In America, controversy has always surrounded the First Amendment which grants freedom of speech.
From the politicians, to lawmakers, to ordinary citizens, the arguments for and against what one should say and how one should say it continues to rage on, as some people try to change, abuse or misuse this amendment which was handed down by America’s forefathers. And on the night of October 18th 1990, a Brown’s University student and Varsity football player stirred further controversy which added to the growing debate on the First Amendment (1991). Doug Hann was intoxicated on his twenty-first birthday when he shouted outside his dormitory window, “Fuck you niggers!” The racially derogatory statements caused great offence to many students, and a freshman consequently opened his window and politely asked Hanns not to be so loud and offensive. According to the Brown Daily Herald, the polite request was met with further offensive insults, after Hanns noticed an Israeli flag in the student’s dorm. He shouted, “Fucking Jew!” causing further offense to another group of students.
From the politicians, to lawmakers, to ordinary citizens, the arguments for and against what one should say and how one should say it continues to rage on, as some people try to change, abuse or misuse this amendment which was handed down by America’s forefathers. And on the night of October 18th 1990, a Brown’s University student and Varsity football player stirred further controversy which added to the growing debate on the First Amendment (1991). Doug Hann was intoxicated on his twenty-first birthday when he shouted outside his dormitory window, “Fuck you niggers!” The racially derogatory statements caused great offence to many students, and a freshman consequently opened his window and politely asked Hanns not to be so loud and offensive. According to the Brown Daily Herald, the polite request was met with further offensive insults, after Hanns noticed an Israeli flag in the student’s dorm. He shouted, “Fucking Jew!” causing further offense to another group of students.Defence
In an article from the Village Voice titled Should this student have been expelled? Widely published author Nat Hentoff argued in Hann’s defence saying that he had a right to freedom of speech and shouldn’t be expelled. (1991). Despite Hentoff’s declaration that Hanns shouldn’t be punished, it is inarguable Hanns had no excuse for hurling racist, anti Semitic insults. He incited a breach of the peace and a heated verbal confrontation ensued between the friends of Hanns and the freshman. The consequences for Hann’s irresponsible racist and bigoted insults could have been devastating, possibly resulting in violence. Though it didn’t result in violence, it did cause a heated campus debate. Taking that into account, he should not have been expelled
.
.
.Gone too far
The Undergraduate Disciplinary Council and the president of Browns University Vartan Gregorian deliberated and agreed that Hanns had gone too far with his liberty of speech. Hanns was expelled and barred from the university for life. However, according to the New York Times Gregorian denies that they have expelled anyone for the exercise of free speech.(201)
Henoff, who is also known for his writings in the New Yorker and the Washington Post argued in the Village Voice article, that it was unfair and hypocritical of the Browns University president to use the “hate speech code” to expel Hanns. Henoff quoted Gregorian’s words from a press release which stated that “the Browns Codes do not proscribe words, epithets, or slander, they proscribe behavior.”(203)
Henoff believed that the, “hate speech codes” which was use in Hann’s expulsion, violated the first amendment and Hann’s right to exercise freedom of speech. The “hate speech” code had been around for a while and no one had ever been expelled for violating any of these codes until Hanns. This caused quite a stir and attracted much attention to the case
.
.
.Support for Hann
The National Institute Against Prejudice claimed that it had never heard of a case like Hann’s. They said in other instances that they knew of, the accused students were sent for counseling and not expelled.
They appeared favorable to the presidents of those educational institutions adding that they wise enough to help the students not expel them.
Other apparent supporters of Hann’s included the ACLU, free thinkers on the student paper and unaffiliated objectors to expelling students for what they say opposed to what they do (202).
After much criticism for his action, President Gregorian wrote a letter to reputable newspaper -the New York Times, justifying his actions by introducing the university’s code of conduct.
The Way Forward
Of course both Hentoff and President Gregorian could argue their points continuously resulting in no resolution to the question of whether Hann should have been expelled or not. Some legal scholars say that the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech. In a New York Times article titled “Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech” and dated June 12th 2008, Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher is quoted from a New York Review of Books saying: “It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.” Waldron’s view is worth consideration because the reality is that hurling hateful and racist speech towards minorities is protected by the First Amendment, even when it causes much distress to people and incites loathing and violence. Perhaps the answer lies in reforming America’s laws on hate speech and possibly updating the First Amendment to make clearer distinctions between exercising one’s right to freedom of speech as opposed to using hate speech with the intention of causing offense to minorities and possibly inciting a breach of the peace.
References:
Nerula, Smita. Good Riddance. Browns Daily Herald, (February, 13)
The New York Times, (February 12)
Henoff, Nat. Should This Student Have Been Expelled. Village Voice (1991)
The Way Forward
Of course both Hentoff and President Gregorian could argue their points continuously resulting in no resolution to the question of whether Hann should have been expelled or not. Some legal scholars say that the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech. In a New York Times article titled “Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech” and dated June 12th 2008, Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher is quoted from a New York Review of Books saying: “It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.” Waldron’s view is worth consideration because the reality is that hurling hateful and racist speech towards minorities is protected by the First Amendment, even when it causes much distress to people and incites loathing and violence. Perhaps the answer lies in reforming America’s laws on hate speech and possibly updating the First Amendment to make clearer distinctions between exercising one’s right to freedom of speech as opposed to using hate speech with the intention of causing offense to minorities and possibly inciting a breach of the peace.
References:
Nerula, Smita. Good Riddance. Browns Daily Herald, (February, 13)
The New York Times, (February 12)
Henoff, Nat. Should This Student Have Been Expelled. Village Voice (1991)
No comments:
Post a Comment