Well now. This is an interesting attempt to override the Constitution by way of an easy emotional appeal. From The Houston Chronicle, “Mayor wants Brazoria to outlaw the ‘n-word’”:
Brazoria Mayor Ken Corley wants offensive use of the “n-word” to be punishable by a fine of up to $500 in his town.
“It’s not a particular problem in Brazoria,” Corley said, “but it’s a national problem.”
—Ah. That makes sense.
Next up on the Brazoria legislative agenda? Declaring it illegal to give a full-body olive oil massage to an anaesthetized Killer Whale.
Not that such odious behavior is a big problem in Brazoria, you understand—but in the Mayor’s defense, there have been a few incidents at SeaWorld that have gone unpunished because, well, nobody bothered to preemptively create a law!
Corley said he got the idea while watching two black ministers talking on television about how offensive that word is. “I just think it would be great if this little town of Brazoria, with 2,800 people, leads the way in fighting against this offensive language,” said Corley.
He said if the ordinance passes, he may ask for it to be expanded to include other racial slurs.
He believes Brazoria would be the first place in the country where the racial slur would be outlawed. But at least one legal expert said Monday that such an ordinance may not stand up in court.
The ordinance wouldn’t forbid anyone from saying the word, Corley said, but would outlaw using the word in an offensive or aggressive manner. Violators would be charged with disturbing the peace, he said.
And just who would determine whether or not the word was being used in an “offensive or aggressive manner,” I wonder? That is, who gets to decide on the utterers intent? And isn’t the danger of providing someone perhaps not familiar with the context in which the word was uttered—or with the history (intertext / intratext) between the involved parties—simply extending the power of the state to ridiculous extremes?
Not to mention that what this does—along with other types of “hate crimes”—is codify into law the thought crime, given that any conviction would necessarily be based on the intent that prosecutors would attribute to the speaker.
I have written before on the silliness of “outlawing” words, but this proposal is even more ridiculous than most, given that, were the law to be applied equally, we’d likely run into the rather uncomforably ironic situation in which one Black is arrested for calling another Black “nigger”—even if both parties used the term in an exchange, the first as a term of solidarity (“my nigger”), the other in an “offensive and aggressive manner”.
Notes Gerald Treece, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law, the ordinance, if contested in court, would likely not stand:
“It’s one of those laws you can pass and put on the books, but when you try to enforce it, that’s when you’re going to run into some trouble,” he said.
In the past, attempts by governmental bodies to ban the use of offensive language have been struck down because the laws were too vague or broad.
He said the use of offensive language is protected by the First Amendment. The only possible exception, he said, is if the use of the language is connected with a hate crime. The use of the word alone cannot be prohibited.
[my emphasis]
Anybody else beginning to worry about the slippery slope between hate crimes and the verbal tools that turn ordinary offenses into “hate crimes” in the first place?
Because I certainly am.
(h/t John)
What’s going to be hilarious are the cries of racism from the fined people who use it the most.
What word will they ban next, hell o, God, Honkey, Whitey? The book burnings come next. There are millions of fools in this country that are leaping tall building to get into Nazism, Communism and Marxism all rolled into one. What will they do when they get it? I know, blame someone else for they’re problems, but that will get you shot under their form of government.
Wait. They want to outlaw “nads”? Or is it “knockers”? Or “nipples”?
Apropos of nothing, I just wanted to remind everyone the State of the Union address will be on at 9:00 pm Eastern.
If the last couple of year’s are any indication, I will be blotto by about 9:45.
Heaven help the poor public educated child who mispronounces Niger & is sent to maximum lockup for hate crimes against the world or because his/her parents don’t have the proper bumper-sticker on their on their hybrid or god forbid they drive a SUV – which proves they are haters or possible worse, evil RETHUGLICANS BENT ON DESTROYING ALL CIVIL LIBERTIES, RE-ENSLAVING ALL PEOPLE OF COLOR & VOTING FOR BUSHITLER (who isn’t up for re-election) MY GEIA THEY MIGHT EVEN HAVE SUBJECTED THEIR CHILD TO RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!!!
“Hate crimes” is a contrivance born of such sleight logical rationale that the concept gains validity from even the most incisive critique. Al Franken is counting on this dynamic in his Senate run.
At my sister’s college, the student feminists posted a list of various terms they considered sexist and unacceptable.
Several guys took the lists to open windows and screamed them as loud as possible across the quad.
I guess they missed sensitivity re-education (ah, I mean “training”)……
I stand with all of my black brothers and sisters and transgendered in declaring this post to be offensive and racist. I shall go to Brassiereia and fire a Federal Discrimination Suit in their court, forthwith.
If being blasted at 130db out of a rusted, rattling, sub-woofer on wheels is considered offensive and aggressive, I might be able to get behind this.
Hate crime legislation is thought-crime legislation and is unconstitutional. It scared me when it first started showing up, and so far it still stands, which remains scary.
I still don’t see why a crime can’t just be prosecuted as such. If, for instance, one man beats another man to death, does it matter whether one was white and the other brown, or one was straight and the other gay? Not that I can see. It just seems to be yet another outgrowth of identity politics.
As stated, this isn’t really the problem, because it elides a crucial distinction. Most crimes require the prosecution to demonstrate that a victim had a particular intent. The real problem with this and similar ordinances is the type of intent that is being punished. That the law would punish the intent to offend is what raises Constitutional concerns. Hate crime legislation, when it is well-crafted (which it usually isn’t), attempts to avoid this problem by framing the mens rea element as the intent to intimidate.
Kaffir, which is Arabic for “infidel” or “unbeliever” is also considered a racial slur in Southern Africa and its use is illegal.
Interesting. But here in the US, we have the 1st Amendment.
Although, you can bet the Supreme Court will cite South African law when they hear the case that arises from this.
Where do they come up with this garbage. I mean really now.
I think the bigger issue is the hate itself. I don’t know that much can be done about that at the moment.
Good thing I am dead because it would be damn expensive for N.W.A. to do a gig in that town!
dolphin in the pea coat: “Listen Goldstein, you make one move towards that killer whale with that bottle of olive oil in your hand and you will never -NEVER I SAY!!!-find anything behind the sofa cushions again. That is a promise.”
Hey Stevexx or what ever the fuck your name is. Stop using a “-e” in your name or I will pop a cap in your ass and send you to hell. That is my deal and I am not going to tollerate anyone else using it.
In fact don’t use xx either because that disrespects Malcom and malt liquor.
I am not eager for the moment when “much can be done” about hate. I think we should definitely hold off on that.
H
Easy-e,
I’ll take that under advisement.
Sincerely,
Steveeo ex-expat
P.S.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXO
Hmmmm.
Off-topic: Anybody read about Bush’s proposed healthcare reform?
You get a deduction on your federal taxes.
You get to ADD the monetary value of your healthcare plan to your GROSS INCOME.
…
WTF!!??
I’ve got a good health plan so now I get to fucking pay taxes on this bullshit?! And of course fucking Fred “Brown Nose” Barnes is jumping for fucking joy over this on Brit Hume. Best of all Barnes is talking out of his ass that this isn’t a fucking tax increase.
If I like the sound of that, does that make me gay?
awwww, man… well, fuck that road trip.
I didn’t see where Brazoria was outlawing “Sphincter Face” or “Scrotum Cheeks” so Johnny Law’s got nuthin on me.
I think the bigger issue is the hate itself. I don’t know that much can be done about that at the moment.
The hate behind the word “nigger?” Because, honestly, the only person I hear saying it with any regularity are other blacks.
Regardless, I’m sure the ACLU will be along any time now… protecting free speech and all.
This country will only be truly free when the only time a man can kill another man is for the money.
Zen Comment #: Whatever, dude
or: I’m not verbal
“Then, poof! Like that, he’s gone…”
— Verbal, “The Usual Suspects”
Yeah, but I keep your shit runnin’, don’t I?
Bitch.
“Nigger” is so last decade. A powerful word to be sure. The real challenge would be to take another seemingly unrooted word and give it the same power:
palosey
derbin
mertha
anything?
Will it be illegal to flip somebody the Byrd?
Can I assume that all of you are also against censorship of swearing, explicit sexual discussions and nudity on network television?
Aw, man, that is so boring.
Yes. Once you flag it for mature content, like Steven Bochco said, you should be free to show at least R-rated content.
steve xx, have you read some of the stuff on this site? what do you think?
I sure am getting called boring a lot lately. I just wanted to make sure we have true First Amendment advocates, not cafeteria free speechers, picking and choosing.
Maggie,
You are a future psychiatrist with an open-ended question like that. Can you be more specific for me, though?
steve xx, I’ll just say that as great as some of Jeff’s stuff is, I don’t recommend the site to my mom.
Maggie,
Leaving aside the question of Jeff’s greatness for the moment, perhaps you are underestimating your mother.
Well, I for one am in favor of nudity on network TV.
As long as it applies to everyone.
nope, them southern baptists don’t have much tolerance for profanity and dolphins in pea-coats.
Mojo,
I can think of a few people that I would prefer it didn’t apply to.
Moops —
I see your point—and I considered dealing with other law that relies on intent—but I thought I drew the distinction clearly enough that the intent here would be completely unprovable, and that conviction would be based on the ability of a prosecutor to successfully wrest meaning from an utterer in order to “define” it.
You seem to be capable of assuming damn near anything, from what I have read so far.
B Moe,
Am I assuming incorrectly in your case, or do you just take issue with my assuming nature?
B Moe,
For the record, it was more of a setup question. It’s hard to get around saying that nudity and profanity is okay on television if you’ve just committed to freedom of speech in support of the post. If you said something about children not being exposed to such things, so censorship of televsion is okay, I probably would respond with some crack about whether it would be okay for Brazoria to ban the N-word in the presence of children. If you really continued to hold the line on free speech, I probably would have referred to Jeff’s previous post about a press blackout to see where you stood on that, etc.
Your set-ups are feeble and transparent, steve xx. I don’t think you’re nearly as clever as you think yourself to be.
it’s like I can see the hampsters running and turning the wheels.
I was refering both to your assuming nature and improper grammar (you should have said might I assume).
As to your questions, I do not favor censorship of TV at the levels we have now, but I do think measures to help prevent children from seeing things their parents deem inappropriate should be in place.
When I refered earlier to a press blackout, I meant to deny access to the press, not censor what they report. Freedom of the press doesn’t mean I have to supply them with information, you realize.
and they’re lazy, out of shape hamsters.
Most crimes require the prosecution to demonstrate that a victim had a particular intentAs I understand it, the law is not concerned with the intent of the victim of a crime. Am I misunderstanding?
Jeff,
I would be rather interested in the result of an experiment involving you repeating that last sentence to yourself several times while staring in your bathroom mirror.
oooooooh, buuuuuuuurn.
*snork*
B Moe,
Are you sure that Orwell didn’t say that already?
I’m waiting for the ACLU to distribute handy, wallet sized cards (laminated, of course) with different colored little stick figures along with the appropriate words each may use.
Oops, posting mishap above, sorry. I also wanted to add, the problem as I see it with these hate crime and banned-language types of aggravators is that because of the subjective nature of their interpretation (by prosecutors, juries, media, etc.) they cannot be applied fairly and unilaterally. Therefore, I don’t believe such hazy concepts belong in codified law with criminal sanctions.
The banning of certain content in the public domain, either by self-censorship, or by regulatory agencies through civil sanctions, is a different matter. I see it as the difference between abusive personal speech (in most cases, shouldn’t be criminal) and broadly offending a “community” or captive audience (in most cases, should be actionable).
I suppose I’d suggest caution when using the word niggardly in Brazoria.
Be sure to enunciate!
Jeff,
I would be rather interested in the result of an experiment involving you pouring a gallon of Old-Fashioneds down my (hic) throat.
…
(urp)
I nominate this one for “Stupidest in Thread.”
Seconded.
I think you all are way too hard on steve ex-expat and the rest of us. Not whining, and not defending his/her last comment, because its meaning eludes me, but in general. Or are you just playing the Mean Girls board game?
Cynn,
It was a reference to George Orwell’s 1984, from which the term “Orwellian” was hatched. Have you read the book? He had slogans such as “War is Peace”, “Ignorance is strength”, etc. It’s worth reading if you haven’t already. It was written in 1948, so he is impressive in his ability to foresee future events (although he was a little off on the date). I’m a big fan of Orwell.
Jeff,
Re-reading my post to you, I find it childish and a little below the belt.
Apologies
Ah, cynn,
Trolls troll ‘cuz they love the abuse.
Why else?
It would be inpolite and possibly immoral not to give each according to their needs.
I took a break for Idol (we get it down here in hell). Goddamn that Simon–he is anti-rap. I should have killed that bastard when I had the chance.
I am sick and tired of boring white motherfuckers like steve ex-expat taking my hyphen. White motherfuckers took our 40 acres and a mule, I am not giving up my hyphen too. Stop this shit or you will get a taste of east west coast rap revenge that will turn your straight hair nappy and your nappy pubes straight.
Eazy, that hyphen stealing shit was just wrong, man.
Have another one and kick it up a notch! It’s getting veddy quiet.
I think it might be more effective for us here in Ferrisburg, VT to rename it Niggerville and call our sports teams the Fighting Niggers, and we can all be Niggervillians.
Kindly explain what you find so “Orwellian” about B Moe’s comment.
All comments are equal, only, some are more equal than others.
This is an example of one that is not as equal.
The idea that a crime is somehow worse when motivated by “hate” is Orwellian. The slippery slope leads to the Thought Police.
“We are the dead.”
SB: george94
Hah!
The English language will be reduced to fourteen words, all of them meaningless yet comforting single-syllable terms: pleasant-sounding utterances that will be offensive to no one and pleasing to all.
ed-
What part of employment compensation (“income”) don’t you understand?
I’ve been buying my health insurance with “after-tax” dollars for the last fifteen years.
Welcome to the real world!
Who gives them the right to override the 1st ammendment? This is nothing but a little town sherrif lookin for attention. You can not take it upon yourself to break an ammendment!! GET OUT OF THE WOODS AND GET A LIFE