Biden Addresses Call to Jewish Leaders Ahead of Yom Kippur

The Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur begins at sundown this evening.  Last Wednesday, President Biden spoke for over ten minutes (full text of remarks) during a White House Call with Jewish Faith Leaders for High Holidays. The President said in part:

In the last three years, it’s been the honor to do this High Holiday with all of you from the White House in a season of joy and a season of pain....

... I know this year’s call is very different, and it’s a ... difficult time for the Jewish community and for Jews around the world.  In the midst of the High Holidays, two days ago, we commemorated the first anniversary of October 7th, the deadliest day for Jewish people since the Holocaust....

I also want you to know that I see you, I hear you, I see your pain from the ferocious surge of antisemitism in America and, quite frankly, around the world — absolutely despicable.  And I hope ... we learned a lesson from our parents’ generation.  We have to stand up.  We have to call it out.  It has to be stopped....

My administration is calling on the social media companies to adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward antisemitism and other hateful content, including the vile antisemitic attacks online that we’ve seen in recent days against public officials leading responses to recovery efforts to Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton....

Let me close with this.  I think about the wisdom I’ve learned from Jewish communities in Delaware and across the country that I’ve gotten to know over the years.  It seems to me there is a delicate yet profound balance between joy and pain to the High Holidays....

From my perspective, Jewish people have embodied this duality of pain and joy for generations.  It’s your strength.  The Jewish people have always chosen to find joy and happiness and light, despite centuries of suffering, persecution, and pain. 

... [I]t’s an enduring lesson and legacy for the Jewish people and for all of America to understand.

Australian State's Religious Vilification Act Takes Effect

As reported by Law and Religion Australia, the New South Wales Religious Vilification Act 2023 (full text) which was enacted in August took effect on November 11. The law provides in part:

It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of—

(a) a person on the ground the person— (i) has, or does not have, a religious belief or affiliation, or (ii) engages, or does not engage, in religious activity, or

(b) a group of persons on the ground the members of the group— (i) have, or do not have, a religious belief or affiliation, or (ii) engage, or do not engage, in religious activity.

Among the exceptions in the law are: 

[A] public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, scientific, research or religious discussion or instruction purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of an act or matter.

Israel's High Court Orders Government To Explain Its Inaction Against Top Rabbi's Hateful Remarks

 Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post report that on Tuesday Israel's Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, issued a temporary injunction ordering the government to explain why it has not taken disciplinary action against Jerusalem's Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar for the severely derogatory remarks he has made about Reform Judaism, the LGBTQ community and the Women of the Wall Movement.  For example, Amar has blamed small earthquakes in Israel earlier this year on the LGBTQ community and has called Reform Jews "evil people who do every injustice ... against the Torah." Petitioners-- the Reform Movement, the Women of the Wall, and the Jerusalem Open House for Pride and Tolerance-- say they have asked the government to take action 16 times in the last four years, but nothing was done.

European Court Says Homophobic Posting Was Not Protected by Human Rights Convention

 In Lenis v. Greece, (ECHR, Aug. 31, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible an application filed by a former Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Church who contended that his Freedom of Expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was infringed when he was convicted by Greek courts of public incitement to violence or hatred against people because of their sexual orientation.  The European Court pointed out that:

Speech that is incompatible with the values proclaimed and guaranteed by the Convention is not protected by Article 10 by virtue of Article 17 of the Convention.... The decisive points when assessing whether statements, verbal or non-verbal, are removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17 are whether the statements are directed against the Convention’s underlying values.... 

At issue was a homophobic article that the Metropolitan posted on his personal blog as Parliament was about to debate civil unions for same-sex couples. He titled the article "The Scum of Society Have Reared Their Heads! Let's Be Honest! Spit on Them". The Court said in part:

54.  ... [C]riticism of certain lifestyles on moral or religious grounds is not in itself exempt from protection under Article 10 of the Convention. However, when the impugned remarks go as far as denying LGBTI people their human nature, as in the present case, and are coupled with incitement to violence, then engagement of Article 17 of the Convention should be considered.

55.  ... [T]aking account firstly of the nature of the disputed article, which included incitement to violence and dehumanising hate speech ...; secondly, of the applicant’s position as a senior official of the Church who could influence many people; thirdly, of the fact that the views expressed in the article were disseminated to a wide audience through the Internet; and, fourthly, of the fact that they related directly to an issue which is of high importance in modern European society – protection of people’s dignity and human value irrespective of their sexual orientation – the applicant’s complaint does not, in the light of Article 17 of the Convention, attract the protection afforded by Article 10.

ADL Reports Rise in Online Hate and Harassment

 On Tuesday, the Anti-Defamation League released its report titled Online Hate and Harassment: The American Experience 2023 (full text). The Executive Summary reads in part:

Over the past year, online hate and harassment rose sharply for adults and teens ages 13-17. Among adults, 52% reported being harassed online in their lifetime, the highest number we have seen in four years, up from 40% in 2022. Both adults and teens also reported being harassed within the past 12 months, up from 23% in 2022 to 33% in 2023 for adults and 36% to 51% for teens. Overall, reports of each type of hate and harassment increased by nearly every measure and within almost every demographic group.

Axios discusses the report.

European Court Upholds Politician's Conviction for Failing to Remove Third Party Hate Speech from His Facebook Page

In Sanchez v. France, (ECHR, May 15, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights by a vote of 13-4 in a Grand Chamber judgment upheld France's conviction of a candidate for election to Parliament who was convicted of inciting violence against Muslims when he failed to promptly remove anti-Muslim postings by third parties placed on his Facebook page. The authors of the comments were convicted as accomplices. The majority concluded that the conviction did not violate Article 10, §1 of the European Convention on Human Rights since that section permits an interference with free expression when "necessary in a democratic society."  The majority said in part:

148.  While political speech calls for an elevated level of protection, the freedom of political debate is not absolute in nature....

149.  Since tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society, it follows that, in principle, it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to penalise or even prevent all forms of expression that propagate, encourage, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance (including religious intolerance), provided that any “formalities”, “conditions”, “restrictions” or “penalties” imposed are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.... 

176.  ... [I]n an election context, the impact of racist and xenophobic discourse becomes greater and more harmful.... That is particularly true in the present circumstances where the political and social climate was troubled, especially at the local level with “clear tensions within the population, which were evident in particular from the comments at issue, but also between the protagonists”.... 

209.  ... [T]he Court finds that the decisions of the domestic courts were based on relevant and sufficient reasons, both as to the liability attributed to the applicant, in his capacity as a politician, for the unlawful comments posted in the run-up to an election on his Facebook “wall” by third parties, who themselves were identified and prosecuted as accomplices, and as to his criminal conviction. The impugned interference can therefore be considered to have been “necessary in a democratic society”.

The Court also posted a Legal Summary of the decision.

7th Grader Sues Over School's Hate Speech Dress Code

Suit was filed yesterday in a Massachusetts federal district court challenging the Middleborough school district's Dress Code which provides:

Clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.

The complaint (full text) in Morrison v. Town of Middleborough, (ED MA, filed 5/17/2023), alleges that a 7th-grader's free speech rights were violated when he was not permitted to attend classes wearing a T-shirt carrying the message, "There are only two genders". Two weeks later he came to school wearing a shirt with the message, "There are censored genders". He was also barred from wearing this shirt.  The complaint alleges in part:

101. As Defendants interpret their Speech Policy, some viewpoints on the topic of “gender identity or expression” are permitted while some viewpoints on the same topic are prohibited. In particular, speech expressing the viewpoint that there are only two genders is prohibited, while speech expressing the viewpoint that gender is fluid and is on a spectrum is permitted....

135. Defendants’ censorship of Liam’s shirts while permitting shirts and other apparel with different messages on related topics is viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional in any type of forum....

153. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech pursuant to vague standards that grant enforcement officials unbridled discretion.

154. The arbitrary determination by school officials of what is and is not “hate speech,” what speech “targets” a specific group, or what speech is “unacceptable to community standards” violates this norm.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

New York's Hateful Conduct Law Violates 1st Amendment

 In Volokh v. James, (SD NY, Feb. 14, 2023), a New York federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of New York's Hateful Conduct Law against social media platforms that are plaintiffs in the case. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in both their facial and their "as applied" free speech challenges. The law defines hateful conduct as:

the use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

It goes on to provide:

 A social media network that conducts business in the state, shall provide and maintain a clear and easily accessible mechanism for individual users to report incidents of hateful conduct. Such mechanism shall be clearly accessible to users of such network and easily accessed from both a social media networks' application and website, and shall allow the social media network to provide a direct response to any individual reporting hateful conduct informing them of how the matter is being handled.

Each social media network shall have a clear and concise policy readily available and accessible on their website and application which includes how such social media network will respond and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.

The court concluded in part:

The Hateful Conduct Law both compels social media networks to speak about the contours of hate speech and chills the constitutionally protected speech of social media users, without articulating a compelling governmental interest or ensuring that the law is narrowly tailored to that goal....

[T]he law requires that social media networks devise and implement a written policy—i.e., speech....

Similarly, the Hateful Conduct Law requires a social media network to endorse the state’s message about “hateful conduct”.... To be in compliance ..., a social media network must make a “concise policy readily available and accessible on their website and application” detailing how the network will “respond and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.”... Implicit in this language is that each social media network’s definition of “hateful conduct” must be at least as inclusive as the definition set forth in the law itself....

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

European Court Upholds France's Conviction of Journalist for Inciting Anti-Muslim Hatred

In Zemmour v. France, (EDHR, Dec. 20, 2022) (full text of decision in French), the European Court of Human Rights upheld France's conviction of a journalist for inciting discrimination and religious hatred against the French Muslim community through anti-Muslim remarks he made on a 2016 television talk show.  According to the Court's English language press release summarizing the decision, the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting freedom of expression.  The press release says in part:

The Court was of the opinion that his remarks had not been confined to criticism of Islam but had, in view of the context of terrorist violence in which they had occurred, been made with discriminatory intent such as to call on viewers to reject and exclude the Muslim community. The Court concluded that the grounds on which the domestic courts had convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a fine, the amount of which was not excessive, had been sufficient and relevant. In conclusion the Court held that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society to protect the rights of others which had been at stake in the case, and therefore there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

New Zealand Court OK's Hate Speech Law That Does Not Cover LGBTQ Victims

In Hoban v. Attorney General, (NZ HC, Dec. 5, 2022), a New Zealand High Court, reviewing a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, held that New Zealand's hate speech law (Human Rights Act Sec. 61) that covers incitement of racial disharmony but not hate speech aimed at sexual orientation does not violate the Bill of Rights Act. The court held that while the hate speech provisions of the Human Rights Act have a discriminatory effect on victims of hate speech based on sexual orientation, the discriminatory effect is permitted by Sec. 5 of the Bill of Rights Act that allows "demonstrably justified" limits. The court said in part:

We consider it significant that there is no human rights obligation, in either domestic or international law, to make hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation unlawful. By contrast there is such an obligation in relation to racial hate speech, both in ICERD [International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination] and the ICCPR [International Convention on Civil and Political Rights]....

Section 61 only has apparently discriminatory effect because it is a targeted remedial measure. We consider that the existence of the international obligations in ICERD and the ICCPR in of themselves provide the s 5 justification for s 61 of the HRA being in the targeted terms that it is. The New Zealand legislation is limited, but the limit corresponds to the international obligations.

Stuff discussed the case when it was argued before the court. [Thanks to Jane Norton for the lead.]

Suit By Law Prof and Internet Site Challenges NY Statute on Online Hate Speech

 In May, the New York legislature enacted A7685-A requiring social media networks to provide a means for its users to report postings which vilify, humiliate or incite violence group on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.  They must also have a policy on responding to and addressing such postings.  Yesterday-- two days before the law is to go into effect-- suit was filed in a New York federal district court by law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh and the social media platform Rumble challenging the law on free speech as well as overbreadth and vagueness grounds. The complaint (full text) in Volokh v. James, (SD NY, filed 12/1/2022), alleges in part:

New York cannot justify such a sweeping regulation of protected speech. The Online Hate Speech Law violates the First Amendment because it burdens the publication of speech based on its viewpoint, unconstitutionally compels speech, and is overbroad. It is also vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment....and preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Given well-settled Supreme Court precedent, the New York’s law must be enjoined and struck down.

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Canadian Court Sentences Former Politician on Charge of Antisemitic Hate Speech

Ottawa City News reports on the sentencing by a Saskatchewan trial court of the leader of a now defunct political party for violation of Canada's hate speech law:

The former leader of the Canadian Nationalist Party was handed a one-year sentence Thursday on a hate speech charge after he called for the genocide of Jewish people in a video posted on the party's website and social media accounts.

Travis Patron, who founded the now-defunct party, was convicted of wilfully promoting hate by a jury earlier this month during a trial in Estevan, Sask.

Justice Neil Robertson of Court of King's Bench accepted the Crown's recommendation that the 31-year-old serve one year behind bars.

White House Hosts Summit Addressing Hate-Motivated Violence

Yesterday President Biden hosted the United We Stand Summit at the White House directed at countering hate-motivated violence. The President spoke at the Summit for nearly 25 minutes (full text of remarks), calling on Congress to pass budget increases to protect nonprofits and houses of worship from hate-fueled violence, and to pass legislation to hold social media platforms accountable for spreading hate-fueled violence. He said in part:

There is a through-line of hate from massacres of Indigenous people, to the original sin of slavery, the terror of the Klan, to ... anti-immigration violence against the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Mexicans, and so many others laced throughout our history.

There is a through-line of violence against religious groups: antisemitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh.

Look, folks, and that through-line of hate never fully goes away.  It only hides.

The White House also issued a Fact Sheet on the Summit, announcing a number of new government and private initiatives to address hate-fueled violence. Several clergy were among the "Uniters" honored at the Summit.

Pastor Sues Real Estate Organization Over Ethics Rule On Hate Speech

Suit was filed last week in a Montana state trial court against a local chapter of the National Organization of Realtors by Pastor Brandon Huber who is also a part-time realtor challenging the National Organization's Code of Ethics provision that prohibits realtors from using "harassing speech, hate speech, epithets, or slurs based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity." The Code of Ethics provision applies to all activities of a realtor, not just to those related to real estate transactions. 

The complaint (full text) in Huber v. Missoula Organization of Realtors, Inc., (MT Dist. Ct., filed 11/3/2021), states that the Missoula Organization of Realtors has scheduled an ethics hearing for Huber after a complaint regarding his use of language about gays and lesbians. Huber says that his church merely ended its partnership with a summer kid's lunch program when it discovered that LGBTQ Pride inserts that violated the church's religious teachings were included with the lunches. The church instead began its own lunch program, and explained its decision in a letter to its congregation. The complaint alleges that the ethics provision is void for vagueness and that the action by the realtors' organization violates Art. II, Sec. 4 of the Montana Constitution which provides:

... Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas.

Volokh Conspiracy reports on the lawsuit.

Muslim Group Sues Facebook For Consumer Fraud Because of Online Hate Speech

The non-profit organization Muslim Advocates filed suit yesterday in District of Columbia Superior Court against Facebook and its executives alleging that their failure to take down anti-Muslim posts, while claiming to do so, is fraudulent and violates the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act.  The complaint (full text) in Muslim Advocates v. Zuckerberg, (DC Super. Ct., filed 4/8/2021) alleges in part:

Every day, ordinary people are bombarded with harmful content in violation of Facebook’s own policies on hate speech, bullying, harassment, dangerous organizations, and violence. Hateful, anti-Muslim attacks are especially pervasive on Facebook. 

Yet Facebook refuses to “remove” this content or “take it down,” as its executives repeatedly promised that they and the company would do when they learn of such content. Instead, in an effort to convince Congress, civil rights groups, and the public that their product is safe, Facebook’s officials have consistently misrepresented the company’s actual practices when it comes to enforcing Facebook’s own its own standards and policies to keep Facebook free of hate speech and other harmful content....

Facebook has been used, among other things, to orchestrate the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, mass murders of Muslims in India, and riots and murders in Sri Lanka that targeted Muslims for death. Anti-Muslim hate groups and hate speech run rampant on Facebook with anti-Muslim posts, ads, private groups, and other content.....

Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.

Scottish Parliament Passes Hate Crime Bill

According to BBC News, the Scottish Parliament last week passed the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill (full text). Among other things, the new law (§3(2)) outlaws threatening or abusive behavior or communications made with the intent to stir up hatred against a group based on its religion or perceived religious affiliation, or based on the group's sexual orientation or transgender identity. It goes on to provide (§9A), however,:

... [B]ehaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes—

(a) discussion or criticism of matters relating to—(i) age, (ii) disability, (iii) sexual orientation, (iv) transgender identity,(v) variations in sex characteristics,

(b) discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards— (i) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion, (ii) religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice, (iii) the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief,

(c) proselytising, or

(d) urging of persons to cease practising their religion.

The bill (§16) also abolishes the common law offense of blasphemy.

2020 Report on Hate Groups Released

Earlier this week, the Southern Poverty Law Center released its report The Year In Hate and Extremism 2020. The Report identifies 838 active hate groups, an 11% drop from last year. As reported by CNA, some conservative Christian groups have criticized SPLC for labelling anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage organizations as anti-LGBTQ hate groups. [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

National Association of Realtors Bans Hate Speech By Its Members

In a previously little-noticed change to its Code of Ethics, the National Association of Relators has instituted a ban on hate speech by its 1.4 million members. The changes (full text) were adopted Nov. 13, 2020. Some of the changes became effective immediately and others became effective January 1, 2021. New Standard of Practice 10-5 provides:

REALTORS® must not use harassing speech, hate speech, epithets, or slurs based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

The Association has posted an FAQ document to explain the new policies.  KULR News yesterday reported on the changes:  

The sweeping prohibition applies to association members 24/7, covering all communication, private and professional, written and spoken, online and off. Punishment could top out at a maximum fine of $15,000 and expulsion from the organization.

NAR’s decision, allowing any member of the public to file a complaint, has alarmed other real estate agents, and also some legal and ethics experts, who say the hate speech ban’s vagueness is an invitation to censor controversial political opinions, especially on race and gender....

Some real estate agents fear the new speech code will be used to censor agents who express disapproval of affirmative action, gay marriage, transgender pronouns, Black Lives Matter, undocumented immigrants or other politicized issues.

Among those caught up in the uncertainty are real estate agents who are Christian preachers or Sunday school teachers, or anyone who expresses traditional religious views on gender and sexuality that are out of vogue in some circles today.

USCIRF Hearing On Hate Speech Targeting Religious Groups

Yesterday the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom held a hearing on Combatting Online Hate Speech and Disinformation Targeting Religious Communities.  The USCIRF website has a video of the full hearing and transcripts of witnesses' testimony.

New USCIRF Report on Apostasy, Blasphemy and Hate Speech Laws In Africa

Yesterday, he U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom released a 50-page report titled Apostasy, Blasphemy, and Hate Speech Laws in Africa: Implications for Freedom of Religion or Belief (full text of report). The Executive Summary reads in part:

The freedoms of opinion and expression and of religion or belief are intricately intertwined—where violations occur against one, there are often violations against the other. Although these human rights are protected under articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), states around the world continue to pass and enforce laws that restrict both freedoms. This paper provides a survey and analysis of speech restrictions in Africa that have, or may, limit FoRB. Laws that restrict apostasy (the public renunciation of one’s religion), blasphemy (the insult of a religion or religious objects or places), and hate speech (generally encompassing communication that prejudices a particular group based on race, religion, ethnicity, or other factor) all limit freedom of expression. Such laws also have unique implications for citizens’ abilities to express and practice their faith. These laws are prevalent throughout Africa, where at least 9 countries have apostasy laws, at least 25 criminalize blasphemy, and at least 29 have laws against hate speech.