• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Former Sidley Austin Partner Departs for General Electric In-house Position | Main | Crowell Lobbying for Prudential on Trade Issues »

October 15, 2012


Citizen Ghost

Arguing about whether the advertisement is "hate speech" sort of misses the point.

The court was very clear:

"It is unnecessary to decide whether the advertisement is predominantly one type of speech [political speech]or the other [hate speech], because on these facts, the First Amendment protects speech from government intrusion in either case."

And so, it hardly matters whether the use of the words like "savage" are seen as applying to a large group or small one.

Either way, the speech is protected under the First Amendment. The government can't prohibit speech just becaues it offends people. Easy decision.

Get Real

It is a hate speech when you call someone a "savage" and uncivilized. The hatred is as black and white as the words printed. It's a shame you can't read. The rant is a bullying down at specific group of people she thinks is less valuable than her as they are "savages" and uncivilized. If she called you an uncivilized savage it is your opinion that she like you and would most likely go out on a date with you, you savage! Everyone who followed the situation knows she is making a direct reference to Muslims and Islam with the word "Jihad." Just because she didn't say Muslim don't reduce the inference. Her finger pointing is clear. Call it is for what it it; she did not paid for the advertisement to call a group of people "savages" and uncivilize out of love, admiration, or the slightest hint of like. She advertised her hatred.

David Wiegand

So, as I understand it, the controversy stems from the wording, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man," along with the tag, "Support Israel/Defeat Jihad." The court found this to constitute "hate speech" because it connoted that all muslims were savages. Huh?? The language doesn't even include the word, "muslim", and even if it was implied, it only referred to those who supported "Jihad." It is a bit of a reach, therefore, to infer the ad is directed to all muslims. One is left to wonder whether if the court would construe the following language as "hate speech" if it were posted in the early 1940s during WWII:

"In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.", . . . "Support the USA and its allies/Defeat ethnic cleansing!"

How sad that concerns of retaliatory savagery preclude us from denouncing Naziism and other hateful/savage policies, practices, groups, and stances for fear that such denunciation itself be deemed "hate speech".

It is now hateful to hate hatred. The world has officially been turned on its head.

James Li

The end result is proper. Unfortunately, without any legal analysis, the Judge Rosemary Collyer concludes in her opinion that the advertisement constitutes "hate speech."

And so the First Amendment slowly gets chipped away. Sadly, she has lifetime employment as a federal judge.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad