" in those lawsuits that are mocked as "frivolous."

If you wish to read all sorts of moral and emotional interpretations into the access issue involving Courthouse computer-Internet infrustructure entranceway circuits, well whatever gets your jollies. People with autism do not have those social-emotional mirror cells in the brain so many of you keep referencing with ignorant comments such as the following:

"All I can suggest, which doesn't address the cause, but may reduce the effect, is that you find someone you trust outside the sphere of your disability advocacy to "reality test" your perceptions before you respond with accusations, much less carry hostilities to another level" ---->

LM, your suggestion that I "carry" a "hostility to another level" is an insult, inaccurate, and defamatory to my professional reputation. I have spent almost my entire lifetime teaching children how to ride and jump horses, as well as training and making their horses and ponies safe to ride and donating my time to pony club. The Rochesterian reviews most of my posts and legal work as an attorney, and has had experts test the inaccessible Courthouse computer-infrustructure already for Title II ADA violations.

I think your main complaints are really about the idea of the ADA itself.
6.8.2008 11:14pm
theobromophile (www):
Orin Kerr banned Neurodoc for much, much less

neurodoc was banned!? i was wondering why he wasn't posting anymore.

I was wondering where he had gone, too.
6.8.2008 11:20pm
Alan K. Henderson (mail) (www):
Is killing a man because of his race/gender/whatever group identity worse than killing him for his wallet?
6.8.2008 11:46pm
NotMKDP:
This isn't the first time that MKDP has threated others with legal action in an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with her. It's a pattern of conduct that has been going on for some time. I did a quick google search, and what I found is absolutely amazing.

Here is a small sample:

Click Here
And here

I found several references to Volokh.com on several of her posts. Apparently she doesn't like Mr. Volokh very much.
6.8.2008 11:59pm
one of many:
Is killing a man because of his race/gender/whatever group identity worse than killing him for his wallet?
personally I find the later far more reprehensible. Killing someone because of their group identity as least recognizes that the victim's life has significant value, whereas killing someone for a wallet shows that the criminal values the victim's life as near insignificant, less than a wallet and it contents. With crimes other than murder the calculations are different, I would consider punching someone in the stomach (not hard enough to cause other than pain) for their wallet a lesser crime than the same punch delivered to someone because of their group identity.
6.9.2008 12:17am
Joe Bingham (mail):
"Finally, the repeated use of the slang "troll" is highly offense as a disability slur. You might as well be calling me the "N----" word."

EV, you can't ban her from this blog. Please don't. This is the most entertaining stuff I've read in weeks.

Hoosier, I want to meet you. You are one funny guy.
6.9.2008 12:22am
theobromophile (www):
I found several references to Volokh.com on several of her posts. Apparently she doesn't like Mr. Volokh very much.

Yet she posts on his blog frequently. Even assuming every thing she said were true, she could easily avoid the personal anguish by finding another blog to frequent. There's a reason I don't read Dirty Harry or go to frat parties; I don't expect others to modify their behaviour, when I'm on the alert for such behaviour, to suit my psyche.
6.9.2008 1:02am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
NotMKDP
WROTE:
"This isn't the first time that MKDP has threated others with legal action in an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with her. It's a pattern of conduct that has been going on for some time. I did a quick google search, and what I found is absolutely amazing.

Here is a small sample:

Click Here
And here

I found several references to Volokh.com on several of her posts. Apparently she doesn't like Mr. Volokh very much."
(Emphasis added) —->

In opening, there is a major difference between anonymous and in-person communications. For example, it's different when, like whit said, someone is being 'mean' who actually looks you in the eye, as compared to attacker-aggressors who use their anonymity as weapons of attack like a masked assassin. In sum, I believe you are using your anonymity as a tool of attack upon my safety and well-being and that of my family.

NotMKDP, perhaps you are not a lawyer, not a disabled American, not a victim of cyberstalking inciting actual physical off-blog attacks intended to cause severe physical injury or death against the vulnerable disabled victim as I am. Thus, I will forgive you in your haste if your analysis would not withstand the type of logical and rational reasoning and fine distinctions required, for example, to pass the Multistate Bar Examination used to qualify a person to be a licensed lawyer in most states.

The flaw in your reasoning is your inability to differentiate between the defense of a vulnerable helpless victim (no different than Megan Meiers) to multiple anonymous blog IDS making online posts with intent to incite (an actual incitement of) physical violence, serious bodily injury, and/or death against the vulnerable disabled victim vs. one who acting under anonymous blog IDS in violation of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223 without justification is an agressor-attacker cyberstalker/cyberharasser. Perhaps you cannot understand the difference between who is the attacker and who is the victim.

The online Dictionary defines "defense" as follows for your convenience:

"defend Definition de·fend (dē fend′, di-)

transitive verb


to guard from attack; keep from harm or danger; protect
...
to support, maintain, or justify defend one's conduct
Law
to oppose (an action)
to plead (one's cause) in defense
to act as lawyer for (an accused)
Etymology: ME defenden OFr defendre L defendere, to ward off, repel de-, away, from + fendere, to strike IE base *gwhen-, to strike Gr theinein, to kill, strike, OE guth, combat
intransitive verb

to make a defense"
Definition Source Here

Here is another online Dictionary definition of "defense:"

"defense (dĭ-fĕns')
The act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
A means or method of defending or protecting.
Sports. The act or an instance of defending a championship against a challenger: will box in his third defense of his title.
An argument in support or justification of something. See synonyms at apology.
Law.
The action of the defendant in opposition to complaints against him or her.
The defendant and his or her legal counsel.
The science or art of defending oneself; self-defense...."
Another Definition Source Here

Your anonymous blog ID comment-post directed toward myself is maliciously defamatory by your deliberate effort to conflate the "defense" I mounted not to be the target of anonymous blog ID posts inciting actual violence against me (threats of and physical violence and/or death against me) and the defensive relief I requested to which I am authorized under Congressional legislation to (1.) ask my cyberattacker reveal his/her real true name and identity, to enable me to protect myself by, for example, being able to file for a restraining order against a person with a name vs. your twisting of words to suggest that when a vulnerable disabled victim is physically hit by incitement of violence against her, she should be "defenseless."

In sum, your idea of "threat" is subsumed within the definition of "defenseless." Your malicious defamatory accusation of "threat" to which I was in fact the defenseless victim includes the following:

1. my having almost been run off the road (as a passenger in a car) about 6 times within the past 2 years;
2. my having been almost dragged by my foot by trying to enter a car which was rear-ended at about 50 mph;
3. my girth being cut in five-places by a razor by someone to ensure it would break while I was riding my equine disability service horse, with intent to cause me serious bodily injury and/or death;
4. being shot at with a gun with a silencer while walking my equine disability service horse;
5. having my car broken into, Florida Class E driver's license stolen from my vehicle, a Counterfeit learner's permit planted in my vehicle, and my official Florida Driver's License records tampered with to delete my Class E Driver's License information;
6. a defendant in a lawsuit pending in a Florida State Court physically stalking our U.S. documented sailboat on navigable waters;
7. numerous individuals stalking my husband and I at our U.S. documented sailboat taking photos of us;
8. a second rear-end car accident perpetrated by two people whose brakes failed hitting my husband and I at about 45-50 mph and attempting a hit &run;
9. my equine disability service horse being attacked to cause him a devastating irreversible permanent founder "sinker" injury to deprive me of my prescribed medicine.

Perhaps it may come as a surprise to you, but I am a vulnerable disabled adult within the meaning of protections guaranteed me not only under the ADA but Fla. Stat. Sec. 415.111, as well. The status of the victim is ordinarily taken into account.

You also falsely assert with malice and/or reckless disregard that my defenses on blog and by invoking legal process to defend myself as a protected person is "to silence anyone who disagrees" with me. I have never sought to silence anyone for engaging in protected First Amendment speech, your accusation is false and defamatory.

In closing, I do like and admire Mr. Volokh tremendously and his many accomplishments. I tire of defending against anonymous blog ID attackers/cyberstalkers/ cyberharassers who comment-post on Mr. Volokh's blog VC who I believe may have participated in some or all of the above physical attacks on myself, my husband, and/or my equine disbaility service horse — instead of everyone just making an effort to stay on-topic.

Peace.
6.9.2008 1:07am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
NotMKDP
WROTE:
"This isn't the first time that MKDP has threated others with legal action in an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with her. It's a pattern of conduct that has been going on for some time. I did a quick google search, and what I found is absolutely amazing.

Here is a small sample:

Click Here
And here

I found several references to Volokh.com on several of her posts. Apparently she doesn't like Mr. Volokh very much."
(Emphasis added) —->

In opening, there is a major difference between anonymous and in-person communications. For example, it's different when, like whit said, someone is being 'mean' who actually looks you in the eye, as compared to attacker-aggressors who use their anonymity as weapons of attack like a masked assassin. In sum, I believe you are using your anonymity as a tool of attack upon my safety and well-being and that of my family.

NotMKDP, perhaps you are not a lawyer, not a disabled American, not a victim of cyberstalking inciting actual physical off-blog attacks intended to cause severe physical injury or death against the vulnerable disabled victim as I am. Thus, I will forgive you in your haste if your analysis would not withstand the type of logical and rational reasoning and fine distinctions required, for example, to pass the Multistate Bar Examination used to qualify a person to be a licensed lawyer in most states.

The flaw in your reasoning is your inability to differentiate between the defense of a vulnerable helpless victim (no different than Megan Meiers) to multiple anonymous blog IDS making online posts with intent to incite (an actual incitement of) physical violence, serious bodily injury, and/or death against the vulnerable disabled victim vs. one who acting under anonymous blog IDS in violation of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223 without justification is an agressor-attacker cyberstalker/cyberharasser. Perhaps you cannot understand the difference between who is the attacker and who is the victim.

The online Dictionary defines "defense" as follows for your convenience:

"defend Definition de·fend (dē fend′, di-)

transitive verb


to guard from attack; keep from harm or danger; protect
...
to support, maintain, or justify defend one's conduct
Law
to oppose (an action)
to plead (one's cause) in defense
to act as lawyer for (an accused)
Etymology: ME defenden OFr defendre L defendere, to ward off, repel de-, away, from + fendere, to strike IE base *gwhen-, to strike Gr theinein, to kill, strike, OE guth, combat
intransitive verb

to make a defense"
Definition Source Here

Here is another online Dictionary definition of "defense:"

"defense (dĭ-fĕns')
The act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
A means or method of defending or protecting.
Sports. The act or an instance of defending a championship against a challenger: will box in his third defense of his title.
An argument in support or justification of something. See synonyms at apology.
Law.
The action of the defendant in opposition to complaints against him or her.
The defendant and his or her legal counsel.
The science or art of defending oneself; self-defense...."
Another Definition Source Here

Your anonymous blog ID comment-post directed toward myself is maliciously defamatory by your deliberate effort to conflate the "defense" I mounted not to be the target of anonymous blog ID posts inciting actual violence against me (threats of and physical violence and/or death against me) and the defensive relief I requested to which I am authorized under Congressional legislation to (1.) ask my cyberattacker reveal his/her real true name and identity, to enable me to protect myself by, for example, being able to file for a restraining order against a person with a name vs. your twisting of words to suggest that when a vulnerable disabled victim is physically hit by incitement of violence against her, she should be "defenseless."

In sum, your idea of "threat" is subsumed within the definition of "defenseless." Your malicious defamatory accusation of "threat" to which I was in fact the defenseless victim includes the following:

1. my having almost been run off the road (as a passenger in a car) about 6 times within the past 2 years;
2. my having been almost dragged by my foot by trying to enter a car which was rear-ended at about 50 mph;
3. my girth being cut in five-places by a razor by someone to ensure it would break while I was riding my equine disability service horse, with intent to cause me serious bodily injury and/or death;
4. being shot at with a gun with a silencer while walking my equine disability service horse;
5. having my car broken into, Florida Class E driver's license stolen from my vehicle, a Counterfeit learner's permit planted in my vehicle, and my official Florida Driver's License records tampered with to delete my Class E Driver's License information;
6. a defendant in a lawsuit pending in a Florida State Court physically stalking our U.S. documented sailboat on navigable waters;
7. numerous individuals stalking my husband and I at our U.S. documented sailboat taking photos of us;
8. a second rear-end car accident perpetrated by two people whose brakes failed hitting my husband and I at about 45-50 mph and attempting a hit &run;
9. my equine disability service horse being attacked to cause him a devastating irreversible permanent founder "sinker" injury to deprive me of my prescribed medicine.

Perhaps it may come as a surprise to you, but I am a vulnerable disabled adult within the meaning of protections guaranteed me not only under the ADA but Fla. Stat. Sec. 415.111, as well. The status of the victim is ordinarily taken into account.

You also falsely assert with malice and/or reckless disregard that my defenses on blog and by invoking legal process to defend myself as a protected person is "to silence anyone who disagrees" with me. I have never sought to silence anyone for engaging in protected First Amendment speech, your accusation is false and defamatory.

In closing, I do like and admire Mr. Volokh tremendously and his many accomplishments. I tire of defending against anonymous blog ID attackers/cyberstalkers/ cyberharassers who comment-post on Mr. Volokh's blog VC who I believe may have participated in some or all of the above physical attacks on myself, my husband, and/or my equine disbaility service horse — instead of everyone just making an effort to stay on-topic.

Peace.
6.9.2008 1:07am
Kirk:
Orin Kerr banned Neurodoc for much, much less

Indeed, as I recall it was for something that Orin himself started, and then Neurodoc (in Orin's judgement) took too far. Of course, once Orin started deleting ND's comments, it was impossible for anyone on the outside to recreate the actual thread of the conversation (and maybe for Orin, too; I have no idea if the blog software here allows versioning or archiving of the comments...)
6.9.2008 1:10am
LM (mail):
MKDP,

With regard to your claim of "perceptual distortions," "blind spots," and "a problem it's in your interest to address," please know ALL of my lawsuits mocked as "frivolous" by cyberharassers on this thread and other threads involve the following HARD COLD FACTS:

I don't know anything about your lawsuits. I was only talking about your comments here.

LM, your suggestion that I "carry" a "hostility to another level" is an insult, inaccurate, and defamatory to my professional reputation.

I said nothing about "hostility," as in personal animosity. I said "hostilities," as in a conflict. I was referring to the grievance you filed with UCLA. I'm sorry if you find anything insulting, inaccurate or defamatory about that. I don't.

I think your main complaints are really about the idea of the ADA itself.

... suggesting again, per one of the points of my comment, that you often don't seem to know who your friends are.
6.9.2008 1:18am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
apologies for the double post
6.9.2008 1:20am
theobromophile (www):
What's wrong with anonymous posting, Mary Katherine?
6.9.2008 1:37am
LM (mail):
Kirk,

Orin Kerr banned Neurodoc for much, much less

Indeed, as I recall it was for something that Orin himself started, and then Neurodoc (in Orin's judgement) took too far.

I e-mailed Orin, encouraging him to re-consider the ban. From what I had seen, I told him it seemed possibly more personal and less fair-minded than I otherwise took him to be. Here's the salient part of his explanation [We covered other things in the exchange, so I'm not quoting his whole reply]:

I would be happy to welcome back neurodoc if he would agree to abide by our comment thread policy. [...] He affirmatively rejects our comment policy, and thinks we are censors and oppressors for having it. Given his perspective, I think his banishment is his call, not mine.

Obviously, double-hearsay is nothing you'd want to send someone to jail on, but I take Orin at his word. And if neurodoc actually refused to abide by the comment policy, I don't see where Orin had any choice.
6.9.2008 2:01am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
LM
WROTE:
"I don't know anything about your lawsuits. I was only talking about your comments here." --->

LM, the first thing a real forensic psychiatrist working with a trial practice atty. will instruct a pro se J.D.'d cross-examiner of an expert making medical opinions/diagnoses/prognoses in an evidentiary hearing/trial is to ensure that the expert witness has a proper foundation for his/her opinion to test the validity of that opinion, and one of those foundational elements is that the expert prooffering his/her opinion has undertaken his/her evaluation within the applicable legal standards. Thus, basically, everything you stated about me can be thrown out upon your admission you did no diligent research into the ADA standards or the facts of my lawsuits upon which you predicated your opinion about me.

You claim not to be a "mental health practitioner," yet you have attempted to make a medical opinion, diagnoses, and prognoses about me (1.) without my informed consent, (2.) over the Internet without taking a medical history, and (3.) without demonstrating you have a medical license issued by the State of Florida.

Your previous comment-post, which you cite in your most recent comment-post does not simply state puffery or hyperbole, but instead false fact about me made with reckless disregard within the context of your attempt to:

(1.) recite your impressions/observations about my medical condition (diagnosis): "I'm sure you're aware that perceptual distortions exist which could account for such disputes, and the very fact of the distortions themselves can be invisible to the person experiencing them (i.e., a blind spot). In those cases feedback from others can be the only way to recognize there's a problem";

(2.) then your magic words: "which could account for," "may indicate a problem," "how much of your apparent perceptual distortion is attributable to" -- "I hope you'll consider that the feedback you're getting here may indicate a problem it's in your interest to address," "I have no idea whether, and if so, how much of your apparent perceptual distortion is attributable to autism, how much to the emotional ambiguity that bedevils all sorts of internet discussion, and how much to other factors";

(3.) predicating directly into a diagnostic discussion ending in how to manage the medical condition (prognosis): "Regardless, the question is, what can you do? All I can suggest, which doesn't address the cause, but may reduce the effect, is that you find someone you trust outside the sphere of your disability advocacy to 'reality test' your perceptions before you respond with accusations, much less carry hostilities to another level. I suppose that might put a damper on your ability to respond quickly in this sort of forum. Regardless, and whether or not that turned out to be a temporary learning process you were eventually able to perform on your own, I think it would be to your benefit to limit your responses to a more accurate take on events than you are now."

LM, if you don't know the factual basis, why would you prooffer a medical opinion about me without my informed consent, without a factual basis, and without knowing the applicable legal ADA standards? As I stated before, your comment-post was made with reckless disregard for the true facts.

theobromophile, I have posted my real true name on numnerous occassions on the blog to which you link, and could and would repeat my real true name and identity ad nauseam for anyone who would simply request I do so in compliance with 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223.

I'm sure you can appreciate why I might prefer to comment-post under an anonymoous blog ID to protect my safety and well-being and that of my family from other anonymous blog ID commenter-posters escalating incitement of violence against myself and my family of physical off-blog bodily injury attacks and death threats with actual efforts to carry out such death threats -- for example, THIS death threat against me posted by an anonymous blog ID commenter-poster masquerading under my Yogi Bear blog ID who knew I post as Yogi Bear:

"Hey boo boo...you betta watch yourself, you may find yourself dead and stuffed in picnic basket!!"
6.9.2008 2:24am
theobromophile (www):
For Heaven's sake, Mary Katherine, LM was NOT trying to admit expert medical evidence in a trial. She was offering a personal observation about you, something which friends, enemies, spouses, professors, and co-workers do on a daily basis. There is no law against discussing someone's behaviour. If there were, everything from parenting to coaching would be illegal.
6.9.2008 2:31am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
It would be really nice if people would just stop attacking me so I would not have to defend myself, and we could all post on-topic as I attempt to do everytime before I get attacked.
6.9.2008 2:34am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
theobromophile
WROTE:
"There is no law against discussing someone's behaviour." --->

Actually, when the medical opinion/diagnosis/prognosis framework is used as in LM's comment/post, at least in Florida that is a medical opinion that requires a Florida license and informed consent. It is also HIPAA protected health information, which I have not authorized LM to use or disclose.

If LM wishes to now change course and admit the statements about my medical condition were made with malice or reckless disregard for the true facts and constitute libel per quod, rather than a medical opinion about my medical condition, that is LM's own voluntary choice.

Had LM wanted to make a statement about my "behavior" which LM predicated on an evaluation of my written blog comment-post, perhaps something more like: "I did not really understand what you said, would you be so kind to clarify?," would have been more appropriate.
6.9.2008 2:42am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
In closing, what is this monkey business about people on this VC blog following Rochesterian and I from blog-to-blog? I feel afraid our safety and well-being that some people have an unhealthy obsession with us. This blog-hopping-stalking of us from blog-to-blog is really weird, and something I find completely unfathomable.
6.9.2008 2:54am
theobromophile (www):
LM explicitly stated that she was not trying to diagnose you, nor was she is a mental health practitioner. The obvious conclusion is that she was rendering a lay opinion about your behaviour.

No one is "following" you from blog-to-blog; I merely googled a term you used, out of curiousity, and found that the only time it was used was by you, posting under your real name or a pseudonym.
6.9.2008 3:14am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
theobromophile
WROTE:
"LM explicitly stated that she was not trying to diagnose you, nor was she is a mental health practitioner. The obvious conclusion is that she was rendering a lay opinion about your behaviour.

No one is 'following' you from blog-to-blog; I merely googled a term you used, out of curiousity, and found that the only time it was used was by you, posting under your real name or a pseudonym"
---->

theobromophile, are you LM's legal counsel? You appear to be representing LM. LM can't speak for him/herself? I stated the reasons for my belief LM gave a medical opinion about me. It is irrelevant whether it is an expert or lay opinion, it is still a medical opinion, for which I did not give my informed consent, for which LM has not demonstrated possessing a Florida issued medical license, and for which I have not authorized use or disclosure of my HIPAA protected PHI. Unauthorized use and/or disclosure of protected PHI, particularly public use/disclosure, can cause substantial reputational harm and injury to the person HIPPA is intended to protect.

Regarding the following of Rochesterian and I from blog-to-blog/issue of unhealthy obsession with us: you admittedly did it, AnonLawStudent did it in tis very thread, zippypinhead and/or Nick M did it in another thread, and if I look back, I am sure I will find other comment-posters of this blog who did the same. All of the foregoing comment-posting occurring under anonymous blog IDs who may in fact be the same person, for all I know. theobromophile, since you yourself criticised my blog comment-posting under an anonymous blog ID, in light of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223 perhaps you and the others who have followed Rochesterian and I from blog-to-blog with an apparent unhealthy obsession would be so kind as to do as you asked of me and disclose your real true names and identities as required by Sec. 223?

At least then I can have some notice and warning of the # of persons who have attacked me to the ratio of # of anonymous blog IDs they posted under -- just so I can "watch out" for my safety and know when an attack against me is in-coming.
6.9.2008 3:49am
advisory opinion:
AboveTheLaw is running a new feature: "Litigant of the Day". Maybe MKDP is interested?
6.9.2008 4:14am
Brian K (mail):
I e-mailed Orin, encouraging him to re-consider the ban. From what I had seen, I told him it seemed possibly more personal and less fair-minded than I otherwise took him to be.

are you referring to neurodoc or orin? i know neurodoc can get a little personal (from experience) but i've never seen orin like that even when dealing with people he disagrees with. IIRC, orin has even been accused of being too fair on more than one occasion.
6.9.2008 4:16am
Amused, not Disgusted:
This thread has totally lost control. Even the comic relief value has long since reached the point of diminishing returns. Professor V., it's time to put an end to the damage this idiocy is causing to VC's reputation for respectability, pull the plug on this thread, and block at least one Internet troll from continuing to drag your comment lists down into the mud.

Professor Kerr has the right idea. Enough is enough.
6.9.2008 4:54am
theobromophile (www):
Mary Katherine,

I'm sorry that law school taught you only about the legal constraints on behaviour (or the legal positions under which people may operate), as it is an extraordinarily limited way to view the world. I am allowed to express my opinion about LM's actions without being her legal counsel; she is allowed to express her opinions about you.

I've done absolutely nothing to threaten you, nor to affiliate myself with you in a way that would give rise to either a legal or ethical requirement for me to disclose my identity. As such, I'll ignore your calls for me to do so.

The law does not mandate that we play fair, refrain from making judgments about each other, or only operate within government-prescribed roles.

For the final time: please understand the scope and parameters of HIPAA. It applies only to medical personnel. If you argue, as you are want to do, that the people here are not your physicians, then HIPAA is inapplicable to them. You cannot, legally, argue both that the commenters here are not physicians and that they violated HIPAA. It's one or the other, hon.
6.9.2008 4:59am
theobromophile (www):
Regarding the following of Rochesterian and I from blog-to-blog/issue of unhealthy obsession with us

Mary Katherine,

Could you please provide references about your ability to practise medicine? Could you also refrain from diagnosing me without having seen me? Please also refrain from practising medicine or psychology in the state of Virginia. Furthermore, please do not disclose my HIPAA-protected information.

/spoof
6.9.2008 5:02am
BobDoyle (mail):
What an, unfortunately, utterly miserable person.
6.9.2008 5:28am
Eugene Volokh (www):
OK, folks, this exchange between Ms. Day-Petrano and others has been interesting, but I think it's probably time to call it to a close.

Of course, discussions related to the original post -- rather than to what has been done by or has happened to Ms. Day-Petrano or her adversaries -- remain entirely welcome.
6.9.2008 8:33am
Stacy (mail):
jrose: "Even without an intent to kill, manslaughter becomes murder if the prosecution can prove the perpetrator's state of mind had malice aforethought. But who argues the perpetrator is being punished for committing violence and - separately - for his state of mind?"

I take your point that the legal system currently considers the perp's motivations. However, I disagree with that practice. Outside of broad categories (self defense) a person's motivations can only be "proven" by methods such as those used by the Canadian human rights tribunals. A crime consists of actions, not thoughts.
6.9.2008 10:01am
Kirk:
LM, thanks for the additional information. That helps to explain things a bit, though I can see wny ND might have a bad feeling about the comments policy, since (again by my recollection) the whole thing started with one of the proprietors not adhering to it.
6.9.2008 12:15pm
Kirk:
Stacy, IANAL and all that, but isn't what the legal system looks at mostly intentionality (did the person plan the murder, lie in wait, etc vs strike the victim in a spur-of-the -moment encounter, etc) rather than their motivation per se? In other words, looking at the population of people charged with first-degree murder--is there really a consistent difference in length of sentence, or in percentage of convictions, or some other measure, between those who did it for financial gain, those who did it for revenge, and so on?
6.9.2008 12:21pm
Gary McGath (www):
"Hate speech" means whatever speech some pressure group hates. It's been used by liberals and by religious fundamentalists. All that the term signifies is a desire to censor.
6.9.2008 12:28pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
Hmmm. So, if I'm just hatin' the sin but not the sinner, can I talk stink about it?
6.9.2008 1:33pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"Of course, discussions related to the original post -- rather than to what has been done by or has happened to Ms. Day-Petrano or her adversaries -- remain entirely welcome." --->

Everytime I have posted, having a discussion about the original post is what i have repeatedly attempted to accomplish. Thank you for finally stopping all the attacks on me. In closing, regarding the faulty medical diagnoses allowed to remain in public about me, I have been protected by HIPAA before when a medical opinion was made by a doctor who was not my own.
6.9.2008 1:57pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
I also feel, being in the 11th Circuit and governed y 11th circuit law, the need to deny this allegation:

"Mary Katherine,

Could you please provide references about your ability to practise medicine? Could you also refrain from diagnosing me without having seen me?"
--->

theobromophile, I merely repeated the declaration against interest admission of other blog posts written and publicly posted by "AnnTM" ... the reason I requested you identify yourself under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223 is I believe that yourself and "AnnTM" are one and the same person hiding and concealing your identity behind the anonymity while I am attacked.

Having denied your accusation, I hope everybody can post on-topic because I am really of relatively little importance in the future we all face of our fight for survival in a global warming world.
6.9.2008 2:04pm
whit:
mkdp's attitude is not uncommon in legal circles. i have seen on more than one occasion, for example, petitioners in domestic violence orders (more specifically their court assigned advocates) claim that the use of terms such as "b*tch" , the "c" word, etc. by same constituted THREATENING language, an "atmosphere of violence" etc. i consistenyl point to DV law as one area where civil rights are continually eroded, and this is the perfect example - the conflation of ACTUAL violence with DVAdvocates (and unfortunately often courts') definition of "dating violence" which includes derogatory words, etc.

calling somebody mean names is not threatening, it's not "violence".

it's called opinion. people need to get over themselves and accept that being called a mean name is not a threat, a stalking behavior, a violent act, etc.
6.9.2008 2:05pm
whit:
correction :the "c" word, ec. by Respondent
6.9.2008 2:06pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
I also feel I must deny this accusation, as well:

"What an, unfortunately, utterly miserable person" --->

This is, in fact, not the case. I am not ordinarily "miserable." I am an optimistic fighter for the civil rights as a person with autism to be licensed as an attorney and become a Federal Judge against the crowd who would keep me out solely because of a number of the above-expressed comment-posters dislike of autism.

I cannot believe after Eugene told posters to stop the attacks on me, a number of posters ignored him and went ahead and continued to smear my professional reputation by criticising the *normal* social interaction ability lacking in autism, and using one of the five stock-phrases:
1. you're un-happy;
2. you're un-sound;
3. you're un-informed;
4. you're un-patriotic;
5. you're un-American;
6. you're un-wanted.

And I am not supposed to be allowed a right of reply to deny the accusation and defend myself.

Maybe, one-sided content viewpoints are a characteristic of those who advocate hate speech on this blog, for all I know any more that I know the identity of my anonymous attackers concealing their identities under anonymity so I cannot, as whit suggests, obtain a restraining order to protect my safety.
6.9.2008 2:21pm
whit:

as whit suggests, obtain a restraining order to protect my safety.



actually, i didn't suggest that. i suggested that for REAL victims. if everybody who was ridiculed, criticized or called a name on the internet got a protective order, we would have to decimate 3/4 of the rainforest to get the paper to print them all.
6.9.2008 2:23pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
corr:
"six stock-phrases"

And YET ANOTHER comment upon my so-called "Attitude after Eugene asked people to stop:

"calling somebody mean names is not threatening, it's not "violence" --->

whit, your DV example where a person face-to-face knows the identity of his/her attacker is a far different circumstance from the person who is attacked by a flock of anonymous people hiding/concealing their identities under anonymous blog IDs to incite violence on-blog to take physical harm against their target off-blog without being identified, caught, or the subject of a restraining order.

The latter are far more dangerous, and I have at all times stated the threats against me have not all been "mere words," but instead "imminent incitement to violence" that has actually occurred with physical attacks against me. For all I know, my attackers may be another Mark David Chapman.
6.9.2008 2:31pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
corr:
" Attitude " = attitude
6.9.2008 2:33pm
LM (mail):
Brian K,

are you referring to neurodoc or orin? i know neurodoc can get a little personal (from experience) but i've never seen orin like that even when dealing with people he disagrees with. IIRC, orin has even been accused of being too fair on more than one occasion.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, and yes I agree with you. I told Orin the ban struck me as more personal and less fair-minded than I would ordinarily have expected from Orin. But his explanation, quoted in my prior comment, convinced me the ban was appropriate.


Kirk:

LM, thanks for the additional information. That helps to explain things a bit, though I can see wny ND might have a bad feeling about the comments policy, since (again by my recollection) the whole thing started with one of the proprietors not adhering to it.

If the ban had been a direct result of their personal exchange, I'd agree, and that was the substance of my message to Orin. But if, at the end of the day, someone rejects the comment policy out of hand, I can't really dispute Orin's view that ND took the decision upon himself. It's like hitting the "Cancel" button instead of "I agree." I was sorry it worked out that way, because though I usually disagreed with ND, I enjoyed his contributions when he kept it substantive, and I had gotten to like him personally.
6.9.2008 2:40pm
Hoosier:
Gary McGath--I agree with you, to an extent. At universities, the codes against "hate speech" are in fact a form of censorship. No one *honestly* believes that, say, gays or Muslims are in physical danger at Ann Arbor. That all it will take to let loose the pogrom is one or two remarks about Islamist terrorists in a conservative student newspaper.

But in state legislatures and town councils, there seems to be a real desire to add to the punishment an assailant will likely receive if he chose his victim based on one of a certain set of characteristics. That's not a limitation of speech, even if if may not be wise policy. But: In principle, I am in favor of sending assailiants and murderers to prison. In principle, I am against punishing people for mere words. Or prior restraint on mere words.
6.9.2008 2:41pm
Kirk:
LM, sure enough; I was more expressing regret that the question with ND wouldn't even have come up if someone else hadn't started the ad-hominem-ry (or whatever the actual issue was), or had realized that ND was simply responding in kind and had therefore backed off from pressing the point.

Somehow, this is starting to remind of of whit's subthread about voluntary PC searches and wasting an officer's time over in the Can An Officer Order You To Move Along thread. :-)
6.9.2008 3:26pm
one of many:
Hmmm. So, if I'm just hatin' the sin but not the sinner, can I talk stink about it?
A nice quick way of categorizing US hate-crime laws (you may while not running afoul of hate-crime laws be violating other laws like being a public nuisance). I like it, be careful in jurisdictions which have hate-speech laws though - i.e. while commenting about the immorality of heterosexuality without reference to heterosexuals as a group should technically not violate the laws, courts are often willing to consider that criticizing the beliefs or practices of a protected group is the same as criticizing the group itself. Wait, heterosexuals are probably not an actual protected group (despite being technically protected under most laws) so feel free to even go so far as to claim heterosexuality is immoral and disgusting and that even heterosexuals as a group or individually are immoral and disgusting.
6.9.2008 4:35pm
pmorem (mail):
I think this thread pretty clearly demonstrates the hazards associated with the concept of "Hate Speech".
If it's as determined by the listener (especially without presence at the time of speaking), then there is very little room left for discussion. Someone, somewhere will be offended.
6.10.2008 8:48am
LM (mail):
pmorem,

Aren't you describing the general difficulty of determining mental state from a distance, physical or temporal, a task we routinely undertake in criminal and civil adjudication?
6.10.2008 3:04pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"pmorem,

Aren't you describing the general difficulty of determining mental state from a distance, physical or temporal, a task we routinely undertake in criminal and civil adjudication?" --->

O gawd!

We have clinical psychologist Dr. Hannibal Lechter spouting-off uninvited anonymous observations, diagnoses, and prognoses.

Who's next, Dr. Henry Murray?

Spare us.
6.10.2008 3:18pm
AnonLawStudent:

If [what constitutes hate speech] is determined by the listener (especially without presence at the time of speaking), then there is very little room left for discussion. Someone, somewhere will be offended.

Aren't you describing the general difficulty of determining mental state from a distance, physical or temporal, a task we routinely undertake in criminal and civil adjudication?

I think he is making two arguments: (1) a lack of notice as to what constitutes a criminal act due to it being based on the subjective judgment of the listener or subsequent fact-finder, and (2) the resulting impact on speech due speakers maintaining distance from a blurry line, cf. the absence of a mistake defense for statutory rape. Your comment makes much more sense in the context of a mens rea for "hate crime," however. Even then, the determination is often made more difficult (compared to other situations) by the GySgt Hartman-esque language that often accompanies spontaneous violence.
6.10.2008 4:15pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
ALS, spare me the freshman 101 psychology take on other non-libertarian posters with whose non-libertarian speech you disagree. You and several others also totally miss the point that anonymous blog ID posters cannot make true threats against disabled people by means of concealing/hiding their identity behind a cloak of anonymity. Not even Talley would go so far as to support such a conclusion.

I think it is time to form a Jeffersonian Autistic Federalist Society Chapter think-tank to ponder such anonymous true threat hate speech against the disabled non-liberatarian issues.
6.10.2008 6:45pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
When I tried to go on the "GySgt Hartman-esque" link AnonLawStudent posted on her above-comment-post, it really sent my disability assistive technology computer on tilt -- I am inquiring ... does the link have malicious code, a virus, or some other attacking feature? Maybe ALS should double-check his/her posted-link.

As far as the photo on the link, it really depicts nothing. for all anyone might know, it could be two deaf people who speak only by sign languaeg gestures trying to speak with one another. There was a fairly recent case here in Florida where two disabled deaf married people in an animated sign language exchange not unlike the linked photo were arrested by police and charged with DV, only for the case to be dismissed and laughed out of Court predicated on the sheer ignorance of the arresting officers not knowing anything about deaf culture and sign language communication.

Very typical of people who just don't have any interactions with the disabled community and feel 'uncomfortable' around anyone who is different.
6.10.2008 6:59pm
NickM (mail) (www):
Sweeney Todd has already been banned. How long till Mrs. Lovett follows?

Nick
6.10.2008 7:50pm
AnonLawStudent:

Sweeney Todd has already been banned. How long till Mrs. Lovett follows?

I'm guessing sometime From Here to Eternity, but we can only hope for The Day After Tomorrow.
6.10.2008 8:53pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"we can only hope for The Day After Tomorrow" ---->

Is THIS what you're talking about? Everyone here likes to talk in riddles.

But I would be careful of going on that link above ... maybe it is a bad link. Just trying to be nice and save other people's computers from having problems.

Oh, wait, being nice is probably not libertarian, either.
6.10.2008 10:42pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
See, I tried to say somthing on-topic regarding hate speech under anonymity, and suggest the linked photo did not depict anything remotely on-topic (as well as warn it might be a bad link), but everyone has a lot more interest in me personally than the topic. Given the future of climate change we will be facing and the coming struggles to face Americans, I would think the hate speech topic would be extremely relevant to discuss and how that will be worked out. By the time all of our children and grandchildren are sitting on the North Pole frying in 130 degree + steamy temperates, I will be long gone and thus everyone's fascination with me.
6.10.2008 10:49pm
pmorem (mail):
I have encountered people (at least one specific guy 20 years ago) who take any criticism, questioning, disagreement or even being ignored as a personal attack, even if it was a misunderstanding on his part. The guy I'm thinking of would become highly abusive when he wasn't getting his way. As best I can tell, he got into that pattern because it worked for him, as in it often produced the desired results if only he was offended enough.

Encourage it, and it will only increase. Empowering that kind of behavior opens the door to things we really don't want. I've seen it in action, and it leaves a toxic stain on everything it touches.

I started writing this with someone specific in mind. Reflecting now, I can't say I haven't done it myself.
6.11.2008 7:58am