In today’s Daily News, Mark Mcdonald reported on a bill that would ban the display of "symbols of virulent animus: a noose, a burning cross or a swastika" introduced by Councilman Clarke.
First off I need to say I’m not racist, I had a black friend in college. Secondly, I’m not angry that it leaves out symbols of hate against the LGBTQ community like pleated-pants or clutter. Basically, when it comes down to it, this legislation isn’t going to affect any immediate plans I have of hanging swastikas or burning crosses.
I do feel compelled however (the ACLU member that I am), to voice some concern about this bill on the most obvious and fundamental grounds, the First Amendment. I understand the argument that if someone lights a cross on fire in a black family’s front yard, it’s not free speech, but instead a threat of violence directed at that family. Threats against people should obviously be illegal. This bill does have the clause “with the intent to intimidate another person or incite violence” in an effort to avoid First Amendment issues.
Even taking this into account, the bill still seems like an effort to ban speech that 99% of us find undesirable or deplorable. The problem is what is to stop us from banning other speech that the majority finds deplorable? Yes, the slippery-slope argument is an old one, but no less true today than it was 1,000 years ago.
I have to say that I think L.F. Driscoll’s response to this incident was right-on, and serves as the best argument why this legislation isn’t needed. Immediately after the noose was flashed, the offending person was fired. No questions, no deliberations, simply fired. What then is this legislation trying to fix?
I’m concerned that people will think voicing opposition to this legislation makes them appear bigoted, which is obviously not the case. I hope that when this legislation is brought before the whole Council, we will get an open and honest debate about what the long-term implications are for restricting speech, regardless of its message. I believe the freedom to say anything, even the most obnoxious things, is an American value we should hold dear. Thoughts?
(As an after-thought, what are the implications for that closet-case who walks around Philadelphia gay festivals with signs reading stuff like “gays will burn for eternity” and shouting through a megaphone “You’re going to hell”? A court ruled he has the right to do that and he gets a police escort. Wouldn’t this legislation ban that, and didn’t a judge already rule he could continue?)
Ray might be tell you more
Ray might be tell you more exactly what loony-tune Michael Marcavage was shouting at his last public appearance as he was with a group of folks who unfortunately at its recieving end. And "I had a black friend in college" though I am sure 100% sincere for better or worse is one those lines that almost invites mockery. I'm just saying it now so someone else doesn't say it meaner later.
Nonetheless I have to say I agree with you. We have state laws banning hate speech as an act of intimidation for race and we had one against it based on gender, disability and sexual preference till the same awful Mr. Marcavage's recent victory in court. But those laws addressed actions aimed at specific people, not symbols themselves which is always bad policy. It's blatantly unconstitutional and un-American. It also ignores the fact that hate-mongers occassionally update and reinvent their preferred tactics and that the historic victims of hate-speech sometimes re-appropriate the old symbols that were used against them.
This bill would have banned this artist from recently putting up a challenging and thought-provoking piece. It should be obvious who follows the history of the First Amendment at all why banning symbols themselves is censorship and counterproductive. Apparently not Councilman Clarke in this instance.
I think that was sarcasm.
I think that was sarcasm.
Charlie really offended me
Jeez Charlie, my suit has pleated pants. How insensitive.
I didn't know either
Ray, I too owned pleats, and just recently found out from "Tim Gunn's: Guide to Style" that I should in fact be opposed to them. And yes, that silly comment of having a black friend in college was totally sarcasm; I didn't really have a black friend in college.
No, but seriously, I'd love to hear what you two think about this. Where do you see the line between free speech, and bigoted speech?
Hugo Black said it best
No law means no law.
And, yes, I know that we do make exceptions such as shouting fire in a theater or fighting words that are an incitement to violence and libel. But I would limit libel prosecutions to those in which someone knowingly tells a lie so that the crime is not the content of the speech but the act of lying. And thus the only real limitation on speech I will accept are those in which might cause an immiment danger to life and limb.
I can imagine what Mike Marcavage was shouting. I actually taught Mike at Temple--my attempts to engage him on the gay rights issue was evidently unsuccessful--and I've followed his political activities since. If what he said was at the wedding was as bad as he has been at other times, I would think he could be prosecuted under the "fighting words" doctrine. I don't think we need to limit the expression of opinion any further.
Tim Gunn: stopping hate one pleat at a time
I hope to get a Tim Gunn bobble-head for Christmas. Season 2 loser Emmet is selling them in his Chelsea boutique.
Anyway, yea I was at Micah and Ryan's wedding and Marcavage was tamer than usual. I think every gay person in the city feels like he is an old crazy friend since he is at all the same events we are. Next we'll see him at Key West on a Friday stuffing dollars into a stripper's g-string...oh wait did I just imply he might be a latent homosexual? My bad.
No, seriously Charlie, I don't really know much about the bill you refer to, but I think I agree with your take. I will say that nooses and burning cross have a cultural history that seems aligned with eminent, life-threatening violence to come, which is kind of a big deal. Not quite comparable to Marcavage.
But, ultimately, people have a right to say and think what they want.
I'm not joking
Pleats are bad. Baaaaaad. Seriously, guys... this is critical. Pleats must be stopped before they start.
If there were an anti-pleating organization, that's where I'd put all my energy.
I may care about justice, but this is the shizzle I REALLY care about.
(((for those who know me, you know I'm really, really not joking)))
---
This Too Will Pass, treating grave matters lightly and light matters gravely, since 2001.
I happen to like pleats
In fact, the first thing I do whenever I buy an item of clothing is iron in pleats if they aren't already there: including my boas and ascots. Does that preclude me from further posting at YPP (DeWitt, don't answer that question).
nah, you're ok
i've met you. it makes sense.
Down with the anti-pleatists
I know, always with the "ists."
Pleaters unite!!!
I have pleated pants too
And God, they look terrible.
Tim on Video with his pleats
If you skip to 2:04, you can see a video of Tim and his pleats.
Dan, you're a jerk, you just
Dan, you're a jerk, you just almost got me fired from my job.
---
Check out my website!
Don't act like your not
Don't act like your not impressed.
Can we change the title of
Can we change the title of this thread to "Pleated pants wearers poop gold"?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Don't act like you're not
Don't act like you're not impressed, Dan.
Paging Charlie
A gay man wrote this thread! You str8 boys will not keep up this kind of innuendo. It's just weird.
Ray just punched me right in
Ray just punched me right in the babymaker.
Free speech is the bell-weather right . . .
It is how we judge how far government is encroaching on us. It is also how we let government know they are encroaching.
I'll admit, in terms of rights, I'm just about fearful of government as I can be. But, provided you're not defaming someone or selling state secrets, government shouldn't be in the business of the limiting speech and thoughts of its citizens.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Background on Marcavage's
Background on Marcavage's recent court victory overturing the expansion of PA hate-crimes to cover gender, sexual preference, disability based on a question of the legislation it was attached to.
Veering off of Clarke's bill, does anyone think this state law would actually have a hard time making its way back through Harrisburg not attached to an unrelated bill? Its my impression these kind of legislative mish-mosh's are about par for the legislative course and it seems an interesting case for the Courts to draw their line in the sand on.