Michael Sabetta
13 Dec. 2011
FD5
The Solution to Eliminating Hate Crime: Decriminalize the Hate
While the concept of crime has been around for thousands of years, hate crime is a relatively new concept. According to one of our class readings, it is defined as “violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify with” (Hate). Virtually every rational person would agree that crime, especially violent crime, is wrong. Similarly, most would agree that it is wrong to have hateful thoughts towards someone based on their social group. However, there is some disagreement on whether criminals should be prosecuted based on their thoughts or whether they should be prosecuted based on their actions. For many, the idea that our government will decide which thoughts are considered acceptable, during the commission of a crime, is a worrisome development. [THESIS] If we really want to eliminate hate crime from our society, there is a simple solution, decriminalize the hate and concentrate on punishing the crime, not the thoughts of the criminal. [THESIS]
I realize that this solution may sound overly simplistic to some, but we need to consider the long-term goals of hate crime legislation. One of which would be to reduce the number of incidents that are occurring. The best way to do that is to use increased punishment as a deterrent, and base that punishment on the severity of the act committed. If a potential criminal knows that he will have the book thrown at him, he will be less likely to commit the crime. If he knows that he will get off relatively easy, as long as he does not utter a racial slur, then he might be deterred from saying prohibited words, but not from committing the crime.
Another of the long-term goals of hate crime legislation is to reduce the overall amount of racism in our society. As an observer of human behavior, and given the unbending nature of people who hate, I worry that the means being employed could be completely antithetical to achieving that goal. Take, for example, a closet racist who is overheard making a racially insensitive comment at his place of work. The supervisor finds out about it and decides to send this individual to a sensitivity course on multicultural awareness. After being forced to undergo the humiliation of attending that course, in the end, he will probably say that he has seen the light and is better now. In reality, the only thing that will have been accomplished is that the level of hate this person feels will have been multiplied.
This same scenario can be discussed in regard to hate crimes. Somebody who is a racist and a criminal hears that he will suffer a harsher punishment for committing a racially motivated crime. Considering human nature, the chances are that this information will cause his racist feelings to grow stronger, not weaker. He then commits the crime, and in the process, accidentally lets a racial slur slip out. While he is stewing in prison, because of the harsher punishment that he received, his racism grows even more intense. More than likely, when he gets out, he will be even angrier and more driven to engage in racially motivated crime.
One of the readings for our course, titled “National Acrimony and a Rise in Hate Crimes” mentions “…a recent spate of hate-related incidents around the country…” (Knickerbocker). I think that those who study these types of things should take a serious look at the correlation between an increased discussion of hate crimes legislation and the increase in actual hate crimes. As I stated earlier, given the obstinate nature of the racist mindset, the perceived threat inherent in this discussion will be treated as a provocation, not a deterrent. The article goes on to state that “A bill in the house would add protection based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, and disability to existing federal hate-crimes legislation addressing violent crimes” (Knickerbocker). I understand the idea behind this legislation and I am sure that the proponents think that they are helping to solve the problem. However, as feel-good as this bill might be, I doubt that it will do anything to reduce crime on the groups that it is seeking to protect. In fact, for reasons already discussed, it could actually make the situation worse.
To protect the members of these groups, and everyone else for that matter, we should increase punishment for all violent crimes, regardless of the motivation. We do not need useless legislation that only provokes the worst among us, and we do not need the thought police determining which thoughts are acceptable. Hate is an ugly word and a sad way of life. It is, however, not a crime.
Works Cited
“Hate Crimes Today: An Age-Old Foe in Modern Dress.” APA Online 1998. 13 Dec. 2011 [http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/hate/#top].
Knickerbocker, Brad. “National Acrimony and a Rise in Hate Crimes.” csmonitor.com. 3 June 2005. 13 Dec. 2011 [http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0603/p03s01-ussc.html].
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Freedom of Expression: Our Most Important Right
Michael Sabetta
8 Dec. 2011
FD4
Freedom of Expression: Our Most Important Right
As one who follows current events rather closely, I have noticed the recent uptick in stories pertaining to so-called “offensive speech.” I often wonder how the framers of our Constitution would react upon hearing that there are those, in modern American society, who are actively trying to stifle the right to free expression and limit what can be said regarding the controversial issues of our time. The fact is that our founding fathers felt so strongly about this right that they put it in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. I realize that there are certainly ideas, either published or simply expressed verbally, that could be considered by some to be in bad taste, unpatriotic, or even treasonous. However, this should not affect the ability of those who wish to state those ideas publicly to do so. [THESIS]Free speech is essential to a free society, and if our country goes down the road of allowing those in power to place limits on what type of speech is considered acceptable, I fear that the end result could be a dystopian future where independent thinkers are punished and the only form of expression allowed is that which Big Brother condones. [THESIS]
I feel certain that the majority of those reading this essay are familiar with the term Big Brother. Most of us have either read George Orwell’s masterwork, Nineteen Eighty-Four, or have heard the term used in popular culture. For those who have not, Big Brother refers to an over-controlling government that keeps the population under constant surveillance, in order to make sure that nobody says or does anything that does not meet with the approval of those in power. I understand that it might sound a bit far-fetched to imply that banning offensive speech could lead to the type of society I just described. However, if we take the step of allowing the powers that be to determine what can or cannot be said, there is no telling how far they will go, once we have acquiesced this fundamental right.
The ability and propensity of government to chip away at individual liberties is not something that should be taken lightly. There are numerous examples of governments around the world and throughout history that have sought to clamp down on free speech, especially when that speech is critical of those in power. Our own government should not be considered immune to the natural inclination of authority to maintain and further enhance its ability to control the population. One of the best ways to do this is to make sure that the voices of dissent are not heard.
Ward Churchill was one of those voices. Once a professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Churchill’s voice has been all but silenced because those in power did not agree with what he had to say. I realize that in this instance it was not the government doing the silencing. It was the governing members of this particular university. In any case, it is a clear example of those in positions of authority effectively marginalizing one whose opinions run counter to what they consider to be acceptable public discourse. What was Churchill’s crime? He wrote an article, shortly after 9-11, saying that the hijackers were justified in retaliating against the United States, because of our foreign policy which he considers to be imperialistic and genocidal. To amplify his point, he used incendiary language by referring to the people who worked in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns”. Understandably, this had more than a few people quite upset.
Churchill, however, was not without his defenders. Roger Bowen leads a group that comes to the defense of professors who find themselves embroiled in controversy. He summed up his group’s opposition to Churchill’s removal in the following statement, “Any time you silence speech, it affects the freedom of a university” (Beaudin). This statement, simple and to the point, reflects an undeniable truth. Many professors, at Colorado University and elsewhere, will not express themselves as freely as they would have, prior to this incident. Churchill will serve as a reminder to those who will now think twice before giving a controversial lecture or offering an unpopular opinion.
For the record, I would like to make perfectly clear my own personal disagreement with virtually everything I have heard Churchill say about the victims of 9-11, our nation’s military, and the historical role that the United States has played in changing the world. I, for one, believe that our country has been an overall force for good in the world. Whereas Churchill, judging by his writing and public lectures, appears to believe just the opposite. I can still remember the palpable anger that I felt, upon first hearing Churchill’s comments regarding 9-11. However, I would be the last one to suggest that, simply because I find his views to be distasteful and unpatriotic, he should somehow be punished for his courage and willingness to express those unpopular, but heartfelt, views.
Fred Phelps is another individual who has gained great notoriety expressing unpopular, but apparently heartfelt, views. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church. Most people, when they hear the word church attached to an organization, probably imagine a group of happy people, singing songs and preaching the importance of forgiveness and understanding. Unfortunately, the people who belong to this “church” are a far cry from that comforting image. Phelps’ followers bear more of a likeness to messengers of hate. They believe in a vengeful God. One who seeks to punish our country for what they see as the rampant immorality that has woven its tentacles throughout every aspect of our modern-day society. This extreme fringe group has made a name for itself by going to the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers and espousing their belief that these deaths are the direct result of the collective moral failings by the citizenry of a country gone astray. Those who agree with these heartless actions and the bizarre theory that motivates them are surely in the minority. I would venture to say that, even on a very gloomy day, the number of people supporting this congregation probably does not get past the high single digits. However, popularity should not be a factor when deciding who can say what and where they can say it.
Once again, I feel obligated to clarify my position on this matter. I am in total disagreement with the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church and with the hurtful tactics that they employ. That having been said, I also believe that they should be allowed to freely express those beliefs and they should be allowed to continue to employ their emotionally hurtful tactics, no matter how much psychological damage this might cause. While these statements may sound incongruous, I am not the only one who feels this way. In fact, eight out of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court came to the same conclusion. According to an NPR article published on March 2, 2011 “The Supreme Court [in an 8-1 decision] ruled that the right to free speech protects Phelps and his church members to express their opinions during military and other high-profile funerals” (Chappell).
One of our class readings titled First Amendment: An Overview describes in one simple sentence why the Supreme Court ruled as they did: “The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government” (First). Thankfully, the highest court in the land still understands the inherent danger of letting the right to free expression begin to erode. In the Phelps case, they ruled that First Amendment rights far outweigh hurt feelings or emotional trauma.
A classmate of mine, Mala Arkin, wrote a post attacking the right of people like Churchill to use offensive speech, “If people like Ward Churchill are invited, even welcomed, to spread hate and anti-American sentiments among the leaders of tomorrow our country and subsequently the world will be a scarier place to live in” (Arkin). While I can understand the reasoning behind her statement, and I agree that spreading messages of hate to the youth of our country is something that could possibly have deleterious effects in the future, I think that Mala is overlooking the greater danger. Rather than worrying about our youth being unwittingly influenced by hate-mongers, I am more worried about living in a world where the population is afraid to speak their mind for fear of offending the authorities.
Apparently looking for a middle ground, another classmate of mine, Dean Kurozumi, made a comment that illustrates the fine line that separates “allowable” speech from censorship: “We cannot deny him [Ward Churchill] the right to say certain things because he is under our constitution, but we should have the right to restrict what he says” (Kurozumi). I generally admire Dean’s insightful writing. However, this quote is a classic example of trying to take both sides of an issue. In reality, the difference between denying speech and restricting speech is one of semantics. Furthermore, I believe that restricting what someone is allowed to say is quite probably the exact abuse of power that our Founding Fathers were considering when they added the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Freedom of Speech is a touchy issue. There is no doubt that allowing people to say what they want, no matter how offensive, has its drawbacks. Feelings may get hurt, tempers may flare, and violence may even erupt. As unpleasant as these things may sound, one must look at the alternative. While I do not see Big Brother making an appearance any time in the near future, we must be ever vigilant to protect those rights that were fought so hard for and that we are blessed to have to this very day. We must not allow even the slightest erosion of those rights, for we could wake up one morning and find ourselves living in the type of world previously found only in sci-fi novels or totalitarian regimes.
Works Cited
Arkin, Mala. “Attack Churchill.” Online Posting. 15 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 31 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Beaudin, Matthew. "Churchill Quits Chairmanship." dailycamera.com 1 Feb. 2005. 10 Apr. 2006.]
Chappell, Bill. “Supreme Court Sides with Westboro Church on Funeral Protests.” NPR. National Public Radio, 2 Mar. 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. < http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/02/134194791/supreme-court-sides-with-westboro-church-on-funeral-protests>
"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Instiitute. Cornell Law School. 5 June 2003.]
Kurozumi, Dean. “Attacking Ward Churchill.” Online Posting. 17 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 28 Nov. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Log of Completed Activities
_X__ Nov. 9- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4.
_X__ Nov. 14- Complete readings for paper #4.
_X__ Nov. 18- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
_X__ Nov. 23- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
_X__ Nov. 28- Submit RD4. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines.
_X__ Dec. 5- Submit three RD4 evaluations [50 pts] Review the guidelines.
_X__ Dec. 8-12- Submit FD4 [150 pts] Review the guidelines.
8 Dec. 2011
FD4
Freedom of Expression: Our Most Important Right
As one who follows current events rather closely, I have noticed the recent uptick in stories pertaining to so-called “offensive speech.” I often wonder how the framers of our Constitution would react upon hearing that there are those, in modern American society, who are actively trying to stifle the right to free expression and limit what can be said regarding the controversial issues of our time. The fact is that our founding fathers felt so strongly about this right that they put it in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. I realize that there are certainly ideas, either published or simply expressed verbally, that could be considered by some to be in bad taste, unpatriotic, or even treasonous. However, this should not affect the ability of those who wish to state those ideas publicly to do so. [THESIS]Free speech is essential to a free society, and if our country goes down the road of allowing those in power to place limits on what type of speech is considered acceptable, I fear that the end result could be a dystopian future where independent thinkers are punished and the only form of expression allowed is that which Big Brother condones. [THESIS]
I feel certain that the majority of those reading this essay are familiar with the term Big Brother. Most of us have either read George Orwell’s masterwork, Nineteen Eighty-Four, or have heard the term used in popular culture. For those who have not, Big Brother refers to an over-controlling government that keeps the population under constant surveillance, in order to make sure that nobody says or does anything that does not meet with the approval of those in power. I understand that it might sound a bit far-fetched to imply that banning offensive speech could lead to the type of society I just described. However, if we take the step of allowing the powers that be to determine what can or cannot be said, there is no telling how far they will go, once we have acquiesced this fundamental right.
The ability and propensity of government to chip away at individual liberties is not something that should be taken lightly. There are numerous examples of governments around the world and throughout history that have sought to clamp down on free speech, especially when that speech is critical of those in power. Our own government should not be considered immune to the natural inclination of authority to maintain and further enhance its ability to control the population. One of the best ways to do this is to make sure that the voices of dissent are not heard.
Ward Churchill was one of those voices. Once a professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Churchill’s voice has been all but silenced because those in power did not agree with what he had to say. I realize that in this instance it was not the government doing the silencing. It was the governing members of this particular university. In any case, it is a clear example of those in positions of authority effectively marginalizing one whose opinions run counter to what they consider to be acceptable public discourse. What was Churchill’s crime? He wrote an article, shortly after 9-11, saying that the hijackers were justified in retaliating against the United States, because of our foreign policy which he considers to be imperialistic and genocidal. To amplify his point, he used incendiary language by referring to the people who worked in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns”. Understandably, this had more than a few people quite upset.
Churchill, however, was not without his defenders. Roger Bowen leads a group that comes to the defense of professors who find themselves embroiled in controversy. He summed up his group’s opposition to Churchill’s removal in the following statement, “Any time you silence speech, it affects the freedom of a university” (Beaudin). This statement, simple and to the point, reflects an undeniable truth. Many professors, at Colorado University and elsewhere, will not express themselves as freely as they would have, prior to this incident. Churchill will serve as a reminder to those who will now think twice before giving a controversial lecture or offering an unpopular opinion.
For the record, I would like to make perfectly clear my own personal disagreement with virtually everything I have heard Churchill say about the victims of 9-11, our nation’s military, and the historical role that the United States has played in changing the world. I, for one, believe that our country has been an overall force for good in the world. Whereas Churchill, judging by his writing and public lectures, appears to believe just the opposite. I can still remember the palpable anger that I felt, upon first hearing Churchill’s comments regarding 9-11. However, I would be the last one to suggest that, simply because I find his views to be distasteful and unpatriotic, he should somehow be punished for his courage and willingness to express those unpopular, but heartfelt, views.
Fred Phelps is another individual who has gained great notoriety expressing unpopular, but apparently heartfelt, views. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church. Most people, when they hear the word church attached to an organization, probably imagine a group of happy people, singing songs and preaching the importance of forgiveness and understanding. Unfortunately, the people who belong to this “church” are a far cry from that comforting image. Phelps’ followers bear more of a likeness to messengers of hate. They believe in a vengeful God. One who seeks to punish our country for what they see as the rampant immorality that has woven its tentacles throughout every aspect of our modern-day society. This extreme fringe group has made a name for itself by going to the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers and espousing their belief that these deaths are the direct result of the collective moral failings by the citizenry of a country gone astray. Those who agree with these heartless actions and the bizarre theory that motivates them are surely in the minority. I would venture to say that, even on a very gloomy day, the number of people supporting this congregation probably does not get past the high single digits. However, popularity should not be a factor when deciding who can say what and where they can say it.
Once again, I feel obligated to clarify my position on this matter. I am in total disagreement with the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church and with the hurtful tactics that they employ. That having been said, I also believe that they should be allowed to freely express those beliefs and they should be allowed to continue to employ their emotionally hurtful tactics, no matter how much psychological damage this might cause. While these statements may sound incongruous, I am not the only one who feels this way. In fact, eight out of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court came to the same conclusion. According to an NPR article published on March 2, 2011 “The Supreme Court [in an 8-1 decision] ruled that the right to free speech protects Phelps and his church members to express their opinions during military and other high-profile funerals” (Chappell).
One of our class readings titled First Amendment: An Overview describes in one simple sentence why the Supreme Court ruled as they did: “The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government” (First). Thankfully, the highest court in the land still understands the inherent danger of letting the right to free expression begin to erode. In the Phelps case, they ruled that First Amendment rights far outweigh hurt feelings or emotional trauma.
A classmate of mine, Mala Arkin, wrote a post attacking the right of people like Churchill to use offensive speech, “If people like Ward Churchill are invited, even welcomed, to spread hate and anti-American sentiments among the leaders of tomorrow our country and subsequently the world will be a scarier place to live in” (Arkin). While I can understand the reasoning behind her statement, and I agree that spreading messages of hate to the youth of our country is something that could possibly have deleterious effects in the future, I think that Mala is overlooking the greater danger. Rather than worrying about our youth being unwittingly influenced by hate-mongers, I am more worried about living in a world where the population is afraid to speak their mind for fear of offending the authorities.
Apparently looking for a middle ground, another classmate of mine, Dean Kurozumi, made a comment that illustrates the fine line that separates “allowable” speech from censorship: “We cannot deny him [Ward Churchill] the right to say certain things because he is under our constitution, but we should have the right to restrict what he says” (Kurozumi). I generally admire Dean’s insightful writing. However, this quote is a classic example of trying to take both sides of an issue. In reality, the difference between denying speech and restricting speech is one of semantics. Furthermore, I believe that restricting what someone is allowed to say is quite probably the exact abuse of power that our Founding Fathers were considering when they added the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Freedom of Speech is a touchy issue. There is no doubt that allowing people to say what they want, no matter how offensive, has its drawbacks. Feelings may get hurt, tempers may flare, and violence may even erupt. As unpleasant as these things may sound, one must look at the alternative. While I do not see Big Brother making an appearance any time in the near future, we must be ever vigilant to protect those rights that were fought so hard for and that we are blessed to have to this very day. We must not allow even the slightest erosion of those rights, for we could wake up one morning and find ourselves living in the type of world previously found only in sci-fi novels or totalitarian regimes.
Works Cited
Arkin, Mala. “Attack Churchill.” Online Posting. 15 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 31 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Beaudin, Matthew. "Churchill Quits Chairmanship." dailycamera.com 1 Feb. 2005. 10 Apr. 2006
Chappell, Bill. “Supreme Court Sides with Westboro Church on Funeral Protests.” NPR. National Public Radio, 2 Mar. 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. < http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/02/134194791/supreme-court-sides-with-westboro-church-on-funeral-protests>
"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Instiitute. Cornell Law School. 5 June 2003
Kurozumi, Dean. “Attacking Ward Churchill.” Online Posting. 17 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 28 Nov. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]
Log of Completed Activities
_X__ Nov. 9- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4.
_X__ Nov. 14- Complete readings for paper #4.
_X__ Nov. 18- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
_X__ Nov. 23- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
_X__ Nov. 28- Submit RD4. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines.
_X__ Dec. 5- Submit three RD4 evaluations [50 pts] Review the guidelines.
_X__ Dec. 8-12- Submit FD4 [150 pts] Review the guidelines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)