 |
| World War II Poster |
Isn’t this just another way of saying Jones was bumming out the soldiers? Should this be considered a crime? Doesn’t the U. S. Constitution give men like Dr. Jones the right to say things that might depress people? Even soldiers?
Read the rest of the charges leveled against him on page 68. How many of them do you think are punishable crimes?
Under what conditions can a speech act be considered criminal?
In reality there is a law in the U.S. that no hate speech may be given, but at this time in history this law was not in effect. So while the Constitution gives the freedom of speech, you cannot bum out the soldiers! None of the other charges would stick in the court systems today, because they are clearly made up to put Jones in jail to shut him up. A speech act is criminal when it is a hate speech which according to Wikipedia is: “Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.” So there you have it. You can’t be hateful and give a public speech just because you don’t like somebody.
ReplyDeleteYou can be hateful in a public speech, but you can't express hatred for someone because that person is Black or female or British or a Scientologist or gay. Or Jewish.
ReplyDeleteDid Jones express such hatred?
I think that a 'hate speech' isn't harmful unless it explicitly directs others to carry out hateful actions toward the person/group that is targeted in the speech. I don't feel like any of the charges that Jones was convicted of were ones that would have held strong in a time where war wasn't present. In my mind, the morale during the war was something extremely important. It kept the country (somewhat) stable, and without the propaganda for the government and what they were doing it could have turned out much differently.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Jones did express some sort of directed hate, but I'm not sure if it is something that should be punishable, even though most of us don't want to hear it.
Wouldn't it be harmful if someone made a speech explaining why some group (Jews, Blacks, immigrants, women, gays, etc.) deserved violent treatment, even if you didn't explicitly direct others to commit those violent acts?
ReplyDeleteI agree that morale was very important in the war. America needed a positive attitude to keep going during a hard time. However, being in war should not invalidate the constitutional right to freedom of speech. I don’t think Jones would be convicted of any of the listed crimes in today’s world. I do think that his works were harmful. He encouraged and spread racism. However, I think that he has a constitutional right to hold and share his beliefs. While it may be harmful to publicly announce an opinion that a minority should be treated with violence, I don’t think the speaker would be legally responsible for any illegal actions sparked by the speech. The person who decided to act on the idea would be responsible.
ReplyDeleteI think that if someone explicitly stated that a group, as a whole, should be harmed, they would be doing something illegal and 'morally' wrong. I think that morals are subjective, but I feel like those who have the morality that tell them to not hurt members of a large group of people because of an uncontrollable factor (race, sex) can be called universally immoral.
ReplyDeleteAlthough they are not being directly told to commit these acts, I feel like a speech "explaining why some group deserved violent treatment" would justify and allow the violence to go on for some.
So which one is it? Hailey says there is a law against hate speech in the U.S. (although it was not around during World War II) and Bethany says there is not. Can someone locate evidence to support one claim or the other?
ReplyDeleteLaws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words. This statement is a combination of rulings from Supreme Court Cases R.A.V v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire (1942). There are also time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. So, hate speech is legally limited, but by no means illegal. I don’t think Dr. Jones would be convicted of using fighting words or inciting riots. For a modern example, the controversial actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are protected under the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
ReplyDelete