Branches Book

BRANCHES

Hate speech, as discussed in Brandenburg , has been protected as free speech. However, hate speech can be used in the conviction and sentencing of hate crimes, given that sufficient evidence can prove a connection. The case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell raised the question of whether a Wisconsin law, which enhanced sentences based on whether the crime was driven by a protected status, in this case race, challenged a defendant’s First Amendment rights. Todd Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery after beating a Caucasian boy with his friends, leaving the boy in a coma. Before the beating, Mitchell was credited as asking if they felt “hyped up to move on some white people” and the court decided this was proof he had selected his victim on the grounds of race. While the crime held a maximum normal sentence of two years in prison, Mitchell could be given up to seven years under the statute. The Supreme Court found the Wisconsin law to be reasonable, and the law was upheld. The gray area in speech is ultimately caused by the idea that speech can lead or be connected to violence and crime. It is a foolish idea to think that words have no effect on people’s actions; however, the time to hold someone responsible and punish them for their speech is not as simple as a short legal definition and often has to be interpreted on a case by case basis. There is no easy answer. People must pay attention to how their leaders handle crisis and speech. The speech and expression rights of students are protected, but disruptive speech and behavior can be punishable. Teachers, administration, and other adult authority figures are prone to create rules that intend to minimize distractions within a school environment, the majority of which are widely accepted. Unfortunately, these school authorities have used their power to deny students their ability to express, verbally or otherwise, genuine political views, under the claim that a student’s speech was disruptive. Tinker v. Des Moines is a 1969 Supreme Court case in which a group of students were suspended for a non-violent protest of the Vietnam War. John and Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt were students at Des Moines community school district. Having had returned from a protest in Washington D.C., the students attended a meeting of similar-minded adults who planned to wear black armbands from December 14th through the end of the month as a form of support for an extended truce. When the district learned of the students’ plans to wear black armbands to school, they publicly created a rule that banned students from wearing armbands to school. The students wore their armbands as planned and were suspended and told not to come back A Student’s Rights of Free Speech and Expression

153