Reference no: EM133796130
Discussion Post
Question I: Constitutionality
A. It has been over three decades since Justice Rehnquist delivered the Supreme Court of the United States' unanimous opinion in Wisconsin v. Mitchell. Skim the brief opinion. What is the Court's ruling? What amendment(s) does this case involve? What rights does that amendment(s) protect? What is one argument of the Court that you find persuasive? Why?
B. SPLC, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization you're familiar with by this point in our course, released this article on the anniversary of Wisconsin v. Mitchell. The author contends that this landmark case "essentially ended debate over the constitutionality" of hate crime laws. However, that hasn't stopped scholars (and others) from continuing to argue against them. Taking into account these arguments, as well as ones we've previously considered in our course, what side do you currently fall on? Are hate crime laws necessary? Why or why not?
Question II: Online Hate
Read this article "30 YEARS AFTER LANDMARK SUPREME COURT HATE CRIME CASE, PREVENTION MUST BE OUR FOCUS" by Michael Lieberman about the connections between online hate and hate-motivated violence in ‘real life.' Bearing in mind what the article says, as well as what we just covered in our lesson materials, respond to the following questions:
A. What are the different ways technology/the Internet help fuel hate? Be mindful of how technology and social media have evolved since the publication of the article.
B. Can online hate speech become a true threat and/or actual violence? At what point?
C. Private social media companies are not bound by the First Amendment. In other words, they can restrict hate speech if they want to. Do you think they should? Why or why not? Visit this short article "It's Time To Get Rid Of Hate Crime Laws" by Evan Gerstmann to consider some expert opinions related to this topic.
Question III
Read this press release "South Carolina Man Found Guilty of Hate Crime for Killing a Transgender Woman Because of Her Gender Identity" and address the two questions below.
A. Why is this case/verdict historic? Get the instant assignment help.
B. The article mentions that this verdict sends a few different "messages." What are some of these messages and what does this suggest about the symbolic purpose of hate crime laws? Be sure to weave in our course material about status provisions, the utility of hate crime laws, etc.
Question IV
Watch this YouTube video "Content Moderation And Free Speech | Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj | Netflix" to develop foundational knowledge that will help you better understand our online hate unit. Then respond to the two questions.
A. Do you agree with Hasan's claim that "what happens on the internet can have real world consequences"? How would you tie this to our study of hate/hate crimes?
B. What's the difference between "platforms" and a "publishers"? Which would you use to describe social media?