journalism, privacy, defamation, and the First Amendment.
She is a Professor of Law at the University at Iowa, and has a Ph.D. in history from the University of California, Berkeley, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She is the recipient of a National Endowment for the Humanities Public Scholar Award.
Barbas applied the "Page 99 Test" to her new book, Hate Speech: The Legal and Cultural History of an American Dilemma, with the following results:
Page 99 describes the case of Kunz v. New York, from 1951. The case involved a Baptist minister who made speeches containing vile invective against Catholics and Jews and was convicted for making a speech on the streets of New York without a permit. Kunz had been denied a permit because of a flood of complaints to authorities about his speeches. The Supreme Court struck down the city ordinance, stating that it violated the First Amendment because it gave authorities the power to control, in advance, the ability to speak freely on religious subjects.Visit Samantha Barbas's website.
Justice Robert Jackson fired off an indignant dissent. He characterized the minister’s hateful statements – especially in light of the Holocaust – as fighting words, akin to physical blows. He believed that a discretionary permit system like New York’s could protect a city against “fanatics who take possession of its streets to hurl into its crowds defamatory epithets that hurt like rocks.”
Page 99 captures the tension at the heart of the book. For over a hundred years, Americans have been torn between the importance of protecting against the violence and inequality that can stem from hate speech, and, at the same time, upholding the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. By the early 1950s, the Supreme Court was moving in a speech-protective direction, issuing rulings that cast doubt on the validity of restrictions on hate speech. In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Court struck down Chicago’s breach-of-the-peace conviction of an antisemitic speaker. Justice Jackson – who had returned to the Court after serving as lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials – warned in dissent that the Court had overlooked the connections between hate speech and totalitarian takeover and was turning the Bill of Rights into a “suicide pact.”
Jackson lost the fight, and over the next two decades, the Court created a First Amendment jurisprudence that essentially negated the possibility of hate speech laws. Today, there are no “hate speech laws” in America, of the kind that exist in most other countries; hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment. Although Jackson’s position lost at the Supreme Court, he won in the court of public opinion—he received fan mail and accolades for his “suicide pact” statement.
This dynamic remains: while most Americans support free speech generally, they draw the line at protecting hate speech. There is no more contested free speech idea than “freedom for the thought that we hate.”
The Page 99 Test: Laws of Image.
The Page 99 Test: Newsworthy.
The Page 99 Test: The Rise and Fall of Morris Ernst, Free Speech Renegade.
The Page 99 Test: Actual Malice.
--Marshal Zeringue









