News

Palo Alto will not advance hate-speech law

Citing First Amendment concerns, City Council agrees to instead focus on education and outreach

More than 100 people spoke out against Asian hate at a protest in Palo Alto on March 21, 2021. Courtesy Sydney Ling.

Despite widespread concern about a recent spate of racist incidents, the Palo Alto City Council on Monday dropped a controversial proposal to make hate speech a misdemeanor.

Instead, the council unanimously agreed to follow the directions of its Human Relations Commission and focus its energy on community education and outreach. This will involve reaching out to the FBI, which has recently created a strategic unit to focus on hate incidents and address the community about hate crimes and hate incidents. The new initiative may also involve other organizations, including faith-based institutions and civil-rights nonprofits such as the American Civil Liberties Union.

The council will not, however, press ahead any further with a local law banning hate speech, a move that was championed by council member Greg Tanaka. During numerous meetings last year, Tanaka cited the conversations he had at last year's "Stop Asian Hate" rallies, which led him to believe that hate incidents are grossly underreported. He also cited the summer 2021 incident at Fuki Sushi, where the restaurant owner withstood a racist tirade from a customer after a dispute over the bill.

The Fuki Sushi episode was one of several high-profile hate incidents that occurred in Palo Alto over the past year. In February, flyers with anti-Semitic messages were dropped off at several locations throughout the city. And last August, a senior pastor at First United Methodist Church received numerous threats that may have been triggered by her Black Lives Matter poster.

The council agreed on Monday that it can do more to address the wave of hate incidents, particularly when it comes to educating the community about how to identify, report and oppose hate incidents. They also agreed a local law targeting hate speech would likely be neither legal nor effective.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

City Attorney Molly Stump noted that California law already has provisions that criminalize hate-motivated acts and hate speech that rises to the level of constituting a criminal threat. Beyond these two areas, however, speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, she said.

"This is true even when the words that are uttered are hateful, heinous, morally repugnant and harmful," Stump said. "When talking about First Amendment-protected speech, local and state governments are not permitted to punish that speech. That is not consistent with our First Amendment principles."

Aram James, a former public defender and frequent critic of the city's Police Department, has been a staunch opponent of the proposed hate-speech law. He also took issue, however, with the council's and Human Relation Commission's decision to get the FBI involved in outreach to the community on hate crimes. He alluded to the federal agency's long history of targeting, arresting and sabotaging the Black Panthers and other organizations committed to Black empowerment and civil rights under the leadership of director Jay Edgar Hoover.

"The last group we want to bring in to lecture us on hate crimes is the FBI," James said. "We have groups at Stanford who don't have the long despicable reputation of going after Black groups and political organizations like the FBI."

Council member Greer Stone had no such reservations. While he also alluded to the FBI's blemished history on race relations, he argued that the agency has made efforts to come to terms with its troubling past. Stone said he had completed a course in the FBI's Citizens Academy, which aimed to promote greater trust between the community and the agency. Inviting the FBI unit that focuses on hate crimes to address the Palo Alto community would spark interest in the topic, he said.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

"We're really going to limit the FBI's involvement in Palo Alto to simply be an educational force," Stone said.

Both Stone and Tanaka emphasized a distinction between hate crimes, which can be prosecuted, and hate incidents, which are generally protected by the First Amendment. Both pointed to the gray areas in free-speech law, with Stone noting that some forms of speech — including threats, blackmail and incitement to lawful action — can in fact lead to criminal charges under legal precedents.

Tanaka said he has held six different meetings with residents about hate speech, an area that he argued has plenty of "gray area."

"The more I talk to people about freedom of speech, the more complex it is," Tanaka said. "It's actually a really complex topic. … It's unfortunate that there's no direct way to deal with the couple of incidents we had in the city last year."

But despite his past advocacy for a local law, Tanaka opted not to press the issue any further.

Those who address the council on the topic also opposed the proposed law. Palo Alto resident Kat Snyder agreed with city staff's conclusion that a local law targeting hate speech would be ineffective and illegal. She suggested that rather than focus on a new ordinance, the city should use local libraries to disseminate information about how to report hate incidents.

"It is psychologically taxing to anyone who is a victim of a hate incident, and hard to come forward and report things while also taking care of the other responsibilities in their lives," Snyder wrote to the council. "Having a dedicated space where resources are available with someone who can walk them through that could be a lifesaver."

The council also agreed to endorse Assembly Bill 1947, legislation that would require all California law enforcement agencies to develop hate-crime policies and report them to the Department of Justice. The bill from Assembly members Phil Ting and Richard Bloom would also require the Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training to include training on anti-Sikh, anti-Asian and anti-Hindu crimes.

Assistant Police Chief Andrew Binder said that the law would likely have very limited impact on the Police Department, which already has robust policies in place for investigating hate crime. The legislation, he said, seeks to create a more uniform standard across the state and focuses primarily on law enforcement agencies that currently don't have such policies in place.

"We're very comfortable with what we have and if there's any additional changes that need to be made if and when this passes, we'll make those accordingly," Binder told the council.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Stay informed on important crime news. Sign up for our FREE daily Express newsletter.

Palo Alto will not advance hate-speech law

Citing First Amendment concerns, City Council agrees to instead focus on education and outreach

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, May 10, 2022, 12:09 am

Despite widespread concern about a recent spate of racist incidents, the Palo Alto City Council on Monday dropped a controversial proposal to make hate speech a misdemeanor.

Instead, the council unanimously agreed to follow the directions of its Human Relations Commission and focus its energy on community education and outreach. This will involve reaching out to the FBI, which has recently created a strategic unit to focus on hate incidents and address the community about hate crimes and hate incidents. The new initiative may also involve other organizations, including faith-based institutions and civil-rights nonprofits such as the American Civil Liberties Union.

The council will not, however, press ahead any further with a local law banning hate speech, a move that was championed by council member Greg Tanaka. During numerous meetings last year, Tanaka cited the conversations he had at last year's "Stop Asian Hate" rallies, which led him to believe that hate incidents are grossly underreported. He also cited the summer 2021 incident at Fuki Sushi, where the restaurant owner withstood a racist tirade from a customer after a dispute over the bill.

The Fuki Sushi episode was one of several high-profile hate incidents that occurred in Palo Alto over the past year. In February, flyers with anti-Semitic messages were dropped off at several locations throughout the city. And last August, a senior pastor at First United Methodist Church received numerous threats that may have been triggered by her Black Lives Matter poster.

The council agreed on Monday that it can do more to address the wave of hate incidents, particularly when it comes to educating the community about how to identify, report and oppose hate incidents. They also agreed a local law targeting hate speech would likely be neither legal nor effective.

City Attorney Molly Stump noted that California law already has provisions that criminalize hate-motivated acts and hate speech that rises to the level of constituting a criminal threat. Beyond these two areas, however, speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, she said.

"This is true even when the words that are uttered are hateful, heinous, morally repugnant and harmful," Stump said. "When talking about First Amendment-protected speech, local and state governments are not permitted to punish that speech. That is not consistent with our First Amendment principles."

Aram James, a former public defender and frequent critic of the city's Police Department, has been a staunch opponent of the proposed hate-speech law. He also took issue, however, with the council's and Human Relation Commission's decision to get the FBI involved in outreach to the community on hate crimes. He alluded to the federal agency's long history of targeting, arresting and sabotaging the Black Panthers and other organizations committed to Black empowerment and civil rights under the leadership of director Jay Edgar Hoover.

"The last group we want to bring in to lecture us on hate crimes is the FBI," James said. "We have groups at Stanford who don't have the long despicable reputation of going after Black groups and political organizations like the FBI."

Council member Greer Stone had no such reservations. While he also alluded to the FBI's blemished history on race relations, he argued that the agency has made efforts to come to terms with its troubling past. Stone said he had completed a course in the FBI's Citizens Academy, which aimed to promote greater trust between the community and the agency. Inviting the FBI unit that focuses on hate crimes to address the Palo Alto community would spark interest in the topic, he said.

"We're really going to limit the FBI's involvement in Palo Alto to simply be an educational force," Stone said.

Both Stone and Tanaka emphasized a distinction between hate crimes, which can be prosecuted, and hate incidents, which are generally protected by the First Amendment. Both pointed to the gray areas in free-speech law, with Stone noting that some forms of speech — including threats, blackmail and incitement to lawful action — can in fact lead to criminal charges under legal precedents.

Tanaka said he has held six different meetings with residents about hate speech, an area that he argued has plenty of "gray area."

"The more I talk to people about freedom of speech, the more complex it is," Tanaka said. "It's actually a really complex topic. … It's unfortunate that there's no direct way to deal with the couple of incidents we had in the city last year."

But despite his past advocacy for a local law, Tanaka opted not to press the issue any further.

Those who address the council on the topic also opposed the proposed law. Palo Alto resident Kat Snyder agreed with city staff's conclusion that a local law targeting hate speech would be ineffective and illegal. She suggested that rather than focus on a new ordinance, the city should use local libraries to disseminate information about how to report hate incidents.

"It is psychologically taxing to anyone who is a victim of a hate incident, and hard to come forward and report things while also taking care of the other responsibilities in their lives," Snyder wrote to the council. "Having a dedicated space where resources are available with someone who can walk them through that could be a lifesaver."

The council also agreed to endorse Assembly Bill 1947, legislation that would require all California law enforcement agencies to develop hate-crime policies and report them to the Department of Justice. The bill from Assembly members Phil Ting and Richard Bloom would also require the Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training to include training on anti-Sikh, anti-Asian and anti-Hindu crimes.

Assistant Police Chief Andrew Binder said that the law would likely have very limited impact on the Police Department, which already has robust policies in place for investigating hate crime. The legislation, he said, seeks to create a more uniform standard across the state and focuses primarily on law enforcement agencies that currently don't have such policies in place.

"We're very comfortable with what we have and if there's any additional changes that need to be made if and when this passes, we'll make those accordingly," Binder told the council.

Comments

felix
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 10, 2022 at 7:08 am
felix, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on May 10, 2022 at 7:08 am

The FBI should not be advising or educating our City. Go to the ACLU in SF whose fine attorneys are experts in hate crimes and free speech.

To say the FBI has gotten over it’s “blemished past” is to not understand its past or it’s present, as this secret police force can still be used by whoever is in power for rank political purposes or, as exposed by the ACLU, to perpetuate “the greatest assault on the privacy of ordinary Americans” by its illegal data collection, storage, tracking, and mining.

The FBI institutionalized abuse
- of MLK, the Panthers, politicians or citizens someone wanted to control, including many fine people right here in Palo Alto who were victim to it’s illegal COINTELPRO domestic spying program.

The beat goes on, quietly. There’s a reason why it’s the secret police.


Barron Parker Too
Registered user
Barron Park
on May 10, 2022 at 11:35 am
Barron Parker Too, Barron Park
Registered user
on May 10, 2022 at 11:35 am

Of course the FBI should be brought in for serious crimes.

It is common to pretend the Black Panthers were decent folk who were victims of a rogue FBI. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Black Panthers, formed in Oakland in 1966, were a violent criminal gang that controlled the distribution of heroin and other drugs in the East Bay. They were responsible for many murders, including their bookkeeper Betty van Patter (see Web Link as well as police officers John Frey (murdered in Oakland) and John Gilhooly and Frank Rappaport (murdered by Black Panthers in Chicago).


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 10, 2022 at 12:56 pm
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on May 10, 2022 at 12:56 pm

The definition of hate speech and hateful actions has not been defined. Some seem obvious, but the gray area inbetween being left to vague individual interpretations will be a huge problem. Free speech is a right. Who makes decisions and these are often split second decisions, is not something that society can agree on.


Paly02
Registered user
Crescent Park
on May 10, 2022 at 3:38 pm
Paly02, Crescent Park
Registered user
on May 10, 2022 at 3:38 pm

The FBI question is a tough one and I think the devil is in the details. In some ways, they provide resources that no one else provides (investigatory resources, the force of law). In other cases, they've been known to force people to surveil others in their own community. I'm okay with the first FBI but not the second FBI. Their role in our city would need to be very well circumscribed for me to feel comfortable with them.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.