A McHenry county judge denied bail for a 16-year old who's only crime was making a flyer that says "God Hates Fags".
Two girls were arrested in McHenry County, Illinois last week for distributing flyers at their school that depicted a male classmate kissing another classmate and had the words "God Hates Fags" on the flyers. The two were charged with disorderly conduct and felony hate crimes. As can be expected, debate has been generated on the wisdom of hate crimes laws, debate that's not confined solely to the right. Even gay sites are not entirely behind the arrest and charging of these girls for a minor stunt.…
Article comments
126 - Dr Dreadful
#125: If you've paid any attention to Arch's previous contributions, you'll know that although he is certainly true to his monniker, he is very far from being an unquestioning Bush-worshipper.
...Oh wait. It's you. How's it going with Michael Moore's underwear, sr?
Arch, I do see that some (though certainly not all) of your recent comments have been deleted, apparently for no particularly good reason. I don't think effing and blinding about it on the threads is a very good way of addressing the problem though. Have you tried e-mailing the comments editor?
127 - sr
Doc, I wear them on my head when I take my daily camel ride. Im proud to look like a Muslim. Giddyup Silver "Away"
128 - Dr Dreadful
Hmmph ...If you'd ever actually ridden a camel you would not voluntarily do so daily. The "ship of the desert" makes horseback riding seem like a cruise on the QM2 by comparison.
129 - Franco
#113 " STM
I concur with you, as do more Americans then you give credit to, that - "the 1st amendment was never meant to offer carte-blanche protection against (broadly) such things as defamation, slander, vilification, incitement and libel."
However I do not share your assertion that - ”This absolutely doesn't fall under free speech according to the law.”
I assert that you are misquoting law.
In sighting the U.S. Supreme Court case you did, I assert that you are stretching the case doctrine’s application in trying to make a case. I repost this very case in proper perspective.
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court did rule in 1942, in a case called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to "fighting words," and that the person engaging in such speech can be punished if "by their very utterance [the words] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Say, a white student stops a black student on campus and utters a racial slur. In that one-on-one confrontation, which could easily come to blows, the offending student could be disciplined under the "fighting words" doctrine for racial harassment.
------------------------------------------------
Even though there was an apparent feud between the girls and this boy, and even though this was directed at both a specific individual, and the homosexula community in general, this was not a “face to face” confrontation of “fighting words” that would inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
Over the past 50 years, the Court hasn't found the "fighting words" doctrine applicable in any of the hate speech cases that have come before it, since the incidents involved didn't meet the narrow criteria stated above. Ignoring that history, the folks who advocate charging these girls with a hate crime are trying to stretch the doctrine's application to fit words or symbols that cause discomfort, offense or emotional pain. But that is not what the law was created to protect nor should it. It is under this light the dividing line rests.
When you say - ”Having these opinions and perhaps stating them to a friend is different to publicly airing them in a situation such as this that might cause hurt and offence to another person.” - Here is a perfect example of stretching the docturine’s application to fit words or symbols that cause discomfort, offense or emotional pain. You are not basing your argument on the law.
To advocate this strethcing of docturine is a hate crime against the 1st Amendment itself. And those ARE fighting words.
In your earlier post #87 you bring up the most importate and most disturbing point of all and it brings my assertion to light.
”While some courts may dismiss such charges, others won't be so quick so there's no guarantee now.”
Here in lies the danger. As another poster notes
#108 " Doug Hunter
”The justice system, when you give it such a broad, undefinable range of authority you create a dangerous loophole just waiting to be exploited by those with malicious intent.” Malicious meaning a loophole for clear violation of the law of an indiviuals rights under the 1st Amendment.
And with regard to the UN human rigths agreement, no signed aggement exists that superseeds the American peoples rights under the U.S. constitution. When that day tries to come, there will be “face to face” confrontations of fighting words.
I hate the UN!!!
130 - Sean
Forget the bail. The law is clearly unconstitutional and the judge should have tossed the case on those grounds. As long as the flier did not promote violence or action, then it is protected speech, whether any of us like it or not. The Constitution is a limit on government not a guideline or suggestion. Please remember what the Constitution is for: protecting every American's Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (as long as it does infringe on someone else's Right).
131 - STM
Sean wrote: "Forget the bail. The law is clearly unconstitutional".
This is not unconstitutional, Sean. Better legal minds than yours and mine have decided that that is the case, and not recently either. I assume you are talking about the 1st amendment - and it has never offered protection in situations such as these.
And Franco, please go back and look at the part of the judgment I quoted. While the case revolved around fighting words, the explanation given by the judge refers also to other aspects of how the law might not protect against certain types of what people perceive to be "free speech" - which is why I quoted it.
Come on guys, please. Don't try to twist this stuff around to your own way of thinking without having a genuine understanding of how it works. And Franco, I suggest you go back and check the agreement that was not only signed by the US, but driven by the US. While some amendments were made in deference to US 1st amendment rights, there are hate speech provisions.
The constitution of the US is NOT the whole of the law in the US, nor the final arbiter of the law, and never has been. American common/criminal law fills in many of the gaps, as do other aspects of the law. I don't understand how you don't have even a basic understanding of how your own law works. It seems to me that before you come on here saying something is unconstitutional, it'd be a good idea to know first whether it actually is unconstitutional, at law. You simply can't have people going around saying whatever they like about people without regard to the consequences. And have a look at the 14th amendment too in relation to this. It's what makes the US different to Nazi Germany.
132 - SteveS
"As long as the flier did not promote violence or action, then it is protected speech, whether any of us like it or not."
No, it is not protected speech as it directly involved an individual. It clearly states that a classmate was put in the flier. Celebrities sue AND WIN all the time, libel and harassment cases against paparazzi. This is no more protected speech than that is.
133 - STM
Hooray to you, Steve. A voice of reason and knowledge in the wilderness. That IS the factor, of course - the placing of the boy's picture in the flier and the accompany slander/libel/vilification - all actionable under US law, and NOT protected by the Constitution.
134 - SteveS
It completely involves targeting another specific individual. There is no freedom of speech in that.
They put the boys face on a flyer along with hate speech (not the same definition as a hate crime) and then distributed it AMONG THE BOY'S SCHOOL.
Fred Phelps and his Westboro Church who go around picketing their "God Hates Fags" signs, do so on public grounds. They are lawyers and know full well the legalities of things.
This boy might have been outed by the process, he might have to change schools and certainly will be targeted by classmates. Suppose this whole thing was news to his parents and they threw him out of the house? Who knows what happened to this boy due to the actions of vindictive ex-friends.
The school has an obligation to protect him. Nobody has an obligation to protect you from a person standing on the sidewalk holding a hate filled sign.
And courts have proven time and time again you do not have unlimited free speech on school grounds, especially when your speech is proven to be disruptive, anyway.
As for the denied bail? I suggest you look up a program promoted and doted over by conservatives and the right wing and the religious, called Scared Straight. This girl needs help to keep her from a life of crime. Perhaps some time in the slammer is just what she needs. It would be keeping right in line with the ideology that John constantly promotes.
135 - James
Slander. Nobody is hurt. Where are the damages. If the kids a fag then whats the worry. If he is not it is a joke, prank, whatever. The Judge made a mistake and those that side with the him are going contrary to common sense. It is okay to call a spade a spade. It also okay to denounce a persons behavior if they openly and publicly present themselves as such. If you stole something and I witness it, you are a theif. If you kiss a boy in the public you set yourself up to being called a fag. That's free speach. Plain and simple. It is also free speach to distribute flyers with a picture of Bush as the devil and call him evil. The girls were smart enough to know that stating god hates fags is not the same as saying johnny is a fag. Their is a distinction. But again when I was young fag was pretty much tossed around on notebooks lockers and conversations like spit. Do you not remember being a kid, or where you a pussy.
136 - STM
Yeah, nice bit of reasoned thought there James. When will blokes like you get it through your thick heads that this kind of stuff doesn't constitute free speech according to the law, and never has, either under the Constitution of the United States or anything else - which is what the real issue is here, not whether you think a person's sexual orientation is an issue or not. You'd also be pushing the boundaries with a flyer of George Bush depicted as the devil and labelling him evil. Becuse he's a politician, he'd probably cop it fair on the chin but it doesn't mean it's legal.
And, no ... no one ever called me a fag when I was a kid. If they were game enough, they doubtless would have got a good smack in the mouth. And not neccessarily because I find the term offensive applied to me - more that I don't like dickheads deciding what I am or what I'm not. Still, that's hardly the issue here, is it?
It's about the law, and what does or doesn't constitute free speech. This doesn't. It's a crime. Take your head out of third-grade history class and picture-library lessons on the Constitution. Time to wake up and smell the legislation.
137 - Sean
STM-
You obviously have no clue as to how badly the US Constitution has been distorted, twisted and run over by "The Law." Just because there is a law that exists does not make it Constitutional. There are many laws that are unconstitutional but are never overturned because the judges no longer know how to follow the Constitution. I don't give a f--- what the courts' or laws' or judges' say, because when something is unconstitutional it doesn't matter whether they think it is or not, it's not. As much as you would like to think, laws and judges do not determine constitutionality, the Constitution does and more and more lately the courts get it wrong.
Oh, and your reference to celebrities is priceless. That's civil court not criminal court and when the celebs win it's not a criminal case. Maybe you should learn the law and justice system before opening your mouth.
138 - Nancy
SteveS #124 is correct: in this specific incidence, where a classmate is singled out, it's harrassment & libel (as well as slander), which is illegal & actionable, & may be criminal, depending on ancillary factors such as intent. In any event, obviously these girls were/are out of control, as one set of parents admitted. Hopefully the boy involved & his parents won't take this supinely, but will file torts against those girls. Bullying of all sorts against any kid is no longer tolerable, either by parents or school systems.
BTW, it interests (& appalls) me that someone earlier made a comment shrugging off the fact that one girl at least had at least 12 previous run-ins with the police, including "for smoking". The police don't arrest kids for smoking (unless the parents request them to, & usually not even then), so I'm wondering, what was she smoking? They have better things to do than harrass juveniles, so this girl obviously has been doing things rather more serious than working on her carcinogens. 12 police tags? To me that's not something to be flipped off as typical teen misbehavior, that's major signals of some big-time problems this kid is having. Anyone who considers 12 police run-ins to be nothing to worry about really needs their sense of reality & responsibility adjusted.
139 - SteveS
Anyone who considers 12 police run-ins to be nothing to worry about really needs their sense of reality & responsibility adjusted.
Or else they simply want to use this case to further their anti-gay agenda and so need to gloss over that part.
It is okay to call a spade a spade.
What a moronic statement. Calling someone gay is not the same as printing their picture on a flyer along with hate speech and distributing it to their classmates. This was not an intent to tell it like it is, it was an attempt to hurt.
Again, as for the jail and no bail, the judge said it wasn't because of this case but because of a history of bad behavior.
It's very telling how the Right screams that sentences aren't tough enough and that people get out of jail too often to go on committing more crimes but then when they incorrectly perceive that their ability to spew hatred is under attack, suddenly jail is a bad thing.
140 - SteveS
How do we know this story is being twisted to fit an anti-gay agenda? Because the story says this:
"The judge, in commenting on denying bail, said that the girl's home situation was unacceptable."
However the title of the story says the bail denied was for something completely different. The title of this story is erroneous, slanderous and inflammatory, with the knowledge that more people will read that, than will read the story.
And also, it needs to be pointed out that the girls crimes are escalating. She took the time to get a picture, make fliers, print them out, and distribute them, with the intent to harm another person (premediated, anyone?), when her previous crimes were not against other individuals (like smoking). Her crimes have escalated, and that concerns the judge who denied bail in her own best interest (to remove her from her household), and NOT for the reason stated in the false title of this story.
141 - Nancy
Like you, SteveS, I picked up on that aspect of it right away. That's what clues me in that there's something rather more to all this than just a couple of kids offending some judge's Leftist-ACLU-leaning agenda. That, and that juvie records are sealed, so there's no way at this point to tell. In any event, I'd leave the judging at this point to the JUDGE; that's what he's there for, he has access to the details & prior records, & I/we do not.
142 - SteveS
Being familiar with the writings of Bambenek is another clue. Just about everything he writes is twisted around to point fingers at the ACLU.
Damn those fighters of civil liberties, how unAmerican they are.
143 - sr
Doc#128, cant argue with that friend. Besides the panties keep falling off my head. Life just sucks in these hot sands of Florida.
144 - STM
Sean: yeah, right. With respect, as I understand you are passionate about this. You know the law better than the people who write it and enact it? Come on mate, it's not as simple as you paint it. If you think it's unconstitutional, you a) understand nothing about your own constitution and b) are totally deluded in regards to what your rights really are and always have been.
I'll agree that the 1st amendment is a very good thing and I wish in my country that the implied understanding that my free speech is a natural right was actually part of codified law rather than common law, but as I keep saying, in the US it doesn't and never has offered carte-blanche protections. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like. This is a classic example. If they were protected, these kinds of prosecutions would never even be mounted. It's worth remembering too when you are talking about the courts that one of the very foundations of American democracy is an independent judiciary and rule of law.
145 - Clavos
"...one of the very foundations of American democracy is an independent judiciary and rule of law."
...Coupled with the concepts of the accused being presumed innocent and the burden of proof being on the state.
146 - STM
Same in all the anglo countries Clav. That's also why we've all endured these many years, without coups and crises that couldn't be solved the best way of all - at the ballot box, as expressions of the will of the people.
It's what makes us all collectively very different - despite our differences - to those societies that do not attach the same importance to rule of law and democratic, representative government. How are you, BTW. Is your missus on the mend?
147 - Clavos
Thanks for asking. She's still in hospital (six weeks this coming Saturday), but does seem to be improving slowly. Watch your emails on (your) Friday night and I'll update you. I owe you one, besides.
Thanks mate.
148 - Guest
...one of the very foundations of American democracy is an independent judiciary and rule of law.....Coupled with the concepts of the accused being presumed innocent and the burden of proof being on the state.
Agreed. So all they have to do is prove she distributed the flyers in her hand, and that are all over the school.....
149 - james
girls are being kids not criminals. This is minor, just like most of the priors. you are over judicating a high school prank. The Judge is still wrong. your wrong. their is no law broken. The LA Weekly ran that flyer of Bush before the elections. It was front cover of a widely distributed liberal publication. Nobody said a thing. silence. I laughed, then thought, man what a one way street. God hates fags is not hate speech. Homos are not offended by the word fag as say heterosexuals are. You have to make too many assumptions to come to the conclusion that GHF constitutes a hate crime. This is simply two
people fighting with words and actions without actually hurting anyone. It has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with free speech. You are allowed to call people names and disagree. your alllowed to voice your opinion and yes sometimes it hurts. You are also allowed to make stuff up and hurt people. I know this sounds simple to you thinkers out there but your complicating matters. Politicians make accusations about opponents in commercials. They are not sued. In business, people attack one another just like this and worst all the time. and yes a fraction does go to court but in always comes down to damages. How much did you suffer or loose. The boys parents have no grounds to sue. Where are the damages. Did the kid suffer any great financial loss or bodily injury. No. The judge has no more right than the girls to come to the conclusion that god hates fags with that boys picture on it as a hate crime. The boy should just brush it off or go on the offensive. Government has no place in this matter. This confrontation should of stayed on the local home front with parents and teachers. Police have no say in this. They should be out catching the real criminals that are stealing life and property. No law should ever be made to prevent one from doing stupid things and silly behavior. Do want robots for people.
150 - STM
Sean wrote: "Oh, and your reference to celebrities is priceless".
That wasn't me, dopey. Perhaps while you're reading up on the law and your own constitution and smacking yourself over the wrist for having no understanding about any of this you can read the posts properly too. Still, the protections under the 1st amendment don't always apply under civil law either. Maybe you should just drop it before you embarrass yourself totally.
151 - SteveS
The boy should just brush it off or go on the offensive.
What a horrible world you want James, where you encourage one youth to retaliate against another. How about we just let all juveniles carry guns to school and be done with it.
152 - Dan
I don't think violence was the retaliatory tactic James had in mind Steve. Besides, The school already retaliated on the boys behalf by expelling the girls.
This is the problem with thought cr--, er, hate crime legislation. They violate a higher constitutional guarantee. Equal protection. It opens the door for activist judges to pursue unequal "justice" on behalf of their favored causes.
So an "artistic" expression like "piss Christ" gets a pass, while "God disapproves of homosexuality" --to clean up the girls' expression a bit-- does not.
153 - Henry Gibson
I think facts speak for themselves.
Who does god hate, well lets see here...
Aids/HIV is a leading killer of people all over the world. It seems that it is now so widespread, it's gods way of bump starting evolution again.
In the entire world, 34.3 million people suffer and will most likely eventually die from Aids.
Of this total number, no less than 24.5 million of those people are from sub-saharan Africa. Most all of those people are black.
What does that tell you about what the lord thinks of black people?
A white world for the future, a black world for Planet of the Apes.
154 - markie
The judge probably was a fag and he got insulted. Evidently he thinks saying god hates fags is worse than murder. The homos are worse than the radical feminists and black people when it comes to getting their feelings hurt. The lesbians have all but sabbotaged the feminist movement and today this so called girl power is more like lesbianism than it is like feminism.
155 - Douglas Mays
I guess God hates that girl also... she got no bail....
156 - blake
good stupid bitches got what was coming to them! Yeah bitch and bitch about freedom of speach but its not free when you are bashing some one! that is a crime and lifes a bitch! so seems like someone is finaly getting this shit under wraps this "god hates fags" shit is bull shit you know what if they were saying "god hates men" or "god hates children" what thin? see we can bitch all fucking day and get no where so what the fuck gives some stupid little bitch the right to pass that shit out. If i was at her school and saw her doing this shit i wold have no problem with walking up to her and punching her in her fucked up face and laughing the whole way to the police station. Y? thats what she just did to every gay person she passed that shit out to. well same concept!
157 - Douglas Mays
John,
WOW, this is a good one. we have God and sexuality that is threatening to wimp assed males. All in one sentence. Throw some gas on that fire!! I love it.
what if we found out that God is a fag? Well, in theory he/she is, since he/she is omnipitent (sp?) and everyone is created in his/her image. Is he a he or a she? A hermaphadite?
Oh gosh, it is so easy to piss a lot of people off in this department....
What the hell...
Anyway, we have church and state and hate crime all in one. the judge probably made the right move on this one. God hates homophobes....
DM
158 - John Bambenek
Rapists and murders and pedophiles get bail, but damnit, make a flyer that says God Hates Fags and you're so totally worse than them.
159 - Douglas Mays
Absolutely right!!! This girl was promoting hate! Trying to start a task force? That is dangerous!
160 - Douglas Mays
God hates fags? In the UK that means 'God hates smoking'?
Oh gosh...I thought God hated hate....
161 - BooBear
Just goes to show that any idiot can publish his opinion. So she didn't get bail....waaaah......looks like there aint anything more interesting to report on in that neck of the woods.
162 - liz
people are allowed to to kiss who ever they god mother fucking damn well like. Who are we to say what they can or can't do. Who are we to say who they can fuk or not I'm only 16 but I damn well ain't ignorent like most Christians are
163 - emi - insane
Well it's obvious that the principles that the flyer were based upon are completely irrational and will never hold up properly in the real world (except for in their own particular circle of insanely fanatical politic protesters), and I would like to say that there is no way I would ever support their ideals.
However, to not be allowed bail is almost as purely discriminative as the people who practise the same religion which the girls. It is discriminating against them purely because they are pushing politically incorrect statements... whether these were the reasons they would give or not.
Also, I agree with the suggestion that it is the parents who should be "in trouble" - these are the people who have influenced these poor girls; without these unsuitable carers, they would most likely be living normal lives and believing proper morals.
However, I suppose that I should be supporting the disallowing of bail to these girls - I would much rather that them and the rest of their discriminative slogan-spouting posse would be out of our world, let alone just out of society, so to speak. They are completely insane, and perhaps all they need is to be stimulated in some other way, other than using hate as their drug.
I think that their hate gives them some sort of rush, and makes them feel like they are in power in their utmost moment of anger... they are not in power. They never will be if they continue to only speak of the things they hate, instead of thinking of those they love (except for God).
Basically, they should get a life - their entire life is devoted to their religion, which is based on the fact that they love God, and God hates the world. Who are they to even state that there IS a God? What happens if there isn't (as I believe), and their whole lives amount to nothing? If this is the case, then a homosexual person's life, even if they believe that all of their life is sin, perhaps their sin is better than THEIR life, which basically amounts to nothing.
I only just turned 13, and yet I can already see all of this.
PLEASE, SOMEBODY STOP THEM...
Thank you =]
xx