Redneck is a racist term

[Marley23]

@bordelond

Understand your point. But can offense be legislated by fiat (or “who cares what the federal law is?”)?

Offense isn’t being “legislated by fiat,” it’s described by the law.

[bordelond]

@Marley23

There are plenty of nasty words for white people and in some contexts some of them would draw a warning here. I can’t think of one that counts as the kind of hate speech that’s described by federal law, though.

You know what, though? I’m doing some preliminary research on hate speech, and I’m not finding where any hate speech is specifically described by federal law. IOW, I’m not finding a “banned word list”, as it were. In your appeal to authority, are you quite certain of the stance of that authority?

[bordelond]

@Marley23

Offense isn’t being “legislated by fiat,” it’s described by the law.

… OK. I will have to resort to calling that an extraordinary claim. At least at the level of individual words.

[Marley23]

@bordelond

IOW, I’m not finding a “banned word list”, as it were.

I don’t recall referring to a list of banned words (there isn’t one).

In your appeal to authority, are you quite certain of the stance of that authority?

I do think redneck and white trash generally aren’t considered hate speech, yes, much as some people insist this is a double standard. I think C K Dexter Haven’s earlier post describes why this isn’t the case.

[Lanzy]

@Terrifel

Absolutely not! Florida Crackers are adamant that the term originated with them. There’s actually a lot of pride bound up in being able to call yourself an authentic Cracker. Whole books have been written by scholarly Crackers.

I did not know that! I’m Cracker ignorant.

[bordelond]

OK, Marley … let’s lay some groundwork here. I would like to learn more about this.

Here’s a simple excerpt from the Wiki article on “hate speech”. That article will not serve as the main source of information, but it can get us started:

The United States government and the state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York, 268, U.S. 652 (1925)(incorporating the free speech clause). Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits government from regulating the content of speech, subject to recognized exceptions such as defamation or incitement to riot. Even then, incitement in the U.S. is prohibited only if it raises the risk of imminent lawless action, which means that Americans are permitted to express a large amount of hate speech that does not meet that standard (as occurred in the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)).

Reading up on Brandenburg v. Ohio (also on Wiki), it turns out to be a red herring, since it was more of a “incitation to lawless action” case:

The Brandenburg test was the Court’s last major statement on what government may do about inflammatory speech that seeks to incite others to lawless action. It resolved the debate between those who urged greater government control of speech for reasons of security and those who favored allowing as much speech as possible and relying on the marketplace of ideas to reach a favorable result, leaving the law in a state along the lines of that which Justices Louis Brandeis, and, post-Schenck, Oliver Wendell Holmes advocated in several dissents and concurrences during the late 1910s and early 1920s. As of 2008, the Brandenburg test is still the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg, so the test remains largely unqualified.

OK. So I dig around some more on Wiki, and find the article on protected classes. Race – in general – is one of them. Everyone knows this, of course. The important point, however, is that no specific race is specified. Another important point – I don’t see where in federal law members of protected classes are protected from the offensive speech of others (obviously, there is a catastrophic social cost that the federal government does not enforce). For instance, Michael Richards did not commit a federal offense when he spewed invectives at an African-American member of his audience.

[Marley23]

@bordelond

… OK. I will have to resort to calling that an extraordinary claim. At least at the level of individual words.

Probably not good wording on my part, but I found your comment about offense being legislated by fiat confusing: you appeared to mean that the law requires people be offended by some words and not others. Maybe I misunderstood.

[bordelond]

@Marley23

I do think redneck and white trash generally aren’t considered hate speech, yes, much as some people insist this is a double standard.

You’re not talking about general acceptance. You appealed to the authority of federal law. I am not asking you to cite specific laws, but I am doubting the existence of a federal law that distinguishes the severity of racist or classist epithets.

[bordelond]

@Marley23

Probably not good wording on my part, but I found your comment about offense being legislated by fiat confusing: you appeared to mean that the law requires people be offended by some words and not others. Maybe I misunderstood.

I expect that any federal law written to cover this topic to only mention that invectives against race are prohibitted in general. I would not expect that such a law would sanction Word A while expressly allowing Word B.

[Marley23]

@bordelond

You appealed to the authority of federal law. I am not asking you to cite specific laws, but I am doubting the existence of a federal law that distinguishes the severity of racist or classist epithets.

True: a bad description. That said, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars employers from discriminating on the basis of race or color, religion, sex, and national origin. Ed Zotti referred to this earlier in the link that I posted. The SDMB doesn’t employ the posters but I believe that’s the system we use, and in my reading (and apparently the reading of the admins who posted there) that doesn’t include economic epithets like redneck and white trash. C K Dexter Haven said so explicitly.

[bordelond]

@Marley23

Probably not good wording on my part, but I found your comment about offense being legislated by fiat confusing: you appeared to mean that the law requires people be offended by some words and not others. Maybe I misunderstood.

Apologies. It was actually poor wording on my part. I should have written: the definition of offensive language being legislated by fiat.

I am looking for a law (or federal-level court case) in which offensive speech is defined more specifically than “speech aimed at someone’s status within a protected class”.

N.B. - I well recognize the difference between social sanctions and federally-enforced penalties against overt racist actions.

[bordelond]

@Marley23

The SDMB doesn’t employ the posters but I believe that’s the system we use, and in my reading (and apparently the reading of the admins who posted there) that doesn’t include economic epithets like redneck and white trash. C K Dexter Haven said so explicitly.

Granted. The SDMB’s internal policies are absolutely not in question here. Only the appeal to federal law was in question.

EDIT: to note the obvious, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects all Americans.

[Marley23]

@bordelond

Only the appeal to federal law was in question.

The text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is quoted here.

[bordelond]

@Marley23

The text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is quoted here.

Thanks for that. Member of all races are given equal legal protection in the provisions of that act.

[Marley23]

@bordelond

Thanks for that. Member of all races are given equal legal protection in the provisions of that act.

And that brings us back, again, to the question of whether or not redneck is a racist term. My view is that it isn’t.

[bordelond]

@Marley23

And that brings us back, again, to the question of whether or not redneck is a racist term. My view is that it isn’t.

Not a problem, so long as you don’t say “and federal law says so, too”.

[Marley23]

@bordelond

Not a problem, so long as you don’t say “and federal law says so, too”.

Very well. Recognizing my description was bad, but I don’t think it falls under any of the categories listed there: redneck is not a derogatory term for people of one specific race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

[Terrifel]

Actually, I’ve thought about it a bit more and decided that the OP is right. A Google search for “redneck” makes it apparent that the term is specific to white people (I think I recognized some acquaintances in the Image search). Wikipedia’s definition:

Redneck refers to a person who is stereotypically Caucasian (i.e., white) and is of lower socio-economic status in the United States and Canada.

The article also helpfully offers a list of synonyms and variants, including “peckerwood,” “goat roper,” “Swamp Yankee” and “caipira,” which I believe is a giant hamster from the Amazon.

So I concede that “redneck” is indeed racist, and in an ideal world would be treated the same as any other racist language. On the other hand, in an ideal world there wouldn’t be any racist language to begin with, so that’s no help.

[MyFootsZZZ]

A little off topic, but why anyone sorts through and categorizes trash is beyond me. My racist uncle would always find the need to list all of the types of trash out there after making a racist remark towards one specific race.

Whatever Uncle Rob.

[Terrifel]

@Lanzy

I did not know that! I’m Cracker ignorant.

Well that’s easily remedied! A search on Amazon.com for “cracker” reveals that about half the results refer to the society rather than the baked good. I personally own a copy of “Classic Cracker: Floridian Vernacular Architecture,” and I can also recommend “Cracker Culture.” Check your local library! There’s a whole world of fascinating Crackeriana out there to explore.

Now, get Cracking!