Question 1: These questions serve as the foundation for thinking about hate speech, especially through Beauharnais v. Illinois and R.A.V. v. St. Paul. In this discussion prompt response, I want you to begin by considering the Supreme Court cases of Beauharnais v. Illinois and R.A.V. v. St. Paul.
First, tell me specifically what types of speech the law in question sought to prohibit in each case.
Second, tell me if, in your opinion, a principled legal distinction exists between the two laws in question that would justify the fact that one law was upheld and the other struck down by the Supreme Court. If you think there is a principled legal distinction, tell me what it is; if you do not think there is a principled legal distinction, tell me which case the Supreme Court got wrong and why.
Third, I want you to consider a real-life controversy surrounding hate speech. This controversy involves people speaking on college campuses.
Based on your discussion of Beauharnais v. Illinois and R.A.V. v. St. Paul, if you were NYU's general counsel, and a professor at NYU were to invite Mr. Yiannopoulos to campus to speak about politics and Halloween in the fall, would you let Mr. Yiannopoulos speak on campus? Why or why not?
Question 2: After reading Dr. Gander's article on free speech and civil liability, I would like you to address three specific questions.
What is the argument that I think is most persuasive in responding to the plaintiffs in cases specifically like those involving the movie Natural Born Killers and the Jenny Jones show, in which it is alleged that a movie or television show caused someone to harm another? This question is not about Robert O'Neil's book per se. It is about the argument I advance as to why the theory of civil liability used by the plaintiffs in Byers v. Edmondson and Graves v. Warner Brothers should be rejected.
Do you agree or disagree with this theory, and why?
I want you to consider the theory of civil liability that would hold movie producers responsible when individuals watch their movies and then go out and commit crimes that have been depicted in those movies, and the theory of civil liability that would hold gun manufactures responsible when individuals commit crimes with the guns that those manufactures have produced. I have said that these two theories bear more than a passing resemblance to one another. Do they? Or do you think those who embrace the First Amendment have a better case for avoiding civil liability than those who embrace the Second Amendment? Or do you think the reverse: those who embrace the Second Amendment have a better case for avoiding civil liability than those who embrace the First Amendment? Or do you think that civil liability should-or should not-be dealt with similarly when it comes to both amendments?