Should People Have the Right to Say Awful Things Without Facing Legal Consequences?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Our Columnists

Should People Have the Right to Say Awful Things Without Facing Legal Consequences?

Those who want to curtail freedom of speech do not log the debits and credits of censorship, nor do they care about the balance of norms—they act when they have power.

By Jay Caspian Kang
November 25, 2023

{A view of a food cart in Manhattan.}

Videos of a former State Department official verbally abusing a Manhattan street-truck vender went viral last week.Photograph from Anadolu/Getty Images

Terrible times breed terrible words, and words have consequences—especially when what you say can be recorded and broadcast. Yet society cannot agree, perhaps more so now, on which views are acceptable and what the consequences should be for a person expressing them.

Last week, Stuart Seldowitz, a former State Department official, was arrested and charged with a hate crime after videos of him delivering a series of bigoted rants against Mohamed Hussein, a twenty-four-year-old Manhattan street-cart vender, went viral. In these, Seldowitz called Hussein a terrorist, insulted his Muslim faith, and said, with a hysterical crack in his voice, “If we killed four thousand Palestinian children, you know what—it wasn’t enough.” Hussein, for his part, repeatedly asked Seldowitz to leave him alone.

The online case against Seldowitz is fairly open-and-shut. It is quite clear that he is a bigot and a bully. As hundreds of people on social media have pointed out, his dangerous rhetoric is far more disturbing when placed in the context of his proximity to the highest levels of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. Seldowitz served under both Republican and Democratic Presidents and worked in the State Department’s Office of Israeli and Palestinian Affairs. Bad people go viral for all sorts of reasons, but there’s a special level of contempt reserved for those who seem to reveal something rotten at the core of the institutions of power.

The legal case against Seldowitz comes down to this: in New York State, a person can be charged with stalking in the fourth degree if he “intentionally, and for no legitimate reason” engages with someone in a manner that causes the target to have “reasonable fear” for his or his family’s health and safety. In the videos, Seldowitz appears to make bizarre threats to sic an Egyptian intelligence agency on Hussein’s grandfather. The law also protects people against threats to their employment. Seldowitz told Hussein that he was going to call immigration authorities, and repeatedly asked him about his citizenship status. There is also a clause that says you cannot repeatedly initiate contact at someone’s place of business if that person has asked you to stop. Hussein asks Seldowitz to go away several times, yet he appears to have come back on at least three separate occasions. Harassment in the second degree is a similar charge that says you cannot engage in repeated acts to “seriously annoy” another person if those acts “serve no legitimate purpose.” Both charges are misdemeanors.

{snip}

[stopdiggin]

1. a great discussion

And we're all aware that different parties on DU would draw some sort of (of necessity, subjective) line in different places. But hashing those ideas and differences out is illustrative - and helps people develop and better understand both their own position, and the issue itself. (Hopefully)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Chainfire]

2. Power threatening the weak.

It sounds like Seldowitz could use a trip behind the barn and a good old fashing spanking. Perhaps the courts can supply that need.

[exboyfil]

3. Not threats and not if asked to leave a place of employment by the individual

Even if it is the public square (street vendor). There are all sorts of time and place restrictions on speech (for example public parks and campuses have areas set aside for public speech).