Subject: Hate Speech
 
Someone earlier mentioned that we should have limits to the freedom of speech in this country. They said that "hate" speech should be outlawed.
 
Here is the former hate-speech code from St. Paul, Minnesota.
 
St. Paul City Ordinance section 292.02: Disorderly Conduct
 
"Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor."
 
The following groups sent briefs to the US Supreme Court AGAINST the ordinance:
 
ACLU, American Jewish Congress, Center for Individual Rights, the Association of American Publishers, the Freedom to Read Foundation, and the conservative Patriots Defense Fund of Texas.
 
The following groups send briefs to the US Supreme court in SUPPORT of the ordinance:
 
The Asian-American Legal Defense Fund, the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, People for the American Way, The YMCA-USA, The Center for Constitutional Rights, the center for Democratic Renewal, the National Council of Black Lawyers, The National Council of La Raza, The International Union, The United Auto Workers Union, The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, The National Lawyers Guild, The United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, The National Institute Against prejudice and violence, the greater Boston Civil Rights Coalition, the National Coalition of Black Lesbians and Gays, and the National Black Women's Health Network.
 
The Supreme Court, struck down the St. Paul Ordinance on 22 June 1992, quoting from that decision:
 
"The point of the 1st Amendment is that majority preferences must be expressed in some fashion other than silencing speech on the basis of its content... Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible.  But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the 1st Amendment to the fire."
 
Perhaps the editorial of the Washington Post said it best:
 
"The preservation of a forum in which even insulting, hurtful, and outrageous ideas can be expressed is an essential price of our system; without it, free speech would be fatally undermined."
 

Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: JUDGE ALLOWS ANTI-COORS AD IN NEW YORK'S PENN STATION
Date: Sat,  6 Feb. 93 07:21:51 PST
 
Copied from: New York Newsday, February 5, 1993
 
JUDGE ALLOWS ANTI-COORS AD IN NEW YORK'S PENN STATION
By Patricia Cohen
 
NEW YORK - It's 103-feet long and 10-feet high. And soon the thousands of commuters who pass through Penn Station every day could see this space, dubbed "The Spectacular," filled with a scathing critique of Coors beer designed and paid for by artist Michael Lebron.
 
A U.S. District Court Judge Pierre Leval in Manhattan ruled Friday that Amtrak, which owns the commuter hub, violated Lebron's First Amendment rights when it refused to rent him the space because his ad was political. Amtrak spokeswoman Pat Kelly said the railroad would appeal.
 
Cole and his co-counsel Gail Phares spent Friday searching for Lebron, who was vacationing in Puerto Rico.
 
The controversial mural designed by the 38-year-old artist depicts a group of children drinking Coors beer next to an obscured American flag on one side and a war-torn Nicaraguan village with an inset of a soldier on the other. A flaming silver can of Coors hurtles across the scene, aimed at the peasants under the words "Is it the right's beer now?" - a takeoff on the Coors slogan "It's the right beer now."
 
Lebron signed a $16,000-a-month contract to create a mural but after seeing the ad, officials from Amtrak and its leasing agent, transportation Displays Inc., reneged on the grounds the ad was political and might offend the public.
 
Leval said federal funding of and involvement in Amtrak meant it was essentially a public, not private, entity. Therefore, the railroad could not ban free expression.