THE HATE SPEECH CASE STUDY

Monroe v. the State

Last fall, a group calling themselves “Citizens for Common Decency and Morality” held a rally on a university campus. The group is a strong believer that American society is in a ‘cultural war” for its future. The leader of the group is Ted Monroe. Mr. Monroe is an undergraduate student. He is a vocal critic of what he calls the emerging “socialistic culture that has spring up around the debauchery and debased principles of William Clinton.” In particular, the group opposes what is sees as an emerging “gay rights principle” in American society and government. The rally was titled “Citizens Against Queers.” To counter the rally, a diversity group organized a counter rally some 100 yards from the Anti0gay rally (they called it a “Citizens for Diversity Rally”). The campus safety department provided two officers that walked the two rallies to insure that violence did not occur.

Ted Monroe started the anti-gay rally by delivering a fiery speech to around 8 students. The speech lasted only a few minutes, some antigay literature was distributed, and the rally disbanded. Campus Security quit patrolling and it seemed that no violence was to occur.

Two students (Fred Waines and Paul Martin) from the anti-gay rally however walked over and spotted two students (Brenda Barnes and Jim Wilson) at the Diversity Rally. Barnes and Wilson are both openly homosexual and were taunted by Waines and Martin. No violence occurred at this point. At 5:30 p.m. that same day, Barnes and Wilson were at a local eating/drinking establishment when Waines and Martin walked in. At 6:00 p.m., Barnes and Wilson left the eating/drinking establishment and headed back to the campus. At 6:04 p.m. Waines and Martin assaulted them on the campus. Both Barnes and Wilson had severe cuts and had to be taken to a local hospital where both remained for several days. Waines and Martin were arrested later that night  (and later convicted) for assault after a witness called the local police department and turned them in.

The arrests, however, did not stop there. The police department arrested Ted Monroe at 11:30p.m. Monroe was charged with violating a State Hate Crime law that made it illegal to “use speech that is directed against a particular group in such a manner that the speech could lead to violence against the selected group” Monroe was convicted in a county court. The State Supreme Court upheld the conviction upon appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court also upheld the decision of the lower court. Monroe has made his final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court stating the Hate Crime Law violated the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case immediately.

Transcript of Monroe’s Speech:

“My friends, we are here today to discuss a war, a war that is going on as we speak. We are in a cultural war, a war for the very soul of the American People. This is a war between the forces of good and the forces of evil. Over the past few years, homosexuals in this country and this state have used their money, power, and friends to promote their sick, disgusting, and perverted lifestyle. Our children are under attack in our schools where gay rights literature is now spread through school classrooms. Gay couples kiss in public, hold hands, and even fornicate in front of us. Those of us who believe in God’s law have been cast to the background. Our beliefs are made fun of, our beliefs are held as inferior to the queer’s beliefs. I ask each or you to stand up for your beliefs, do not tolerate the queer as they permeate our lives. Be willing to fight for your beliefs. Remember that God is on our side and that queers are not worthy of our love or respect. Perhaps we have been too complacent. Perhaps, we have not been tough enough on the fags and queers who walk this campus (points to the Diversity Rally) and infect our minds with their propaganda. The battle is being fought, please stand up for your beliefs, fight evil, fight sin, and return this country to its proper moral focus. Never give in to the debased morals of the queers. Please leave this rally and go out and make a difference. Stand up for our values. I beg you for the sake of our children. 

Established Facts:

1. The first verbal exchange between the two groups of students at 4:30 p.m. consisted of profanity between the two groups.
2. Waines and Martin admitted that they saw the two homosexual students walk into the eating/drinking establishment around 5:30 p.m. Waines and Martin walked to the establishment and drank two beers each. They then followed Barnes and Wilson onto the campus. At approximately 6:02 p.m., Waines and Martin yelled at Barnes and Wilson. Waines told the pair, “we are tired of you fags controlling everything, and the war is just beginning.” Barnes and Wilson told Waines and Martin to “get the f*** away from us” and then questioned Waines and Barnes own sexuality. At that point, Waines and Martin assaulted Barnes and Wilson by beating each or their heads against a tree and kicking them repeatedly. Two joggers came upon the scene at 6:06 p.m. and Waines and Martin fled on foot.
3. Waines and Martin admitted their guilt to police and in court and stated, “We are proud to be soldiers in a war that must be won.”

State Hate Crime Law:

“It shall be illegal for any person to make remarks in speech, writing, or symbols that promotes violence against a particular individual or group if that speech, writing, or symbols leads to imminent and lawless action. Any person violating this law will be prosecuted and receive up to 20 years in prison.”

Cases for precedent:

1. Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
2. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652  (1925)
3. Dennis v. U.S., 341, U.S.494 (1951)
4. Feiner v. New York, 340, U.S. 315  (1951)
5. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
6. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
7. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
8. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

  PART ONE
Submit as a "New Post" to the HATE SPEECH CASE STUDY FORUM

After careful study of the scenario above, review the textbook, your notes, and earch the Internet to construct your best answer. After serious reflection and critical thought, go to your Word Processor and type at least a three page response. Do not use just opinion, feelings, or you own personal beliefs. Site facts, cases, court decisions, laws, or other generally accepted documentation.

Address the following questions in your case study:
Discuss court processes and how they relate to what happened in the case.

Discuss the importance of values in determining these cases. Can we get away from a subjective view of what the bill of Rights really means?

What is the role of the Bill of Rights in a democratic government? Is the Bill of Rights too vague and ambiguous?

Does the Court assume too much power in interpreting what the Bill of Rights means?

When satisfied that your response represents your best legal and ethical views, Select and copy your text and click on the "Go To Discussion Forum" link in Red below and Paste your response there. Post as a New Topic to the Discussion Forum. Be sure to post to the Hate Speech forum. Be sure that you are registered with your first and last name as your user name for grading purposes.

PART TWO
Submit as a "Reply" to any other students posting for the above assignment

Return to the Threaded Discussion and respond with a one page summary of your thoughts about the way one particular student resolved the situation. Your response may be to a posting that you think is particularly appropriate and insightful, or to a posting that you find problematic. If you are posting a negative response, use only the kind of criticism you would reserve for a close friend. Post as a "REPLY" to the Discussion Forum.

Go To Discussion Forum