California Hate Speech Law Raises Questions      10/1/2004
By Lee Duigon

The next time Arnold calls his political opponents "girlie men," he'd better watch out.

Commentary

When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 22 signed California's sweeping new hate speech law, he may have signed on for more than he bargained for.

The law, SB1234, classifies as "hate speech" any public expression that makes certain favored citizens feel "unwelcome" or "intimidated." Anyone found guilty of using such expressions could face six months in prison and a $25,000 fine.

Homosexuals, transsexuals, women, the homeless and assorted minority groups have been given the authority to decide what constitutes "hate speech." It's all based on their emotional response to a speech, a conversation, a book or article, a poster, a radio broadcast--whatever. If it makes them feel uncomfortable, it's hate speech.

The next time Arnold calls his political opponents "girlie men," he'd better watch out.

The next time a movie house or a TV station runs Conan the Barbarian, it had better be carefully edited, or the governor's in trouble. (Conan includes a scene in which the hero clobbers a homosexual man who comes on to him.) Arnold had better be careful about some of his other movies, too. True Lies might be construed as anti-Muslim hate speech, and Red Heat isn't exactly complimentary to inner-city blacks.

Actually, the law's threat to Californians' civil liberties is more serious than that.

With SB1234 in place, what will happen the next time a Christian minister preaches from Romans 1, or a Jewish rabbi from Leviticus 19? These are just two of many Bible passages which say homosexual behavior is a sin. That might make someone in the congregation feel "unwelcome."

How will it be possible to have a public debate on abortion, same-sex "marriage," or publicly funded sex-change operations without the "con" side breaking the law?

What about articles and books, published in other states but available in California, whose writers take positions that make feminists, homosexual activists, or abortion advocates "feel intimidated"? Are these to be banned in California?

Will it be possible for a lawyer to defend California's current marriage laws before the State Supreme Court? What if his arguments offend a journalist covering the hearing, or a stenographer, or even a judge?

It's possible that this absurd law will someday be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The sooner that happens, the better.

But for the time being, the immediate future of the First and Fourteenth Amendments in California looks bleak indeed.

Lee Duigon is a free-lance Christian writer and former newspaper editor based in Metuchen, New Jersey. He writes periodically for CWA’s Culture & Family Institute. He also writes regularly for the Chalcedon Foundation.

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles

Same-Sex “Marriage”: An Inevitable Confrontation

CWA State Director Appointed to Governor's Advisory Board

Happily Never After: How Television Downplays Marriage

The Fight to Protect Marriage in California Continues

Efforts to Protect Marriage in Three Key States

Those McFabulous Rainbow Arches

Efforts to Protect Marriage in Three Key States

Efforts to Protect Marriage in Three Key States

"Gay" Pride and Parenting

California Clear to Vote on Marriage Amendment