The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs, Inc.
19 - 22 April 2007
House Committee
on the Judiciary
Hate Speech
Director: Ying Wang
© 2007 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA)
This document is solely for use in preparation for Rutgers Model
Congress 2007. Use for other purposes is not permitted
without the express written consent of IDIA. For more
information, please write us at [email protected]
Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 1
Background ___________________________________________________________ 2
Current Status ________________________________________________________ 12
Party Positions ________________________________________________________ 14
Democratic Party __________________________________________________________ 14
Republican Party __________________________________________________________ 14
Summary_____________________________________________________________ 16
Discussion Questions ___________________________________________________ 17
Works Cited __________________________________________________________ 18
Rutgers Model Congress
1
Introduction
In the United States, both citizens and lawmakers view the freedoms guaranteed
under the Bill of Rights and in the Constitution in high regard. It is the extent these rights
that are constantly brought into debate and questioned. Some of the most controversial of
these rights are those described in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,
including the right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to assemble,
and freedom of the press. All of these listed rights come into question when regarding
speech that is hateful.
Throughout U.S. history, there have been instances in which someone has spoken
out against the government, government action, or groups, race, or religion. It is these
instances under which the guaranteed rights of the First Amendment are questioned.
Many wonder whether First Amendment rights should still be guaranteed if they pose a
threat in a protest or through some type of demonstrative action.
Supreme Court cases show that while the government does work to protect the
rights of the First Amendment to freedom of speech, these rights are not absolute. In the
early 20th Century, a doctrine in a Supreme Court ruling established that if speech
presents a clear and present danger, than it can be censored. In other words, while the
government cannot necessarily regulate the content of speech through laws and
regulation, it can address the impact of speech by prosecuting those who present a danger
to the U.S. and its citizens.
Rutgers Model Congress
2
As the interpretation of hate speech has evolved, ranging from questions of
symbolism as hate speech and the connection between hate speech and hate crime, the
topic has permeated many areas other than the judiciary system. Many academic settings
throughout the country have called into question whether or not speech codes can
regulate hate speech on university campuses and in schools. While some universities
have taken preventative measures against hate crimes and enacted hate speech regulation,
interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have protested this
as an infringement upon civil rights and the First Amendment.
Background
Hate speech is defined as speech that is used to attack an individual or group. This
speech is usually based on race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.1 It is a debatable
term, which is used to describe speech or language, and sometimes even non-verbal
actions, which can degrade, intimidate, or incite hateful action.
Those who argue that there should be limitations on speech and regulation of hate
speech argue that this is not simply just “speech,” but rather that it promotes harassment
of individuals or groups. There have been various instances in which hate speech can be
linked to hate crimes, so the regulation of hate speech could be used as a preventative
measure. In addition, various settings such a town that is primarily one populated by a
particular group, or the academic arena, are also faced the regulation of hate speech
dilemma. It can be said that areas with a specific demographic are particularly offended
1
Kyu Ho Youm, “First Amendment Law: Hate Speech, Equality, and Freedom of Expression.” International
Communication Association, 2001.
Rutgers Model Congress
3
when hate speech towards their group is voiced in their area. Moreover, in academic
settings such as high schools and universities, academic freedom is valued, however
regulations and some type of codes are necessary to maintain conduct.
Arguments against hate speech are also vast. Opponents of regulation of hate
speech state that this would be a form of censorship, which interferes with the right to
freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and possibly even freedom of the press, all of
which are guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Control
of speech could potentially prohibit relevant speech and minority opinions. It is also
argued that the definition and identification of what “hate speech” actually is vague and
difficult to identify. As such, when decisions are made in regards to regulation of hate
speech they are often arbitrary and subjective.
Throughout U.S. history, Congress and the federal government has been careful to
avoid legislating on regulation of speech. Still, many cases have arisen in which the
government has had to respond to speech which could have possibly presented danger to
U.S. citizens, and in which the First Amendment’s protection of free speech did not
appear absolute. During the First World War, the federal government feared dissent and
those who spoke out about the U.S. involvement in the war. As a result, in 1917,
Congress passed the Espionage Act under the encouragement of President Woodrow
Wilson. As it was the First World War, the federal government feared dissent with the
draft and the war. The Espionage Act prohibited anyone from speaking out against, or
Rutgers Model Congress
4
interfering in any way with the armed services and the draft.2 In 1919, Charles Schenck, a
leader in the socialist party read an article in the newspaper which listed the names all of
those conscripted to the draft. Schenck wrote over fifteen thousand letters to all those
listed, speaking out against the war and encouraging them not to attend to their draft
duties. Schenck was arrested in violation of the Espionage Act, which he appealed in the
Schenck v. U.S. case. Schenck argued that the restrictions on his letters and speech
violated his First Amendment rights. In a unanimous court ruling, the Supreme Court
disagreed with Schenck’s argument. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes authored an opinion
which established an important doctrine that would be used to determine hate speech
regulation in the future. Known as the “clear and present danger” doctrine, it stated, “The
question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are
of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”3
The following year, Congress added to the Espionage Act with the Sedition Act of
1918, prohibiting any language which was disloyal, profane, abusive or scurrilous
towards the military, U.S. government, or U.S. flag. It also allowed the Postmaster
General to not deliver mail to those suspected of speaking out against the government.
The following year, another lawsuit arose from this legislation. A group of Eastern
European immigrants distributed pamphlets in Brooklyn, New York which protested U.S.
military involvement in Siberia. The immigrants were arrested for violating the
2
“Primary Documents: U.S. Espionage Act, 15 June 1917.” http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm
The OYEZ Project, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919),
available at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1901-1939/1918/1918_437.
3
Rutgers Model Congress
5
Espionage Act, and sentenced to twenty years in prison. The immigrants appealed this
arrest in Abrams v. U.S., citing that their rights to free speech under the First Amendment
were being violated by the Espionage Act. The Supreme Court ruled that because the
pamphlets actually encouraged dissent and unruliness, they did pose a threat and
therefore the conviction was upheld. 4
The next significant incident regarding hate speech regulation occurred in 1942.
Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, had an altercation with the city of Marshall, New
Hampshire, during which he called him a “god-damned racketeer” and a “god-damned
fascist.” As a result, he was arrested under New Hampshire state law for violating a
breach of peace. Chaplinsky argued that this violated his First Amendment right to
freedom of speech when he appealed his arrest in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The
Supreme Court ruled that Chaplinsky was not protected by the First Amendment with his
hateful speech because obscenity and fighting words are not protected by the
Constitution.5
In 1949, a group of Progressive Party members met in Syracuse, New York to
discuss the Scottsboro trials that were happening during this time period. As they did this,
their leader, Irving Feiner made several “hateful” statements in reference to African
Americans, and the local government of Syracuse in a street protest. After being asked to
stop speaking several times, Feiner was arrested for breach of peace. Feiner appealed his
4
The OYEZ Project, Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919),
available at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1901-1939/1919/1919_316.
5
The OYEZ Project, Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942),
available at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1940-1949/1941/1941_255.
Rutgers Model Congress
6
arrest, citing First Amendment rights. In Feiner v. New York, the Supreme Court upheld
Feiner’s arrest, because his arrest was in order to prevent a potential riot. 6
A similar incident occurred in 1969. At this time, Clarence Brandenberg, a
member of the Ku Klux Klan in Ohio organized a rally in which he spoke out against
those of the Jewish faith, African Americans, and all those who supported them. After
this rally, Brandenberg was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndication law, which
prohibited advocating “crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a
means of accomplishing industrial or political reform,” as well as assembling “with any
society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of
criminal syndicalism.” Brandenberg was fined and sentenced to prison. He appealed this
conviction, stating that he had a right to free speech under the Constitution. In
Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court agreed with Brandenberg’s argument that his
First Amendment rights were being infringed upon by the Ohio law. The Supreme Court
utilized a two-prong test in its decision. Firstly, it asked if speech could be prohibited if it
is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” The Supreme Court also
questioned whether the speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.” Because of the
vague and broad nature of the Ohio statute, the Supreme Court struck it down, ruling in
favor of Brandenberg.7
In the 1970s the National Socialist Party of America, a modern Nazi party in the
U.S., became popular and active in their protests. Specifically, they protested African
6
“Case summary.” http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Feiner_v_NY
The OYEZ Project, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969),
available at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1960-1969/1968/1968_492.
7
Rutgers Model Congress
7
Americans moving into communities that were previously all White. The first time these
protests were contested was in the city of Chicago, when the city banned all protests, and
required punishment to those who violated the ban with a $250,000 fine. The National
Socialist Party of American challenged this ban in the court, and while doing so made a
decision to re-direct their efforts to the suburbs of Chicago rather than the city of Chicago
itself. The party decided to organize a march in Skokie, Illinois. Skokie was a
predominantly Jewish town, with one in every six residents being a Holocaust survivor.
As a result, residents in the town came together to attempt to ban the march. The town
passed various ordinances in order to prevent the party from the march and protest in
their town, including the requirement of a permit to march, and a $300,000 fine if there
was no permit. The National Socialist Party protested these requirements, and filed a
lawsuit with representation from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In the
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, the Supreme Court ruled that the
party did in fact have the right to march through the village of Skokie, despite their
hateful message.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s college campuses began to crack down on hate
speech. In order to combat issues of racism and discrimination, college campuses across
nations including Stanford University, Universities of California, University of
Wisconsin, Tufts University, and several others passed ordinances regulating hate speech.
This was done because of an rise in discriminatory actions on campus, many of which
were connected to speeches made by organizations. In addition, in this time period there
Rutgers Model Congress
was a general movement to adjust to “political correctness.”
8
8
In 1989, one of these
speech codes was contested in the state of Michigan. Flyers around the University of
Michigan were posted which used derogatory terms when referring to African
Americans. The University enacted a policy which prohibited “Any behavior, verbal or
physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed […] and that […] creates an intimidating, hostile,
or demeaning environment for educational pursuits, employment or participation in
University[-]sponsored extra-curricular activities.” It even provided examples of what
behavior could potentially violate the code, which included a “comment in a derogatory
way about a particular person or group’s physical appearance or sexual orientation, or
their cultural origins, or religious beliefs.” Various complaints were constantly filed of
students violating these policies. A psychology graduate student appealed this speech
code in Doe v. University of Michigan in 1989 when it appeared that some of his studies
may violate the University speech code. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the
speech code policy was too broad and vague, striking it down.9
In 1984, a Los Angeles man, David McCalden, who claimed to be a “revisionist”
planned a protest which stated that the Holocaust was a hoax. At the request of several
Jewish groups in the area, the program was cancelled. McCalden put in an appeal, which
stated that the restrictions on his protest based on hate speech were unconstitutional,
8
David Hudson, “Hate speech and campus codes.” First Amendment Center,
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes.
9
David Hudson, “Hate speech and campus codes.” First Amendment Center,
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes.
Rutgers Model Congress
9
violating his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Through 1991, after McCalden passed away, the appeal had not been acknowledged, and
was being carried on by his widow. In 1992, the Supreme Court denied hearing the
case.10
In 1991, the American Civil Liberties Union vocally supported legislation
proposed by Representative Hyde (R-IL), amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
would allow students to appeal decisions by their institution for discipline for hate speech
regulations. Specifically, this effort would apply to state institutions rather than private or
religious organizations. The ACLU, Representative Hyde, and other supporters of this
bill stated preventing free expression at Universities through expulsion for hate speech.11
At the end of 1991, the ACLU continued to appeal hate speech regulations at universities.
In one case, the federal district court in Wisconsin voided the University of Wisconsin’s
ban on hate speech, stating that it was too broad to be Constitutional.12 In this case, the
University of Wisconsin enacted a speech code similar to those described at other
Universities throughout the country. At the University of Wisconsin, there were many
altercations in which groups, particularly African Americans, were discriminated against
on campus. The University enacted a policy which prohibited addressing individuals with
racist or discriminatory comments which would “Demean the race, sex, religion, color,
creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual or
individuals; and create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education,
10
Tony Mauro, “Lengthy free speech case to go longer yet.” USA Today, June 2, 1992: 8A.
Bala James, “ACLU joins bid to shield hate speech.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution, March 13, 1991: A13.
12
“Court voids Wisconsin U. ban’s on hate speech.” The New York Times, October 13, 1991: 25.
11
Rutgers Model Congress
10
university-related work, or other university-authorized activity.” Various students, as well
as the school newspaper appealed this code, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed
with them, ruling that it was unconstitutional.13
A landmark case was opened which would broaden hate speech horizons in the
U.S. a group of teenagers burned a cross on the lawn of an African American family in
St. Paul, Minnesota. They were convicted under Minnesota’s Bias-Motivated Crime
Ordinance, which prohibited the display of a symbol, which “arouses anger, alarm or
resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” The teenagers
appealed, and initially the trial court dismissed their charges. The state Supreme Court
then reversed this decision at the appeal of the state. As such, the case of R.A.V. v. St.
Paul was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. R.A.V. argued that the ordinance
was overly broad and “impermissibly content-based,” violating the free speech clause of
the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with this argument in its ruling.14
R.A.V. was significant because it addressed objects or symbols as a form of hate speech.
Through the next decade, the battle waged on between universities and academic
freedom relative to hate speech. Several universities enacted codes, many of which were
stricken in protest. Through 2001, this was the main focus of regulation of hate speech.
As the internet flourished, hate speech became controversial on the World Wide Web. In
1999, various groups who engaged in hate speech found their way to the internet,
13
David Hudson, “Hate speech and campus codes.” First Amendment Center,
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes.
14
The OYEZ Project, R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992),
available at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675.
Rutgers Model Congress
11
registering domains that were racial slurs and posting hate propaganda on the web. In
response, many groups such as the National Association of Colored People (NAACP)
and the Anti-Defamation League registered various domains that were racial or ethnic
slurs in order to prevent hate groups from registering them and putting hateful words and
information on them. 15
The university battle waged on in 2003. At this time, a civil rights watchdog
group, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education filed suit against Shippensburg
University in Pennsylvania. It argued that the university’s speech codes which reference
hate speech are some of the most restrictive in the entire nation.16 A Pennsylvania federal
judge ruled that the speech codes as the university were unconstitutional, as had been
done in almost every university speech code appeal to this date. U.S. District Judge John
E. Jones stated that provisions that prohibit “acts of intolerance” could be used to truncate
debate and free expression by students.”17
A case similar to R.A.V. v. St. Paul arose, again bringing forth-different
interpretations of hate speech which include symbolism. Three men, Barry Black,
Richard Elliot, and Jonathan O’Mara burned a cross in Virginia. They were convicted
under Virginia’s Cross Burning statute, which made it a felony for any person “with the
intent of intimidating any person or group … to burn … a cross on the property of
another, a highway or other public place,” and that “any such burning … shall be prima
facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group.” In Virginia v. Black, the
15
Mark Leibovich, “A new domain for hate speech.” The Washington Post, December 15, 1999: A01.
"Group challenges Pennsylvania college's speech codes.” Associated Press, April 24, 2003.
17
“Federal judge bars university's 'well-intentioned' speech code.” Associated Press, September 8, 2003.
16
Rutgers Model Congress
12
Court ruled that the Virginia cross burning statute was in fact unconstitutional because it
required the defendant to prove that the cross burning was used for intimidation. They
stated that if intimidation could in fact be proven, the statute would stand.18
Current Status
Most recently, the discussion of whether or not hate speech should be regulated
has occurred in the academic setting, similar to the 1990s. A series of universities and
high schools have experienced incidents which call to question whether and how speech
should be regulated. Various proponents for regulation of hate speech have argued that
such regulation is necessary because hate speech leads to hate crimes and violence. In
2006, students at Stanford experienced evidence that supported this theory. In this case, a
car drove up to students walking in the street with its passengers screaming obscenities
offensive comments to the gay community to those walking in the streets. After those
walking in the streets confirmed that they were in fact gay, the passengers of the car got
out and pushed the students and the sped off in the car.19 Still, others argue that while
hate crimes should be prosecuted, it is not acceptable to “add additional penalties because
of what someone says or […] because of what we may presume might be in their minds
while they are committing those violent acts.20
Also in 2006, two college Republicans at Georgia Polytechnic Technology
Institute protested university speech codes. Georgia Tech had installed a policy which
18
The OYEZ Project, Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003),
available at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1107.
19
Vinni Intersimone and Bharat Venkat, “Hate speech and violence.” University Wire, October 12, 2006.
20
Joel McNally, “Law must see difference between hate speech, act.” The Capital Times, February 17, 2007: A6.
Rutgers Model Congress
13
banned “hate speech,” which primarily consisted of conservative political thought.
Meanwhile liberal speech was considered intellectual diversity. The students won the
lawsuit when a federal judge repealed the University’s speech code, saying it violated the
student’s First Amendment rights because it prohibited speech that was subjectively
deemed offensive, censoring activities on campus.21
In early 2007, a lawsuit was filed in California based on hate speech. A student in
Santa Rosa, California uttered the phrase “that’s so gay,” when asked about her Mormon
upbringing. Because the school district was cracking down on hate speech and offensive
language, the student got a warning and a notification in her file. In response, her parents
filed suit against the school district, stating that her daughter’s First Amendment rights
were violated by the school district. Moreover, the family states that their daughter was
singled out because of her conservative views on sexuality.22
In January 2007, a conflict over hateful speech broke out in a Boston,
Massachusetts suburb. Tensions when discussing Middle Eastern relations were high in
schools, and as a result the Social Studies department invited a group which speaks out
against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians called “Wheels of Justice” to speak to high
school students. Various parents, students, and even some faculty became outraged with
this school decision, forming a coalition called the “Committee Against Hate Speech in
Schools.” Many feared the repercussions such a group could have on young students in
an academic environment, ranging from anti-Semitism to violence in response to the
21
22
Ruth Malhorta and Orit Sklar, “Campus speech.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 18, 2006.
Lisa Leff, “Lawsuit raises questions about putdown.” Associated Press, February 28, 2007.
Rutgers Model Congress
14
statements made by Wheels of Justice. This is an example of an instance in which
preventative measures are taken in terms of hate speech, similar to the Skokie cases in the
1970s. To date, the group’s arrival to the school district is pending.23
Party Positions
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party has generally pushed for more regulation of hate speech.
They have been particularly vocal for protecting the rights of minority groups who may
be offended by hateful speech, as well as by the gay community. Still, it is important to
note that normally “liberal” interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) have taken the opposite stance from the Democratic Party, vowing to protect the
First Amendment and guaranteeing free speech regardless of what is said. The
Democratic Party has also been critical of Republican spokespeople, vocally speaking
against people such as Ann Coulter for using hate speech in the media. In 2004,
Representative Peter King (R-NY) spoke out in reference to the Muslim community,
stating that they have extremist leadership. In response the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) denounced Representative King’s statements, saying that it could be
viewed as hate speech. 24
Republican Party
The Republican Party has usually been in opposition of prosecuting those cited for
hate speech. Members of the Republican Party have pushed forth for advocating
23
Tracy Jan, “Conflict besets Andover high.” The Boston Globe, January 8, 2007: B1.
“DNC Calls on President Bush to Condemn Rep. Peter King's Hate Language “ Democratic National Committee.
http://www.democrats.org/news/200402120002.html
24
Rutgers Model Congress
15
constitutional rights, which include the First Amendment. The Republican Party has also
become outspoken on the subject of hate speech within the past decade in the political
arena. Since the Democratic Party has been vocal in criticism of the Bush Administration
and many members of the Republican Party, members of the GOP have called this
criticism a form of hate speech. In 2004 the former Republican Chairman spoke out
against harsh words of the Republican party, stating, "The kind of words we're hearing
now from the Democratic candidates go beyond political debate — this is political hate
speech,” when referencing the 2004 presidential election.25
25
Audrey Hudson, “GOP decries ‘hate speech’ by Democratic candidates.” The Washington Times, 2004.
Rutgers Model Congress
16
Summary
Hate speech throughout the U.S. has been prevalent among various groups.
Members of groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, as well as those who have denied the
existence of the Holocaust have spoken out and protested at rallies across the United
States. Some argue that this type of speech should be restricted, as it has led to crimes of
hate and injury. In addition, people state that speeches such as these present a danger and
need to be regulated. Still, others argue that regardless of agreement or disagreement with
the speech, all U.S. citizens have the right to speak as they choose, as their rights to
freedom of expression are guaranteed within the First Amendment of the United States
constitution.
As technology and intellectual ideas in the U.S. have developed, so has the
interpretation of regulation of hate speech. While in the past hate speech had been limited
to protests, rallies, and speeches, in modern day the idea of hate speech has expanded. It
has grown to be a controversial issue across college campuses, with debate over speech
codes. It has also been a topic of interest in terms of the world wide web, with a different
set of regulations in cyberspace. Finally, most recently hate speech has been used as a
term in the political world, whether Members of both the Democratic and Republican
Party stating that “hate speech” is being used by spokespeople or Members of each Party.
Regardless of its form, the debate over hate speech is one that needs to be addressed by
the United States Congress.
Rutgers Model Congress
17
Discussion Questions
• What determines whether a “clear and present danger” exists within a form of
speech?
• What precedent have Supreme Court cases set with its decisions in regards to
hate speech?
• How can hate speech lead to hate crime? Is there a way to prevent hate crime
without speech regulation? How?
• Should the rules for speech regulation be different within a University than
regular domain? What about the difference between a public and a private
university?
• Is the right to freedom of speech absolute regardless of the repercussions after
a speech?
• What is the role of hate speech in the political arena?
• Should speech be regulated? Why or why not?
• What impact has hate speech had in your state? What regulations does your
state have on the issue?
• How has your political party reacted to hate speech regulation suggestions?
Does it support them? Why or why not?
Rutgers Model Congress
18
Works Cited
Bala, James. “ACLU joins bid to shield hate speech.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution,
March 13, 1991.
“Case Summary for Feiner v. New York.”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Feiner_
v_NY
Carter, Chelsea “The issue of hate speech stirs county.” The San Diego Union-Tribune,
January 22, 2000.
“Court voids Wisconsin U. ban’s on hate speech.” The New York Times, October 13,
1991.
“DNC Calls on President Bush to Condemn Rep. Peter King's Hate Language”
Democratic National Committee.
http://www.democrats.org/news/200402120002.html
“Federal judge bars university's 'well-intentioned' speech code.” Associated Press,
September 8, 2003.
"Group challenges Pennsylvania college's speech codes.” Associated Press, April 24,
2003.
Ho Youm, Kyu. “First Amendment Law: Hate Speech, Equality, and Freedom of
Expression.” International Communication Association, 2001.
Hudson, Audrey. “GOP decries ‘hate speech’ by Democratic candidates.” The
Washington Times, 2004.
Hudson, David. “Hate speech and campus codes.” First Amendment Center,
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus
_speech_codes.
Intersimone, Vinni and Venkat, Bharat. “Hate speech and violence.” University Wire,
October 12, 2006.
Jan, Tracy “Conflict besets Andover high.” The Boston Globe, January 8, 2007.
Rutgers Model Congress
19
Leff, Lisa. “Lawsuit raises questions about putdown.” Associated Press, February 28,
2007.
Leibovich, Mark “A new domain for hate speech.” The Washington Post, December 15,
1999.
Malhorta, Ruth and Sklar, Orit. “Campus speech.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
August 18, 2006.
Mauro, Tony “Lengthy free speech case to go longer yet.” USA Today, June 2, 1992.
McCullagh, Delan. “U.S. won’t support net ‘hate speech’ ban.” CNET, February 15,
2002.
McNally, Joel. “Law must see difference between hate speech, act.” The Capital Times,
February 17, 2007.
The OYEZ Project, Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), available at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1901-1939/1919/1919_316 (last visited
March 02, 2007).
The OYEZ Project, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), available at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1960-1969/1968/1968_492 (last visited
March 02, 2007).
The OYEZ Project, Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942),
available at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1940-1949/1941/1941_255
(last visited February 23, 2007).
The OYEZ Project, R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), available at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675 (last visited
January 22, 2007).
The OYEZ Project, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), available at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1901-1939/1918/1918_437 (last visited
March 02, 2007).
The OYEZ Project, Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), available at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1107 (last visited
January 22, 2007).
“Primary Documents: U.S. Espionage Act, 15 June 1917.”
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm
Rutgers Model Congress
Smith, Robert L. “Muslims challenged to stand tall.” Plain Dealer, May 23, 2004.
“Student at Brown is Expelled under rule barring hate speech.” The New York Times,
February 12, 1991.
20