Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> WELCOME BACK TO "LEGAL
VIEW," I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD.
THERE WAS A TIME IN THIS COUNTRY
WHEN SIGNS LIKE THESE WERE
COMMON.
YOU CAN SEE BESIDE THAT MAN,
"WHITE ONLY ENTRANCE."
AND THERE WERE ALL SORTS OF
SIGNS SAYING "COLORED ONLY," "NO
COLOREDS" OR "COLORED ONLY
ENTRANCE" OR "NO JEWS" YOU WOULD
THINK WAS ANCIENT HISTORY,
ESPECIALLY FROM THE BLACK AND
WHITE IMAGES, RIGHT?
NO, NOT RIGHT.
BECAUSE THIS SIGN WAS FOUND THIS
WEEK.
NO MUSLIM PARKING IN THE
WESTVIEW SHOPPING CENTER, YOUR
CAR WILL BE TOWED.
SO IF IT WAS LAST WEEK'S SIGN
AND THIS WEEKS ISSUE, IT'S A BIG
PROBLEM.
THE SHOPPING CENTER IS ACROSS
THE STREET FROM A MOSQUE IN
SPRING BRANCH TEXAS OUTSIDE OF
HOUSTON.
THE MUSLIMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
WHO HAVE BEEN SEEING THIS ARE
PRETTY DARN ANGRY.
THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SHOPPING
CENTER SAY THAT MEMBERS OF THE
MOSQUE ARE TAKING PARKING SPACES
THAT ARE MEANT FOR CUSTOMERS,
ESPECIALLY DURING THEIR
CELEBRATION TIMES, LIKE RAMADAN
OR THE END OF RAMADAN.
THE OWNER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER
SAYS HE HAS NO IDEA WHO PUT UP
THE SIGNS.
BUT THEY HAVE SINCE BEEN TAKEN
DOWN.
ARE THE SIGNS ILLEGAL?
THEY AREN'T RIGHT.
THEY'RE UGLY.
IT'S NOT NICE TO SAY THAT.
BUT ARE THEY ILLEGAL?
OUR LEGAL PANELISTS HERE TO SORT
THIS OUT.
PAUL CALLAN, DANNY SOVALOS.
AND WE WERE HAVING SPIRITED
CONVERSATION ABOUT FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS, MAKING THE
SIGN AND SAYING THOSE UGLY
WORDS.
AND THEN, OF COURSE,
DISCRIMINATION.
AND CIVIL RIGHTS.
SO DANNY, WHERE DO THOSE TWO
THINGS COME TOGETHER OH ARE
CLASH, OR DO THEY?
>> FIRST, AFTER 1964, IF YOU
HAVE A COMPANY, YOU HANG OUT
YOUR SHINGLE AND YOU
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SOMEONE
BASED ON THEIR RACE OR RELIGION
OR ANY OF THE PROTECTED CLASSES,
YOU'RE VIOLATING CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTE.
HOWEVER, GOING BACK TO FREE
SPEECH, THE QUESTION BECOMES, IS
THE CONTENT OF THIS SPEECH SUCH
THAT IT IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT?
FIRST, CONSIDER HOW DIFFERENT
THE STATEMENT IS, IF THE WORD
INSTEAD OF MUSLIM IS MOSQUE.
FASCINATING, RIGHT?
>> HOW DOES THAT CHANGE
ANYTHING?
>> IT CHANGES IT COMPLETELY.
>> SO NO MUSLIMS HERE --
>> NO, NO, THE STATEMENT WAS "NO
MUSLIM PARKING."
IF YOU CHANGE THAT TO "NO MOSQUE
PARKING" YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A
PLACE OF BUSINESS PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO, NAMELY THE MOSQUE.
AND THEN IT BECOMES PROPER.
HOWEVER, THIS COULD BE CHALKED
UP TO SOMETHING TOO IGNORANT TO
KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
BUT YOU COULD MAKE THAT
ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYBODY WHO
GOES TO A MOSQUE TECHNICALLY MAY
BE MUSLIM.
BUT THINK ABOUT OUR SPEECH AND
HOW DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT THIS
BECOMES, HOW IT IMPLICATES THE
FIRST AMENDMENT IN A DIFFERENT
WAY, WHEN YOU SAY "NO MOSQUE
PARKING" WHICH IS PROBABLY
PROPERLY UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
AND THEN IT BECOMES "NO MUSLIM
PARKING" POSSIBLY DISCRIMINATORY
AND NOT PROTECTED UNDER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.
>> I THINK IGNORANT IS AN
UNDERSTATEMENT.
AND I'LL SAY THAT ONLY BECAUSE
IF THIS IS A CHURCH -- AND JOEY
JACKSON, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T
INTRODUCE YOU.
HELLO, MY FRIEND.
>> GOOD, ASHLEIGH, ALWAYS GREAT
TO BE WITH YOU.
>> AND THE CHURCH WAS
CELEBRATING A BIG WEDDING AND
PEOPLE WERE PARKING, I COULD
UNDERSTAND THAT THEY SAY NO
CHURCH PARKING HERE.
BUT IF THEY SAID NO CHRISTIAN
PARKING, YOU CAN'T IMAGINE A
MOMENT WHERE THEY WOULD SAY NO
CHRISTIAN PARKING, COULD YOU,
JOEY?
>> I CAN'T AT ALL.
I CAN'T IMAGINE THEY DID THIS.
IT'S IMPROPER, INAPPROPRIATE,
ILLEGAL, ON ALL COUNTS.
I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A FIRST
AMENDMENT.
THAT FIRST AMENDMENT IS STRONG.
WE CAN SAY THINGS, DO THINGS.
YOU CAN ARGUE, HOWEVER, IN THE
FIRST AMENDMENT CONTEXT THIS IS
HATEFUL.
BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE A TENDENCY
TO SEGREGATE A PARTICULAR TYPE
OF CATEGORY OF PEOPLE, AND YOU
COULD, YOU KNOW, EVEN ARGUE THAT
IT COULD INSIGHT VIOLENCE
AGAINST THOSE PEOPLE.
AND SO SOMETHING LIKE THIS
SHOULD NOT EVER BE DONE, AND IS
CERTAINLY ACTION COULD BE TAKEN
TO TAKE IT DOWN.
AND I THINK IN A BROADER
CONTEXT, FROM A MORAL ISSUE,
IT'S NOT ONLY MUSLIMS THAT ARE
OUTRAGED, ALL OF US ARE
OUTRAGED, BECAUSE CERTAINLY IF
YOU DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ONE
GROUP, WHAT'S NEXT?
SO CERTAINLY THIS SHOULD NEVER
HAPPEN AT ALL.
>> SO PAUL CALLAN, WHAT'S THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN -- AND I'M
NOT SURE IF DANNY ALREADY
ANSWERED IT, BUT I'M STILL A
LITTLE CONFUSED.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
MARCHING DOWN THE STREET, AS YOU
HAVE SEEN *** MEMBERS DO, SAYING
I HATE A CERTAIN COLOR AND
PUTTING UP A SIGN SAYING I WANT
A COLOR NOT TO PARK HERE.
THEY'RE BOTH SIGNS, AND THEY ARE
SPEECH.
>> THEY ARE.
HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE AND WHY I
THINK IT DOESN'T MAKE A
DIFFERENCE.
YES, THE FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTS YOUR ABILITY TO HATE
OTHER PEOPLE, FOR THE MOST PART.
AND THIS SHOPPING CENTER COULD
HAVE PUT UP A SIGN SAYING "WE
DON'T LIKE MUSLIMS."
HOWEVER, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE
TO SERVE MUSLIMS OR FACE A
LAWSUIT.
FREE SPEECH ALLOWS YOU TO
EXPRESS YOUR HATRED.
BUT THE LAW SAYS, IF YOU'RE
GOING TO DENY SERVICE TO
SOMEBODY BASED ON GENDER OR
RELIGION OR COLOR OF SKIN,
YOU'RE GOING TO PAY A PRICE IN A
LAWSUIT.
FOR INSTANCE, YOU COULD HAVE AN
EMPLOYMENT MANUAL, AND YOU COULD
WRITE IN THE EMPLOYMENT MANUAL,
WOMEN NEED NOT APPLY FOR HIGHER
POSITIONS IN THIS ORGANIZATION.
THAT'S FREE SPEECH.
BUT THAT WOULD BE DISCRIMINATION
UNDER FEDERAL LAW.
THE CORPORATION WOULD BE SUED
AND WOULD PAY A HUGE AMOUNT OF
MONEY.
>> SO WRITING IT IS NOT THE
INFRACTION, NOT EXECUTING THE
APOLOGIES.
>> VIOLENCE OF SEGREGATING A
PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE, IT
BECOMES PROBLEMATIC AND FALLS
OUT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
THAT'S A PROBLEM.
>> OH, YOU GUYS, I KNEW YOU
WOULD SETTLE THIS FOR ME.
THANK YOU.
AND I KNOW THAT JOEY JACKSON,
YOU'RE A VERY BUSY MAN, YOUR HLN
PROGRAMS YOU'RE PREPARING FOR.
SO I HAVE TO SAY GOODBYE.
THANK YOU.
>> SEE YOU LATER, ASHLEIGH.