Turley And Waldron To Debate Hate Speech At Rice University

Hate speech and the First Amendment in focus at Rice April 9

'Hate Speech and the First Amendment'

I will be participating in a long-planned debate over the banning or criminalization of hate speech in the United States. I will be debate NYU Professor Jeremy Waldron, one of the leading proponents of new speech regulations. He is the author if The Harm in Hate Speech (Harvard University Press, 2012). The debate will be held on Tuesday, April 9th at Rice University in Houston.

The event, hosted by Rice’s Boniuk Institute for Religious Tolerance, is free and open to the public. Registration is required at www.eventbrite.com/e/hate-speech-and-the-1st-amendment-a-dialogue-tickets-58682833936.

Here is the description and details:

What: A discussion titled “Hate Speech and the First Amendment: A Dialogue”

Who: Jonathan Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, and Jeremy Waldron, University Professor at New York University Law School.

David Leebron
, president of Rice University and a legal scholar, will serve as moderator.

When: 7 p.m. Tuesday, April 9. A reception will follow the event.

Where: Rice University, McNair Hall’s Shell Auditorium, 6100 Main St. Parking is available in the Central Campus Garage. For directions, see http://business.rice.edu/directions-and-parking.

Established by a gift from Houston philanthropists Milton and Laurie Boniuk, the Boniuk Institute is dedicated to nurturing religious tolerance and advancing religious literacy; respect and mutual understanding among people of all and no faiths, especially youth through research efforts; educational initiatives; and community engagement.

Members of the news media who want to attend should RSVP to Jeff Falk, associate director of national media relations at Rice, at jfalk@rice.edu or 713-348-6775.

42 thoughts on “Turley And Waldron To Debate Hate Speech At Rice University”

  1. JT, maybe you should start reading your own blog. See how long it takes when someone wants to express anything 1 degree left of center.

    1. Your low IQ is permanently on display here…no one is stopping you from looking stupid. The ONLY people banning speech are all on the left you fascist idiot.

    2. Or one degree right of center; not all of those who post comments here are as ‘fair and balanced” as the objective centrist Fishwings.
      We can all learn lessons about objectivity😄 and compromise😋😂🤣 by reading the Gospel of Fishwings.
      HHHNN provides more examples of a “fair and balanced” perspective.😉😁😃😆.

  2. Americans enjoy the freedom of speech.

    Americans have the right to insult and offend the monarchs, elected officials, anyone and everyone else.

    Abridging the freedom of speech is unconstitutional.

    A debate about abridging “hate” speech is an act of treason and sedition.
    __________________________________________________

    1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  3. If I had a kid in high school thinking about a college education I would think carefully about where he should go. A nearby community college is very good and does not charge huge tuition. Then a state university is in town and he could live at home and go there. It has a good reputation. There is a state law school in Kansas City, MO called UNKC which is a good law school. I would agree with that one.. But no Harvard or Yale or private tuition and no schools which censor.

    1. You mean like “Russian Collusion,” the eligibility of Obama and his status as a “natural born citizen,” the power of Congress to tax for individual welfare (i.e. communist redistribution of wealth) as the Constitution provides Congress merely the power to tax for “…general Welfare…” or the power of Congress to regulate anything other than “…Commerce…among the several states,…” to preclude favor or bias by one state over another?

      How do you debate the constitutionality of the power of Congress to tax for redistribution of wealth as “…individual Welfare…” or the power of Congress to regulate anything other than exchange, trade or “…Commerce…among the several States,…” when it simply does not exist?
      ____________

      Article 1, Section 8

      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

      To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

      To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

  4. I hate humans who hate the First Amendment to our Constitution. I have a bear in the neighborhood who is armed with an AK 47. He read the article and said some thing obtuse about going to the seminar. He name is Black Bear. Watch out. He hates haters.

  5. I wonder, who told the Democrat leadership it was OK to make hate speech against Russians day in and day out the past couple years? I guess I don’t understand that one.

    1. Oh gosh, those poor Russians! It makes me shudder to think how hurt they must be.

      1. If you said such a thing about certain other ethnic groups you would be in big trouble Peter and you know it.

        There’s a lot of double standards out there and always bashing Russians is taken as totally fine mostly because the small number of Russian immigrants here. Also Russian immigrants will be a group that is typically not as enamored of the Russian government as the average Russian who didn’t immigrate. It’s reckless to always be talking about the Russians and Putin and Russian this and that as if it’s all one monolithic thing. Apply some tolerance to their diversity eh?

  6. This will be a debate well worth watching. I wish I could attend.

    1. Mike A:

      “This will be a debate well worth watching. I wish I could attend.”
      **********************
      Really? Worth watching? I equate it with a debate between a NAMBLA member and a parent. Is there any point that could be made by Waldron that could convince you to curtail the free speech of one American based on his ideas about”diversity” and “respect” just like is there any point by NAMBLA that could convince you that child sexual abuse is desirable?

      1. It’s not fair; engaging and annihilating unarmed opponents. For shame!

  7. Hell let the imbeciles say what they want,. then you know whose ass you might have to kick.

  8. Ordinarily, people who’ve invested in a volume via Amazon rate it favorably. In Prof. Waldron’s case, just shy of 60% of those rating it gave it 1 star.

    https://www.amazon.com/Harm-Hate-Speech-Jeremy-Waldron/product-reviews/0674416864/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

    We know where this is going. The legal profession and the academy have their mascots. The laws will be used to harass those who take exception to something said, something done, or something manifest in those mascots. Those of use deemed Benighted will be expected to suck it up when subject to the most egregious defamation. This is how it works in academe.

    There may come a time when our professional-managerial class re-acquires an understanding that they are not the supervisors of the rest of us 24/7. We’re not there yet.

  9. another issue is how may hate crime be defined?
    has a legislature sufficiently identified the conduct which is prohibited so that the citizens may know what is inside the law, or not?

    a criminal statute that is too ambiguous is a threat to the liberty of all

    on this point the ACLU has been more active of late

  10. probably this speech will touch on definitions of hate crimes in penal statutes, both as elements in case in chief, and also sentencing.

    the cows left the barn on sentencing enhancements decades ago when the ACLU punted on the topic, turning a blind eye to the government punishing thoughts and ideas instead of just criminal conduct, because of their secondary and often conflicting “civil rights mission” to help historic minorities, which they found a more compelling part of their mission than free speech for all.

    take a hypothetical:

    if a perp has beaten up and robbed a little old white lady and a little old black lady too.
    lets say the facts are basically similar, except for one thing:
    let’s say he called the little old black lady a N-word when he took her purse.

    Should he face a sentence of a few months for the crime against the little old white lady, but perhaps a sentence of a few years for the crime against the little old white lady?

    if so, why? or why not?

    1. All these examples and no discussion of the basic principle. He who controls speech controls the argument. An over powering reason not to control speech.

  11. The issue is in the definition of hate speech. Hate speech depends on who says it and who hears it, rather than on words themselves. Mr Trump delivered anti-Semitic statements to a Jewish organization this week, but they didn’t interpret them that way.

    1. Who are the “Inquiring Minds”? It is obviously not SteveJ.
      So without some actual evidence, we do not know if there actually are “Inquiring Minds’ that “want to know”.

    2. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln wanted Faroutkong in Liberia but somebody changed his mind – no, seriously, they “changed” his mind – :

      “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

  12. Ask Waldron how he would classify a hoax, e.g. Jussie Smollett, intending to generate hate and polarization by means of deception. That would seem to be a very premeditated example of hate speech. Would Waldron prosecute Smollett for hate speech?

    There are numerous areas where publicity fraud campaigns are NOT protected free speech. These fraudulent claims are NOT permitted in:
    Courts of Law & Law Enforcement
    Medical industry
    Science
    Commerce & Financial sectors
    Identity frauds
    Defamation / libel

    The point is that freedom of speech is not absolute, and in fact is highly-constrained when it comes to purposive frauds. It remains an open question if misinformation campaigning should be allowed in political campaigning.

    A question for Waldron is whether current laws regarding defamation are not adequate protections.

  13. Professor,
    Other than saying ” you’ll be swell, you’ll be great!” , I have two words for you:
    Cafe Rabelais. …….just west of campus, in The Village.

  14. Just an (ignorant) suggestion: When Professor Waldron says something to the effect that “speech that is hurtful or promotes hate or intentionally offends others” should be considered hate speech and should be regulated or outlawed, then please tell Professor Waldron that millions of us consider those comments hurtful and offensive. Under his rules, his rules are hate speech.

  15. Waldron should correctly rename his book The harm in free speech. He is obviously an Alinskyite who calls anything he disagrees with hate speech. I’m sure he’d be much more comfortable in Red China.

  16. Don’t worry, sweet, tolerant liberals.

    You will eventually get your long awaited hate speech laws once the demographics change enough in the US.

    I predict 2 things:

    Liberals will support these changes, all while professing respect for the 1st Amendment.

    Old style, free speech liberals (such as JT) will also be called “Nazis” for opposing such changes.

    antonio

  17. Our freedoms turn on a vibrant First Amendment. The smallest step towards limiting that right is the first step to slavery.

Comments are closed.