WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:03.839
The White House issued a statement today
about the protests that are going on at

2
00:00:03.879 --> 00:00:09.480
Columbia University. We're basically a bunch
of student protesters. Protesters, some of

3
00:00:09.519 --> 00:00:12.960
whom are students, maybe not all
of them, whatever, have taken over

4
00:00:13.080 --> 00:00:21.320
campus buildings and at certain campuses.
I'm not sure Columbia or Yale or several

5
00:00:21.320 --> 00:00:31.079
of these campuses just basically widespread violations
of the law. You've got basically in

6
00:00:31.160 --> 00:00:37.119
some parts in some campuses, you've
got these camps being set up on the

7
00:00:37.159 --> 00:00:45.000
campus where basically these pro Palestine protesters
are living intents. Which again my constant

8
00:00:45.320 --> 00:00:50.840
question about these pro Palestine protests is
where do these kids have, Like don't

9
00:00:50.880 --> 00:00:55.000
they have to study? Like when
I was in college, I would not

10
00:00:55.079 --> 00:01:00.799
have had the time to just live
on the quad as finals week was approaching.

11
00:01:00.840 --> 00:01:03.640
It's it's late April, like finals
are approaching in May. Don't don't

12
00:01:03.680 --> 00:01:08.480
you have to like study or something? Anyway, clearly not, it's the

13
00:01:08.560 --> 00:01:15.519
answer. So the White House issued
this statement, and it leads me to

14
00:01:15.560 --> 00:01:21.040
want to talk a little bit about
the First Amendment and this one term that

15
00:01:21.200 --> 00:01:30.840
is used very often, the term
is hate speech, and I feel like

16
00:01:30.879 --> 00:01:34.879
that term is used a lot in
politics, and it's one of these things

17
00:01:34.879 --> 00:01:42.959
where when you hear that as a
lawyer, which I am, sort of

18
00:01:45.840 --> 00:01:49.079
you're you're sort of almost not sure
what to do, how to handle it.

19
00:01:49.079 --> 00:01:52.959
It's like it's one of these terms
that people tend to use as if

20
00:01:53.000 --> 00:01:57.480
it's a legal term of art when
it isn't. Let me just read the

21
00:01:57.519 --> 00:02:04.280
statement from the White House. President
Biden has stood against repugnant anti Semitic smears

22
00:02:04.319 --> 00:02:09.800
and violent rhetoric his entire life.
He condemns the use of the term into

23
00:02:09.919 --> 00:02:15.919
fada, as he has the other
tragic and he condemns the use of the

24
00:02:15.000 --> 00:02:22.159
term into fada as he has condemned
the other tragic and dangerous hate speech displayed

25
00:02:22.199 --> 00:02:25.360
in recent days. President Biden respects
the right to free expression, but protests

26
00:02:25.439 --> 00:02:30.759
must be peaceful and lawful. Forcibly, taking over buildings is not peaceful,

27
00:02:30.800 --> 00:02:44.000
it is wrong, and hate speech
and hate symbols have no place in America.

28
00:02:44.400 --> 00:02:49.560
And again it's used. On the
one hand, this statement from the

29
00:02:49.599 --> 00:02:54.599
President is obviously trying to respect certain
kinds of legal boundaries and legal principles that

30
00:02:54.759 --> 00:03:05.400
we have in America. He talks
about how you know, he President Biden

31
00:03:05.439 --> 00:03:12.120
respects the right to free expression.
Okay, So First Amendment principle of freedom

32
00:03:12.159 --> 00:03:15.639
of speech that President Biden is respecting. He's he's acknowledging that there's a tenth

33
00:03:15.680 --> 00:03:22.919
pole of the law here that he
has to respect. But then he has

34
00:03:22.960 --> 00:03:29.840
another tent pole of law that he's
respecting. Protests must be peaceful and lawful.

35
00:03:30.039 --> 00:03:36.319
Okay, So you can have protest
demonstrations, but don't break otherwise applicable

36
00:03:36.919 --> 00:03:43.319
laws geared towards public safety or order. All right. You can be on

37
00:03:43.400 --> 00:03:46.280
the sidewalk, you know, holding
a sign upholding what you believe, but

38
00:03:46.960 --> 00:03:53.159
don't obstruct the sidewalk. You know. You can have a parade, but

39
00:03:53.639 --> 00:03:58.879
go through the city process for having
a parade. Don't just block traffic,

40
00:03:59.319 --> 00:04:02.240
et cetera. Right, these are
sort of tent poles of American First Amendment

41
00:04:02.680 --> 00:04:06.520
law that yes, you have the
right to freedom of expression, but you

42
00:04:06.680 --> 00:04:14.599
have to comply with otherwise applicable laws. Yes, you can protest in favor

43
00:04:14.759 --> 00:04:20.639
of, you know, I don't
know, protests against environmental regulation. But

44
00:04:20.959 --> 00:04:26.560
don't throw a rock through the window
of the EPA's offices in Washington, d

45
00:04:26.680 --> 00:04:31.120
C. Okay, throwing the rock
through the window is breaking other laws,

46
00:04:30.759 --> 00:04:36.279
otherwise applicable laws, and that's when
you get out of the realm of what

47
00:04:36.480 --> 00:04:42.920
is core protected First Amendment speech.
So this statement by the President is fine

48
00:04:43.000 --> 00:04:47.519
for what it is. I mean, it's it's not bad, and it's

49
00:04:47.600 --> 00:04:56.120
clearly respecting these basic legal principles around
the idea of American First Amendment law and

50
00:04:56.399 --> 00:05:06.560
free speech. But then it goes
in to this rhetoric about dangerous hate speech.

51
00:05:08.399 --> 00:05:13.199
President Biden con condemns the use of
the term intofada, as he has

52
00:05:13.279 --> 00:05:18.319
the other tragic and dangerous hate speech
displayed in recent days, forcibly, taking

53
00:05:18.399 --> 00:05:23.959
over buildings is not peaceful, it
is wrong, and hates speech and hate

54
00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:28.639
symbols have no place in America.
And he keeps using that phrase as if

55
00:05:28.639 --> 00:05:30.879
it's a term of art. And
I think a lot of people think that

56
00:05:30.879 --> 00:05:35.439
that's some kind of legal term of
art, that that's like a category of

57
00:05:35.480 --> 00:05:40.519
speech that can be regulated a certain
way, And I'm just here to tell

58
00:05:40.519 --> 00:05:50.199
you it's not. Really, it's
not a real term. What defines something

59
00:05:50.240 --> 00:05:56.240
as hate speech, Well it frankly, it's in the eye of the beholder.

60
00:05:58.360 --> 00:06:01.120
If I hold up a sign that
says marriages between a man and a

61
00:06:01.160 --> 00:06:09.879
woman. There are people who will
look at that and say that I am

62
00:06:09.920 --> 00:06:19.680
engaged in hate speech by saying that
I don't think I am so. But

63
00:06:19.800 --> 00:06:26.959
another person might hold up a sign
that says, I hate these rosary clutching

64
00:06:28.160 --> 00:06:32.800
get your rosary I hate those rosary
clutching Catholics who oppose abortion. You can

65
00:06:32.800 --> 00:06:38.160
literally have a sign that says I
hate them, and someone might say,

66
00:06:38.199 --> 00:06:41.240
well, that's not hate speech,
even if it has the word hate.

67
00:06:41.240 --> 00:06:45.120
Literally, hate speech is not really
a category of law. Let me just

68
00:06:45.560 --> 00:06:49.519
put that plainly. Hate speech is
not a category of law. The fact

69
00:06:49.519 --> 00:07:02.160
that speech is offensive to someone doesn't
necessarily make it somehow outside the parameters of

70
00:07:02.319 --> 00:07:11.879
core protected First Amendment speech. So
what kinds of things are outside the parameters

71
00:07:12.959 --> 00:07:16.720
of core protected First Amendment speech.
Well, to understand that there's a couple

72
00:07:16.759 --> 00:07:26.000
of things. First, there's certain
kinds of examples that have always historically been

73
00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:30.879
deemed something different from protected First Amendment
speech. So one of these is called

74
00:07:31.000 --> 00:07:46.600
incitement. Incitement is a kind of
speech that you reasonably anticipate will directly lead

75
00:07:46.959 --> 00:07:55.519
to imminent lawless action, unlawful action. If I am in front of a

76
00:07:55.879 --> 00:08:01.240
ku Klux Klan rally, and it's
a bunch of guys holding pitch forks and

77
00:08:01.399 --> 00:08:09.920
torches and one guy with and baseball
bats. And there is an African American

78
00:08:09.040 --> 00:08:15.759
standing in front of this group of
horrible races. And the guy at the

79
00:08:15.800 --> 00:08:18.199
front, I'm gonna actually, I
am not going to be in this.

80
00:08:18.480 --> 00:08:22.439
I excize myself from this example.
This is obviously a horrific example. Okay,

81
00:08:22.480 --> 00:08:24.399
I'm taking myself out of it.
Let's say there's a guy at the

82
00:08:24.439 --> 00:08:30.720
front of a group of ku Klux
klansmen and they all want to beat up

83
00:08:31.560 --> 00:08:33.679
an African American, and the guy
at the front of the group of ku

84
00:08:33.759 --> 00:08:41.919
Klux klansmen yells, get him boys, and the klansmen rush forward to beat

85
00:08:41.000 --> 00:08:46.159
up the black guy. Well,
the guy at the front who yelled get

86
00:08:46.200 --> 00:08:50.639
him boys his words, get him
boys. He can't go in front of

87
00:08:50.679 --> 00:08:56.360
the judge and say, your honor, I was engaged and I was speaking.

88
00:08:56.759 --> 00:09:03.519
Therefore I'm protected by the First Amendment. You can't prosecute me for this

89
00:09:03.679 --> 00:09:09.159
man being beaten up. Well,
yes we can, because that's called incitement.

90
00:09:09.759 --> 00:09:16.879
Okay. Incitement is again speech that
you reasonably expect, speech that one

91
00:09:16.879 --> 00:09:24.360
would reasonably expect will imminently lead to
imminent unlawful activity. All right, that's

92
00:09:24.440 --> 00:09:28.320
not a protected category of speech.
The speech you use to conduct other kinds

93
00:09:28.360 --> 00:09:35.679
of criminal affairs not protected. Okay, if you're engaged in conspiracy to engage

94
00:09:35.679 --> 00:09:39.720
in wire fraud, and you and
your buddy are talking through the plan,

95
00:09:39.840 --> 00:09:45.200
you agree to the plan to specifically
intend to commit wire fraud, you can't

96
00:09:45.240 --> 00:09:46.840
go to the judge and say,
well, Judge, we were talking while

97
00:09:46.840 --> 00:09:50.720
we were engaged in this conspiracy fraud. No, that's not protected speech.

98
00:09:52.639 --> 00:10:00.000
So incitement your plans to hatch a
criminal conspiracy, you're talking, you're communicating

99
00:10:00.279 --> 00:10:05.279
in the act of engaging in a
criminal conspiracy, of hatching a criminal conspiracy.

100
00:10:07.159 --> 00:10:13.639
Other kinds of speech that are not
protected libel and slander, And libel

101
00:10:13.639 --> 00:10:18.240
and slander the different levels that someone
would have to prove in order to hold

102
00:10:18.240 --> 00:10:22.559
you liable or convict you for libel
and slander, depending on if you're talking

103
00:10:22.559 --> 00:10:26.679
about a public figure versus if you're
talking about a private individual or a non

104
00:10:26.679 --> 00:10:33.759
public figure. But there are various
kinds of things that are outside the parameters

105
00:10:33.240 --> 00:10:37.639
of what is core protected First Amendment
law, because what is really the core

106
00:10:39.320 --> 00:10:43.559
of the First Amendment. What were
the framers of the Constitution doing by including

107
00:10:43.039 --> 00:10:48.720
this protection within the Bill of Rights
within the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

108
00:10:50.320 --> 00:10:58.200
Well, let's recall that America was
composed of a group of religious and

109
00:10:58.279 --> 00:11:07.279
political odd balls. Basically, England
sent all their undesirables, several groups of

110
00:11:07.320 --> 00:11:13.120
their undesirables over to the New World. Religious oddballs like the Catholics who first

111
00:11:13.120 --> 00:11:20.879
settled in Maryland, the Quakers who
settled Pennsylvania, this group, that group,

112
00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:28.039
et cetera, and also as a
bunch of people who objected to various

113
00:11:28.159 --> 00:11:33.200
kinds of political problems that were wrong
in England. And these were also people

114
00:11:33.879 --> 00:11:43.480
very much influenced by Enlightenment ideals about
freedom of conscience, etc. So the

115
00:11:43.600 --> 00:11:50.240
idea was, we weren't necessarily concerned
about everyone being able to have, you

116
00:11:50.320 --> 00:11:56.399
know, total leeway to express themselves
about anything. That the thing we were

117
00:11:56.440 --> 00:12:05.440
most concerned about was speech regarding core
questions surrounding politics, law, culture,

118
00:12:05.879 --> 00:12:11.879
religion, things like that. That's
the core of the First Amendment. Those

119
00:12:11.919 --> 00:12:16.879
are the sort of, if you
want to use fancier language, the normative

120
00:12:18.000 --> 00:12:24.559
values that are enshrined within the First
Amendment. We want people to speak freely

121
00:12:24.600 --> 00:12:28.480
about these core concepts. So even
in the way that First Amendment law has

122
00:12:28.559 --> 00:12:33.639
sort of developed over the course of
the centuries in America, there are different

123
00:12:33.759 --> 00:12:43.240
levels of protection for say advertising commercial
advertising, then there are for me going

124
00:12:43.240 --> 00:12:48.639
on the microphone and talking about politics
or law. Right, we can have

125
00:12:48.799 --> 00:12:54.919
laws banning people from engaging in certain
kinds of false or misleading advertising in the

126
00:12:54.960 --> 00:13:03.279
context of selling commercial products. If
I come on here and I'm making an

127
00:13:03.399 --> 00:13:07.639
argument that the government disagrees with about
Joe Biden. If I think if I

128
00:13:07.679 --> 00:13:11.679
come on here and I say Joe
Biden is senile and doesn't know what he's

129
00:13:11.679 --> 00:13:16.519
doing, well, I mean the
government basically the government can't prosecute me for

130
00:13:16.559 --> 00:13:22.200
that, all right, Well,
John Girardi's maybe, and maybe I would

131
00:13:22.240 --> 00:13:24.080
be maybe I come on here and
I'm telling a lie or something, but

132
00:13:24.120 --> 00:13:31.159
it's on a disputed political point.
Maybe I come on here and I'm saying

133
00:13:31.200 --> 00:13:35.360
something that's a lie or arguably true
or arguably not true. If it's about

134
00:13:35.399 --> 00:13:37.600
politics, law, or religion,
et cetera, there's I'm going to have

135
00:13:37.759 --> 00:13:45.639
a much better constitutional defense then if
I'm lying to you while trying to sell

136
00:13:45.799 --> 00:13:50.440
you know, breakfast cereal or something
like that. Okay, why because politics,

137
00:13:50.639 --> 00:13:54.759
law, religion, culture, these
are the things that are at the

138
00:13:54.799 --> 00:14:01.480
core of the First Amendment. And
notice how I've described all this, and

139
00:14:01.519 --> 00:14:05.840
I've never once used the term hate
speech because it's just not part of the

140
00:14:05.879 --> 00:14:09.039
body of First Amendment law. I
had a whole class about the First Amendment.

141
00:14:09.039 --> 00:14:15.759
We never said the words hate speech
because it's not really a thing.

142
00:14:16.279 --> 00:14:20.960
It's only a thing in the minds
of politicians, and people have repeated it

143
00:14:20.080 --> 00:14:24.840
enough that there are people who think, well, well, those liberals they

144
00:14:24.840 --> 00:14:26.919
pass those laws banning hate speech.
No they didn't. There are no laws

145
00:14:26.960 --> 00:14:33.159
on the books banning hate speech.
You could not do it. It's not

146
00:14:33.440 --> 00:14:39.279
really a definable thing, and its
parameters are seemingly outside the bounds of what

147
00:14:39.960 --> 00:14:41.919
can and can't be regulated. When
we return, I want to talk about

148
00:14:41.919 --> 00:14:48.799
the kinds of things in the context
of these student protests quote hateful activity that

149
00:14:48.879 --> 00:14:54.759
I think can be regulated, prosecuted
the subject of lawsuits, and I think

150
00:14:54.000 --> 00:14:56.840
might be and I think some of
these universities might be looking at some hefty

151
00:14:56.919 --> 00:15:03.480
lawsuits. That's next on the John
Guardi Show. President Biden issued a statement

152
00:15:03.600 --> 00:15:09.919
saying he was denouncing the hate speech
that was happening at Columbia and other elite

153
00:15:09.000 --> 00:15:18.039
universities surrounding protests in favor of Palestine
and against the state of Israel. And

154
00:15:18.080 --> 00:15:20.360
he keeps using this term hate speech
as if it's a thing, And I'm

155
00:15:20.480 --> 00:15:24.080
just making the point on this half
of the show that it's not really a

156
00:15:24.120 --> 00:15:28.799
thing. In First Amendment law,
people use that phrase hate speech as if

157
00:15:28.840 --> 00:15:33.200
it's some kind of legal category or
a term of art that actually means something.

158
00:15:33.799 --> 00:15:35.960
For those of you gun owners,
it's kind of analogous to assault weapon.

159
00:15:37.639 --> 00:15:43.360
How Like non gun people will say
assault weapon as if it's like a

160
00:15:43.399 --> 00:15:46.679
meaningful, discrete category of thing.
And you, as a gun owner like

161
00:15:46.720 --> 00:15:50.759
that, as you as someone who
has expertise in guns. But what is

162
00:15:50.799 --> 00:15:54.759
an I don't know what. If
I don't know what an assault weapon is,

163
00:15:54.799 --> 00:15:58.879
you certainly don't know what what is
an assault weapon? I feel that

164
00:15:58.919 --> 00:16:02.080
way as a lawyer. But when
people say the term hate speech, it's

165
00:16:02.120 --> 00:16:06.879
not a thing. What is hate
speech? Is it just speech that you

166
00:16:07.000 --> 00:16:11.480
think is hateful, because it's certainly
not like a legal category that is that

167
00:16:11.039 --> 00:16:15.960
First Amendment law has hashed out over
the last two hundred whatever years to categorize

168
00:16:15.000 --> 00:16:18.480
as like something that can be regulated
the way like you know, false advertising,

169
00:16:18.519 --> 00:16:23.000
giving or libel or slander or incitement, all these other kinds of categories

170
00:16:23.080 --> 00:16:30.240
of speech that are subject to various
kinds of criminal regulation or civil penalties,

171
00:16:30.320 --> 00:16:34.279
or you could be liable for a
lawsuit for some different kinds of speech that

172
00:16:34.320 --> 00:16:40.759
we deem to be outside the core
protections of the First Amendment. Hate speech

173
00:16:40.840 --> 00:16:45.480
is not that there's some kinds of
hate speech that are very much as we've

174
00:16:45.519 --> 00:16:48.399
interpreted the First Amendment over the last
two hundred whatever years, there are certain

175
00:16:48.480 --> 00:16:52.399
kinds of speech that are quite hateful
that are within the bounds of the First

176
00:16:52.399 --> 00:17:02.080
Amendment. You know, if you
come on a radio show, you probably

177
00:17:02.080 --> 00:17:03.119
won't have your radio show for very
long. But if you come on to

178
00:17:03.200 --> 00:17:07.440
a radio show and say, you
know what, they all filler and those

179
00:17:07.559 --> 00:17:11.880
Nazis were pretty good guys, and
ah, you know, Holocaust was that

180
00:17:11.920 --> 00:17:17.640
real? You can come on a
radio show and say that it's very hateful,

181
00:17:18.039 --> 00:17:22.279
it's horrible, it's terrible, it's
hate. You can if you want

182
00:17:22.279 --> 00:17:25.359
to say that's hate speech, I
guess I won't argue with you too much.

183
00:17:25.680 --> 00:17:30.240
It's protected under the First Amendment.
It's a core protected thing under the

184
00:17:30.279 --> 00:17:38.519
First Amendment, undoubtedly. But there
are certain kinds of hateful conduct that people

185
00:17:38.759 --> 00:17:44.200
sort of interpret as speech or as
expressive that can be regulated that I think

186
00:17:44.319 --> 00:17:47.200
is happening on these campuses. Let
me just kind of explain what it is.

187
00:17:48.880 --> 00:17:59.000
So, universities are largely governed by
Title six, which is part of

188
00:17:59.279 --> 00:18:03.920
one of the Federals Civil Rights Acts, And basically what it says is,

189
00:18:03.960 --> 00:18:11.200
hey, universities, if you're getting
federal money, you can't allow discrimination basically

190
00:18:11.200 --> 00:18:15.799
in any aspect of the university on
the basis of and then we list out

191
00:18:15.799 --> 00:18:22.000
our protected categories race, ethnicity,
national origin, this, that and the

192
00:18:22.039 --> 00:18:30.279
other. All right, So colleges
and universities can't have like various kinds of

193
00:18:30.400 --> 00:18:33.960
race based discrimination. Okay, if
you're a college of university and you're like,

194
00:18:33.960 --> 00:18:37.319
hey, we're only going to hire
wide administrators, that's not gonna fly.

195
00:18:37.920 --> 00:18:41.079
Your federal funding is going to be
gone, all right. Your ability

196
00:18:41.119 --> 00:18:44.960
to take students who are receiving federal
loans, which is a huge source of

197
00:18:44.960 --> 00:18:48.359
income for university gone, all right. So universities have to toe the line

198
00:18:48.400 --> 00:18:55.960
and We've had this big debate over
whether admissions policies universities that try to you

199
00:18:56.000 --> 00:19:00.680
know, some universities tried to do
affirmative action about whether or not that violates

200
00:19:00.680 --> 00:19:03.200
those strips. Okay, but for
the most part, the generally acceptable,

201
00:19:03.240 --> 00:19:07.880
Prince accepted principle is universities can't discriminate
on the basis of race. Now,

202
00:19:07.839 --> 00:19:18.279
I think a big one aspect of
some of these federal laws requiring universities not

203
00:19:18.359 --> 00:19:29.559
to engage in discrimination is that students
cannot be deprived of the exercise of other

204
00:19:29.680 --> 00:19:36.279
rights. It's another sort of ten
pole principle in some of this first in

205
00:19:36.359 --> 00:19:42.200
some of this federal non discrimination law. And I think where these universities are

206
00:19:42.200 --> 00:19:48.759
having problems is you have these people
setting up pro Palestine camps on campus,

207
00:19:51.279 --> 00:19:57.599
where the rhetoric against perceived Jewish,
perceived Zionist, whatever, students is so

208
00:19:57.920 --> 00:20:06.960
aggressive that it is intimidating, reasonably
intimidating to these Jewish students to the point

209
00:20:07.000 --> 00:20:11.119
where they feel like they can't walk
to class normally. They feel like they

210
00:20:11.119 --> 00:20:19.599
are hindered from the normal exercise of
their life as students at a university.

211
00:20:19.839 --> 00:20:23.400
There are reports of Jewish students from
Columbia's parents were picking them up to get

212
00:20:23.440 --> 00:20:30.440
them out of there. Right.
We saw stuff early on after October seventh.

213
00:20:30.680 --> 00:20:33.680
I think it was at some University
of New York where like Jewish students

214
00:20:33.680 --> 00:20:40.240
were being barricaded in the library with
pro Palestinian protesters yelling and screaming to beat

215
00:20:40.240 --> 00:20:45.359
them up. Like, so,
here's the thing. It's one thing.

216
00:20:45.519 --> 00:20:48.960
If you go out to a section
of the quad, you have your pro

217
00:20:49.039 --> 00:20:56.279
Palestine protest, you go home,
you go back to your dorm. All

218
00:20:56.400 --> 00:21:00.759
right, that's fine. You're not
intimidating. You know, maybe you're holding

219
00:21:00.839 --> 00:21:04.400
signs that have things that the Jewish
students don't agree with, maybe that are

220
00:21:04.599 --> 00:21:11.640
somewhat offensive to the Jewish students,
Okay, but that's different from inhibiting the

221
00:21:11.720 --> 00:21:15.799
Jewish students from their ability just to
get from class to class, walk around,

222
00:21:17.160 --> 00:21:22.680
just exercise their normal right to just
be a college kid. In fact,

223
00:21:22.680 --> 00:21:26.440
it might be violating federal law.
And the problem for the university is

224
00:21:26.599 --> 00:21:37.680
are you tolerating that? Are you
saying that's okay. That's where some of

225
00:21:37.720 --> 00:21:41.960
these universities I think could be facing
some real legal jeopardy is because it doesn't

226
00:21:42.000 --> 00:21:51.880
seem like in many cases they're actually
doing enough to effectively stop it, because

227
00:21:51.880 --> 00:21:56.839
it's not just a question of these
pro Palestinian protesters are saying things that are

228
00:21:56.839 --> 00:22:00.319
awful. Okay, I think the
phrase on the river to the sea Palestine

229
00:22:00.359 --> 00:22:03.599
shall be free. There's some people
are saying, well, no, there's

230
00:22:03.640 --> 00:22:07.079
nonviolent way to interpret that. They
just mean they don't think that there should

231
00:22:07.119 --> 00:22:10.119
be a state of Israel. Okay, Well, do you want all the

232
00:22:10.200 --> 00:22:12.319
Jews dead? You want them all
driven out? I think there's a very

233
00:22:12.359 --> 00:22:18.960
easily horrible way of interpreting that.
Some people say that there's a non horrible

234
00:22:18.960 --> 00:22:22.680
way to interpret that. Some people
say there's a horrible way to interpret I

235
00:22:22.960 --> 00:22:26.680
don't know. Given the posture of
Hamas, they seem to want the horrible

236
00:22:26.680 --> 00:22:34.440
way regardless. It's not even so
much the saying of horrible things. It's

237
00:22:34.720 --> 00:22:44.079
the intimidation and inhibition, the inhibiting
of Jewish students from the normal ability to

238
00:22:44.200 --> 00:22:48.119
live out their lives as college kids. That's what's really I think for these

239
00:22:48.160 --> 00:22:53.039
schools running a foul of federal law. They're going to put these schools in

240
00:22:53.079 --> 00:22:59.079
jeopardy if they don't effectively take the
steps to stop it. When we return

241
00:22:59.119 --> 00:23:03.240
speaking of hate speed, we're going
to talk about hate crimes and an incident

242
00:23:03.279 --> 00:23:06.880
of a hate crime that occurred in
Fresno recently. That's next on the John

243
00:23:06.920 --> 00:23:12.759
Girardi Show. With all this discussion
about hate speech, it then leads my

244
00:23:12.799 --> 00:23:15.960
attention to, well, what about
hate crimes? Now? Hate crimes,

245
00:23:18.000 --> 00:23:26.400
unlike hate speech, hate crimes are
a thing an American law. I thought

246
00:23:26.400 --> 00:23:30.680
that was a good analogy to these
the way that gun owners feel when politicians

247
00:23:30.759 --> 00:23:36.559
use the word assault weapon, which
is not really like a term of art

248
00:23:36.599 --> 00:23:41.839
among gun owners, but people in
media will use the phrases if it's a

249
00:23:41.839 --> 00:23:44.960
real term of art. I feel
the same way about the term hate speech,

250
00:23:45.039 --> 00:23:48.759
where people will say hate speech has
no place here, even though what

251
00:23:48.960 --> 00:23:53.440
is hate speech? It's not actually
a term of art that's really used in

252
00:23:53.559 --> 00:24:00.920
First Amendment law. Well, hate
crimes are kind of are a thing,

253
00:24:02.279 --> 00:24:07.200
okay. Various states have an active, various different kinds of hate crime legislation,

254
00:24:07.400 --> 00:24:11.400
and it's really kind of what it
is. It's more of a sentencing

255
00:24:11.480 --> 00:24:19.880
enhancement than anything else. It's basically, you have some otherwise bad crime and

256
00:24:21.599 --> 00:24:30.240
if you can prove on top of
it that the person was motivated by specific

257
00:24:30.319 --> 00:24:38.000
animus against someone on the basis of
and depending on your state's hate crime legislation,

258
00:24:38.319 --> 00:24:44.200
what categories are protected here, on
the basis of a person's race or

259
00:24:44.279 --> 00:24:47.839
sexual orientation or ethnic origin, and
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

260
00:24:47.839 --> 00:24:52.559
Okay, so you can get a
hate crime charge, but it's usually something

261
00:24:52.599 --> 00:25:03.559
that's on top of some other criminal
activity, and sometimes it's not always easy

262
00:25:03.599 --> 00:25:08.480
to prove. If you're a guy
wearing a NASCAR T shirt and you punch

263
00:25:08.480 --> 00:25:11.279
a black guy in the face,
if you're a white guy wearing a NASCAR

264
00:25:11.319 --> 00:25:15.000
T shirt and you punch a black
guy in the face, well you can't

265
00:25:15.039 --> 00:25:17.519
just sort of assume, oh,
look at this, he punched a black

266
00:25:17.519 --> 00:25:19.720
person. That's also a hate crime. It's not really like that. You

267
00:25:19.799 --> 00:25:26.759
have to have further evidence on top
of that. If the guy yelled out

268
00:25:26.960 --> 00:25:30.519
before he started punching the black guy, I hate all black people and I'm

269
00:25:30.599 --> 00:25:33.880
going to beat you up because of
my hatred for all black people, and

270
00:25:33.920 --> 00:25:37.440
then proceeded to beat him up,
well that might be enough evidence to charge

271
00:25:37.519 --> 00:25:41.519
him with normal battery, but also
a hate crime on top of it.

272
00:25:42.720 --> 00:25:48.559
So it's hard to it's not always
easy to tack on a hate crime charge

273
00:25:48.599 --> 00:25:52.279
on top of a normal charge.
You need like some pretty specific evidence to

274
00:25:52.359 --> 00:26:00.759
show it. And it's also a
thing of Some people have made this point

275
00:26:00.839 --> 00:26:08.880
of racial bigotry is bad bigotry,
you know, the unreasonable bigotry on the

276
00:26:08.880 --> 00:26:14.119
basis of sex, unreasonable bigotry on
the basis of sexual orientation. Okay,

277
00:26:14.160 --> 00:26:18.839
I agree that various kinds of bigotry
in those ways are bad. Committing violent

278
00:26:18.920 --> 00:26:23.680
acts against those people for those reasons
are very very That is all bad,

279
00:26:23.839 --> 00:26:29.759
all right, I John Giraradi am
not disputing that at all. I guess

280
00:26:29.799 --> 00:26:37.880
what I don't get though, is
why we sort of feel that it's the

281
00:26:37.119 --> 00:26:45.759
reason why someone beats somebody up is
really all that important at the end of

282
00:26:45.799 --> 00:26:47.799
the day, At the end of
the day, you're beaten up, And

283
00:26:48.079 --> 00:26:52.720
does it really matter all that much
if it was for some racially motivated reason

284
00:26:53.119 --> 00:26:57.960
or not. Now, maybe in
some contexts, maybe in some context it

285
00:26:59.000 --> 00:27:07.000
does matter, maybe race based,
whether it's lynchings or assaults or things like

286
00:27:07.039 --> 00:27:15.480
that. You need a stiffer criminal
punishment to disincentivize such conduct in the future,

287
00:27:15.519 --> 00:27:19.920
to deter such conduct going forward.
Okay, maybe that's reasonable, maybe

288
00:27:21.039 --> 00:27:22.720
you're not going to get sufficient.
But then it's also the thing of,

289
00:27:22.799 --> 00:27:29.960
well, shouldn't our criminal punishment be
sufficient to deter someone from engaging in that

290
00:27:30.079 --> 00:27:36.799
conduct, regardless of whether it's a
racially based motivation versus just a I want

291
00:27:36.839 --> 00:27:41.519
to beat someone up motivation, or
maybe the thought is that, well,

292
00:27:41.599 --> 00:27:48.720
someone animated by racial animus is more
willing to take on punishment, So we

293
00:27:48.759 --> 00:27:52.519
got to make the punishment even more
aggressive to make up for the fact that,

294
00:27:52.960 --> 00:27:56.440
you know, they're out here doing
something crazy on you know, some

295
00:27:56.519 --> 00:28:00.680
white supremacist lunatic who gets some idea
in his head that he needs to protect

296
00:28:00.680 --> 00:28:03.839
the white race by getting in a
drunken brawl with someone. Maybe we got

297
00:28:03.839 --> 00:28:07.240
to make him think twice about that, even more so than whatever the criminal

298
00:28:07.240 --> 00:28:12.480
punishment is for normal battery. All
Right, maybe I can see those arguments,

299
00:28:12.519 --> 00:28:15.960
But at the end of like I
thought, though, one of the

300
00:28:15.160 --> 00:28:19.440
examples that sort of made it seem
silly. I remember this. This was

301
00:28:19.519 --> 00:28:23.440
during the two thousand election and Al
Gore and George W. Bush were debating

302
00:28:23.480 --> 00:28:30.599
each other, and al Gore was
mad at George W. For Texas in

303
00:28:30.759 --> 00:28:40.480
his view, Texas, in his
view, wasn't doing enough to combat hate

304
00:28:40.480 --> 00:28:45.160
crimes, and he pointed to some
example of this horrible example in Texas of

305
00:28:45.559 --> 00:28:51.319
I believe it was an African American
who was murdered by guys acting out of

306
00:28:51.440 --> 00:28:56.680
racial racist animus, and George W. Bush made the rejoinder to al Gore

307
00:28:56.799 --> 00:29:03.680
that those men were just convicted and
found guilty of murder and executed. So

308
00:29:04.400 --> 00:29:10.200
in that context, a hate an
extra hate crime charge on top of the

309
00:29:10.240 --> 00:29:12.559
normal murder charge wouldn't have done anything. The guys were already executed. That

310
00:29:12.599 --> 00:29:18.839
there is no greater punishment you could
give someone then ex by definition, there's

311
00:29:18.880 --> 00:29:22.960
nothing more you can do beyond executing
someone. All right. So anyway,

312
00:29:23.240 --> 00:29:27.440
that's how hate crime legislation works.
It's basically it sort of functions as a

313
00:29:27.480 --> 00:29:37.799
sentencing enhancer for otherwise existing crimes.
It's not enough to just say this person

314
00:29:37.119 --> 00:29:41.799
is committing a hate crime of not
liking African Americans, this person's committing a

315
00:29:41.839 --> 00:29:44.799
hate crime of not liking white people, this person is committing a hate crime

316
00:29:44.839 --> 00:29:48.440
of not liking the Vietnamese. Just
not liking someone doesn't qualify you for a

317
00:29:48.440 --> 00:29:56.279
hate crime. You have to commit
some otherwise existing crime with a racial or

318
00:29:56.400 --> 00:30:03.119
ethnic or whatever animus, and they
have to show enough evidence beyond a reasonable

319
00:30:03.160 --> 00:30:10.920
doubt that you had that animus.
So this leads me to a story from

320
00:30:11.079 --> 00:30:14.759
the Bee from yesterday. A man
accused of a hate crime related to the

321
00:30:14.799 --> 00:30:19.240
conflict in the Gaza Strip was arrested
during a weekend concert in Fresno's Tower District.

322
00:30:19.240 --> 00:30:23.519
Police said on Monday, multiple women
working in a booth near Echo and

323
00:30:23.599 --> 00:30:30.359
Hedges Avenue around four pm Saturday during
Tower Porch Fest were confronted by a man

324
00:30:30.559 --> 00:30:36.240
who they said was drunk and arguing
with them about Palestine before the confrontation became

325
00:30:36.279 --> 00:30:41.319
physical. The man, identified as
Francisco Salmonego forty nine, fled on foot

326
00:30:41.359 --> 00:30:45.519
after the scuffle with multiple women.
Police said. Video going around social media

327
00:30:45.680 --> 00:30:52.279
during the weekend showed samon Diego holding
a woman at arm's length while throwing punches

328
00:30:52.279 --> 00:30:55.839
at her. Two other women also
got involved as all parties appeared to throw

329
00:30:55.880 --> 00:31:00.119
punches before two others stepped in to
pull the man away. Police set officers

330
00:31:00.119 --> 00:31:03.680
found some di Diego a short distance
away before he was arrested on suspicion of

331
00:31:03.759 --> 00:31:08.839
felony robbery and three misdemeanors battery,
a hate crime, and vandalism. He

332
00:31:08.920 --> 00:31:11.359
was booked into Fresno County Jail,
according to police, but was not in

333
00:31:11.359 --> 00:31:19.720
custody on Monday. Jail records show
none of the women required serious medical attention

334
00:31:19.799 --> 00:31:25.680
immediately, police said. Organizers of
the musical event that sets up small performances

335
00:31:25.720 --> 00:31:29.279
on the front porches and lawns of
homes in the Tower district commented Sunday on

336
00:31:29.319 --> 00:31:33.839
their Facebook page about the incident.
This type of hateful violence is completely unacceptable

337
00:31:33.839 --> 00:31:36.640
and has no place at Tower Porch
Fest or in our community. The post

338
00:31:36.640 --> 00:31:40.720
said, we commend the porch host
for promptly calling the police who arrested the

339
00:31:40.720 --> 00:31:44.839
perpetrator. Hate crimes like this strike
at the heart of the diversity, inclusivity,

340
00:31:44.839 --> 00:31:48.279
and respect that Tower Porch Fests celebrates
through the sharing of music and culture

341
00:31:48.519 --> 00:31:56.200
from all backgrounds. Now, and
I guess this is the thing where I'm

342
00:31:56.240 --> 00:32:00.440
I'm not sure you know is a
hate crime. This is to be a

343
00:32:00.519 --> 00:32:07.680
misdemeanor hate crime. So what that
means is so just you guys understand the

344
00:32:07.720 --> 00:32:10.920
terminology. I think we hear the
words, you know, felony and misdemeanor

345
00:32:10.920 --> 00:32:15.720
all the time. The difference between
a felony and misdemeanor is a felony is

346
00:32:15.759 --> 00:32:19.440
a crime that is punishable by a
year or more in jail. A misdemeanor

347
00:32:19.519 --> 00:32:24.680
is a crime that is punishable by
less than a year in jail. So

348
00:32:24.759 --> 00:32:35.000
that's the difference. So we're gonna
have a misdemeanor hate crime again. I

349
00:32:35.359 --> 00:32:39.920
guess, I just don't know how
useful that. I mean, if this

350
00:32:39.960 --> 00:32:45.559
guy again, this guy was arrested
for let me, let me just read

351
00:32:45.599 --> 00:32:55.920
his list of charges again, felony, robbery, misdemeanor, battery, misdemeanor,

352
00:32:57.000 --> 00:33:05.039
vandalism. I mean, if he
was doing this while saying that he

353
00:33:05.160 --> 00:33:10.359
loved the people of Palestine and but
you're ugly and was beating these women up,

354
00:33:10.480 --> 00:33:15.519
like like, does that make his
conduct better? I don't. I

355
00:33:15.519 --> 00:33:19.160
mean it is this, I guess. I'm not sure. You know,

356
00:33:19.359 --> 00:33:22.960
we talked earlier in the segment that
I think one of the justifications for hate

357
00:33:22.960 --> 00:33:28.960
crime legislation that I think is legitimate
would be deterrence that maybe someone motivated by

358
00:33:29.039 --> 00:33:37.160
racial animus is more willing to engage
in violent conduct than someone who isn't,

359
00:33:37.599 --> 00:33:45.319
and therefore to have an extra the
deterrent factor of that extra sentencing, maybe

360
00:33:45.359 --> 00:33:50.920
that is something that would deter someone
from engaging in that activity at a certain

361
00:33:50.960 --> 00:33:54.279
point. Though, it's just sort
of a thing of do you really need

362
00:33:54.279 --> 00:33:59.880
that kind of education first before you
decide not to you know, throw punch?

363
00:34:00.079 --> 00:34:05.279
Is that a woman? It reminds
me of in college, where there

364
00:34:05.279 --> 00:34:09.039
are all these like posters about I'm
taking the pledge to stand up to sexual

365
00:34:09.079 --> 00:34:14.679
assault. You know, I'm taking
the pledge against sexual violence, and I

366
00:34:14.719 --> 00:34:17.079
was like, yeah, sexual violence
is bad. I think taking I don't.

367
00:34:17.800 --> 00:34:22.480
I think taking a pledge? What
does that do. It's not like

368
00:34:22.480 --> 00:34:27.480
anyone who engages in sexual assault goes
into a thinking oh I thought sexual assault

369
00:34:27.519 --> 00:34:31.800
was fine. Oh okay, now
that I've been educated about this by people

370
00:34:31.840 --> 00:34:37.239
taking the pledge, what does it
matter that someone's committing sexual assault. I

371
00:34:37.239 --> 00:34:40.800
think he's willing to break a pledge. Also, like, it's not like

372
00:34:42.360 --> 00:34:45.159
I don't know, It's like some
kinds of conduct are so obviously bad.

373
00:34:45.280 --> 00:34:50.360
It's not like you need proper education
or proper representation in the community showing that

374
00:34:50.400 --> 00:34:52.199
the community is taking a stand against
it. Like, no one takes a

375
00:34:52.199 --> 00:34:57.000
pledge against murder because everyone realizes how
ridiculous that is. Murderers are going to

376
00:34:57.079 --> 00:35:00.519
murder regardless of clearly there's enough of
a social stigma against murder. Murderer is

377
00:35:00.519 --> 00:35:06.760
gonna murder regardless of the social stigma. Showing that pillars of the community take

378
00:35:06.760 --> 00:35:14.360
the pledge against murder isn't gonna stop
the guy showing that there's a sentencing enhancement

379
00:35:14.480 --> 00:35:17.760
against you know, hate crimes.
Is that gonna stop a guy doing something

380
00:35:17.840 --> 00:35:22.199
like this? I don't know,
I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong.

381
00:35:22.280 --> 00:35:24.400
I'm willing to be I'm not.
I'm not like dead set against this.

382
00:35:24.480 --> 00:35:28.920
I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong. But I guess I just wonder,

383
00:35:29.000 --> 00:35:34.519
like the dynamics of like is how
effective really is this? Does it just

384
00:35:34.599 --> 00:35:37.199
kind of make us make the politicians
who pass the hand hate crime legislation,

385
00:35:37.280 --> 00:35:40.559
does that just make them feel better? And can they say I took a

386
00:35:40.639 --> 00:35:45.320
stand against hate crimes, I took
a stand against racial Okay, that's great.

387
00:35:45.440 --> 00:35:49.039
But battery was already against law,
Vandalism was already against the law,

388
00:35:49.159 --> 00:35:52.000
robbery was already against law. He's
already getting charged with all this stuff.

389
00:35:52.239 --> 00:35:54.119
What do you do you're gonna add
six months to his sentence by saying it

390
00:35:54.159 --> 00:35:58.679
was also racially motivated. Okay,
I mean, yeah, that's six months

391
00:35:58.719 --> 00:36:00.679
of his life. He's not gonna
get back. I mean, I guess

392
00:36:00.719 --> 00:36:05.679
that's you know, that's significant.
But I don't know. I guess I

393
00:36:05.719 --> 00:36:09.320
just don't know that it's really having
the kind of deterrent factor that you would

394
00:36:09.360 --> 00:36:13.559
need to stop someone in the future
from engaging in this kind of violence.

395
00:36:13.559 --> 00:36:17.480
When we return, Donald Trump and
Ronda Santis patch things up next on the

396
00:36:17.559 --> 00:36:24.280
John Girardi Show. So it sounds
like Donald Trump and Ronda Santis have buried

397
00:36:24.320 --> 00:36:28.679
the hatchet a bit. They met
in Miami a couple of days ago,

398
00:36:29.440 --> 00:36:34.199
kind of a clandestine sort of meeting. I was joking on Twitter that the

399
00:36:34.239 --> 00:36:38.119
meeting was Donald Trump asking Ronda Santis
if he's ever shot a dog, because

400
00:36:38.480 --> 00:36:43.079
you're not going to be Donald Trump's
vice president if you're shooting dogs like Christy

401
00:36:43.159 --> 00:36:47.800
Nome. So it appears they've patched
things up. Trump issues a very you

402
00:36:47.800 --> 00:36:55.719
know, positive laudatory tweet about Ronda
Santis. Now the great the future of

403
00:36:55.719 --> 00:37:00.280
Florida looks all right, very nice. Seems like we're kind of in the

404
00:37:00.320 --> 00:37:06.039
hatchet, and I'm wondering, is
this a prelude to Dysantis for a vice

405
00:37:06.079 --> 00:37:15.280
president pick. I don't know.
I think it would make sense. Frankly,

406
00:37:16.159 --> 00:37:22.960
as much as Trump was constantly criticizing
DeSantis about everything, Listen, people

407
00:37:23.039 --> 00:37:30.039
who were rivals in Republican primaries have
said worse things about each other than DeSantis

408
00:37:30.119 --> 00:37:35.039
and Trump did. People who opposed
each other more have become allies. You

409
00:37:35.119 --> 00:37:38.000
know, Reagan and Bush ran against
each other in the nineteen eighty primary,

410
00:37:38.000 --> 00:37:44.840
and Reagan made Bush's VP. I
don't think it would be crazy. And

411
00:37:44.880 --> 00:37:49.559
I think DeSantis is kind of the
naturally, you know, unless Trump picks

412
00:37:49.599 --> 00:37:52.679
someone else for VP, you know, excluding whoever Trump might pick his VP,

413
00:37:52.960 --> 00:37:58.480
DeSantis is kind of the natural Republican
choice for twenty twenty eight, So

414
00:37:58.880 --> 00:38:01.559
why not just usher that in.
If he's the vice presidential pick, then

415
00:38:01.679 --> 00:38:07.079
he's even more so the natural choice
for twenty twenty eight. I don't know.

416
00:38:07.119 --> 00:38:08.280
I just think it would be smart. I don't think the two guys

417
00:38:08.320 --> 00:38:13.840
actually disagree with each other that fundamentally
about that many things at all, So

418
00:38:14.639 --> 00:38:17.639
I don't know. I'm hoping it's
either jd. Vance or Rhonda Santis.

419
00:38:17.679 --> 00:38:20.840
That'll do it for John Gardy Show, See next time on Power Talk