Azle homeowner displays 'Hispanics Keep Out' sign

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by from the article

Many residents said they would like to see the sign, which has been up for months, taken down.

"Well, you know, I don't care," said a 72-year-old woman who answered the door at the home. "I'm upset about them coming over here illegally, too."

[ Full Story ]

GC Race War continues, I guess.

[CutiePie2000]

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/

[pshsx1]

"Well, you know, I don't care," said a 72-year-old woman who answered the door at the home. "I'm upset about them coming over here illegally, too."

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.

[AGDee]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

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).

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.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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 say we have to keep out"

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.

[AOII Angel]

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!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

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.

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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".

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

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.

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.

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

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 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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.