Media Law in the News

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/uw-on-edge-over-perception-of-rise-in-hate-speech/

Following Breitbart news editor Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech and the recent inauguration of President Trump, the University of Washington has reported a sharp rise in perceptions of racial tension and hate speech on campus. UW spokesperson Norm Arkans has acknowledged that Trump’s election and inauguration seems to have incited a wave of hate speech, as the university struggles to respond appropriately. Professor of psychology and former undergraduate at the UW, Chris Crandall’s research shows that President Trump’s election did not create new biases, rather it unleashed the expressions of such prejudices. Nationwide there is a greater sense of willingness to openly express bias and prejudice, predicated on the election of Donald Trump. Crandall reports that this sentiment has extended to people of various political parties, including Democrats who as his research portrays earlier felt it was wrong to express bias but now believe it is acceptable. Yiannopoulos’ speech at the UW further touched upon this concept, as he concluded by stating that Americans are becoming hypersensitive, raising a generation who can’t handle critical words, asserting that cyberbullying is not the same as real bullying. Yiannopoulos is of the belief that people should ignore things they find offensive, stating that “if someone is speaking on campus you don’t like, don’t attend the lecture”. Many students in response to Yiannopolus’ scheduled visit argued that the event should be cancelled out of concern for student safety. Despite this, UW President Ana Mari Cauce supported Yiannopoulos’ right to speak, condemning the violence but upholding the public institution’s commitment to the free exchange of ideas. Recent tensions have manifested in a Facebook group labelled, “UW Wall Building Association” as it advertises a pro-Trump demonstration event set to take place and encourages people to bring bricks, which raises a potential concern for violence. The Republican Club responsible for hosting Yiannopoulos have not claimed the group page, stating that the event is fake intended to bait students and the media. However, the Latinx Student Law Association has called upon the institution to intervene and investigate who is behind the post/page, on the basis that event constitutes harassment, a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The letter from the student association to the institution states that the UW Wall group is in violation of the code as it targets a specific group based on race, national origin, and citizenship, accusing the group of creating a “hostile and offensive environment in which undocumented and Latinx UW students feel unsafe and welcome. The letter has been signed by 1,500 UW community members so far. The University commented that while unsure whether the Trump event is real or fake they will have security in place the day of the alleged demonstration. However the University has not said what it will do regarding the Facebook group. These issues touch upon both criminal and civil law.

In consideration of these issues several questions rise. The first being if the UW Wall group does in fact pose a true threat to students. To determine this I refer to Virginia v. Black (1992) which states that punishable true threat exists if the the speaker directs threat to one or more individuals with the intent of causing listeners to fear bodily harm or death. When dealing with online threats the Supreme Court did not make a definite statement as to whether online threats equal true threats but it did note that conviction for online threats requires showing intent to violate the law and make a true threat. This then raises the question, does the existence of the page/post direct threat towards one or more individual with the intent of violating the law causing listeners to fear bodily harm or death? After analysis, I would say no, the group/post does not direct threat towards anyone with the intent of violating the law and causing others to fear for their lives.

As the Student Association accuses the group’s post of creating a hostile and offensive environment whether the post is an incitement to violence also comes into question. Relevant is the Brandenburg Test, which states that speech is an incitement to violence if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action. Again, after analysis I would say no, while offensive the group/post is in no way a direct incitement towards producing violent action.

Also relevant is content based restriction. This is essentially such a restriction, as the terms of its questionability have basis in its speech content, content which targets a certain group of people, echoing a certain ideology. By following compelling interest applying strict scrutiny it becomes evident that the UW Wall group and its post pose no threat to public health, safety, and welfare.
The UW wall group’s actions while seemingly hateful and offensive do fall under protection of the law. The case at hand is simply a matter of free speech and a group exercising its right to freedom of expression. While in violation of the University’s Code of Conduct the actions of the group do not seem to be illegal.