Azle homeowner displays 'Hispanics Keep Out' sign
 

[ Full Story ]

GC Race War continues, I guess.

Interesting that the "Police said the sign does not violate any laws and is an expression of freedom of speech." Doesn't that town, state, whatever, have any anti hate-crime legislation or anything like that?

That sign wouldn't be permitted to remain up for long in Maple Leaf Land (I would hope).

See link below for "What is a Hate Crime?" (Canadian P.O.V.)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

So she doesn't want them here legally either? I'd probably just walk up to her yard and take it down (unless it's inside the door/window) out of disgust. And at least this isn't a violent act.. there isn't a Hispanic hanging from the tree or anything.

While I think it's offensive and hateful, it doesn't seem to fit the definition of "illegal". I think the best way to handle this would be for a large group of non-Hispanics to form a protest, in the form of a peaceful sit in on this person's property. And, if they were asked to leave, they could say "The sign doesn't say we have to keep out"

It is not illegal in the US to express hatred through speech/print. It's not nice, ethical or moral, but it's not illegal.

We'll, down here we have something of a long-standing attraction to the idea that the government shouldn't be in the business of telling people what they can or can't say. We like the idea so much that we put in our Constitution, so that it's clear that the government does not have legal power to tell us what we can or can't say.

Well, that would certainly drive home the point (I'm assuming you mean the non-Hispanic people would respond, "The sign *doesn't* say we have to keep out.").

Considering the attitude of the homeowner, however, I can't imagine that would be a peaceful sit for very long. People with that mindset are the ones most likely to whip out their shotgun to "protect" their property. It is Texas, after all.

It's Texas. You can shoot someone breaking into your neighbors house. Are you really surprised that you can put a sign in your yard saying anything you want, even "Hispanics Keep Out"?

Sydney K beat me to it!

Well-said - we do tend to enjoy freedom of speech down here, don't we?

We too have freedom of speech; however we also draw the line at inciting hatred, I guess you could say and we spell it out quite clearly in the Criminal Code of Canada and to a certain extent, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means. The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion."

Quick question (and on another note): In your country, if some jackass yelled out "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre and there was no fire, could they hide behind the 'Freedom of Speech' plea? Just wondering.

No. That's where we draw the line; that's the standard example of the limit of free speech.

The distinction perhaps can be summed up this way: The government cannot regulate the content of speech. In the case of "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or speech that actually puts someone in reasonable fear of personal safety, then it's not the content that's being regulated, but the effect of the speech.

All this sign says is "Hispanics Keep Out." That may be stupid, but it's clearly protected speech.

I'll admit it -- I think laws prohibiting someone from saying hateful things are inane and counterproductive. They create the illusion that everyone is getting along rather than just laying things on the table. I prefer to leave in a society where the idiots are free to say their hateful things and the rest of us are free to say "You're an idiot." I also think that what constitutues "hate speech" is so subjective as to be useless in a criminal context.

That would be fine here too, as it is not "against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation".

I'll deal with the last question first - yes, we actually have Supreme Court case law in this country dealing with the "shouting fire" hypothetical, discussing that it is not protected speech. The US also has "hate crime" legislation in some states, and makes certain crimes against racial minorities, homosexuals, etc. However, there's a high value placed down here on free speech, and there's a certain burden on legislators before they pass laws that infringe upon free speech, or upon law enforcement when they take action that appears to abridge free speech. It's not an absolute right, but it's a strong one.

I think that the way the law is spelled out in your country's criminal code would have some difficulty passing Constitutional muster in the US. The language stating "publicly stirring up," as well as the portion stating that it is "illegal to communicate hatred in a public place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means," seems incredibly broad. It would appear that an individual who writes "I hate xyz group" on a piece of paper in a crowded room would be subject to criminal sanctions under your code. Of course, I say this without any knowledge of the Canadian courts' interpretation of the code, so they may have narrowed it or built in exceptions to the rule.

It seems that Canada traded some freedom of speech for extra protections against what it perceived to be hate speech. If the Canadian citizens are ok with that, then it's not really an issue. It's just one of the trade offs that nations sometimes make when they place more or less importance on certain concepts.

Yes, I think so. Thank you for your well thought out and respectful response. It is appreciated.

I think you missed my point. What I meant was, I prefer to live in a society where someone is free to say "I hate all Hispanic people and I wish they would go back where they came from now," and others are free to say "You are an idiot."

Canada, as you and KSigkid haven't noted, has chosen to balance interests differently. When I say that I think that hate speech laws are inane and counterproductive, I'm not so much trying to diss Canada as to say that I have never been convinced that hate speech laws serve society better than the free exchange of ideas. Canadians obviously have come to a different conclusion, which is certainly their right.

Yay!

ETA: I think the best way to deal with signs like the OP is to ignore the sign. I think it's negative attention seeking behavior and by paying attention to them, you're giving them what they want. If someone wants to have a well thought out dialogue about illegal immigration, then by all means engage, but controversial sign owners aren't usually about that, in my limited experience.

Oh, and certainly engage in the personal social or actual boycott of the sign owner. I don't mean that you have to pretend that the sign just doesn't exist. But by engaging about the sign, I think you're feeding the person what the person most wants.

Going on the preceding posts, would a sign in that lady's town on her front lawn with a swastikas all over it and a sign that said "Jews Keep Out" be legally permissible? From the preceding discussion, it sounds like "yes", it would be. But I thought I'd ask.

Is bashing on certain specific ethnic groups more condoned as opposed to the bashing on other groups?

As a preliminary matter, I don't think it's fair to say that the government "condones" bashing on ethnic groups.

To the extent that the government would allow such a sign on a person's front lawn, it would allow it no matter the racial/ethnic/religious group. So, the identity of that group being bashed doesn't affect the legality.

Her property. Her speech. Her beliefs.

Until they affect others, what's the difference? Don't like it? Don't read it.

We have nothing in our Constitution or elsewhere that prevents people from getting their feelings hurt.

That's kind of like saying if you don't like Maple trees, don't look at them. If you're just walking and happen to see one, you can't change the fact that you saw it and you can't change the fact that you know it's there.
Same with that sign. I'm pretty sure people aren't going around looking for hateful signs but if you happen to drive by that house and see that sign, well, you just saw it.

Exactly. Tolerating or permitting speech =/= condoning what is said.

CutiePie, the thing is that I would hazard a guess that freedom of speech is one of the two or three freedoms that Americans value the most and consider the most basic. It lies at the heart of our ethos that true freedom and true democracy cannot flourish if the government has the power to tell people what they can and cannot say, or to punish someone for merely expressing an idea, even if the vast majority of Americans find that idea anhorant. Those who drafted our Bill of Rights were influenced by the writings of people like Milton, who said that when truth and falsehood are allowed to freely grapple, truth will win out.

We tend to side with the sentiment usually (though perhaps inaccurately) attributed to Voltaire: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

As a Texan...and a Hispanic, I have to agree. I probably wouldn't be too happy with someone who posted that sign, but I'm very aware that people have a right to their opinion.

Besides, we have a wall....that pretty much says "Hispanics Keep Out" anyways.

Now eppie - if the Hispanics come legally, the wall isn't a problem, now is it? They can walk proudly across the bridge, papers in hand. :)

As to the sign - it is certainly ill-advised. Does she really have a problem with random Hispanics coming up to her door? And what if her mailperson/delivery person is Hispanic? I'd be sorely tempted to not deliver to her house . . . but stupid people do have a right to free speech on their private property. Now, if she posted that sign at her business, she'd be violating the law.

They can walk across the bridge...doesn't mean they are necessarily welcomed.

A 1 million ft (ok, so I don't know exactly how high the wall is, but it's pretty big) black iron wall, doesn't necessarily scream "you are welcome to come in" legal or not.

....of course the wall still doesn't stop people. lol

Well, let's not kid ourselves. If you aren't a legal immigrant, no matter what your ethnicity, you aren't likely to be welcomed.

Similarly, you wouldn't be welcomed in Canada or most countries of the developed world, as far as I know.

I can't think of any country off the top of my head that has completely open borders and offers full rights to non-citizens.

That said, the sign under discussion doesn't say, "illegal immigrants keep out."

Are you thinking civil rights laws?

Yep - did I miss something?

No, I just wanted to make sure that I was understanding you correctly.

I'm not sure that it would always be illegal at any business, but wording like "Hispanics Keep Out" would/could certainly give rise to a claim of discrimination in providing services.

You know what's awesome?

You think this is mocking Texas. However, Texas is more right than anything here - in fact, the US Constitution supports this whole-heartedly.

Know what else is awesome? The Bill of Rights. Come on, guys.

where is Joe Horn when you need him?

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.(Ben Franklin)

IDK if you were just directing your post to AOII Angel or the rest of us, but I completely agree with you. I wasn't mocking my state. The Bill of Rights is a wonderful thing.

I can mock Texas all I want. I mock Texas not because it doesn't make a bigot take a sign out of her yard, but because it lets its citizens shoot people on other people's property. I don't agree that "Hispanics Keep Out" is hate speech; it's not inciting anyone to violence or threatening anyone. It IS bigoted, but she has a right to be bigoted. I applaud Texas for not trampling on her First amendment rights, but I can still make fun of Texas for taking other "rights" overboard. That's awesome!

Maybe it's because I live in a tourist-y area, but here there are all kinds of rules about what you can have visible from the street if you live within city limits. A while back, there was a whole mess over a woman having a suit of armor on her front porch just because the city thought it looked "cluttered" :rolleyes: You'd think there would be some sort of city or county code that would cover this type of situation.

My town has a portion of the City Code all about signage, and there's another on public nuisances which someone would cite if this sign popped up in my town.

Of course someone in my county set a barn on fire because it had campaign support for Obama. The code actually specifies how many political sign can be within so many square feet, even for residences.

But I'll bet you don't come here and break into my neighbor's house! :D

And if those signs work, why does my little "No Solicitors" label above my doorbell not keep them away?

Maybe they don't notice it because you're in Texas, where everything is supposed to be bigger? :p

Ha! I wouldn't break into your neighbors house anyway, but it doesn't stop people from breaking into homes regardless. It's not about deterring crime anyway! I personally don't think a flat screen TV is worth someone's life...especially when someone is running away from the scene with it and not an eminent threat to anyone. :p

It's all well and good to joke about Texas laws and the thought of shooting someone just because he's there, but face reality -- that's NOT the law. There is the whole "reasonable fear for the life or safety of yourself or others" that must be proved in a court of law. Generally, both in civil court AND criminal court.

Texans tend to be two conservative for my taste, and go over board with a lot of the laws. I do agree with the stance on crime they have however. As one of my profs joked "You kill somebody, we kill you."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPuM_XAo2BE
I'm specifically referencing this case which had nothing to do with
"reasonable fear for the life or safety of yourself or others" but still resulted in the neighbor getting off for killing two intruders stealing from his neighbor who was not home at the time. These kind of cases are hard for the other 49 states (even equally conservative ones like Louisiana, where I was living at the time of this case) to stomach.