On May 1, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act by a vote of 320 to 91. Proponents of the law say it is necessary to address anti-Semitic discrimination on college campuses. Opponents argue it threatens free speech.

Who’s right?

Kenneth Stern was the lead drafter of the definition of anti-Semitism used in the act. But he said the definition was never meant to punish speech. Rather, it was drafted to help data collectors write reports.

Stern is the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate. His most recent book is titled, “The Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate.”

Timestamps

0:00 Introduction

04:06 Introducing Ken Stern

7:59 Can hate speech codes work?

11:13 Off-campus hate speech codes

13:33 Drafting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition

21:53 How should administrators judge anti-Semitism without the IHRA definition?

27:29 Is there a rise in unlawful discrimination on campuses today?

40:20 Opposition to the Antisemitism Awareness Act

43:10 Defenses of the Antisemitism Awareness Act

51:34 Enshrinement of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism in state laws

53:57 Is the IHRA definition internally consistent?

59:21 How will the Senate vote?

1:01:16 Outro

Show Notes

IHRA definition of anti-Semitism

The Antisemitism Awareness Act

Transcript

Host Nico Perrino joins his FIRE colleagues Will Creeley and Alex Morey to answer questions about the recent campus unrest and its First Amendment implications.

Timestamps

0:00 Introduction

0:41 What is FIRE?/campus unrest

5:44 What are the basic First Amendment principles for campus protest?

11:30 Student encampments

18:09 Exceptions to the First Amendment

29:01 Can administrators limit access to non-students/faculty?

34:13 Denying recognition to Students for Justice in Palestine

36:26 Were protesters at UT Austin doing anything illegal?

40:54 The USC valedictorian

45:09 What does “objectively offensive” mean? / Does Davis apply to colleges?

46:55 Is it illegal to protest too loudly?

50:03 What options do colleges have to moderate/address hate speech?

54:20 Does calling for genocide constitute bullying/harassment?

59:09 Wrapping up on the situation

Show Notes

“USC canceling valedictorian’s commencement speech looks like calculated censorship,” Alex Morey

“Emerson College: Conservative Student Group Investigated for Distributing ‘China Kinda Sus’ Stickers,” FIRE’s case files

“HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship,” Nadine Strossen

“Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom,” Aryeh Neier (pdf)

“David Goldberger, lead attorney in ‘the Skokie case,’” “So to Speak” Ep. 118

Transcript

In America, hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment.

But should it be?

Today’s guest is out with a new book, “Hate Speech is Not Free: The Case Against First Amendment Protection.”

W. Wat Hopkins is emeritus professor of communication at Virginia Tech, where he taught communication law and cyberspace law.

Transcript of Interview: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-should-first-amendment-protect-hate-speech

Timestamps

0:00 Introduction
5:34 Why write about hate speech?
8:50 Has the Supreme Court ruled on hate speech?
13:56 What speech falls outside First Amendment protection?
16:44 The history of the First Amendment
20:00 Fighting words and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
24:00 How does the Supreme Court determine what speech is protected?
35:24 Defining hate speech
38:54 Debating the value of hate speech
44:02 Defining hate speech (again)
50:30 Abuses of hate speech codes
1:00:10 Skokie
1:02:39 Current Supreme Court and hate speech
1:06:00 Outro

Show Notes
Scotland’s “Hate Crime and Public Order Act”
Matal v. Tam (2017)
Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)
United States v. Stevens (2010)
Virginia v. Black (2003)
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977)
Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972)
Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
“HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship” by Nadine Strossen