1. Terry Jones, Koran burning & hostile audiences
What principles do the post-Feiner cases establish re hostile audiences?
Feiner turns on the notion that D “intended” to incite the crowd (regardless of whether the facts bear that out) – police can shut down the speaker even if the danger isn’t all that clear and present
Absent intent, police cannot silence speaker with offensive ideas unless there is clear evidence of imminent, uncontrollable violence on the audience’s part
Even then, police must first make all reasonable efforts to control the crowd and protect the speaker first
In the first incident involving Jones – p. 543 – Should the police have removed Jones or tried to protect him per the case law we’ve seen?
Is the restraining order “because he was likely to breach to peace” in the immediately succeeding incident (p. 544 top) markedly worse or better from a free speech perspective?

2. What is hate speech? General Definition:
Speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.
Possible Examples:
Teacher’s speech in Keegstra
Charlie Hebdo Cartoons
Westboro Baptist Church Signs at Funerals
Koran Burning by Terry Jones

3. Should we regulate hate speech?
What are the pros and cons of regulating hate speech?
What are the harms of hate speech? Why did the Court in Regina v. Keegstra find that Canada could regulate it consistent with its Charter?
What are the problems (practical and legal in the US) with regulating such speech?

4. RAV v. City of St. Paul
City ordinance punishing the use of fighting words based on race, color, creed, religion or gender. SCT found it unconstitutional.
Does SCT majority’s approach make sense? Do the other opinions have a better argument or is the majority right?
Is it clear that we should be unable to prohibit race-based fighting words even under the SCT’s reasoning?
What does RAV mean for the regulation of hate speech in the US?

5. Charlie Hebdo, Terry Jones and the “heckler’s veto”
Are the Charlie Hebdo Cartoons or Terry Jones actions hate speech? Incitements to violence?
How do we respond to the arguments that to punish these actions is to give into the heckler’s or terrorists veto?
Are there other reasons to protect the speech?